HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-01-168_Report 1.(~Fe CITY OF RENTON
~ Planning/Building/Public Works
1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055
REeE "" I , ,." >~~., .'-
MATTHAI DELORES L
16130 CEDAR MT PL SE
RENTON WA 98058
" -' Co. .~
~.; I~
1..,,':
!"';:
-"---~I'C' I""<'.-:w.t~·~ ........ , .... _ * -"" ...... < ...... --,.,.;".-~..i' fi"¢_"! II ~ ~~ __ -.,4 ,
''' .. ~. '-"-"" .~ ... ~ .. -rc~-.. 'l< 'i:~.?i-"-'!:;: "'-::~'" "iT, _. s:
\ ,-", -....;.,? .. ~ 3 5 1'"'. "" ""';:i J
;,; 1.;,' (' ~,.: ' ,(.. !I", '''('1\ Li "" . .t"~ ; '" r' ':,',_ ' ... _,',I :
> ; ;'>"-~ U·,,2L'.f:.':.J:
01-\\00
MATTi30 98058200~ iA03 10 10/iO/0~
RETURN TO SENDER
MATTHAI MOVED LEFT NO ADDRESS UNABLE TO FORWARD
RETURN TO SENDER
F G ,::. L :::~~'i'--,'Si!~1:!t I .. ' 41;1 .. 1,,1& mJJ,;lJ.;,Il ... I,1 ,,/J ... , 1.1 ,l,l .. /.1",11.1
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton.
The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals.
PROJECT NUMBER/NAME:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
PROJECT LOCATION:
PUBLIC APPROVALS:
APPLICANT/PROJECT
CONTACT PERSON:
LUA-01-168, CPA, PREZONE, ECF; East Renton Plateau CPA#2003-M-04
City sponsored Comprehensive Plan map amendment from Residential Single
Family to Residential Rural, zoning code text amendments allowing bonus
density between 4 units per net acre up to a maximum of 8 units per net acre for
quality designed subdivisions, and, prezoning to adopt future zoning designations
within the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area.
Renton Potential Annexation Area, east of City limits, north of Cedar River to
edge of Urban Growth Area boundary.
Environmental Review, Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments
City of Renton, EDNSP Dept/Don Erickson, Project Manager
Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Don Erickson, Project Manager, Strategic Planning
Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 9S055, by 5:00 PM on August 22"d, 2003. If you have questions about
this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact Don Erickson at
(425) 430-6581. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of
any decision on this project.
I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I
DATE OF APPLICATION: December 15, 2002
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 15, 2003
DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: AugustS. 2003
SEE ATTACHED MAP OF AREA AFFECTED
If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this fonm
and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055.
File No.lName: LUA-01-168, CPA, Prezone, ECF/East Renton Plateau CPA #2003-M-04
NAME: ____________________________________________________________________ __
ADDRESS: __________________________________________________________________ __
TELEPHONE NO.: ____________________________ _
NOTICE OF APPLICATI01.doc
.tlFte CITY OF RENTON
:!!: Planning/Building/Public Works
1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055
Ol~ \\00 MATTHAI DELORES
16130 CEDAR MT PL SE
RENTON WA 9E058
~J 'r.. ;.q
1;;. .J
C C
VI ~,
~~
;;..r: ':-;
~ .. ,-... ~ . ~,¥,,-·'T·v.:;'Q. ------'-,
' i;':' tt,,-,';-:-~ri ~r""" : ~::': -4 -'" ~ /fr. 'ff <"'''':~ ,,(1 --+ ~ ..
I \ <,;~ ....:~~ Ia:
i ' -:~ji\' '" 2 '* ' '~" ' .. '. '* ' ',' .. , 1_, t ',(, : \>~.,\ ,;~-:i '" Ll .3 ,";;;. I",
\,,~;:~,!.~,~_~ L~ ~~~::..c,LH
MATTi30 980582004 iAO~ io iO/iO/O~
RETURN 'TO SENDER MATTHAI
MOVED LEFT NO ADDRESS UNABLE TO FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER
,..:.,,; .,: I ~c ... ~::... ..... tm..-.. "", ... : .. '_-= I-I =-_.' ~':::IiCl\.J,.':"i5 ~,;t..r,,:~u;;t 11.1. ,J,JJt.,;/J;,jll ,;.JI" ,I.!,.J1 ••• 1 J.I ,I, ,I, I ",1l.1
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton.
The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals.
PROJECT NUMBER/NAME:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
PROJECT LOCATION:
PUBLIC APPROVALS:
APPLICANT/PROJECT
CONTACT PERSON:
LUA"()1-168, CPA, PREZONE, ECF; East Renton Plateau CPA#2003-M-04
City sponsored Comprehensive Plan map amendment from Residential Single
Family to Residential Rural, zoning code text amendments allowing bonus
density between 4 units per net acre up to a maximum of 8 units per net acre for
quality designed subdivisions, and, prezoning to adopt future zoning designations
within the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area.
Renton Potential Annexation Area, east of City limits, north of Cedar River to
edge of Urban Growth Area boundary.
Environmental Review, Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments
City of Renton, EDNSP Dept.lDon Erickson, Project Manager
Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Don Erickson, Project Manager, Strategic Planning
Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on August 22"d, 2003, If you have questions about
this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact Don Erickson at
(425) 430-6581. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of
any decision on this project.
I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I
DATE OF APPLICATtON: December 15, 2002
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 15, 2003
DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: August8,2003
SEE ATTACHED MAP OF AREA AFFECTED
If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form
and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055.
File No.lName: LUA-01-168, CPA, Prezone, ECF/East Renton Plateau CPA #2003-M-04
NAME: ____________________________________________________________________ __
ADDRESS: ______________________________________________________________ ___
TELEPHONE NO.: ____________________________ _
NOTICE OF APPLICATI01_doc
_.L , -1 -
1--i .,-:,,-'
;_--.1,
!
c::::J CI\y U mit:;
~ Po1en1ial Anne l~tion Are~ I East Renton Plateau Character Map
T ,
East Renton Plateau
Study Area
e Economic Dt!velopment, Neig.hborhood;, & Str ;!t~);ic I 'L!IlIIITl;':
• ...., • Ala P,,,,-.:h. ,\lImm"ua!<'r ~ (i~IJ{''''-lrw
't" July 21Xn
Urb<ln Growth Boundary
Parks ,,-
CltyO! Rentoll
Remon POlential Ame)ahOO Area
" ---
T I _L __
,
J , -,
",
Current Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Designations ';;R'~:~::,"~~,g""",,_
_ Center Suburban
." -_ ... , " . ,. .... ~ .""'" .... ,,' .......... ' ..... _ .. ..
~~.:';! ~~"':1 :.:::.":;"....: ... .:.:~":"::":,' ,0;." ... "':: ..... "
" _ ... ~~,;~~~,~:,' Ro,,1 t
_ Con\itmience Comme rcial
L..J ReSloenlial Single FamiJy j
c:::J ReSlderlllal OptIons
-C,tyLim't5 c:::::::J ReSIdentIal Planned Neoghbomood
-Urban Growth Boundary _ ReSIdential tA ultJ ·Fam~y Infill
East Renton Plateau Study Area
Scenario 1 Renton City LImits
Ul'biln Growth Boundary
_ Res.oden~ClI Rural (R-4/R·5 net dens-tv)
c:J Re~!dE'ntial Single Famtly (R·B net density)
East Renton Plateau Study Area
Scenario 2 Renton City limits
Urb.i.ln Groovth Boundary
_ Residential Rural (R.4/R·5 net denSity)
Cl ResKJenhal Stngle Family (R-8 net (lansity)
I
East Renton Plateau Study Area
Scenario 3 Renton City Limits
Urbiln Growlh Bound,IIY
_ Residenbal Rural (R-4IR-5 net denSIty}
c:::J Resldenba l &ngle Family (R·8 net den~ty)
t
1
East Renton Plateau Study Area :;',,0::;::", !; ,,~~" '" ·:f,'i"~.;:' "~:::'-:J ~ """""'''''' "',"'''' .. .,., ..... _.''' ... ' ..... , ...... -
1_ .. MOO • '" 0.",., ...... 0 ....... '
Scenario 4 Renton City limi ts
Urb<ln Growth Boundary
_ ResidentIal Rural (R -4/R 5 nel denMy)
[=:J ResidentIal &ngle Fa mil y (R·8 fltj[ densi ty)
Scenario 1
c::J R-4 /R-5
c::J R-8
o
t
1
2000
I
1 : 24000
4000
I
Scenario 2
t.""! R-4/R-5
c:::::::::J R -8
o 2000 4000
~I ~ iiiii!m;;~1 ~~1
1 : 24000
Scenario 3
_ R-4 /R-5
c:::::::::J R-8
,I
I
o 2000 4000
~I ~~m l ~~~1
1 : 24000
Scenario 4
R-4 /R-5
c:=J R-8
o 2000 4000
~I ~~iiiiiiiil~~~1
I : 24000
~
I
King County Transportation Concurrency
and Out-of-City Sewer Requests
®~ Economic Development . Neighborhoods & Stra tegic Planning . r... Sue Carl own, AmmniRniWr ~ G.OcIRosano
N 16 May 2002
City Limits
School District
Boundary
I I
~
-~I_.......L
J
o 1200 2400
t I~~~I
1:14,400
Issued Sewer Availabilities
Pending Sewer Avai labilities
KC Transportation Concurrency
1-
~
01 ... '-vo
.M' '" > ~·~L. --,-
~I'I ,--'-11
, I· S I ~
[ '-r' T
c_ 1-i~ -~,-
~ _r~ ,-
L I~ <,0
,--
------
King County Transportation Concurrency 0 1200 2400
t
, I
and Out-of-City Sewer Requests 1: 14,400
l I Issued Sewer Availabilities
---City Lim its I I Pending Sewer Availabilities
Sch oo l Distric t ~ KC Transportation Concurrency Boundary
5-30-2003
Description f
6"
914
-46
215 213 139 193 184 178 285 290 407 249 184 175 129 -11 -90 159
5.9% 5.8% 6.2% 2.0% 3.1% 3.1% 7.4% 7.1% 15.1% 17.4% 4.4% 4.4% 3.6% -5.9% -3.5% 14.6%
329 455 517 404
899 959 908 896 650 589 657 727 587 372 373 277 275 348 354 161
38.5% 41.7% 38.2% 82.6% 60.0% 62.4% 74.6% 82.3% 72.8% 62.5% 61.5% 58.1% 58.2% 50.2% 49.4% 45.1%
70.7% 75.2% 75.2% 63.5% 49.2% 47.3% 65.0% 70.2% 50.6% 46.6% 38.7% 29.0% 29.3% 48.3% 50.3% 26.0%
ModeLex_vs 2020_May28.xls Page 1
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
Date:
To:
From:
MEMORANDUM
October 29, 2010
City Clerk's Office
Stacy M Tucker
Subject: Land Use File Closeout
Please complete the following Information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City
Clerk's OffIce
Project Name: East Plateau Comp Plan Amendment
LUA (file) Number: LUA-01-168, ECF, R
Cross-References:
AKA's:
Project Manager: Don Erickson
Acceptance Date: March 15, 2003
Applicant: City of Renton
Owner:
Contact: Don Erickson, EDNSP -City of Renton
PID Number:
ERC Decision Date: September 23, 2003
ERC Appeal Date: October 13, 2003
Administrative Denial:
Appeal Period Ends:
Public Hearing Date:
Date Appealed to HEX:
By Whom:
HEX Decision: Date:
Date Appealed to Council:
By Whom:
Council Decision: Date:
Mylar Recording Number:
Project Description: Request for Environmental Review for a City initiated Comprehensive Plan
Amendment of 2,700 acre East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation arei;l from Residential Single-
Family to Residential Rural, zoning text amendments to allow bonus density between 4 units per
net acre UP to a maximum of 8 units per acre.
Location: East Renton Plateau
Comments:
NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
RENTON, WASHINGTON
The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the following
project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code.
EAST RENTON PLATEAU PM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
LUA-01-168,CPA,PREZONE,ECF
The City is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment of its
2,700 acre East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area. The analysis of future capacity for
this area assumed that the majority of new development would occur on the remaining
developable 367 acres identified in the County Buildable Lands StUdy. Three alternative land use
scenarios were looked at for this area in addition to the existing land use. Location: The East
Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Ar,ea is defined as the area within Renton's PM north of
Maple Valley Highway, and east of 134 h Avenue SE to the Urban Growth Area boundary.
A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Planning Commission in the Council Chambers, City Hall, on
October 15, 2003 at 6:00 PM to consider the proposed ComprehenSive Plan Amendment.
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, Monday,
October 1311>, 2003. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with:
Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner
are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the
appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510.
Publication Date: September 29, 2003
Account No. 51067
dnspub
I; ~oIIYi?o:.aber-09-08-03.doc
September 8. 2003
September 8. 2003
Monday, 7:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL OF
COUNCILMEMBERS
CITY STAFF IN
ATTENDANCE
PROCLAMATION
National Prostate Cancer
Awareness Month-
September, 2003
SPECIAL PRESENT A TION
King County: EnviroStars
Awards Presentation
PUBLIC MEETINGS
Annexation: Stoneridge, 148th
Ave SE & NE 16th St
ll..l.AOl-11.&
Renton CilY Council Minutes
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
MINUTES
Page 1
Council Chambers
Renton City Hall
Mayor Jesse Tanner leu the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the
meeting of the Renton City Council to order.
KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER. Council President; KING PARKER;
RANDY CORMAN; TONI NELSON; DAN CLAWSON. MOVED BY
CLAWSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBERS TERRI BRIERE AND DON PERSSON. CARRIED.
JESSE TANNER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer;
RUSSELL WILSON, Assistant City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City
Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works
Administrator; RYAN ZULAUF, Airport Manager; CAROLYN BOATSMAN,
Aquifer Protection Specialist; LINDA KNIGHT, Solid Waste Coordinator;
ALEX PIETSCH. Economic Development Administrator; DON ERICKSON,
Senior Planner; REBECCA LIND, Planner Manager; DENNIS CULP,
Community Services Administrator; KAREN BERGSVIK, Human Services
Manager; KELLY BEYMER, Golf Course Manager; MIKE WEBBY, Human
Resources Administrator; DEREK TODD, Assistant to the CAO; DEPUTY
CHIEF GLEN GORDON, Fire Department; COMMANDER CHARLES
MARSALIS I. Police Department.
A proclamation by Mayor Tanner was read declaring the month of September,
2003, to be '"National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month'" in the City of Renton,
urging all men in the community and throughout the country to become aware
of their own risks of prostate cancer, talk to their health care providers, and,
whenever appropriate, get screened for the disease. MOVED BY PARKER,
SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
PROCLAMATION AS READ. CARRIED.
Council President Keolker-Wheeler, Aquifer Protection Specialist Carolyn
Boatsman, King County Local Hazardous Waste Management Program
EnviroStar Program Manager Laurel Tomchick, and King County Hazardous
Waste Management Program Administrator Ken Armstrong all commented on
King County's Local Hazardous Waste Management EnviroStars business
certification program. EnviroStars is a public agency program that certifies
businesses that protect the environment by properly managing and reducing
hazardous waste. Once certified, EnviroStar businesses are publicly
recognized, and the two-to five-star rating system gives consumers an objective
way to evaluate business environmental practices.
Ms. Tomchick presented the following EnviroStars certified Renton-area
businesses and agencies with certificates: Classic Cleaners, King County
Transportation Fleet -Equipment Repair, Renton Veterinary Hospital,
Rockwell Collins -Seattle Service Center, Jay's Professional Automotive,
Wizards of the Coast, Sunset Square Cleaners, and The Cleaning Shoppe.
This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in
accordance with loeal and State laws, Mayor Tanner opened the public meeting
to consider the Stoneridge 10% Notice of Intent to Annex Petition for
approximately 28.2 acres located between Jericho Ave. SE, if extended, on the
west, 148th Ave. SE on the east, NE 19th St., if extended, on the north, and NE
16th St., if extended, on the south.
Page 1
Ii tlolly.G'aber -09-08-03.doc
September 8, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 2
Senior Planner Don Erickson reported tliat the site is within the East Renton
Plateau Potential Annexation Area and currently consists of eight dwellings and
various associated structures. The topography of the area generally slopes
northward with a ravine and Greenes Creek running through the middle of the
site. He indicated that public services are provided by Fire District #25, Water
District #90, Renton sewer, and the Issaquah School District. Existing King
County roning is R-4. The area is designated Residential Rural by Renton's
Comprehensive Plan and is prezoned R-5 (five dwelling units per net acre).
Reviewing the fiscal impacts of the proposed annexation, Mr. Erickson stated
that the City will realize a surplus of $2,138 at full development, assuming an
increase to 119 single-family homes and an assessed home value of $290,000.
He noted some potential flooding in the area, and suggested mitigation with
future development; and except for parks, no impediments to the provision of
City services have been identified. In conclusion, he stated that the annexation
proposal is generally consistent with Renton policies and Boundary Review
Board objectives, and serves the best interests and general welfare of the City.
Public comment was invited,
Claudia Donnelly, 10415 147th Ave. SE, Renton, 98059, stated that her
property is located approximately 500 feet north of the Stoneridge
development. and she expressed concern that storm water drainage could
damage her property and destroy fish in May Creek, as Greenes Creek runs
through her property to May Creek. She displayed photographs of her property
showing the results of past water drainage problems. Ms. Donnelly said that
City staff informed her that Renton will accept the King County hearing
examiner's recommendations regarding the Stoneridge development with some
minor modifications, and she questioned what those modifications would be.
Noting that Renton's environmental code is not as stringent as King County's,
Ms. Donnelly stated that people have a right to annex to Renton; however, she
does not want her property ruined or fish destroyed as a result of development.
Responding to Councilman Clawson's concern regarding storm water drainage,
Mr. Erickson stated that King County's more recent surface water design
manual has more stringent water retention requirements than Renton's, and staff
stresses the importance of using the higher environmental standards. He noted
that annexations are SEPA (State Environmental Protection Act) exempt;
however, prior to development, full environmental review will be required.
Richard A. Wolf. 14702 SE 105th St., Renton, 98059, stated that he owns seven
acres in the proposed annexation area and is in favor of the annexation. One of
the reasons he supports the annexation is the availability of sewers. He noted
that he owns three additional properties, which he is also considering having
annexed by Renton.
Curtis Schuster, 12320 NE 8th St., Suite 100, Bellevue, 98005, representing
KBS Development Corporation, expressed his support for the annexation.
Page 2 I
F!;lollyGcaber -09-08-03.doc
September 8. 2003
Annexation: Hendrickson, NE
Sunset Blvd & SE 112th PI
Renton City Council Minutes Page 3
There being no further public comment. it was MOVED BY PARKER,
SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING.
CARRIED.
MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL: ACCEPT
THE 10% NOTICE OF INTENT TO ANNEX, AMEND THE PROPOSED
ANNEXATION AREA TO INCLUDE THE ABUTTING SR-900 -RENTON-
ISSAQUAH RD. RIGHT-OF-WAY, AUTHORIZE CIRCULATION OF THE
50% PETfi'lON TO ANNEX, AND REQUIRE THAT PROPERTY OWNERS
ASSUME A PROPORTIONAL SHARE OF THE CITY'S BONDED
INDEBTEDNESS. CARRIED.
This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in
accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Tanner opened the public meeting
to consider the Hendrickson 10% Notice ofIntent to Annex Petition for
approximately 22.83 acres roughly located between Graham Ave. NE, if
extended, on the west, 145th PI. SE on the east, if extended, SE Renton-
Issaquah Rd. (NE Sunset Blvd.) on the north, and SE I 12th PI., if extended on
the south.
Don Erickson, Senior Planner, explained that the annexation area is within the
East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area and contains 14 single-family
homes primarily along 142nd Ave. SE, and approximately 25 mobile homes in
a mobile home park in the eastern portion of the site. The topography of the
site slopes to the northwest with a ravine and Honey Creek running through the
middle of a wetland. Reviewing the public services, he noted that the site is
served by Fire District #25. by both Water District #90 and Renton water, by
Renton sewer, and by both Renton and Issaquah School Districts.
Mr. Erickson stated that current King County zoning is R-4 and R-48. noting
that the six-acre mobile home park is zoned R-48. Renton's Comprehensive
Plan designates the site Residential Single Family and Residential Rural for
which R-8 (eight dwelling units per net acre) and R-I (one dwelling unit per
acre) zoning is proposed (changed from the original proposal ofR-S zoning as
the applicant expressed interest in developing retirement facilities on the site
which is not an allowed use in the R-S zone). Regarding the fiscal impact of
the proposed annexation, he reported that the City will realize a $1,763 surplus
at full development, assuming an increase to 113 single-family homes and an
assessed home value of $290,000. He noted that the Surface Water Division
indicates an erosion potential in the area and suggests mitigation with future
development. Mr. Erickson concluded by stating that the proposed annexation
is consistent with City policies and Boundary Review Board objectives. and
serves the best interests and general welfare of the City.
In response to Council President Keolker-Wheeler's inquiry regarding the
mobile home park, Mr. Erickson stated that the applicant hopes to develop a
retirement community. and the mobile homes will be displaced. Ms. Keolker-
Wheeler noted that it is not easy for mobile home owners to find another place
to live.
Responding to Councilman Clawson's question as to whether a retirement
community is allowed under King County's R-48 zoning, Planner Manager
Rebecca Lind reported that the site is not presently served by sewer, and
extension of sewer through the City of Renton is required prior to any type of
redevelopment. The City's policy states that sewer service is only supplied to
land use that is allowed by Renton's Comprehensive Plan, which in this case is
Residential Rural.
STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING }
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Lily Nguyen, being first duly sworn on oath that she is a Legal Advertising
Representative of the
King County Journal
a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general
circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date
of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language
continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King
County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the
Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County.
The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the
King County lournal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly
distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed
notice, a
Notice of Environmental Determination
was published on Monday, 9129/03
The fun amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum
of $111.00 at the rate of $15.00 per inch for the first publication and NIA
per inch fgJjeach ~ubsequent insertion.
Lily Nguyen
Legal Advertising Representative, King County Journal
Subscribed and sworn to me this 10th day of November, 2003.
~ (/. \\\\1 111111 111/1/ ~V~ ~",,\\\\ I'GHEIl III/~ ,,_"'~ .... u.... ~ ... .::::-: ~. ", '€.~pi .... ......-:
Tom A. Meagher ~ . ,'-:0<:>0 '&~""..z, ~
Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Redm$J<L~Wishir"",i \ 0 ~ -~ .. ~ ",rtpUJ • l--Ad Number: 844238 P.O. Number: == 0 ; E c>,.(::, • <.:> l Cl =: _ \-.0 '" / '" ,.".~_ Cost of publishing this notice includes an affidavit surcharge.::=-',<0 ",<:>" (]; ~ :=
~ \ \,v .".~"'~~
..-:. "'. M"-( ., ....... 0 ~
'/ .~ ..... " ,,\ '[ :-..; 1': &1: •••••••• "'l.... ~
///111 -1 TE O\' ~\\\"
1111111111111111\\
NOTICE OFENVlRONMENTAL ,
, DETERMINATION
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
COlllMITl'EE
RENTON,WASHINGTON
The Environmental' Review
Com~ttee < has issued a
Determination of Non.SiI!1>ificanee
for-the following project under th~
authority of the Renton Municipal
Code.
EAST RENTON PLATEAU 1.'AA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN '
AMENDMENTS
LUA-Ol·168,CPA,PREZONE,ECF
The CitY is requesting
Enviro"""""tal, (SEPAl Review for a
Comprehan.ivePIan Awmdment 'of
its 2,700 acre eaat Rentoo P1atoou
Potential Annexation Area. The
anaIysi. of future capacity for this
area assumed that the llUliority of
new development would occur on the
remainiog developable 367 acre.
identified in the County Buildable
Land. Study. Three altomativs land
use scenarios were looked at for this
area in addition to the existing land
use. Location: The East Renton
Plateau Potential Annexation Area is
defined as the area within Renton's
PAA north of Maple Valley Highway,
and east of 134tb Avenue BE to the
Urban Growth,Acea' boundory.
A Public Hoariog will. ba bald by
the :R,mton PlfuuIing Commission in
the Cauacil ClwitbIii-S. City Hall, on
Ootober 15, 2003 at 6:00 PM to con·
sider tho~ C--,,_ ....... A ~ •• , """"~ •• PlaJ).A~ (.L . " •. , ': ,0 ,-.JWI; . .BllVU'OJlDl8nwu: .
detiitmiDation muat be rued in wm-
iog .... or bafoi-e 5:00 PM.',Mo,odai,
Ootober '13th,.~; J\ppeaIs J)1USt be 1biiI~ liIlnitiIlg together with the ~ $'i'MO appIieatiob fee 1OI"th:
~Euminar, City of RenI!>i&,
1Q66 ~ Grady Way, Renton, WA
~.: ~iIls tq the Examiner /Ire ge' ,v City of RentOn,
',' ,Code Ii!ection Uo1l0.
',' '·tlonallnfutmation ~,1Ite tho
oppea) pr-oceiIa may ba ob\iWl8d.:ha ~ JMmton City Clark'. 0Ii ... {<I2liJ;. ~10. ,'"
~f;ion Date: Septe!nbar, 29, 20aII -. , .
~ &.' IIIi! ~ COllDtf
Joiu$! 8ePte1Pbat 29, 2008.41344211&
Renton Strategic Planning Dept.
A TIN: Don Erickson
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
RE: East Renton Plateau Pre-zoning
Dear Mr. Erickson:
10415 -147 th Avenue SE
Renton, W A 98059
October 19, 2003
OCT 2 1 200,3
I was notified on October 15,2003 that developers and real estate agents were going to
ask the Planning Commission to keep the zoning for the East Renton Plateau area at 8-10
houses per acre instead of what your department is recommending.
I would like to submit this letter with comments to the action.
In the past, Renton has not wanted to deal with the residents of this area. They have
reached out only when it was to benefit Renton.
However, that seems to be changing -at least for this pre-zone. Prior to the meeting on
July I, Renton sent out notices to almost every household in the area and had notices put
up on poles telling everyone about the meeting.
Then Renton held the meeting at a convenient area location in the area. On July 23,
2003, Renton held another meeting -this time at City Hall-to once again answer
questions the residents had concerning this proposal. Renton was reaching out, again, to
this area.
Renton once again reached out by notifying everyone when the public hearing before the
Planning Commission would take place.
Renton planners seemed to listen to the residents by zoning the area to an acceptable
level. I have heard a lot of good things for what Renton planners did.
Now come the developers and realtors. Their only concern is that the area won't be
developed as much as they would like. Their only interest is making money. The
developers and realtors don't live in this area. They don't care about why people came
here -to get away from the noise/traffic/sewers of city life. They don't care about the
way of life that we have. They don't care about the "rural" character of the
neighborhoods. They don't care about the environment -the trees, open fields, etc.
Don Erickson
Page 2
October 19, 2003
My parents have 2+ acres bordering 156'" and 158'h. They did not ask to be put within the
Urban Growth Area -like me. They are concerned that all the trees on their land will
someday be destroyed. Developers don't care about their property. All they see is a
chance to put 20+ homes on it. Developers don't care about all the traffic on 156th
•
Developers/realtors don't care about the quality of life that they have.
The residents, Renton officials talked to, live out here on a daily basis. These people are
the future residents of Renton. You have an opportunity to show residents of this area
that Renton officials DO LISTEN to them. If Renton officials listen to the developers
and realtors (who don't live out here) then Renton is treating the East Renton Plateau
residents the same way you've treated them in the past.
It's your choice. I hope that Renton officials start changing and will listen to the
residents out here. Otherwise, nothing has changed.
Thank you for any consideration you give this matter.
Sincerely,
Claudia Donnelly
-
Mr. Don Erickson
Development Planning
Renton City Council
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendments
#2003-M-04 (LUA-01-168)
East Renton Plateau CPA
Dear Mr. Erickson:
October 21, 2003
Regrettably, our property has not been included in the potential annexation to Renton.
However, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment #2003-M-04 (LUA-O 1-168) East Renton
Plateau CPA, has a direct negative affect for us.'
We own and live at 15630 SE 124th Street. We also own the home across the street,
15629 SE 124th Street, and approximately 38 acres.
The only access to our property is on SE 124th Street, which, per the potential annexation
plan, will be part Renton City street and part King County road. As the boundary line is
now proposed (on the south side of White Fence Ranch Development), we will enter on
SE 155 th or SE 156th , turn south on SE 124th and would be the only two houses in King
County in the area (See attached map)
We are concerned that county services, such as fire and police protection, will be an issue
as will power, gas and water.
We own tax lots 112385-9012/9079/9072 and 935330-390. This property is
approximately 35 acres of dry, developable land and high enough to gravity feed to the
Renton sewer system.
The potential annexation line on the south side of White Fence Ranch is our property
line. We ask that it be moved south to include us into the City of Renton Development,
for the East Renton Plateau.
Best regards,
Mr. and Mrs. Rick Dickson
15630 E 124th Street
Renton, W A 98059
--!-_."---
I --1-.:.:--,--
IOTICE OF APPLICA TI01.doc
october 21, 2003
Judy Wright
Economic Development of Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning
Department
Re: #203-M-04 (LUA)-01-168) East Renton Plateau CPA
Dear Ms. Wright;
I would like to take this opportunity to again commenl the staff
who prepared the Comprehensive Plan Amendments for the East Renton
Plateau. It was interesting and gratifying, for a change, to have
someone elicit our v,1ews and concerns for the future of our
neighborhood. It has been even more satisfying to see that their
response has been to incorporate many of our thoughts and suggestions.
However, one concern remains. The proposal to allow two areas to
have anR-6 exception to the overall R-4 zoning raises some red
flags. It could set a precedent for even the most conscientious
and responsible of developers on adjacent properties to push for
their own exceptions to the R-4 zoning.
If you do deCide there is an overwhelming need to allow those
two very specific up-zones, please make the mitigation require-
ments strict and iron-clad.
Once again, it has been refreshing to have a planning group that
recognizes the value and need for large lot developments, tree
retention and replacement, wider set-backs from the street, and
a variety of compatible house designs. These are all things that
help create a neighborhood and not just another development of
cookie-cutter boxes.
Sincerely, .
Q/IW
Kristy J. Hill
Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell-Secretary
13527 156 Ave.SE
Renton, WA 98059-6702
october 21, 2003
To: Judy Wright
Economic Development of ;,eighborhoods and Strategic
Planning Department
Re, Proposed Comprehensive Plan Update 2003
East Renton Plateau
I want to thank you for the extensive research ~our staff has done
in preparing the comprehensive plan for the area in which we live.
You have done a good job checking out the eXisting conditions and
problems we have currently. Thank you for listening to us and re-
sponding to our needs.
One of the biggest concerns I have with your proposal is the R-6
bonus areas which are in direct conflict with Renton's LU-18 which
states Renton shall not encourage density higher than the base
density of R-4 for this area. Actually, the existence of the bonus
areas encourages higher development density.
Since the King County Comprehensive Plan requires sewer connection
to every plat inside the Crbar, Growth Boundary, no added incentive
is needed. to ensure sewer connection.
The other concern I would like to address is the surface water
drainage in our whole area Rnd :r:ost particularly the area to the
south and west of Li berty·;i, f1 oc'1oo1. The existing flood.ing prob-
lems in that area are severe. Any new R-6 development would add
additional problems for those neighbors already negatively impacted
by the existing growth.
I ask you to reconsider seriously the proposed R-6 bonus areas in
your Comprehensive Plan Update. The rest of the plan is a welcome,
much -needed step in the ri@.ht direction.
Tha?Jk YO~:Jk
J~il
13527 156 Ave SE
Renton, WA 98059-6702
". ' .. " Ff If'" -.. '-.,)'Ii Ii -
~ r 2 1 2003
Gwendolyn HO h
13405155 Ave
Renlion WA 98055
425.917.0117
ghighCI_I.com
October 20, 2003
RE: proposed¢am~ut
Dear City of Renton:
by these proposed changes, ..,., ; ii' must express my thanks • First, as the representative ~"':I Unincorporated ANIa ~~~~5:::.5ii
Planning staff. They have dOne a .... ., •.. ~ investigating the real
regulations.
There are, however, a few minor .,. h . ,.!laIa to be addressed in the legislation:
•
•
:~~:::~S~~~O;it~~i~t!r~J:, ==~~o~~~~~~sR;~~n~~~~:: .~ I::=b~~~!or;~::" not
encourages higher density development.
The R-8 bonus zones have been stated to be necessary to compensate developers for the financial investment
required to overcome the topographic related technical challrlges to the extension of the sewer network.
• King County Comprehensive Plan requires sewer to be .-ended to every plat inside the Urban Growth Line. No
additional incentive is necessary to ensure sewer exte'*'. In fact, allowing a financial 'free-bee' to some
properties that is not available to all is discriminatory.
• If the bonus areas are adopted anyway, the Comprehensive Plan must specify the specific existing conditions that
predicate the allowance of such bonuses -i. e. that the site requires the construction of a pump station. Otherwise,
there will be no defensible restriction from the granting of bonuses to the parcels that lie outside of, but contiguous
with the proposed R-8 zones. Legislative mechanism to prohibit the growth of these zones must be established
concurrent with the establishment of those zones.
• We also need a surface water drainage bonus criteria. In the Evendell application (through DOES at King County)
the neighborhood has recently established that there is a serious set of drainage issues that affect the area to the
.south and west of Liberty High School. Any R-8 development in the area must not exacerbate existing flooding
problems to existing property owners.
Several proposed bonus criteria are most freshingly welcome:
• The architectural, landscaping and site planning are much needed protections for the character of our neighborhood
• The tree and vegetation retention and replacement requirement is one of the issues we had most hoped to see
addressed.
I and my neighbors are not citizens of the City of Renton. In this matter we stand without representation or opportunity of
administrative redress. We can not vote for any City official. Yet.
The current proposed Comprehensive Plan update is a much needed step in the right direction.
I urge adoption.
A:;~~ ~
Gwendolyn Hi9h~ 4tfA-
Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell -President
Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council -District 21 Secretary
October 20, 2003
Natalie Dohrn
City of Renton
Planning Commission
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
RE: R-6 Overlay
Dear Natalie:
I am the owner of property being annexed by the City of Renton in the very near future. The property is
located at 15221 SE 128"', Renton, legally described as Tax Lots #65 and #68. I would be very much in
rovor of rezoning to an R-6 Overlay. Please consider my request when the council is making its decision
on the zoning policy. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
October 20, 2003
NatalieDohrn
City of Renton
Planning Commission
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
RE: R-6 Overlay
Dear Natalie:
OCT 2 1 2003
I am the land manager fur property legally described as Tax Lots #65 & #68 (15221 SE 128") that is
being annexed by the City of Renton in the very near future. My employer and I would be very supportive
of the area being zoned as an R-6 overlay. Please consider my request when the council is making a
decision on the zoning policy. Your allention to this matter would be very much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Robin Bales
cc: Mayor Tanner
Renton City Council
October 20, 2003
Natalie Dohrn
City of Renton
Planning Commission
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
RE: R-6 Overlay
Dear Natalie:
I am the owner of property being annexed by the City of Renton in the very near future. The property is
located at 15217 SE 128", Renton, legally described as Tax Lot #94. I would be very much in fuvor of
rezoning to an R-6 Overlay. Please consider my request when the council is making its decision on the
zoning policy. Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.
cc: Mayor Tanner
Renton City Council
October 20, 2003
I RECET\rED
I OCT 20 2003
I ~CONOMIC DE ,IcWPMENT
NI:.IGHBOfir'OODS,
. ."~D S r i~0".iS;,£ I~' t!.[\J~iIM~
I am writing in regards to decisions being made regarding the East Renton Plateau. The corridor
running from 156th SE east to 164th SE where you want to put in the bonus area.. First of all I am
opposed to it. Everyone seems to be concerned with getting the sewer line up to Liberty High
School. Has anyone approached the Issaquah School District? They seem to be the ones who
will benefit from this project. The amoW1t of money they would save from not having to pump
out the holding tanks every day would be to their benefit. The money they would be saving in
the long run would more then justifY them contributing to the sewer line. The developers would
no longer have an excuse that more houses were needed to pay the cost of the sewer line. Liberty
High School would get their much needed sewer system. The community would be happy, and
the problem would be solved of keeping the whole area zoned at R-4. It looks like a win, win
situation to me.
Richard Oliphant
16519 SE 145 th Street
Renton, Wa. 98059
425-271-9825
RECEIVED
OCT 20 2003
Oct. 19,2003
After attending Wednesday public meeting (Oct. 15) regarding the East Renton Plateau
Comprehensive Plan, I am more convinced that there should not be any bonus areas included.
The 4 dufnet acre base should be for the entire total area. Your policy, LU-33.S of a bonus 2
units per net acre is going to create more problems than it will solve.
First, the area west of Liberty High School:
To reward a developer just because he is the first to develop and run sewers up to the school is
not a good enough reason. That area is a plateau. Plateau according to Websters' Dictionary "a
level expanse of elevated land", which means the surface water will run off in all directions.
More houses and driveways means less area for water to be absorbed. We who live south of that
area are already being flooded during the winter rainstorms. I'll be happy to furnish pictures
taken several years ago. It has been even worse these last couple of years. It is to the point that
the County comes out and automatically knows where to put the sandbags. Special favors to a
few developers to get the sewer to the high school is certainly sending the wrong message to this
community. People do talk and their comments are not very flattering towards the City. How
many other developers will also want these special favors? These bonus areas set a very bad
president. Just because several developers, who are not even associated with this community, are
crying they need the extra houses to make a buck, does not justifY what they leave behind after
they take there money and run (many from out of state). We are left with the problems they have
created. If and when this area gets annexed into the City of Renton, it will be your problem too!!
You can count on seeing me as one of the first in line saying "We told you so, now fix it"!!
Second, the area along SE 128th :
From Union up to 1 56th SE is an outrageous eyesore. It's an embarrassment for us who live out
here in this area to have someone come to visit and drive thru such an eyesore. Going to and
from work or to the grocery store is no pleasure either. Why keep continuing it? On the north
side of SE 1281h from 1 56th SE eastward is all County Rural. From 1601h SE down to
approximately 164th SE is a development already in with very large lots. ( I believe the smallest is
one third of an acre). Why can't we have just as nice of an area on the south side of the street so
things blend in and give the appearance of a well thought out area? If you continue east out SE
128th to High Valley you will not see the type of cheap and high density built houses that are
within the Renton City Limits. From I 56th SE east should all be no more that R-4 with no
density credits being issued ..
The citizens of the area you are calling the East Renton Plateau have been fighting the County
regarding the problems with high density. We have already won one appeal against one
developer and are still fighting their second appeal. We are not about to give up. It might even
be in the best interest of the City of Renton to back us on this one as you people are the ones who
issue the permits for the sewers and have started the whole mess.
Anita Oliphant
16519 SE 145th Street
Renton, Wa. 98059
425-271-9825
~~~~~~
Natalie Dohrn
City Of Renton
Planning Commission
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA. 98055
RE: comprehensive Zoning Changes (REF; Parcels B & C of recording #5858528)
Dear Natalie
7124103
It is my understanding that your committee is now reviewing the City of Renton Zoning comprehen-
sion plan for recommendation to the Renton City council.
I own property in the city and I do support a zoning change of the above stated 2 parcels to the
RS-8 zoning.
The property to the west of my property is commercial, to the north are all the homes that front on
the four lane NE 4th and to the south & east Single family homes. The R-8 zoning would be a perfect
transitional zoning between the properties to the north & West and the Single Family homes to the south &
east. Another major plus are the wide open new streets surrounding the property along with immediate ac-
cess to a major arterial without having to travel through numerous existing neighborhoods.
Furthermore sewer and water along with all other major utilities are stubbed to my property.
I would strongly support the zoning change to RS-8 for all the remaining properties along the
NE 4th arterial.
Yours
Jesse Tanner. Mayor
July 28, 2003
Carolyn Ann Buckett
16524 SE 1451h St
Renton, WA 98059
CITY ( RENTON
Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning
Alex Pietsch, Administrator
SUBJECT: COMMENTS REGARDING BRIARWOOD AREA
Dear Ms. Buckett:
Thank you for your letter of July 22. 2003, regarding your concerns for BrialWood and the surrounding
area. We received your comment supporting R-4 zoning and will fOlWard your letter to the Planning
Commission for consideration at their September 3'd meeting. I would like to call your attention to the
attached information sheet which may help answer some your questions.
Renton is studying this area because under growth management agreements with King County, the area
is in a designated Potential Annexation Area and may someday become part of Renton. However. King
County currently has land use authority but Renton is the sewer provider.
It is important for county residents to understand that the density allowed in the Renton Comprehensive
Plan guides the number of units the City's sewer utility will agree to provide service to. If the Renton plan
allows a higher densHy than King County zoning, then property owners in King County areas can request
re-zones within the King County system. Please read Topic #3 pertaining to sewer service and rezones
within King County on the attached information sheet and call if you have any further questions about how
this process works.
Renton's plan currently allows a choice of R-5 or R-8 zoning (net densHy) with no policy guidance as to
which of these zones should ultimately be used. This regulatory system was put in place at a time when
annexation seemed to be occurring in the short term and we anticipated that the density discussion would
occur though a public process at the time of annexation. Now in many cases, annexation is not
occurring, but rezones are being processed within King County government.
The City is studying the issue of densHy to create the needed policy guidance and determine which
zoning will ultimately be in place in this area. This density will occur eHher in King County or Renton wHh
or without annexation because of the link between the Renton Comprehensive Plan and sewer service.
I hope that this information helps you better understand why Renton in undertaking this study. Your input
and opinion are a valuable part of this process. Please continue to communicate wHh us about these
important issues. and plan to attend the Planning Commission Study Session at 6 PM on September 3'"
and the Public Hearing on September 17'h in the Renton Council Chambers, Renton City Hall.
We appreciate your comments and will give them serious consideration along with those of other
residents and property owners in the area. If you have further questions, please contact Don Erickson at
425-430-6581. Don is the project manager for this study.
Sincerely,
~rf
Rebecca Lind
Planning Manager
cc: Don Erickson
Alex Pietsch
___ PI_an_n_in_g_c_om_m_:_:_:_~_s_ou_t_h_G_r_ad_y_w_ay __ -R-e-n-to-n-,-W-.-sh-i-n-gt-o-n-9-S-0-SS-------R E N T ~
® This paper contains 50~'o recycled material, 30% post oonsumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING
ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION
PROJECT NAME: EAST RENTON PLATEAU PM COMPREHENSIVE PlAN AMENDMENTS
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-01.168, CPA, PREZONE, ECF
The City Is requullng Environmental (SEPA) Revtew for a COrnprell_1ve Plan Ame!"ldrnsnt of
Its 2.700 acre East Renton Plateau Potential Annexatloo Atea. Tha analV$1$ of Mufti capacity
r(l( this 8!l1a auum&d thai the majority of new development would occur on the remaining
developab'-367 aa'es Identified in the County Buil&lbl, landI Study. Th,," allemalNe land
USII SC8nllllos weflIlooked at for this ar~a 'n addition to the &xisllng land use. The impacl$ of all
three allell'l8lives MIre conSidered to be less than developmllnl u~ the CIty's current land
lJSe dnignelions for this area. J.&iJJ1iJ;m: The East Renton Plateau Pcn.rlllal Annexation A.r$a Is
danneod '8 \t111 area within Renton's PAA nOM of Maple Valley Highway, and &Ql;t of 1M"
AV$Ilue Sf 10 the Uiban Growth Area boundary
THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMIITEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED
THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AbVERSE IMPACT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT AND HAS ISSUED A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS).
~~~~S 5~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~,Mg~~~~RE~~~~~~rO~~~: ~0J~E~ J NFIt"E~TII~~~~I~~
TOGETHER WITH THE REQUIRED $75.QO APPLICATION FEE WITH: HEARING EXAMINER, CITY
OF RENTON, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WA 98055. APPEAlS TO THE EXAMINER
ARE GOVERNED BY CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4-8-110. ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION REGARDING THE APPEAL PROCESS MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE RENTON
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, (425)-430_6510.
A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALl. ON OCTOBER Hi, 2003 AT 6:00 PM TO CONSIDER THE
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
CERTIFICATION
I,u.lfhilwn
above document were posted
the described property on ~ift'..4~~:""'t::. o n(1..h.L1~ h '1}L (I l",,<{: Signed: ~~~~~~pt.-..--.-
A TI~T: a,~cribed and sworn before me, a l'/otary Public, in and for!:tate. of • washingtonresidin~AYf.rI! ,onthe ... 3qttl dayof)~,rt: c;50o:s
MARILYN KAMCHEFF
MY APPOINTMENTEXPIRES 6-29-07
I
.. :.,
.:.;
,
• 2003, I deposited in the mails of the United On the ;t & day of ;5 ~ &xM1W
States, a sealed envelope contaiing
frz( 5jn.I~" &.1 J Leur /
documents. This Information was sent to:
Representing
J
~ en: ~ fIb ' ~ ,... ..... " (Signature of Sender) __ ---'4'-'.1'" ''''[4' ~'f-.L.Oi/,""4""'''-'' ;~' '----------1!~g"' .. .".~ ~'OlJBLlC f ! ?J "~A" .. ~::
SH T N } '" .,. ... .::··.~·29.01 ..... ~1? f STATEOFWA ING 0 ""'0 ........ ~"'-
} 88 "'1 'I> WAS"'~ _---
COUNTY OF KING} ' •• """" •• '--
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Ito f ~ r;, cJu; signed this
instrument and acknowledged H to be his/her/their free and voluntary{l(;i for the uses and purposes mentioned
in the instrutfent
i\ + c,/) ()' '-i)" Dated: / ¥' I f' 0.-1 , <;) 03, -:7--:-,i-,;:;-,;/~:,J=;l~;-.r,:..,l.f!fz,t:;~~~,,+-----
on
Project Name:
Project Number: JldO/-/("f) cpA ,
NOTARY.OOC
Dept. of Ecology'
Environmental Review Section
PO Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
WSDOT Northwest Region'
Attn: Ramin Pazooki
King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240
PO Box 330310
Seattle WA 98133-9710
US Army Corp. of Engineers'
Seattle District Office
Attn: SEPA Reviewer
PO Box C-3755
Seattle, WA 98124
Jamey Taylor
Depart. of Natural Resources
PO Box 47015
Olvrnpia, WA 98504-7015
KC Dev. & Environmental Servo
Attn: SEPA Section
900 Oakesdale Ave. SW
Renton, WA 98055-1219
Metro Trans~
Senior Environmental Planner
Gary Kriedt
201 South Jackson Street
KSC-TR-Q431
Seattle, WA 98104-3856 ' "
Seattle Public UtilitieS
Real Estate Services
Eric SwennsQn
700 Fifth Avanue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98104-5004 •
AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING
(ERC DETERMINATIONS)
WDFW -Stewart Reinbold' Muckieshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. •
c/o Department of Ecology Attn. SEPA Reviewer
3190 160lh Ave SE 39015 -172nd Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn WA 98092
Duwamish Tribal Office' Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program'
14235 Ambaum Blvd. SW -Front A Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert
Burien, WA 98166 39015 172nd Avenue SE
Auburn, WA 98092-9763
KC Wastewater Treatment Division' Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation'
Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Stephanie Kramer
Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343
201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
City of Newcastle City of Kent
Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP
Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director
13020 SE 72rd Place 220 Fourth Avenue South
Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895
Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila
Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official
Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd.
PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188
Bellevue, WA 98009-0868
.-
"
Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS', the marked agencies and
cities will needto be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application .•
Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices he gets his from the web. Only send her
the ERC Determination paperwork.
Last printed 07/22/03 9:40 AM
CITY OF REI'iION . . ,-,. ~URREtiT~RL;ANI:~It·nt't!l\I.I~I!i)N ...
. Al"f'IDAVITOFSERViCe a, ' f.WU/IIG
. .
On the d & day of Sf "h:n b,,(
Slates. a sealed envelope conlaihing
• 2003. I deposited in the mails of the United
J...,iI,e,.-,Ja.r:. J:.e.~ ,,/ (IJ.; /1(t; tim ~»et1ju ·r I. (I ,) Ii" 5 fud) lumm"J 0 )
documents. This information was sent to:
Name
j) ~ I'Qd,t'~ v1
(,'
(Signature of Sender)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
KPcno/
..
t(,d, Ji j
JfJI
)
) SS
)
Rel2resenting
\",e u iL, iRci /,-c ./-
... ' "" ,," ~ I<AM tt " -( C'IY.; " .. ~ .. ", ........... "",". { j'i'»'i>~' 'q'~'" '<' '" -.. '$1:. I. : :'~ ~OTM" "'., ~ , : c;I):. '-~ 0 ..... : ~
~ • PUS'IV ;~1 I." \,.. .. 0 ... ~(J)..A.". /~ : ~, .,,.··· .. ~·29·1!:.··:...0 : I, Tit ....... )(\\~ .:
, e'" I ••• "o':,~!,!...oI:~-' I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that -;-"""''-:'+f-"-:-,:~:;,;''::,,,-__ ..,..._'''';'':!''' __ 'UIIS
instrument and acknowledged It to be hislherltheir free and volun act for the uses and purposes mentioned
in the instrument.
\
Project Number:
NOTARV.DOC
Notary (~rint) . MARIL¥N KAMCWEI'f
My appointment explrllll'.imJINlM.NT EXPI2 ES 0-2Q.D7
I
2003-M-4, East Renton Plateau CPA
Ray Griffin
14306 144'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Patrick Flaherty
14441 158'h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Steve & Joann Lee
13802 160th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Susan He~gen-Smith
12458156 h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Nathan Jones
216 SE 20 th Court
Renton, WA 98055
Gordon Hayes
PO Box 1088
McKenna, WA 98558
Hal & Raxaine Reynolds
13006 1561h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Tammy Willet
12010 160lh Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Chuck Pilion
15753 Renton-Issaquah Road
Renton, WA 98059
Brian Burns
24814 1451h Lane SE
Kent, WA 98042
Ronda Bryant
15406 SE 136'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Marlene Burns
24006 222nd Avenue SE
Maple Valley, WA 98038
Larry E. Kolan
13525 181 s, Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Gwendolyn High
13405 158'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Doug Hanaya
16757 154'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98058
Lynn Walsh
13822 147'h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Gerald W. Robertson
12834 163cd Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Bob Balderson
14913 175'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Leonard Schwab
13323 166 'h Street SE
Renton, WA 98059
Jenney Hess
13005 160'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Marsha Rollinger
15646 SE 138'h Place
Renton, WA 98059
Ed & Dorothea Hagerman
13710156 Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Byron Murgatroyd
16111 SE 1491h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Lily Bishai
14005 SE 133rd
Renton, WA 98059
Art Campbell
14314 1651h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Mel Vaine
318 S. 199 Street
DesMoines, WA 98148
Sharon S. Robertson
1834 163rd Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Joe Korbecki
15225 150'h Lane SE
Renton, WA 98058
Louise L. Goe
16012 SE 131'1 Street
Renton, WA 98059
Darlene Zandeli
PO Box 3152
Renton, WA 98059
2003-M-4, East Renton Plateau CPA
Barry Fetzer
17836 SE 137'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Mark Remington
12123 138'h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Chet A. Munro
13332 173rd Ave SE
Renton, WA 98059
Diane & Michael Whetstine
17825 SE 144'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Marlene Griffin
14306 144'h Avenue SE
Renton, wA 98059
Durwood Blood
3711 Park Avenue N.
Renton, WA 98056
Pat & Julie Giorgetti
16904 SE 142nd
Renton, WA 98059
Andy Peck
14104 150'h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059-7333
George Kritsonis
13817 152nd Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Carl B. Betten
5207 Wallingford Ave. N.
Seattle, WA 98104
Ron Edminster
15620 SE 148'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Sarah Perothka-Moye
13900 149'h Place SE
Renton, WA 9859
Rodney McFarland
15019 SE May Valley Road
Renton, WA 98059
Judy Hastings
27012 211'h Avenue SE
Kent, W A 98042
Shirley Day
14412 167'h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Marshall Brenden
18225 SE 128'h
Renton, WA 98059
Mary Nguyen
4315 90'h Avenue SE
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Edward & June Hill
13527 156th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059-6702
Robert LeCoque
P.O. Box 3025
Renton, WA 98058
Gary Prowell
14226 169'h Avenue SE
Renton, Wa 98059
Don Kezele
15657 SE 137'h Place
Renton, WA 98059
Claudia Donnelly
10415 147'h Ave SE
Renton, WA 98059
Kathy Baker
16304 SE 149'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Jon Newman
8070 Langston Road S
Seattle, WA 98178
Bill McShane
17314 SE 134'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Craig Christensen
565 NW Holley Street
Issaquah, WA 98027
Sharon Woodruff
14112 149th Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Mike Moran
15121 SE 139'h Place
Renton, WA 98059
Roy Nass
15713 SE 128'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Rod Gillespie
14214 169'h Avenue SE
Seattle, WA 98059
2003-M-4, East Renton Plateau CPA
Jeanette Hall
17101 SE 149th Street
Renton, WA 98059
Don Barto
17360 SE 134th Street
Renton, WA 98059
Lyle Brown
16421 SE 14th
Renton, WA 98059
Phil Kelly
15631 SE 148th Street
Renton, WA 98059
Heidi Rynning
14619 SE 116th Street
Renton, WA 98059
Heather Thompson
12049 155th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Roger & Judy Paulsen
15657 SE 139th PI
Renton, WA 98059
Anita & Rick Oliphant
16519 SE 145th
Renton, WA 98059
Bill Heffner
14412183'" Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Mat! & Shelly Pommer
11212 137th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Ruth Boydston
16106 SE 144th Street
Renton, Wa 98059
Ron Noreen
P.O. Box 58202
Renton, WA 98058
Mary Grignon
10018 NE 127 Place, B106
Kirkland W A 98034
Steven Roy
15905 SE 131't Lane
Renton, WA 98059
Michael Westgate
14305 166th Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Ben Stark
P.O. Box 98638
Seattle, WA 98198
Robert & Susan McCorkle
14040 154th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Carolyn Ann Bucket!
16524 SE 145 Street
Renton, WA 98059
Bob & Jan Emerson
14035 169th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Paul & Linda Warmerhovens
14542 144th Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Patsy & Larry Osborne
14044 169th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Bill Wressell
14522 156th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Deeon Kuspert
14527 171th Ave. SE
Renton, WA 98059
Stu & Diane Moffitt
16635 SE 134 th Street
Renton, WA 98059
Bill Iverson
14802 167th PI SE
Renton, WA 98059
Mike Turner
15713 SE 148th Street
Renton, WA 98059
Thomas Hoffmann
15606 SE 128th Street
Renton, WA 98059
Claire Beil
156th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Martin Olson
13663 183'd Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Herbert Hiegel
14643 156th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
2003-M-4, East Renton Plateau CPA
Richard/Leona Keltner
14311 166'h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Andy & Fa~e Lengefelder
14205180 Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Larry Muir
17605 SE 144'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Christa Gerdes
20511 80'h Avenue W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Leonard & Linda Johnston
16016 SE 135'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Gary & Janice Smith
14504 166th Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Edward G. Hagerman
13710 156th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Rick & Ginger Dickson
15630 SE 124'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Marshall Brender
18225 SE 128'h
Renton, WA 98059
Don Fisher
Dale Fisher
13115 158'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Ted & Bev Glandon
13405 142'd Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Bill & Mitzi Sakaguchi
15203 SE 132,d Street
Renton, WA 98059
Sue Gregori
14708 SE 138'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Jim Sullivan
P.O. Box 3138
Renton, WA 98056
Harold & Eleanor Zeek
16621 SE 145'h Street
Renton, WA 98079
Fred & Hel~a Jaques
13114158' Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Eloise Stachowiak
15652 SE 139'h Place
Renton, WA 98059
Penny Thorbeck
15650 SE 138'h Place
Renton, WA 98059
Charles & Viola Scoby
13112158'h SE
Renton, WA 98059
Edie Jorgensen
27010 SE 170'h Street
Issaquah, WA 98027
Ken & Linda Christianson
12643155'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Garry & Lois Telford
17515 SE 133rd
Renton, WA 98059
Bill Mokin
14404 162'd Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Cathy Deering/Chuck Mill
13434 156'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Gary & Sally Williams
13204 156'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Sally Lou Nipert
14004156'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Michael Cooke
13125158'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Laurie Hindes
14115 160th Ave. SE
Renton, WA 98059
Gary Weisser
12236 155'h SE
Renton, WA 98059
Matt Hebb
16920 SE Licorice Way
Renton, WA 98059
2003-M-4, East Renton Plateau CPA
Pat Moynihan
16612 SE 145th Street
Renton, WA 98059
Steve Crawford
Issaquah School District
565 NW Holly Street
Issaquah, WA 98027
Gary Stanford
13111160th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Phil Gefner
11025142nd SE
Renton, WA 98059
Mary Ellen Hamlin
15230 SE 142nd Place
Renton, WA 98059
Robert Krauss
2708 NE 24th Street
Renton, WA 98056
Alvin E. Carlson
12 Gold Court
Sequim, WA 98382
David Miller
10411 145th Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Richard Galusha
1051 Shine Road
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Mietta M. Young
422 EI Camino Drive
Sequim, WA 98382
Randy Koe & Susan Marks
PO Box 2663
Renton, WA 98056
Sharon Bowden
3939 SE 10'h Place
Renton, WA 98059
Michael & Shaunna Tader
15514 SE 132nd Street
Renton, WA 98059
Amold C, Staiger
18615 7'h Avenue S
Burien, WA 98148
John Todderud
5316 NE 24th Court
Renton, WA 98059
Roger & Shireley Anderson
15813 SE 141"
Renton, WA 98059
Marna Barnett
231 Discovery Way
Sequim, WA 98382
Charles Grass
PO Box 2563
Renton, WA 98056
Robert & Priscilla Cot
14332 148th Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Doug Kanaya
16757 154th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98058
Roger & Judy Paulsen
15657 SE 139th Place
Renton, WA 98059
Bret Bowden
13814160th Avenue SE, Unit B
Renton, WA 98059
Cortess Pippin
310 Bremerton Avenue NE
Renton, WA 98059-5030
Sandra Snyder
1915 S. 375th St
Federal Way, WA 98003
Rich Wagner
2411 Garden ct. N.
Renton, WA 98056
Jeffrey & KarenSiderbotham
13004 158th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Steve Lyman
14505 160th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Lynda Voigt
15713 SE 148th Street
Renton, WA 98059
Klaus J. Dittmann
24419145th Place SE
Kent, W A 98042
James & Joan Posz
PO Box 2695
Renton, WA 98056-0695
2003-M-4, East Renton Plateau CPA
Larry Reymann
1313 No, 38th Street
Renton, WA 98056
Ron Church
13920 147'h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Bob & Janet Emerson
14035 169'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Christina Okeson
10218 147'h Aenue SE
Renton WA 98059
Bob Niemann
Speciality Homes
1741 4th Avenue, Suite B
Seattle, WA 98134
Judy & Fred Busch
13918 SE 132nd Street
Renton, WA 98059
Daisy Ward
13322 175'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
A.J. Bosley
10924 144'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Dean & Kerri Graham
16410 SE 143rd Place
Renton, WA 98059
Clay & Shirley Dewald
13201 168th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Michael & Kelly Malueg
13200 164'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Lawrence Vickers
13419 SE 141" Street
Renton, WA 98059
Michael Daly
5305 NE 24'h Ct
Renton, WA 98059
Jim Miles
14420 162nd Avenue SE
Renton W A 98059
Wayne Bruder
17562 SE 134'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Doug & Lori Wolford
15020 SE 138'h Place
Renton, WA 98059
Leon & Virginia Ridao
P.O. Box 2327
Cordova, AK 99574
David & Bianca Vanderwal
17113 SE 149'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Joe Bostjancic
16110 SE 146'h Place
Renton, WA 98059
Jim & Shelley Behnke
13011 168'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Rich & Jennifer Musga
17244 SE 144'h
Renton, WA 98059
City of Newcastle
Attn: Mike Nicholson
13020 SE 72nd Place
Newcastle, WA 98059
James Larson
12430 1281h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Chris MacEwen
15057 SE 120'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Cindy Pilwallis
14233 171 5
' Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Stephanie Herrmann
5314 23'd Avenue NE
Tacoma, WA 98422
LocVu
15800 SE 128'h
Renton, WA 98059
Dick & Linda Amos
16028 SE 132nd Street
Renton, WA 98059
Yvette Smith
13116 168'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Larry & Sandra Bunning
12820 1681h SE
Renton, WA 98059
2003-M-4, East Renton Plateau CPA
Ramon Torries
12823 166th Avenue NE
Renton, WA 98059
Crystal Davidson
17205 SE 134'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Ivan L. Ittner
18212 SE 147'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Eddie & Nancy Tennell
15511 SE 133,d Street
Renton, WA 98059
Mark Peterson
18338 SE 147th Place
Renton, WA 98059
Michael T. Weber
15129 SE 139th Place
Renton, WA 98059
John Gibson
2412 277'h Avenue SE
Fall City, WA 98024
Alan Thom£son
12644156' Ave SE
Renton, WA 98059
Northward Development
Attn: Dick Gilroy
1560 140'h Avenue NE, Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98005
George C. Seibold
14205 140'h Ave SE
Renton, WA 98059
Mrs. Eba Beeler
11324 148'h SE
Renton, WA 98059
Issaquah School District
Attn: Craig Christensen
565 NW Holly Street
Issaquah, WA 98027
Charles Walters
14205154'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Lauren W. Mosier
13025 144'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Dennis L. Rattie
5510 NE 21" ct.
Renton, WA 98059
Gary Stachurski
17357 SE 135'h
Renton, WA 98059
Teresa Mooney
12840 163'd Ave SE
Renton, WA 98059
Larry & Sharon Wade
14314 178'h Ave SE
Renton, WA 98059
Curtis Schuster
c/o J.L. Scott
12320 NE 8'h St, Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98005
Judith A. Patterson
14043177th Ave SE
Renton, WA 98059
Tom O'Brien
17436 SE 144th
Renton, WA 98059
Stig Johannessen
14603 SE 140'h
Renton, WA 98059
Ed Strauser
14534 183rd Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Myron Maxwell
15117 SE 138'h Place
Renton, WA 98059
Bruce Maytum
13404181 Ave SE
Renton, WA 98059
Jack J. Bird
14251 142nd Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Larry J. Gattshall
13810 177th SE
Renton, WA 98059
Rick Crull
11813148th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Jerry D. Jones
14901 SE 143,d Place
Renton, WA 98059
Michael R. Hurst
16025 SE 149th
Renton, WA 98059
2003-M-4, East Renton Plateau CPA
William F. Iverson
13819 139'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059-5425
Mark Wilkins
14430 152"d Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
David Williams
14302 156'" Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Tri Ph an
2109 Bremerton Avenue NE
Renton, WA 98059
Brad Faulkes
16505 SE 147'h
Renton, WA 98059
Delmar Poitra
14511 178'h Ave SE
Renton, WA 98059
Herb Stroh
15005 SE 145'h Place
Renton, WA 98059
Dorothy Trainor
16916 SE 140'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Hans Wintermuth
13607 182"d Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Frank Harmon
18623 1 07'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98055
Mr. & Mrs. Michael Solon
13460 SE 141 " Street
Renton, WA 98059-5430
William H. Spiry
16023 SE 144'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Claire Beil
22309 SE 243'd Street
Maple Valley, WA 98038
Norris Homes Inc.
10516172"d Ct. SE
Renton, WA 98059
D.J. Sumpter
1215182 Ave E
Sumner, WA 98390
Fred Moser
13647 169'h Ave SE
Renton, WA 98059
Stanley Rabe
17606 SE 144'h Street
Renton, W A 98059
Suzanne Colden
17814 SE 136'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Della Penner
331 Valley Mall Parkway, #273
East Wenatchee. WA 98802
Sue Gregory
14708 SE 138'h Place
Renton, WA 98059
Evelyn Donlan Schall
32290 151 Avenue, Apt. 332
Federal Way, WA 98003-5732
Harley Harmon
14105 SE 118'" Street
Renton, WA 98059
Ted Cords
PO Box 123
Renton, WA 98057-0123
Leon A. Ugiel
PO Box 9265
Seattle, WA 98109-0265
Norma Olson
PO Box 2697
Renton, WA 98056
Elene Sucieu
14318141" Ct SE
Renton, WA 98059
Jerine Battiste
14515 152"d Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Jimmy Purrier
13510 178'h Ave SE
Renton, WA 98059
Robert Graham
17404 SE 140'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Brian Lindemuth
14034 SE 122"d Street
Renton, WA 98059
2003-M-4, East Renton Plateau CPA
Roger & Lotts
17552 SE 1341h
Renton, WA 98059
Tracy Johnson
14522 1661h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Rudolph Berwald
15561 SE 148th SE
Renton, WA 98059
Raymond & Joanne Crockett
14912 175th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Nelson & Ann Collin
13504181 51 Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Peter & Suzanne Schoot
14310166 Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Donald Nordeen
14034 169th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Heather & Kyle Johnston
5020 NE 91h Place
Renton, WA 98059
Jerry Balzer & Joli Deason
659 Pasco Place NE
Renton, WA 98059
Mary E. Merbach
13732 SE 141 5' Street
Renton, WA 98059
Susan Heggen-Smith
124581561h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Dick Combs
15007 SE 1391h Place
Renton, WA 98059
Tom Fisher
14245 146'h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Rashpal K. Bultar
6529161 5' Place SE
Bellevue, WA 98006
Steve A. Beck
19129 SE 145'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Michael Fichtenholtz
15323 SE 133,d Ct.
Renton, WA 98059
Thomas E. Dennis
18422 SE 135'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
George & Linda Phillips
14711 171" Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Richard Super!
13225 181 'I Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Sandra D. Knipschield
11045 148'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059-4311
AI Hopwood
330 SW 43'd Street, #K392
Renton, WA 98055
Jody DeMaggio
17356 SE 1491h
Renton, WA 98059
Christopher Downs
13905 SE 141 51 Street
Renton, WA 98059
Jim B. Johnson
11012 1481h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Dale Hess
13005 160'h Ave SE
Renton, WA 98059
Ray Graves
16901 SE 1441h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Larry A. Dill
13404 170th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
William & Barbara Dewey
13820 SE 141'1 Street
Renton, WA 98059
Ronald R. Edminster
15620 SE 1481h Street
Renton, WA 98059
E. Gardner
12117 142nd Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
2003-M-4, East Renton Plateau CPA
Byron Bowman
14620 SE Renton-Issaquah Rd.
Renton, WA 98059
Dean Ralphs
14433 SE 112111 Place
Renton, WA 980559
Heather Colburn
13445 173nd Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Bill McShane
17314 SE 1341h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Frank & Dorothy Caniparoli
21827 SE 272 Place
Maple Valley, WA 98038
Melissa Salas Willoughby
5512 NE 261h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Rogelio & Lolita Balais
138371441h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059-5556
Marvin & Merrely Bantell
14215 177lh Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059-7619
Audrey Brewer
13710 1391h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
RW. Chamberlin
17414 SE 142nd Street
Renton, WA 98059-7606
Bruce Regal
14002 SE 142nd Street
Renton, WA 98059
Mary Gage
13513 1841h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Ted & Sally Giffin
15604 SE 1481h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Kevin F. Schulz
American Express Financial Advisors
188 1061h Avenue NE, Ste. 640
Bellevue, WA 98004-5902
Herbert L. Hiegel
146431561h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Carol & Luis Arteaga
142251691h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Robert Balderson
14913 1751h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Burnell Barbus
14003 SE 142nd Street
Renton, WA 98059
Kathryn A. Brown
12627 1551h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059-6300
Timothy G. Corner
14611 160lh Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Robert & Michelle Russell
14505 SE 112111 Place
Renton, WA 98059
Greg Thompson
13231 166111 Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Eileen J. Cluphf
13632 SE 1351h Street
Renton, WA 98059-5205
Karin Cartwright
11010 142nd SE
Renton, WA 98059
Robert Striker
PO Box 267
Ravensdale, WA 98051
M.L. Baker
14202 SE 1461h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Brian & Teri Bang
14709 SE 145111 Place
Renton, WA 98059
Louie B. Breezee
13408 1641h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Diane Caldwell
17324 SE 133rd Street
Renton, WA 98059
Ronald & Elaine Christensen
14718 182nd Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
2003-M-4, East Renton Plateau CPA
Dennis Dolan
18002 SE 146'h
Renton, WA 98059-8045
Kathleen Graves
14034 180'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059-7605
Alice Haynes
14903 175'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Fred & Hel~a Jaques
13114158' Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
K. Philip Kelly
1563 SE 148'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Richard & Teri Langdon
14201 164th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Patrick B. Mabin
13810 180th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Janis Meikle
14123 SE 139'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Thomas L. Overby
17323 SE 133rd Street
Renton, WA 98059
Verdie R Querin
23410 160'h Avenue SE
Kent, WA 98042
Paul Gonzales
PO Box 3027
anderson, Alaska 99744
Michael & Deborah Griffith
13415181" Ave. SE
Renton, WA 98059
Valerie Hemnes
15627 SE 139'h Place
Renton, WA 98059
Don Johnson
78 Hoh Place
LaConner, WA 98257
William R Kin~
17011 SE 136' Street
Renton, WA 98059
Morris Levack
13815 154'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059-6744
Terri Maland
16030 SE 130'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Tony Merth
13929 W Lake Kathleen Drive SE
Renton, WA 98059-7707
Mark Paulsness
17547 SE 135'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Jolene & Doug Richmond
17118 SE 144'h Street
Renton, Wa 98059
Gaye Gouk
14703 SE 145th Place
Renton, WA 98059-7336
Larry Hardy
13733 180th SE
Renton, WA 98059
Byron Hess
13006 160'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Michael L. Johnson
14927 165'h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Chander P. Lall
4710 Somerset Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98006
Doug & Shannon Luedtke
14018 SE 135'h Street
Renton, WA 98059-4932
Bernice McDowell
14724173rd Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Lou Misinonile
13531 181" Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
David A. Pontnak
13221 180th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059-7115
Jose A. Rivera, Jr.
5345 E. McLellan #20
Mesa, Arizona 85205
2003-M-4, East Renton Plateau CPA
Debbie Rose
18207 SE 147th Street
Renton, WA 98059
Charlie & Diane Seitz
14113141'ICourtSE
Renton, WA 98059-5420
Wayne & Judy Sime
14610 142"d Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Harold D. Weier
14020 177lh Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059-7631
Sharon Woodruff
14112 1491h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Elli McCarthy
14244 143'd Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
August Gumser
13640 SE 1351h
Renton, WA 98059
Lawrence & Carolyn Anderson
16713 SE 1491h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Brigitta R. Erhard
17727 SE 143 Street
Renton, WA 98059
Thelma Jenkins
140241691h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Jon Russell
17015 SE 1341h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Donald & Lucile Sheets
17854 SE 1461h Street
Renton, WA 98059-8016
Susan Slaton
5511 NE 21 ,I CI.
Renton, WA 98059
Ralph West
13432 173,d Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059-7023
Robert Young
17315 SE 133'd Street
Renton, WA 98059
Robert A. Allwine
16254 SE 1441h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Mr. Mathwig
14624161" Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Harvey & Shirle: Franko
17454 SE 142" Street
Renton, WA 98059
Kathlyn Marzi
13505 1381h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Robert Johnston
18247 SE 1351h
Renton, WA 98059
Frank Sadar
14419 SE 132"d Street
Renton, WA 98059
Troy & Karen Short
17349 SE 134lh Street
Renton, WA 98059
Richard J. Stauff
13813 139th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059-5425
Stephen C. Wilmoth
17316 SE 133'd Street
Renton, WA 98059
Luis & Pacita Tam
4810 Somerset Drive SE
Bellevue, WA 98006
Bill Halgren
2230151'1 Place
Bellevue, WA 98007-6327
Marilynn Carlson
13616 1561h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Rebecca A. Letterer
5185 NE Pacific Street
Renton, WA 98159
Mr. Roland Gillespie
14214 1691h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Daniel A. Dale~
16040 SE 1301 Street
Renton, WA 98059
2003-M-4, East Renton Plateau CPA
Alan Mitchell
16445 SE 128th Street
Renton, WA 98059
Glenn Gjarno & Donna Moser
5516 NE 2nd Street
Renton, WA 98059
Mark Emin~ton
12123 138' Place SE
Renton, WA 98059-4615
Pam Gonzales
14054 183'd Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Joseph N. Carlo
28823 Redondo Shores Drive S.
Des Moines, WA 98198
Margaret Webb
14126 150'h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Randy LaVigne
14833 SE Jones Place
Renton, WA 98058
Donald & Donna Hyde
14005 SE 121"
Renton, WA 98059
Peter & Deborah Eberle
18225 SE 147th
Renton, WA 98059
Martin E. Carlson
14005 SE 188'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Larry Robinson
13205181" Ave. SE
Renton, WA 98059
David Morasch
15006 SE 143'd Place
Renton, WA 98059
Gary & Deborah Fain
14429 SE 116'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Carleen Bell
13845 183'" Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Philip G. Menager
12021 140'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059-4634
Clarence W. Statler
11427 148'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Rainier Crest Apt.
c/o Browne Management Company
PO Box 48005
Seattle, WA 98148
Richard Peterson, Sr.
14034171" Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
L. Dean & Tracy A. Fillion
12924 160'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
James E. McCoy
4300 NE 39'h Avenue
Vancouver, WA 98661
Robert Adlhoch
15247 162nd Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98058
Marvin & Pluma Wright
12265 156 th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059-6327
Jerry & Teresa Mathieson
14603 164th Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Jack & Ivor Jones
1608 S. 96'h Street
Seattle, WA 98108
Vicki Quinn
13741 148'h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Robert G. Wanless
15420 SE 133'" Street
Renton, WA 98059
Donald Partridge
15306 20th Place SE
Renton,WA 98059
William E. Horne
14704 SE 100'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Terrence W. Callahan
14611 SE 140'h Place
Renton, WA 98059
Salvador C. Patrianca
27 59'h Place SW
Everett, WA 98703
2003-M-4, East Renton Plateau CPA
Jeff & Cheryl Davis
13726 SE 141 51 Street
Renton, WA 98059
Robert G. Buren
13801 SE 121 st Street
Renton, WA 98059
David Kellis
16305 SE 131 5' Place
Renton, Wa 98059
Susan Melvin
17447 SE 14200 Street
Renton, WA 98059
Vanessa McDonald
14301 166'h PI. SE
Renton, WA 98059
Dale Johnson
14562 1661h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Marjorie G. Gifford
13616 SE 135'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
D. Harrison
14405 164th Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
LocVan Vu
15800 SE 1281h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Dean Anderson
17443 SE 140th Street
Renton, WA 98059
Sue Henderson
14031 144'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Sue Warnes
14620 SE 116'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Glenn & Allison Sorensen
17841 SE 146'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Judy Connors
16626 SE 136'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Gary Ford
18530 SE 145'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Jeff & Karen Sidebotham
13004158'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Cleveland & Valene Chesson
14025 SE 133"' Street
Renton, WA 98059
Melissa C. Roe
11303 1461h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Andrew & Faye Lengenfelder
14205 180'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Faith Presley
13448 SE 141 st Street
Renton, WA 98059
Edward & Lori Corner
16104 SE 1451h Place
Renton, WA 98059
Arleen Ball
14043 146'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Jerry Hicks
14536 1781h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Henry Gamido
14823161 5' Ct. SE
Renton, Wa 98059
John & Lorene Volkirch
13661 1441h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Ed Hardin~
13207146 Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Steve & Mary Ann Eccles
13838 183rd Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Ronald L. Pillo
13454 172nd Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Scott & Diane Christensen
15019 SE 1381h Place
Renton, WA 98059
Steve Porthen
14020 183rd Avenue S
Renton, WA 98059
2003-M-4, East Renton Plateau CPA
Mrs, Joseph P, Byrne
3937 S, Orcas
Seattle, WA 98118
AI & Esther Banholzer
14932 165'h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
James & Grace Mumby
14014171" Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Tom O'Hara
11441 148'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Steve Winter
16101 SE 149'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Steven C. Velozo, Sr.
13730 177'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
E.L. Griggs
14120 144'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Walter A. Mathis
17122 SE 142nd Street
Renton, WA 98059
Susan Canaga
16006 SE 149'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Steven Rowe
13837 17th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Kathy Wooden
14312 148'h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Harold, Roxaine & Randy Reynolds
13016156'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Joe Harmer
14323166'h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Paul Frederick
16725 SE 149'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
John Todderud
5316 NE 24 Ct.
Renton, WA 98059
Mike J. Partrid~e
16144 SE 146' Place
Renton, WA 98059
Larry A. Barnes
13601 SE 141 Street
Renton, WA 98059
Mike Hilton
14732173'd Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Allen C. Raines, Jr.
14612 165'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
James H. Williams
16413 SE 14th Street
Renton, WA 98059
Sally Nipert
14004 156'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Tim Spiry
13226 181" Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Joan Horton
13510 166'h Ave SE
Renton, WA 98059
Rafael Solis
14305 SE 141 5
' Street
Renton, WA 98059
John Newman
8070 Langston Road S
Seattle, WA 98178
Mary Lynn & Gary Kinkade
14436 183'd Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Ken Bryant
13914 184'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Norbert W. Mohr
16224 SE 144th Street
Renton, WA 98059
Bob Elwell
16020 SE 130'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Richard Roadenizer
17105 S 149'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
2003-M-4, East Renton Plateau CPA
Patricia Benson
11025 148'h SE
Renton, WA 98059
Rosemary J. Gunderson
14319 SE 141 51 Street
Renton, WA 98059-5552
Michael Corbett
14255 183'd Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Richard Parhaniemi
16409 SE 143"' Place
Renton, WA 98059
Bill & Sharon Ostheimer
16443 SE 134'h Street
Renton, WA 98059-6925
Malcolm McLeod
122 Lummi Circle
LaConner, WA 98257-9632
Rick & Joanne Kilcup
18305 SE 140'h
Renton, WA 98059
Dane & Marian Buechler
14911 SE 1451h Place
Renton, WA 98059
Chesil Thye
14023 144'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Michael S. Marinella
15927 SE 148'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Gretchen Morris
14606 182"" Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059-8034
Heather Thompson
12049155'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Rick L. Hyler
17121 SE 138'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Jay Hill
12617 SE 96'h Place
Renton, WA 98056
Jon M. Hicks
17340 SE 149'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
E.L. Griggs
14120 144'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Betsy & Charlie Reamy
2502 Lyons Avenue NE
Renton, WA 98059
Kenneth E. Johnson
14035 SE 122 0d Street
Renton, WA 98059
Ken Kiger
11826 1420d Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Mr. & Mrs. WK Leung
5902 SE 2nd Cl.
Renton, WA 98059
Mike Lowe
14103 150'h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Glen Jessen
13026 163"' Avenue SE
Renbton, WA 98059
John R. Pietker
15020 SE 1451h Place
Renton, WA 98059
Allan Kiesler
14102 148'h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Doyle E. Sundell
14432 1581h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Lisa A. Mcinnis
16636 SE 1361h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Christopher & Teresa Mateo
13719 SE 141 51 Street
Renton, WA 98059
Dale Smith
13909 SE 139'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Christa U. Gerdes
20511 80'h Avenue W
Edmonds, WA 98026
John N. Case
16445 SE 135'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
2003-M-4, East Renton Plateau CPA
Larry & Leone Crawford
16319 SE 149'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Jerry Schroeder
15113 SE 141" Place
Renton, WA 98059
Charles S. Ro~ers
16015 SE 149 Street
Renton, WA 98059
Dennis Swanson
26111 SE 34'h Street
Sammamish, WA 98075
Sheila Bacon
14635 SE 140th Street
Renton, WA 98059-5526
Treena Millett
18403 SE 133'd Place
Renton, WA 98059
Thomas M. Waters
12220 142nd SE
Renton, WA 98059
Tom Schreiner
16131 SE 146th Place
Renton, WA 98059
Stan & Kathy Graves
13020 160'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Jeff Bailey
18343 SE 145th Street
Renton, WA 98059
Kenneth & Patricia Williams
14630 157'h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059-7438
Richard Peterson, Jr.
14024 171" Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Four Creeks Unincorporated Area
Council
PO Box 3501
Renton, WA 98059
Dan Hacker
14004 SE 144'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Lea P. McLean
14037 SE 141 s, Street
Renton, WA 98059-5413
Adam Schmitt
14220 SE 146'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Art & Naomi Weatherford
17514 SE 134'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Pincombe
451 Nile Avenue NE
Renton, WA 98059
Alfred R. Torgramsen
14413 SE 139'h Place
Renton, WA 98059-5528
Mike Conwell
11027 142nd Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Cathy Davis
13860 177'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Llora Maertins
PO Box 3123
Renton, WA 98059
Mark Paulsness
17547 SE 135'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
George Kritsonis
13817 152nd Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Sharen Millett
3247 Kindred Avenue
Tokeland, WA 98059
Bill Henry
13707 156'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059-6747
John N. Talley
15414 SE Jones Road
Renton, WA 98058
Rob & Theresa Anderson
13003 144th Avenue Se
Renton, WA 98059
William F. Anderson
17120 SE 136'h Street
Renton, WA 98059-7007
Jason Webb
2 Patterson Road
Hanscome Air Force Base, MA
01731
2003-M-4, East Renton Plateau CPA
Brent Cawley
15247 150'h Lane SE
Renton, WA 98058
Carl L. Kellber~
14516 SE 112' Place
Renton, WA 98059
Jerry & Kymberli Nelson
17104 SE 136'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Kathleen Luquette
13714139111 Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Kenneth Marshall
16301 SE 131 5
' Place
Renton, WA 98059
G. Craig Johnson
4332 NE 11'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Ben Siu Chung Li
4227 NE 2nd Place
Renton, WA 98059
Van Doan
527 Quincy Avenue NE
Renton, WA 98059
David & Carol Duffy
13518 178111 Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Theodore H. Pardike
51 Ruskin Rd.
E. Aurora, New York 14052
Vicki Hulse
14821 160'h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Bill Sakaguchi
15203 SE 132nd Street
Renton, WA 98059-6719
Elizabeth K. Meneely
16904 SE 1361h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Chris Bjarke
14644 SE 138'h Place
Renton, WA 98059
Gary & Renee Emerson
11927 140'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Patrick & Sharon Moynihan
16612 SE 145'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Keith & Kristine Childs
12004 1481h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
H. Lemberg
14515 183th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Matt Pommer
11212137'h Ave SE
Renton, WA 98059
J. Werre
16041 SE 131,1 Street
Renton, WA 98059-8533
Don & Linda Stevenson
14628 SE 142nd Street
Renton, WA 98059
Aaron Reddekopp
13725 SE 116111 Street
Renton, WA 98059
Stan Dyer
17815 SE 144'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Dennis Prellwitz
18329 SE 147'h Place
Renton, WA 98059
Lisa Young
16919 SE 138'h
Renton, WA 98059
Kathy L. Forsell
15451 SE 142nd Place
Renton, WA 98059
Martha I. Waltrip
11204 148'h Ave SE
Renton, WA 98059
Jerry Rerecich
14235 149'h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Okie Gaetzke
13907 149'h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Dennis L. Crawford
14604 SE 142nd Street
Renton, WA 98059
2003-M-4, East Renton Plateau CPA
John D. Stewart
14665 154th Place SE
Renton, WA 98058
Rosie Morris
14204 148'h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Michael Rae Cooke
13125158th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Dean & Suzanne Chandler
14131 149th Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Scott & Andrea Baines
13205 180'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Charles & Viola Scoby
13112 158'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
John & Cindy Bell
18101 SE 1361h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Jessica Cadwell
14111 SE 134th Street
Renton, WA 98059
Fred Butler
15608 SE 1281h Street
Renton, WA 98059
Gregory Large
14425 1581h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Robert Johnson
14706 167'h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Julie Kubota
14421 1420d Place SE
Renton, W A 98059
Rick Larson
PO Box 68267
Seattle, W A 98168
Alice Knight
18404 SE 133'd Place
Renton, WA 98059
David Anderson
126 Bremerton Ave SE
Renton, WA 98059
Patricia L. Flattum
12422 148'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Reseda Young
140411451h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Debra Platt
1909 SW Montgomery Drive
Portland, OR 97201
MMmIIll/)iearon
1~4~~~~S5E
ReatolQrWI\' il8lRlI!i9
Darin & Donnell Dougherty
14818 SE 113th Street
Renton, W A 98059
Ellis Sara G
14802 SE 139'h Ct.
Renton, WA 98059
John Stancin
14617 157'h Place SE
Renton, WA 98059
Isabel & David Bradley
811 Yew Street
Bellingham, WA 98229
Douglas Robert
16806 SE 136'h Street
Renton, WA 98059
John Ching
16038 SE 1420d Place
Renton, WA 98059
Dave & Jan Greggs
8721 116'h Avenue SE
Newcastle, WA 98056
Willie Manning
17370 SE 133"' Street
Renton, WA 98059
Jim & Nancy Knipp
13002 SE 285'h
Kent, WA 98030-8873
~ar~~~.lSJln ~~~~1~it~e SE
Las Vegas, Nevada 89137
Barbara Elliott
14855 SE 120lh Street
Renton, WA 98059
2003-M-4, East Renton Plateau CPA
Joan Downs
13611 144'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059-5557
Sharon R. Thompson
14230143"' Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Annette M. Ha~den
20548 SE 159' Street
Renton, WA 98059
Kay Ishii
15822 SE 143"' Street
Renton, WA 98059
Sally Norman
13224 168'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Kay Ishii
15822 SE 143 rd st.
Renton, WA 98059
September 16, 2003
City of Renton, Development Planning
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Re: LUA-01-168, CPA, Prezone, ECF/East Renton Plateau CPA #2003-M-04
To Whom It May Concem:
As a resident of the unincorporated area, or Renton Potential Annexation Area, I
oppose the annexation and the rezoning project. Cemetery Road up to 156th has been
deforested and now resembles a Los Angeles suburb. Cemetery Road, Duvall, and the
other arterial streets resemble 405 during the commute hours, and the area has lost the
"small town" feeling that we moved to the Highlands for.
Annex, build and sell more homes - a plan not unexpected by a real estate-backed City
Hall.
We should be able to vote on the annexation and this project. 8 units per acre is
ridiculous. We live in a beautiful neighborhood, with many long-time residents who
enjoy the charm. It saddens me to even think of our neighborhood being ruined by
houses built like sardines on a small lot, devoid of trees. Please do not turn us into
another Sammamish Plateau, Redmond or Kirkland.
/ appreciate City of Renton's goa/ of making the city into a "nice place to live." It already
is, and has been, a nice place to live. There is nothing wrong with progress, however, if
it is done right. The amount of construction and the stripping of trees around our area in
the last 12 months are anything but. If you are going to do this, keep a few trees
standing, build a park for the kids lest they spill into the busy roads, and do not make it
into another suburb of back-to-back-to-back track houses.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING
ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION
PROJECT NAME: EAST RENTON PLATEAU PAA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA.()1-168, CPA, PREZONE, ECF
The City is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment of
its 2,700 acre East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area. The analysis of future capacity
for this area assumed that the majority of new development would occur on the remaining
developable 367 acres identified in the County Buildable Lands Study. Three alternative land
use scenarios were looked at for this area in addition to the existing land use. The impacts of ali
three alternatives were considered to be less than development under the City's current land
use designations for this area. Location: The East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area is
defined as the area within Renton's PAA north of Maple Valley Highway, and east of 134'"
Avenue SE to the Urban Growth Area boundary.
THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED
THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT AND HAS ISSUED A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS).
APPEALS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DET~MINATION MUST BE FILED IN WRITING ON OR
BEFORE 5:00 PM, MONDAY, OCTOBER 13 ,2003. APPEALS MUST BE FILED IN WRITING
TOGETHER WITH THE REQUIRED $75.00 APPLICATION FEE WITH: HEARING EXAMINER, CITY
OF RENTON, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WA 98055. APPEALS TO THE EXAMINER
ARE GOVERNED BY CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4-8-110. ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION REGARDING THE APPEAL PROCESS MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE RENTON
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, (425)-430-6510.
A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, ON OCTOBER 15, 2003 AT 6:00 PM TO CONSIDER THE
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200.
DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION
Please Include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification.
NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
RENTON, WASHINGTON
The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the following
project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code.
EAST RENTON PLATEAU PM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
LUA-01-168,CPA,PREZONE,ECF
The City is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment of its
2,700 acre East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area. The analysis of future capacity for
this area assumed that the majority of new development would occur on the remaining
developable 367 acres identified in the County Buildable Lands Study. Three alternative land use
scenarios were looked at for this area in addition to the existing land use. Location: The East
Renton Plateau Potential Annexation A~ea is defined as the area within Renton's PM north of
Maple Valley Highway, and east of 134 Avenue SE to the Urban Grow1h Area boundary.
A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Planning Commission in the Council Chambers, City Hall, on
October 15, 2003 at 6:00 PM to consider the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, Monday,
October 13th , 2003. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with:
Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner
are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the
appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510.
Publication Date: September 29, 2003
Account No. 51067
dnspub
~R CITY" RENTON
Jesse Tannert Mayor
PlanningIBuildinglPublicWorks Department
Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator
September 26, 2003
Washington State
Department of Ecology
Environmental Review Section
PO Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
Subject: Environmental Determinations
Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by
the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on September 23, 2003:
DETERMINATION OF NON-5IGNIFICANCE
EAST RENTON PLATEAU PAA COMPo PLAN AMENDMENT
LUA-01-168,CPA,PREZONE,ECF
The City is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment of
its 2,700 acre East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area. The analysis of future capacity for
this area assumed that the majority of new development would occur on the remaining
developable 367 acres identified in the County Buildable Lands Study. Three alternatives land
use scenarios were looked at for this area in addition to the existing land use. The East Renton
Plateau Potential Annexation Area is defined as the area within Renton's PAA north of Maple
Valley Highway, east of 134·h Avenue SE to the Urban Growth Area boundary.
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM,
Monday, October 13th , 2003. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00
application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055.
Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional
information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-
6510.
If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-6581.
~~enl-~~VV~_om __ m_i_tte_e_,--,
Don Erickson
Senior Planner
cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division
WDFW, Stewart Reinbold
David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources
WSDOT, Northwest Region
Duwamish Tribal Office
Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance)
Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program
US Army Corp. of Engineers
Stephanie Kramer, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation
-=.gen=c=yle=tter=.d=oc"l --------------------R EN T O~N
1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98055 * This paper cont" '-'s (,U"/:, recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE
•
CITY OF RENTON
DETERMINATION OF NON-5IGNIFICANCE
APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA-01-168, CPA,Prezone,ECF
APPLICANT: City of Renton
PROJECT NAME: East Renton Plateau PM Comprehensive Plan Amendments
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The City is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment of its 2,700 acre East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area. The
analysis of future capacity for this area assumed that the majority of new development would occur on the
remaining developable 367 acres identified in the County Buildable Lands Study. Three altematives land
use scenarios were looked at for this area in addition to the existing land use.
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: The East Renton Plateau Potential A.Ilnexation Area is defined as the
area within Renton's PM north of Maple Valley Highway, east of 134 Avenue SE to the Urban Growth
Area boundary.
LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton
Department of Planning/Building/Public Works
Development Planning Section
This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of
jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days.
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM,
Monday, October 13", 2003. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00
application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055.
Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional
information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-
6510.
PUBLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DECISION:
SIGNATURES:
Dennis Culp, Administrat
Community Services De
September 29, 2002
September 23, 2003
/<f~~d.-
Renton Fire Department
dnssignature.doc
DATE
DATE
:Ift CITY" RENTON
Jesse Tanner, Mayor
PlanningIBuildinglPublicWorks Department
Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator
September 26, 2003
Parties of Record
Various Locations
SUBJECT: East Renton Plateau PM Comprehensive Plan Amendments
LUA-01-168.CPA,Prezone, ECF
Dear Parties of Record:
This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to inform you that
they h ave completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. The
Committee, on September 23, 2003, decided that this project will be issued a Determination of Non-
Significance.
The City of Renton ERC has determined that the impacts of this non-project action are less than would
occur under existing City land use provisions and determined that it does not have a probable significant
adverse impact 0 n the environment. A n Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under
RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made by the ERC under the authority of Section 4-6-6,
Renton Municipal Code, after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information, on file
with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request.
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM,
Monday, October 131h , 2003. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00
application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, W A 98055.
Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional
information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-
6510.
A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Planning Commission in the Council Chambers, City Hall, on
October 15, 2003 at 6:00 PM to consider the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
If the Environmental Determination is appealed, a public hearing date will be set and all parties notified.
If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-6581.
For the Environmental Review ommittee,
0---Don Erickson, AICP
Senior Planner
dnslette'''r.dnnocc ------------------------R EN T ~O N
1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98055 * This paper coni;; ::s !'iOO/~' r:;:,ried material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE
This meeting is a briefing for the Commission to receive any additional information staff has
available on the following Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The PUBLIC HEARING on the 2003
Comprehensive Plan Amendments (other than the Boeing CPA) where public testimony will be
taken is scheduled for October 15th
, 6:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLLCALL
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC MEETING
October 1, 2003
6:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 30, 2003
August6,2003
4. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED:
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS:
6. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
7. STAFF REPORT: Update on Withdrawn and On Hold 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
8. POLICY/CODE STUDY SESSION: 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Update on 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
#2003-M-01 (LUA-01-165), WSDOT Carr Road CPA
#2003-M-04 (LUA-01-168), East Renton Plateau CPA
#2003-M-08, (LUA-01-164), SR 900 Merlino Land Use CPA
#2003-M-9 (LUA 02-140), JDA Group 1st Commercial 2003 CPA
#2003-M-10 (LUA 02-142), JDA Group 2nd Commercial 2003 CPA
#2003-M-12 (LUA-02-139), Dalpay 2003 CPA
9. COMMISSION DELIBERATION/RECOMMENDATION:
10. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
11. ADJOURNMENT:
East Renton Plateau Land Use Study Summary
Renton Staff Recommendation -September 26, 2003
Study Area: 2,700 acres
Assumption that 367 acres of the 2,700 acre total will be developed by 2022
Existing King County Land Use
• Residential 4-12 dwelling units per gross acre (Comprehensive Plan)
• R-4 Four dwelling units per gross acre (Zoning)
• Bonus up to 6 dwelling units per acre over entire area
• Bonus criteria: affordable housing, energy efficiency, location on transit route
• Density transfers allowed from rural area up to 6 dwelling units per acre (no criteria)
• Capacity under King County Land Use for 367 acres: 1,822 units
Existing Renton Land Use
• Single family 5-8 dwelling units per net acre (Comprehensive Plan)
• R-8 zoning or R-5 zoning could occur
• .. Sewer certificates issues for density up to 8 dwelling units per net acre
• Nobonus
• No density transfers
• Capacity under current Renton Land Use for 367 acres: 2.060 units
New Recommended Renton Land Use (map on reverse side)
• Change land use to decrease density to R-4 net for 1,818 acres
• Retain single family R-8 net maximum for 540 acres
• Density bonus to maximum 6 dwelling units per net acre for 252 acres of which 125 is assumed to
be developable based on current vacancies
• Bonus criteria: Better architecture, clustering, increased landscaping
• No density transfers
• Capacity under proposed Renton Land Use for 367 acres: 1,509 units
The Renton Planning Commission will discuss this recommendation on October 1 st at 6:00 PM in the
Renton City Council Chambers. This meeting is a briefing only, no decisions will be made. Written
comments and e-mails will be forwarded to the Commission. At the Commission's discretion, the
public may be invited to participate in the discussion or provide comment at the meeting, time
permitted.
Any comments made at this meeting will not be part of the formal record for this proposal. A formal
public hearing will occur October 15, 2003 at 6:00 PM in the City Council Chambers.
Contact Judy Wright at 425-430-6575 Uwright@ci.renton.wa.us) if you have any questions or comments.
y
East Renton Plateau Study Area
Recommended Map Amendment o 2000 4000
I I~~~I
~ Residential Rural (R-4IR-5 net density)
c::J A .. kIen1iaI Silgi. Family (A-a net densl~)
c:El R-4 (net) + Bonuses (4-6 WIne! acre)
-___ " Sewer Syslem to be Installed by Developer Exiensm
-... -.• -Future Sewer System IOf GlBvity
Sewer System by City as Part oj
King County BOOJe Project
CITY OF RENTON
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA-01-168, CPA,Prezone,ECF
APPLICANT: City of Renton
PROJECT NAME: East Renton Plateau PM Comprehensive Plan Amendments
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The City is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment of its 2,700 acre East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area. The
analysis of future capacity for this area assumed that the majority of new development would occur on the
remaining developable 367 acres identified in the County Buildable Lands Study. Three alternatives land
use scenarios were looked at for this area in addition to the existing land use.
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: The East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area is defined as the
area within Renton's PM north of Maple Valley Highway, east of 134'h Avenue SE to the Urban Growth
Area boundary.
LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton
Department of Planning/Building/Public Works
Development Planning Section
This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of
jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days.
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM,
Monday, October 13th
, 2003, Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00
application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055.
Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional
information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-
6510.
PUBLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DECISION:
SIGNATURES:
September 29,2002
September 23, 2003
/I~~~
Renton Fire Department
dnssignature,doc
DATE
DATE
ENVIR.;,,,MENTAL REVIEW COMMn .~E
MEETING NonCE
SEPTEMBER 23, 2003
To: Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator
Dennis Culp, Community Services Administrator
Lee Wheeler, Fire Chief
From: Jennifer Henning, Development Planning
Meeting Date: September 23, 2003
Time: 9:00AM
Location: Sixth Floor Conference Room #620
Agenda listed below.
Safeway Retail Pad on 2nd (Consent) (Catlin)
LUA-03-081,ECF,SA-A
The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan Review for a new 10,250 square foot building
addition to the existing Safeway store located on the site. The addition is intended to house a variety of retail and commercial uses. The
proposed addition is would match the existing Safeway store in height and design. Location: 203 South 2,d Street.
Brandal Village Short Plat (Jordan)
LUA-03-082,ECF,SHPL-H
The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Hearing Examiner Short Plat Approval for a 7~ot subdivision of a 2.6-acre
site. The residential plat would create seven lots intended for the construction of detached single family homes -ranging in lot size from
4,873 square feet to 7,655 square feel The subject site contains a 24,270 square foot wetland that has been designated as a category 2
wetland requiring a 50-foot wetland buffer. The wetland is located on the eastem half of the property. As part of this development
proposal, the applicant has requested to utilize wetland buffer averaging along the western wetland buffer edge in order to reduce the
required 50-foot wide buffer to 25 feet. This reduction would allow for the construction of a new 16-foot wide private (alley) road, which
has been designed to serve the seven proposed lots (rear loaded units). Location: 623 Union Avenue NE
The City is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment of its 2,700 acre East RentOll Plateau
Potential Annexation Area. The analysis of future capacity for this area assumed that the majority of new development would occur on
the remaining developable 367 acres identified in the County Buildable Lands Study.
Location: The East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area is defined as the area within Renton's PAA north of Maple Valley Highway,
east of 134~ Avenue SE to the Urban Growth Area boundary. A portion of the subject 2,700-acre site located north of NE Sunset
Boulevard has already been prezoned to R-l and R-5 and will not change under this proposed CPA. Also, there may be development at
higher densities than permitted by the proposed new land use deSignations due to Sewer Availability Certificates previously issued by the
City based upon r-5 zoning in the RR portiOlls and R-8 zoning in the RS portions of the subject CPA area.
WSDOT Ca" Road. CPA #2003-M-1 (Erickson)
LUA-01-165,CPA,ECF,R
Proposed non-project action Camp Plan AmendmenURezone to change the land use designations shown on the Land Use Map for this
55-acre site from Residential Rural (RR) with R-l ZOIling to a combination of RR, Residential OptiOllS (RO), and Residential Single Family
(RS), with concurrent zoning to R-5, R-8 and R-l0. Location: The site is located south of Carr RoadiS 179fu Street and east of Talbot
Road South. It abuts S. 47 fu Street on the south and unincorporated King County on the south and east.
cc: J. Tanner, Mayor
J. Covingtoo, Chief Administrative Officer
A Pietsch, EDNSP Director ®
J. Gray, Fire Prevention
N. Watts, PIBIPW Development Services Director ®
F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner
L. Rude, Fire Prevention ®
J. Medzegian, Council
S. Meyer, PIBIPW Transporta~on Systems Director
R. lind, Ecooomic Development
L. Warren, City Attorney ®
STAFF
REPORT
City of Renton
Department of Planning / Bui/ding / Public Works
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
A. BACKGROUND
ERC MEETING DA TE:
Project Name:
Project Number:
Project Manager:
September 23, 2003
East Renton Plateau PM Comprehensive Plan Amendments
LUA-01-168, CPA, PREZONE, ECF
Don Erickson, AICP
Project Description: The City is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review
for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment of its 2,700 acre East Renton Plateau
Potential Annexation Area. The analysis of future capacity for this area assumed
that the majority of new development would occur on the remaining developable
367 acres identified in the County Buildable Lands Study.
Three alternatives land use scenarios were looked at for this area in addition to
the existing land use (see attached maps).
• Scenario A, Existing Residential Single Family (RS) with R-8 zoning.
• Under Scenario B much of the area would be designated RR and receive R-
5, 5 units per net acre zoning. A small portion of this area, some 58 acres,
would have the potential for up to 6 units per net acre with bonuses for good
design and site planning.
• The preferred land use scenario, Scenario C, would change the majority of
the current Residential Single Family (RS) land use designation, with its
potential R-8 zoning, to Residential Rural (RR) with potential new R-4
zoning. A similar 58-acre area would be eligible for bonuses up to 6 units
per net acre.
• Under Scenario D , the study area would be designated R R with new R-6
zoning which would provide a base denSity of 4 units per net acre and allow
bonuses of up to 2 units per new acre for good design and site planning in all
areas.
Land Use Potential Potential Density wlo Density wi Bonusable
Alternative
Scenario A
Scenario B
Scenario C
Scenario D
New Units New AWDTE bonuses bonuses Acres
2,060 19,714 N/A N/A N/A
1,841 17,618 5 du/net ac 6 du/net ac 58 acres
1,509 14,441 4 du/net ac 6 du/net ac 58 acres
1,987 19,016 4 du/net ac 6 du/net ac 367 acres
A portion of the subject 2,700-acre site located north of NE Sunset Boulevard
has already been prezoned to R-1 and R-5 and will not change under this
proposed CPA. Also, there may be development at higher densities than
permitted by the proposed new land use designations due to Sewer Availability
Certificates previously issued by the City based upon r-5 zoning in the RR
portions and R-8 zoning in the RS portions of the subject CPA area.
H:IDiv;sion.slDevelop.serlDev&plan.;ngIPROJECTSlOI-I68.dOlrIER C Report.doc
City of Renton EDNSP Department Envir, ual Review Committee Staff Report
East Renton Plateau PAA Comprehensive Plan hmendmel1/s ~JA-Ol-l68, CPA, PREZONE, ECF
REPORT AND DECISION OF (SEPTEMBER 23,2003) Page2014
Project Location: The East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area is defined as the area within
Renton's PAA north of Maple Valley Highway, east of 134'h Avenue SE to the
Urban Growth Area boundary.
Exist. Bldg. Area gsf: N/A Site Area: ± 2,700 acres
B. RECOMMENDATION
Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials
make the following Environmental Determination:
x
DETERMINA TlON OF
NON-SIGNIFICANCE
Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period.
Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period
with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period.
C. MITIGA TlON MEASURES
No specific mitigation measures are proposed for this non-project action.
Advisory Notes to Applicant:
Not applicable for this non-project action
D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
DETERMINA TION OF
NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGA TED.
Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period.
Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period
followed by a 14 day Appeal Period.
In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following project environmental review addresses only those
project impacts that are not adequately addressed under eXisting development standards and
environmental regulations.
Has the applicant adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in
conjunction with the proposed development?
1. Housing
Impacts: All of the alternatives studied are below the existing capacity and environmental impacts are expected to be
reduced for all alternatives.
• Under Scenario A, the current RS and RR land use deSignations for this 2,700 acre area, approximately 2,060
new single-family detached units could be built.
• Under Scenario B an estimated 1,841 new units could be built. This is some 219 units less than what is
currently allowed under the City's existing Comprehensive Plan land use designations (Scenario A).
• Under Scenario C, the recommended alternative land use scenario, the number of new units that could be
accommodated would be reduced by some 551 units to 1,509 units. Because of the fewer number of units
under Scenario C, the impacts are expected to be less.
• Under Scenario D an estimated 1,987 new units could be built on the remaining 367 acres of buildable lands.
This is only 73 units less than what is currently allowed under the City's existing Comprehensive Plan land use
deSignations.
Mitigation Measures: Because all three of the possible new land use scenarios result in a reduced number of housing
units no mitigation measures are proposed.
H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\2003\East Renton Plateau CPA\ERC Report.doc
City of Renton EDNSP Department Envir( ltal Review Committee Staff Repor/
East Renton Plateau PAA Comprehensive Plan I1mendmellfs "JA-Ol-168, CPA, PREZONE, ECF
REPORT AND DECISION OF (SEPTEMBER 23,2(03) Pagd oJ4
Nexus: N/A
2. Transportation
Impacts: Under Scenario C, the preferred Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the anticipated number of new Average
Weekday Trip Ends would be reduced from an estimated 19,714 AWDTE to an estimated 14,441 AWDTE (see chart
above), This represents a reduction of approximately 5,273 AWDTE with the proposed amendments to Land Use
Map.
Under Scenario B, the anticipated number of new AWDTE is 17,618 AWDTE which represents a reduction of
approximately 2,096 AWDTE from what would be allowed under the current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
designations.
Under Scenario D, the anticipated number of new AWDTE, 19,016, represents a reduction of only some 698 AWDTE,
A July, 2002 consultants report on traffic impacts prepared for the Transportation Division looked at Year 2020 PM
peak hour traffic forecasts for three land use scenarios, the current Comprehensive Plan land use designations
(Scenario A), a Residential Rural (RR) land use scenario similar to the current proposed Scenario B, and a Residential
Single Family (RS) land use scenario, somewhat higher than any of the scenarios considered by the City in its current
2003 CPA for the 2,700 acre PAA. This study concluded that traffic generated by the higher residential densities than
the County's current R-4 zoning would allow would not "in and of themselves overload the street/arterial system;" A
copy of this report is attached.
Mitigation Measures: Because all three of the possible new land use scenarios result in a reduction in the number of
average weekday vehicle trip ends, no mitigation measures are proposed.
Nexus: N/A
3. Public Services
Impacts: The boundaries of public service districts will not change as a consequence of this proposed CPA. Fire
service is provided to much of the 2,700 acre CPA area by the City under contract with Fire District No. 25. Fire
District No.1 0 serves a small portion of the CPA north of SE 1241h and east of 1441h Avenue SE. The boundaries of
the Renton and Issaquah School Districts will not change as a consequence of this CPA. No impacts were identified
for this non-project action by reviewing staff, because in all scenarios density is reduced.
The City's fiscal analysis indicates that the preferred Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Scenario C) would result in
an estimated annual surplus of $461,593 (revenues minus costs) for new development. Scenario B would generate a
$247,331 surplus and Scenario D would result in a surplus of $259,597 from development in the 367 acres of
buildable lands. This compares with a surplus of only $143,318 under the current land use designations, Scenario A,
These figures do not include mitigation fees that the City collects for transportation, fire, and parks and recreation.
Sewer extension is anticipated with all scenarios. At this point, the fiscal impact on the sewer utility is projected as
neutral because all extensions will occur on an as needed basis with costs paid by developers, Scenarios Band D
similarly result in an overall reduction of demand for capital facilities needed to serve future residents in the area. The
effect of these land use designation and zoning changes should be a reduction in the amount of sewer infrastructure
and parks facilities that will need to be provided to meet future demand.
Mitigation Measures: Because all three of the possible new land use scenarios should result in fewer units than
allowed under current land use designations the demand for public services should be similarly reduced. As a
consequence no further mitigation is recommended for this non-project action.
Nexus: N/A
H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\2Q03\East Renton Plateau CPA\ERC Report,doc
City of Ren.ton EDNSP Department Envirt Hal Review Commitlee Staff Report
East Renton Plateau PAA Comprehensive Plan nmel1dmell/s ~JA-Ol-168, CPA, PREZONE, ECF
REPORT AND DECISION OF (SEPTEMBER 23.2003) Page40/4
4. Parks and Recreation
Impacts: The area is known to lack sufficient recreational space to meet current City standards. There are, however,
approximately 50 acres of park space in King County that will likely transfer ownership over to the City upon
annexation. Whereas this will lesson the amount of new park space that will have to be acquired in the future, some
additional space may be likely. Because of the fewer new households under all three new land use scenarios impacts
are considered to be less than under the current Land Use Map land use designations (Scenario A). Future parks
acquisition and development costs are anticipated to be nearly $300,000 less under Scenario C (the preferred
alternative) than those under Scenario A, the current land use deSignations. Scenario B would $116,512 less and
Scenario D would be $281,061 less. Under all three alternatives the City collects a parks and recreation mitigation fee
of $530.76 per new single family unit.
Mitigation Measures: Because impacts are considered to be less under all three possible land use alternatives no
further mitigation is recommended.
Nexus: N/A
E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS
The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where
applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or
Notes to Applicant.
_X __ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File.
__ Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report.
Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be
filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, Monday, October 13th.
Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of
Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton
Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the
Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510.
H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\2003\East Renton Plateau CPA\ERC Report.doc
2DES NJtS E)GSJ'.
R-S, \fcc.
R-5, Rmt.
R8, \fcc.
R8,Rmt.
TOrPLS
East Renton Plateau Study Area
Scenario A -Current R-5 & R-8 Land Use Designations
®,.--:-;; Eoooornic De. velopmenl, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning
.,aa '. AItxP,e'sd .. Admin"I"""" ~ G,[)OIRo:;ano
-"f 4 A~guSl2003
ro
ffi
100
107 9:l
'B 152
" -~
---,-._-
,I _I
I
I ~ i ,
o 2000 4000
~I ~ liiiiiiiiiiiiiii 11IiiIiiIiIII1IiiIiiIiIII~1
1 : 24000
EAST RENTON PLATEAU SCENARIO A -CURRENT LAND USE FISCAL ANALYSIS "HEEl
Units Population AV
EXisting dey. 152 380 $33,440,000
Full dev. 2212 5530 $722,440,000
Assumptions: 2.5 persons / household
$300,000 AV / new R-8 unit; $400,000 AV / new R-5 unit
$220,000 AV /existing unit
R~v~H@:' Total revenues
Existinq Full Rate
Regular levy $106,630 $2,303,652 3.18871
Excess levy $2,964 $64,044 0.08865
State shared revenues
Rate (per cap) Existing Full
Liquor tax $3.52 $1,337.60 $19,465.60
Liquor Board profits $5.04 $1,915.20 $27,871.20
Fuel tax -roads $14.46 $5,494.80 $79,963.80
Fuel tax -arterials $6.47 $2,458.60 $35,779.10
MVET $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Camper excise $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Criminal justice $0.36 $136.80 $1,990.80
Total $11.343.00 $165,070.50
Miscellaneous revenues
Rate Existinq Full
Real estate excise' $40.86 $15,526.80 $225,955.80
Utility tax" $133.20 $20,246.40 $294,638.40
Fines & forfeits' $18.33 $6,965.40 $101,364.90
Total $42,738.60 $621,959.10
• Per capita
•• Per housing unit· based on $2,220 annual utility billing @ 6% tax rate
Contracted Services
Alcohol
Public Defender
Jail
Subtotal
Court/legal/admin.
Parks maintenance'
Police
Road maintenance"
Fire**-
Total , See Sheet Parks FIA
" See Sheet Roads FIA
Per capita
$0.23
$3.13
$7.19
$57.08
$14.90
$270.00
$1.25
Existing Full
$86.26 $1,255.31
$1,190.92 $17,331.02
$2,732.96 $39,771.76
$4,010.14 $58,358.09
$21,690.40 $315,652.40
$5,662.00 $82,397.00
$102,600.00 $1,493,100.00
$27,344.00 $94,806
$41,800.00 $903,050.00
$203,106.54 $2,947,363.49
'" Rate per $1,000 of assessed valuation (FD#25 contract)
:q®li@~8#~i Parks acquisition & development (from Sheet Parks FIA):
Other one-time costs: $0.00
Existing
Full
Total one-time costs:H:HH$ql9!i:
Revised 8·29 per Finance Memo
PARKS ACQUISTION AND MAINTENANCE COST CALCULATION SHEEl
Needs: Scenario A -East Renton Plateau PAA Study
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 acresl1 ,000 for neighborhood park (LOS in Comprehensive Park Plan)
1.1 acresl1 ,000 for community park (LOS in Comprehensive Park Plan)
5530 population after 10 years (projected growth)
2212 housing units after 10 years (projected growth)
$530.76 per single family unit mitigation fees
2060 New single family units
Per capita annual and one-time costs:
One-time Costs: Acquisition:
Neighborhood: 1 • 1.211000 • $60,000 =
Community: l' 1.1/1000' $60,000 =
Neighborhood:
Community:
Development:
1 • 1.211,000' $125,000=
l' 1.1/1,000' $125,000=
Total one-time costs:
Acquisition & development costs:
Mitigation fees: 2,060 new units' $530.76 =
Acquisition & development costs minus mitigation fees:
Ongoing costs: (1' 1.211,000 • $6,000) + (1 • 1.1/1,000' $7,000) =
(park maintenance)
$72.00
$66.00
$150.00
$137.50
$425.50
$2,353,015.00
$1,093,365.60
$1,259,649.40
NJA ",
I? ... I
East Renton Plateau Study Area
Scenario B -Low/Moderate Density Urban (R-5/R-6/R-8)
o 200 0 4000
?1
c::::J Residenna l Rural (R·4/A·5 net density)
C:=J Resldenlla l Single Family (R·e net demity)
c:::J R4 (ne t) + Bonuses (4-6 OJInel acre)
Sewer System to be Installed by Developer ExtenSIon
• •• Future Sewer System lor Gralllty
Sewer System by City as Pan 01
King County Bridge Projoc!
EAST RENTON PLATEAU SCENARIO B -LOW/MODERA TE DENSITY URBAN LAND LISE FISCAL ANALYSIS SHEEl
Ri1V~ri~~~·.·.·.···::::
GQsts /H·······
Units Population AV
Existing dev. 152 380 $33 ,440 ,000
Full dev. 1,993 4983 $738,040,000
Assumptions: 2.5 persons / household
$300,000 AV / new R-8 unit; S400,000 AV / ne w R-6 unit; $400,000 AV I new R-5 unit
$220,000 AV /existing un it
Exis ting Fu ll Rate
R egular le\f)l $106,6 30 $2,353 ,396 3.18871
Excess levy $2,964 $65,427 0.088 65
State shared revenues
Rate (per cap : Existing Full
Liquor tax $3.52 $1,3 37.60 $17,538.40
Liquor Board profits $5.04 $1,915.20 $25,111.80
Fu el tax -roads $1 4 .46 $5 ,494.80 $72,046.95
Fue l tax -a rt erials $6.47 $2,4 58.60 $32 ,236 .78
MVET $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Camper excise $0.0 0 $0.00 $0.00
Crimina l justice $0.36 $136.80 $1,793.70
To ta l $1 1,343.00 $1 48,727.63
Miscellaneous re ve nues
Ra te Ex ist ing Full
Real esta te excise' $40.86 $15,526.80 $203,584.95
Utility tax" $13 3.20 $20,246.40 $265,467.60
Fines & forfeits' $17.77 $6,752.60 $88,539.03
Total $42,525.80 $557,591.58
• Pe r cap it a
•• Per housing un it -based on $2 ,220 annua l uti li ty billing @ 6% tax rate
Contracted Services
Alco hol
Publi c Defend er
Jail
Subtotal
Co urt/lega l/ad min.
Pa rks maintenance'
Police
Road maintenance"
Fire·"
Total
• See Sheet Parks FIA
.. See Sheet Roads FIA
Per capita
$0.23
$3.13
$7.19
$57.0 8
$14.90
$270.00
$1.25
Existing Full
$86.26 $1,13 1.03
$1,190.92 $15,615.16
$2,73 2.96 $35,834.14
$4,0 10.14 $52,580.32
$2 1,690.40 $284 ,40 1.10
$5,662.00 $74,239.25
$102,600 .00 $1,345,275.00
$27,344.00 $133,338
$4 1,800.00 $922,550.00
$203,106.54 $2,812,383.67
••• Rate per $1 ,000 of assessed va luation (FD#25 cont ract)
To tal revenues
Existing$j$Q.4$$.~$
Full$3j;i59iRt~
Total ongoing costs
Existing :$~Q$)lQ9;$4
Full ::$?M?~$~$·~1
Net fiscal impact
EXisting >$4?;~Q7:?iI
Full $247::~$'Mt;
Q~~.!ii"r1~:~q~\~:. Parks acq ui s ition & de velopment (from Sheet Parks FIA):
Other one -tim e costs: $0.00
Total one-time costs: ...../$(j.()()
PARKS ACQUISTION AND MAINTENANCE COST CALCULATION SHEEl
Needs: Scenario B -East Renton Plateau PAA Study
Acquisition 01 land for new neighbo rhood & community park
Development of new nei ghborhood & community parks
Maintenance of neighbo rh ood & co mmunity parks
Assumptions:
$60,000 per acre for lan d ac qu istion
$125,000 per acre for de ve lop me nt (both neighborhood & community parks)
$6,000 per acre to mainta in neigh b orhood parks
$7,000 per acre to mainta in commu nity parks
1.2 acres/1 ,000 for neigh bo rh oo d pa rk (LOS in Comprehensive Park Plan)
1.1 acres/1 ,000 for communi ty park (LOS in Comprehensive Park Plan)
4983 population aft er 10 years (projected growth)
1993 housing unit s after 10 yea rs (projected growth)
$530.76 per single fam ily u ni t m iti ga tion lees
1841 New single fa m ily units
Per capita annual and one-time costs:
One-time Costs: Acquisition:
Neighborhood: l' 1.211000 • $60,000 =
Community: 1 • 1.1/1000 • $60,000 =
Ne ighborhood :
Community:
Development:
1 -1.2/1,000' $125,000=
1 '1.1 /1,000'$125,000=
Total one-t ime costs :
Mitigation fees: New units' $530.76 =
Acquistion & development costs:
Acquisition & development costs minus mitig ation fee s:
Ongoing costs: (1' 1.211,000' $6,000) + (1 • 1.1/1,000' $7,000) =
(park maintenance)
$72.00
$66.00
$150.00
$137.50
$425.50
$9n,129.16
$2,120,266.50
$1,143,137.34
$14.90
East Renton Plateau Study Area
Scenario C -Low Density Urban (R-4/R-6 /R-8)
o 2000 4000
j
= = = --• • •
Resldenllal Rural (A·4/R·5 net density) t
Residential Si'ge Family (A·S net deflsl!y)
A4 (nel)" Bonuses (Hi ClIIneI acre)
Sewer Sys:em 10 be Installed by Developer Exten5lOl'l t
FutlJ'! Sewer System tor GraVlty
Sewer System by City as Part 01
King County Brd]e ProjecI
EAST RENTON PLATEAU SCENARIO C -LOW DENSITY URBAN LAND USE FISCAL ANALYSIS SHEEl
9i>$\f )················
Units Population AV
Existinq dev. 152 380 $33,440,000
Full dev. 1,661 4153 $737,8 40,000
Assumptions. 2.5 persons I hous ehol d
$550,000 AV I new R-4 unit ; $400,000 AV / new R-6 unit; $300,000 AV I new R-8 unit
$220,000 AV lexisting unit
Existinq Full Rate
Regular levy $106,630 $2,352,758 3.18871
Excess levy $2,964 $65,410 0.08865
State shared revenues
Rate (per cap Existing Full
Liquor tax $3.52 $1,337.60 $14,616.80
Liquor Board profits $5.04 $1,9 15.20 $20,928.60
Fuel tax -roads $14.46 $5,494.80 $60,045.15
Fuel tax -arterials $6.47 $2,458.60 $26,866.68
MVET $0.36 $136.80 $1,494.90
Campe r excise $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Criminal justice $0.36 5136 .80 $1,494.90
Total $11,479.80 $125,447.03
Miscellaneous revenues
Rate Existing Full
Real estate excise' $40.86 $15,526.80 $169,671.15
Utility tax" $133 .2 0 $20,2 46.40 $221,245.20
Fines & forfeits-$18.33 $6,965.40 $76,115.33
Total $42,738.60 $467,031 .68
, Per capita
'. Per housing unit -based on $2,220 annual ut ility billing
Per cap ita Existinq Full
Contracted Services
Alcohol $0.23 $86.26 $942.62
Public Defender $3.13 $1,190.92 $13,013.94
Jail $7.19 $2,732.96 $29,864.78
Subtotal $4,0 10 .14 $43,821.33
CourtlleqaVadmin. $57.08 $21,690.40 $237,024.70
Parks maintenance' $14.90 $5,662 .00 $61,872.25
Police $270.00 $102,600.00 $1,121,175.00
Road maintenance" $27,344.00 $97,450
Fire ... • $1.25 $41,800.00 $922,300.00
Total $203,106.54 $2,483,643.28 . See Sheet Parks FIA
• , See Sheet Roads FIA
... Rate per $1 ,000 of assessed valuat ion (FD#25 contract)
Existing
Full
Total revenues
~~~~~:~~~:~~
Total ongoing costs
Existing$?@19~@1
Full :$~:4$~;~4@:~
Net fiscal impact
EXiS~:~!I:I ~~~~,~~~~~
pnftim~c:':¥\f Parks acquisition & development (from Sheet Parks FIA):
Other one-time costs: $0.00
Total one-time costs:/n)]q~M
PARKS ACQUISTION AND MAINTENANCE COST CALCULATION SHEE1
Needs: Scenario C -East Renton Plateau PAA Study
Acquisition of land for new neighborhoo d & community park
Development of new neighborhood & commun ity parks
Maintenance of neighborhood & com muni ty parks
Assumptions :
$60,000 per acre for land acquistion
$125,000 per acre for dev elopmen t (both neighborhood & community parks)
$6,000 per acre to main tain neighborhood parks
$7,000 per acre to maintai n community parks
1.2 acreS/l ,000 for neigh bor hood pa rk (LOS in Comprehensive Park Plan )
1.1 acresll ,000 for community park (LOS in Comprehensive Park Plan)
4153 population after 10 years (projec ted growth)
40 housing units alter 10 years (projected growth)
$530.76 per single fam ily unit mitigation fees
1509 New single fa mily units
Per capita annual and one-time costs :
One-time Costs: Acquisition:
Neig hborhood: 1 ' 1 .211000 ' $60,000 =
Community: 1 ' 1.1 /1000' $60,000 =
Neighborhood:
Community:
Development:
1 ' t .211 ,000' $125,000 =
1 '1.1/1 ,000' $125,000=
Total one-time costs:
Acqu isi tion & development costs:
Mitigation fees: New units' $530.76 =
Acquisition & development costs minus mitigation fees:
Ongoing costs: (1' 1.2/1 ,000 ' $6,000) + (1 • 1.1/1,000' $7,000) =
(park maintenance)
$72.00
$66.00
$150.00
$137.50
$425.50
$1,767,101.50
$800,916.84
$966,1 84.66
$14.90
2De) :....~ EXIST. lNTI teNlN·l~
R-6 , Vc£. 28 887 r
R-6 , ReJev.
R-8 , Vc£.
R-8, ReJev.
lDTALS
East Renton Plateau Study Area
Scenario D -Low /Moderate Density Urban (R-6 /R-8)
30
24
27
?J37
--o 200 0 4000 •••
t::: 6 :1
126 7'02.
148
26 170
152 1,987
Residential Single Family (R·B net density)
Residential Aural (A·A (net) +
Bonuses (4·6 OOInet acre
Sewer System to be Installed by Developer EXl enSlOll
Future Sewer System for GraVIty
Se wer Sys tem by City as Pan 01
Kin g Co unty Bridge Projecl
EAST RENTON PLATEAU SCENARIO D -MODERATE R-6 URBAN LAND USE FISCAL ANALYSIS SHEEl
Units Population AV
Existing dev. 152 380 $33,440,000
Full dev. 2,139 5348 $763,000,000
Assumptions: 2.5 persons / household
$400,000 AV / new R-6 unit; $300,000 AV / new R-8 unit
$220,000 AV /existing unit
8~V~~~/ Total revenues
Existing Full Rate
Regular levy $106,630 $2,432,986 3.18871
Excesslevv $2,964 $67,640 0.08865
State shared revenues
Rate (per cap) Existing Full
Liquor tax $3.52 $1,337.60 $18,823.20
Liquor Board profits $5.04 $1,915.20 $26,951.40
Fuel tax -roads $14.46 $5,494.80 $77,324.85
Fuel tax -arterials $6.47 $2,458.60 $34,598.33
MVET $0.36 $136.80 $1,925.10
Camper excise $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Criminal justice $0.36 $136.80 $1,925.10
Total $11,479.80 $161,547.98
Miscellaneous revenues
Rate Existing Full
Real estate excise' $40.86 $15,526.80 $218,498.85
Utility tax" $133.20 $20,246.40 $284,914.80
Fines & forfeits' $18.33 $6,965.40 $98,019.68
Total $42,738.60 $601,433.33 , Per capita
" Per housing unit -based on $2,220 annual utility billing
Per capita Existing Full
Contracted Services
Alcohol $0.23 $86.26 $1,213.88
Public Defender $3.13 $1,190.92 $16,759.07
Jail $7.19 $2,732.96 $38,459.22
Subtotal $4,010.14 $56,432.17
CourtilegaVadmin. $57.08 $21,690.40 $305,235.30
Parks maintenance" $14.90 $5,662.00 $79,677.75
Police $270.00 $102,600.00 $1,443,825.00
Road maintenance" $27,344.00 $97,450
Fire*** $1.25 $41,800.00 $953,750.00
Total $203,106.54 $2,936,370.22 , See Sheet Parks FIA
" See Sheet Roads FIA
.,' Rate per $1,000 of assessed valuation (FD#25 contract)
'Qt¥f\im~:R~~if Parks acquisition & development (from Sheet Parks FIA):
Other one-time costs: $0.00
Total one-lime costs:: :::::$9,99:
PARKS ACQUISTION AND MAINTENANCE COST CALCULATION SHEEl
Needs: Scenario D -East Renton Plateau PAA Study
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 acresl1 ,000 for neighborhood park (LOS in Comprehensive Park Plan)
1.1 acresl1 ,000 for community park (LOS in Comprehensive Park Plan)
4968 population after 10 years (projected growth)
2139 housing units after 10 years (projected growth)
$530.76 per single family unit mitigation fees
2139 New single family units
Per capita annual and one-time costs:
One-time Costs: Acquisition:
Neighborhood: 1 • 1.211000 • $60,000 =
Community: 1 • 1.1/1000' $60,000 =
Neighborhood:
Community:
Development:
1 • 1.211,000' $125,000=
1 • 1.1/1,000' $125,000=
Total one-time costs:
Acquistion & development costs:
Mitigation fees: New units' $530.76 =
Acquisition & development costs minus mitigation fees:
Ongoing costs: (1' 1.211,000 • $6,000) + (1 • 1.1/1,000' $7,000) =
(park maintenance)
$72.00
$66.00
$150.00
$137.50
$425.50
$2,113,884.00
$1,135,295.64
$978,588.36
$14.90
NE 3rd-4th Corridor Proj. *APPENDICES*
DllAFI'
Appendix C:
Corrie Conditions Report
December, 2002
PageA-6
Technical Memorandum on Future Development Impacts
The City of Renton is considering amending its Comprehensive Plan to provide higher
residential densities in the Renton Highlands area (which includes the NE 3rd-4th Corridor, for
which an arterial master plan is currently being developed). Two higher-density scenarios are
being considered: Scenario 'RR' would increase the current R2 density to RS, and Scenario 'RS'
would increase the current density to R8. In order to do a preliminary assessment of the potential
traffic impacts of the two increased-density options under consideration, the Renton Traffic
Forecasting Model was used to prepare Year 2020 p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts for three
scenarios: Baseline (i.e., current Comp Plan designations), Scenario RR, and Scenario RS.
Conclusions
Traffic generated by the higher residential densities under consideration for the Renton
Highlands will not in and of themselves overload the street/arterial system; improvements
needed to serve 2020 "baseline" traffic (i.e., the traffic generated under the current
Comprehensive Plan) also would adequately serve the 2020 Scenario RR and RS volumes .
• Study area traffic volumes will increase significantly by 2020 with the population and
employment growth forecasted under the current Comprehensive Plan. The additional
2020 population in the study area under Scenarios RR and RS, however, will result in
minimal or limited additional traffic growth. .
• Significant roadway and intersection improvements may be needed to serve forecasted
2020 "baseline" traffic. However, only minor additional improvements -if any -would
be needed to serve the additional traffic generated by the additional 2020 population
under Scenarios RR and RS.
Analysis
Results of the traffic forecasts and analyses are summarized in Tables 1-3:
Table 1 contains p.m. peak hour peak direction traffic volumes on the primary east-west arterials
in the study area (NE 3rd-4th and NE Sunset);
Table 2 contains p.m. peak hour screenline traffic volumes on the main north-south arterials and
collectors in the study area (Monterey, Edmonds, Jefferson, Monroe, Union, DuVall, Hoquiarn-
142nd, Jerich-l44th, Nile-148th, and 156th); and
Table 3 contains p.m. peak hour peak intersection entering volumes and service levels at three
key intersections on NE 4th (Monroe, Union, and Duvall).
As shown in Table 1, p.m. peak hour peak direction (eastbound) volumes on NE 3rd-4th and
Sunset on the west side of the study area (local and through traffic entering the study area) will
Robert Bernstein. P.E.
Consulting Transportation
Engineer/Planner
NE 3rd-4th Corrid, roject
DRAJ1T
*APPENDICES* .rridor Conditions Report
December, 2002
PageA-7
increase significantly over the next 20 years; however, those same peak direction volwnes
increase only an additional 6-7% under the higher-density land use scenarios. (The increase with
the higher-density land use is the equivalent ofless than 114 lane of traffic capacity). The
situation is similar for traffic exiting the study area on the east (mainly through traffic), where the
peak direction volwnes also increase significantly through 2020, but would have negligible
increases caused by higher-density land use. In fact, the traffic forecasts indicate that 2020
baseline peak direction volume on NE 128th St east of 156th Ave would actually decrease with
Scenarios RR or RS.
Table 1: PM Peak Hour Peak Direction Traffic Volumes
2020 2020 2020
1998 Base RR RS
EB 3rd, west of Edmonds 1.275 2,235 2,385 2,450
increase over Base +7% +10%
(=-o.20/ane) (=-o.25/ane)
EB 4th, (128th), east of 156th 720 1,070 1,040 1,055
increase over Base -3% -1%
EB Sunset (SR 900), west of Edmonds 1,885 2,525 2,675 2,580
increase over Base +6% +6%
(=-0.20 lane) (=-0.20 lane)
EB Sunset (SR 900), east of Nile (l48th) 490 815 835 850
increase over Base +2% +4%
(=<0.05 lane} (=-0.05 lane}
As shown in Table 2, p.m. peak. hour volwnes on the north-south arterials and collectors in the
study area will increase significantly over the next 20 years; however, as with the NE 3rd-4th
volwnes, the north-south volumes increase only slightly under the higher-density land use
scenarios. (The increase with the higher-density land use is the equivalent of about 114 lane of
traffic capacity or less, total for two or three streets).
Because the overall capacity and function of urban arterial systems is controlled by the capacity
and operation of intersections, several key intersections on NE 4th St were analyzed for the
various land use scenarios. The results of the intersection analyses, as summarized in Table 3,
were similar to the results of the arterial volwne analysis: intersection volwnes will increase and
service levels will deteriorate significantly by 2020, but the additional volume increase generated
by higher residential densities will be modest. It should be possible to provide adequate
intersection capacity for the higher-density scenarios with much the same improvements that
would be necessary to accommodate the 2020 baseline volwnes.
Robert Bernstein, P.E.
Consulting Transportation
Engineer/Planner
.'
NE 3rd-4th Corridor Proje *APPENDICES*
DRAFT
Corri( Conditions Report
December, 2002
PageA-8
Table 2: PM Peak Hour Screen line Traffic Volumes
2020
1998 Base
North of NE 3rd-4th
Monterey+Edrnonds+Jefferson:
southbound 380 570
increase over Base
northbound 375 695
increase over Base
Monroe+Union+Duvall:
southbound 915 1,405
increase over Base
northbound 690 1,270
increase over Base
Hoquiam (142nd)+Nile (148th):
southbound 240 365
inclflase over Base
northbound 165 340
increase over Base
South of NE 3rd-4th
Jefferson+Monroe+Union+Duvall:
southbound 215 445
increase over Base
northbound 340 585
increase over Base
144th (Jericho)+156th:
southbound 500 825
increase over Base
northbound 985 1,265
increase over Base
Robert Bernstein, P.E.
Consulting Transportation
Engineer/Planner
2020 2020
RR RS
520 545
-9% -4%
795 835
+14% +20%
(=-0. IS lane) (=-0.20 lane)
1,485 1,550
+6% +10%
(=-0.10 lane) (=-o.20/ane)
1,290 1,300
+1% +2%
(=<O.OS/ane) (=<O.OS/ane)
415 470
+13% +29%
(=-o.OS/ane) (=-o.IS/ane)
415 420
+22% +23%
(=-0.1S/ane) (=-0. 15 lane)
475 485
+6% +8%
(=<O.OS/ane) (=-o.OS/ane)
665 670
+13% +14%
(=-0.10 lane) (=-0.10 lane)
900 940
+9% +14%
(=-0.10 lane) (=-0. IS lane)
1,430 1,550
+13% +22%
(=-0.20 lane) (=-0.30 lane)
NE 3rd-4th Corrid
DRAYI'
Iroject *APPENDICES* )rridor Conditions Report
December, 2002
PageA-9
Table 3: PM Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes and Service Levels'
2000 2020 2020 2020
(counts) Base RR RS
NE 4th I Monroe:
total entering volume 2,510 3,970 4,180 4,255
inctease over Base +5% +7%
critical volume sum 825 1,435 1,540 1,505
service level undercap'y overcap'y overcap'y overcap'y
VIC· 0.59 1.03 1.10 1.08
NE 4th I Union:
total entering volume 2,760 3,835 4,130 4,205
increase over Base +8% +10%
critical volume sum 1,265 1,755 1,925 1,895
service level nearing cap'y overcap'y overcap'y overcap'y
VIC· 0.90 1.25 1.38 1.35
NE 4th I Duvall:
total entering volume 2,750 4,205 4,605 4,805
increase over Base +10% +14%
critical volume sum 1,025 1,485 1,805 1,665
service level undercap'y overcap'y overcap'y overcap'y
VIC· 0.73 1.06 1.29 1.19
• For the purposes Of this analysis, "service lever was detennined by usa a planning-level analysis of
signalized intersections, which provides a basic assessment of whether or not capacity is likely to be
exceeded for a given sat of demand volumes and geometries. Signal timing is not considered, and delay
and level of saNice are not detennined.. The planning-level analysis is based on a "ctitical movement"
analysis. This procedure relates the capacity/adequacy of an lnIersecl10n to lane utilization. The capacity
of a point where Intersecting lanes of traffic cross is 1,400 vehicles per hour (vph), and the degree to which
intersecting lane volumes (I.e., the "ctitical movements1 exceed or faU short of this capacity Indicates the
quality of traffic operations at the Intersection. When the sum of the ctitical movement volumes is greater
than 1,400, the intersection is considered to be "over capacity." Critical volume sums between 1,200 and
1,400 indicate that the Intersection is "nearing capacity: while less than 1,200 is "under capacity." (Actually
"Level of Service" -LOS -is determined using a different methodology that employs a more detailed
operational analysis. There is a general correspondence between the 'planning-level' and 'operalionar
sarvice levels: "Under capacity" is equivalent to LOS C or beller, "Nearing capacity" is equivalent to LOS
D-E, and "Over capacity" is equivalent to LOS F.
b "VIC" = volume:capacity ratio. This ratio represants the proportion on of the Intersection's capacity that is
utmzed by the traffic volumes entering the intersection.
Robert Bernstein, P.E.
Consulting Transportation
Engineer/Planner
City of ReA Department of Planning I Building I Public .S
ENVIRONMENTA L & DEVEL OPMENT APPLICA TION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ? a, 'di COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 25, 2003
APPLICATION NO: LUA·01·168,CPA,PREZONE,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 13, 2003
APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Don Erickson
PROJECT TITLE: East Renton Plateau Comp, Plan Amend. WORK ORDER NO: 78922
LOCATION: Renton Potential Annexation Area, east of City limits, north of Cedar River to edge of Urban Growth Area
boundary.
SITE AREA: 4.3 Sq. miles I BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: City sponsored Comprehensive Plan map amendment from Residential Single Family (R·8
net) to Residential Rural (R-4 netl ~nd Comprehensive Plan text amendment allowing a maximum density of 4 dwelling
units per net acre in the Residential Rural Comprehensive Plan designation and re-naming the designation to "Low
DenSity Single Family." In addition zoning code text amendments are proposed to change the maximum density in the
R-5 zone from 5 dulac net to 4 dulac net, to amend its development standards, and, to allow a potential density bonus to
8 dulac net in portions of the study area. Prezoning is proposed within the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation
Area, potentially ranging from 4 dulac net to 8 dulac net.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e,g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the ProIJiJbJe Probable MOre Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts N«essary
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacls Necessary
/Earlh
Air
Water -1 .~
Plants
LandiShoreline Use UliY ••
Animals
environmental Health 'uMe Service.
Energy/
Natural ResDurces
M:f:=~:::
B. POLlCY·RELATED COMMENTS
c.
We have-reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expedise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas whe additional information is ded to properly assess this proposal,
Rev. 10193
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
City of Ren._n Department of Planning I Building I Public,. o ••• s
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: \), Al ~,,; Ul..~ COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 25, 2003
APPLICATION NO: LUA-01-168,CPA,PREZONE,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 13, 2003
APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Don Erickson
PROJECT TITLE: East Renton Plateau Camp. Plan Amend. WORK ORDER NO: 78922
LOCATION: Renton Potential Annexation Area, east of City limits, north of Cedar River to edge of Urban Growth Area
boundary.
SITE AREA: 4.3 Sq. miles I BUILDING AREA (gross): NIA
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: City sponsored Comprehensive Plan map amendment from Residential Single Family (R-B
net) to Residential Rural (R-4 net) and Comprehensive Plan text amendment allowing a maximum density of 4 dwelling
units per net acre in the Residential Rural Comprehensive Plan designation and re-naming the designation to "Low
DenSity Single Family." In addition zoning code text amendments are proposed to change the maximum density in the
R-5 zone from 5 dulac net to 4 dulac net, to amend its development standards, and, to allow a potential density bonus to
8 dulac net in portions of the study area. Prezoning is proposed within the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation
Area, potentially ranging from 4 dulac net to B dulac net
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable Mo," Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth Housing
Air
Water
Plants
LandiShorefine Use
Animals fI!
Environmental Health
Energy/
Natural Resources
A:~~;
;;"""01' •• ,
eM i/M d?Hlil! 4-r
B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS
C,
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas .n:ere additi0i~ is needed to properly assess this proposal. S~ctor or AUthOrizedU? Dale t;! 1.--7-f ~
routing,doc Rev. 10/93
City of Re .... n Department of Planning / Building / Public L _ ... s
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: (D ,1. w:f\DY\ c.:""" COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 25, 2003 I:
APPLICATION NO: LUA-01-168,CPA,PREZONE,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 13, 2003 Ah. ',',:-,
APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Don Erickson &/ -vo 1,& .)
PROJECT TITLE: East Renton Plateau Camp, Plan Amend, WORK ORDER NO: 78922 "(~'th <'00.1
"'Ii/.
LOCATION: Renton Potential Annexation Area, east of City limits, north of Cedar River to edge of Urban Growt~a
boundary, v
SITE AREA: 4.3 sq, miles I BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: City sponsored Comprehensive Plan map amendment from Residential Single Family (R-8
net) to Residential Rural (R-4 net) and Comprehensive Plan text amendment allowing a maximum denSity of 4 dwelling
unils per net acre in the Residential Rural Comprehensive Plan designation and re-naming the designation to "Low
DenSity Single Family." In addition zoning code text amendments are proposed to change the maximum density in the
R-5 zone from 5 dulac net to 4 dulac net, to amend its development standards, and, to allow a potential denSity bonus to
8 dulac net in portions of the study area, Prezoning is proposed within the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation
Area, potentially ranging from 4 dulac net to 8 dulac net.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable Mon> Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
~ir
Nater -1 ~
~ Utililies
N~~:::::I ~
M~:;'~~~ <0 O.
,'<:
B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS
C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas wh re additional information is nee d to properly assess this proposal.
Date
Rev. 10193
City of Re ... _n Department of Planning / Building / Public I S
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: '1 "'..... .c; 00 .. ·I ... d \ _"''' COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 25, 2003
APPLICATION NO: LUA·01-168,CPA,PREZONE,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 13, 2003 !y l;:, c".
APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Don Erickson 41,,, C' I i·'j
PROJECT TITLE: East Renton Plateau Comp. Plan Amend. WORK ORDER NO: 78922 Sf, 11 ;I". . ,
LOCATION: Renton Potential Annexation Area, east of City limits, north of Cedar River to edge of UrbanG'16\QIiD~e~,,;r
boundary. <5/0 ,
SITE AREA: 4.3 sq. miles I BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A '
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: City sponsored Comprehensive Plan map amendment from Residential Single Family (R-8
nell to Residential Rural (R-4 net) and Comprehensive Plan text amendment allowing a maximum density of 4 dwelling
units per net acre in the ~esidentlal Rural Comprehensive Plan designation and re-naming the designation to "Low
DenSity Single Family." In addition zoning code text amendments are proposed to change the maximum density in the
R-5 zone from 5 dulac net to 4 dulac net, to amend its development standards, and, to allow a potential density bonus to
8 dulac net in portions of the study area. Prezoning is proposed within the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation
Area, potentially ranging from 4 dulac net to 8 dulac net.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Environment Minor Major InformaUon
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth Housing
Air
Water
Plants
LandlShoreline Use
Animals ~
Environmental Health Public SeNices
Energy/
Natural Resources
A:I~g~::r
B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS
C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS
tv!'>
We have reviewed this application with parlicular attenUon to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas where additional informaYon is needed to properly assess this proposal. elt<f h .
~D~al~elr~/~~~~~-----------
Rev. 10193
City of Ren._ .. Department of Planning / Building / Public V
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:~, f.e......... / l..0...sk..x.0 COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 25, 2003
APPLICATION NO: LUA·01·168,CPA,PREZONE,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 13, 2003
APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Don Erickson
SITE AREA: 4.3 sq. miles I BUILDING AREA (gross): NIA b IS';Ot,
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: City sponsored Comprehensive Plan map amendment from Residential Single Family (R·8
net) to Residential Rural (R·4 net) and Comprehensive Plan text amendment allowing a maximum density of 4 dwelling
units per net acre in the Residential Rural Comprehensive Plan designation and re·naming the designation to "Low
DenSity Single Family." In addition zoning code text amendments are proposed to change the maximum density in the
R·5 zone from 5 dulac net to 4 dulac net, to amend its development standards, and, to allow a potential density bonus to
8 dulac net in portions of the study area. Prezoning is proposed within the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation
Area, potentially ranging from 4 dulac net to 8 dulac net.
A, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g, Non·Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Environment Minor Major Information
Impact!J Impacts Necessary
EarltJ Housing
Air
Water
Plants
LandlShoreline Use
Animals ~
Environmental Health
Energy!
Natural Resources
:ngg~:::
B. POLlCY·RELA TED COMMENTS
C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS
lJll'
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposa/. 9 J I ~ /)VB
~D~at~4~~I~~-------------
Rev. 10193
City of Re .. __ n Department of Planning I Building I Public I s
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
-~----. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Mr.e. 'P(",,~"''u.., COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 25;_~1..\W 101 = . -;.::1
DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 13, 2ri LS \).,) lb .' i. " APPLICATION NO: LUA-01-168,CPA,PRElONE,ECF '".;:.
APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Don Ericksbn '11
PROJECT TITLE: East Renton Plateau Comp. Plan Amend. WORK ORDER NO: 78922 ,J iJ: AUG I j 2003
LOCATION: Renton Potential Annexation Area, east of City limits, north of Cedar River to ed be of VI 7;"'" U"11)c~r ~ 1 boundary~
. -----_._-
SITE AREA: 4.3 Sq. miles I BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: City sponsored Comprehensive Plan map amendment from Residential Single Family (R-8
net) to Residential Rural (R-4 net) and Comprehensive Plan text amendment allowing a maximum density of 4 dwelling
units per net acre in the Residential Rural Comprehensive Plan deSignation and re-naming the designation to "Low
DenSity Single Family." In addition zoning code text amendments are proposed to change the maximum density in the
R-5 zone from 5 dulac net to 4 dulac net, to amend its development standards, and, to allow a potential density bonus to
8 dulac net in portions of the stUdy area. Prezoning is proposed within the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation
Area, potentially ranging from 4 dulac net to 8 dulac net.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More
EnvIronment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth Housing
Air Aesthetics
Water Light/Glare
Plants Recreation
LandlShoreline Use Utilities
Animals Trans orlation
Environmental Health Public SeNices
Energy/ Historic/Cultural
Natural Resources Preservation
Airporl Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS
C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS
I
We have reviewe this application with particular attention to those areas jn which we have expertise and have idenUfied areas of probable impact or
areas where ad iOllal informati n' needed to properly assess this proposal. ? j ~ 3
Signature f Date •
rouHng.doc I Rev. 10/93
City of Re .. __ n Department of Planning / Building / Public l. _ ... s
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ~ 'f.". J \ -l.<..c : COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 25, 2003 eliY UI H,''''.''
APPLICATION NO: LUA-Ol-168,CPA,PREZONE,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 13, 2003 n I: L. I: I V I: U
APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Don Erickson AUG 18 2003
PROJECT TITLE: East Renton Plateau Compo Plan Amend. WORK ORDER NO: 78922
LOCATION: Renton Potential Annexation Area, east of City limits, north of Cedar River to edge of Urban Growth Area
boundary.
SITE AREA: 4.3 sq. miles I BUILDING AREA (gross): NIA
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: City sponsored Comprehensive Plan map amendment from Residential Single Family (R-B
nell to Residential Rural (R-4 net) and Comprehensive Plan text amendment allowing a maximum density of 4 dwelling
unils per net acre in the Residential Rural Comprehensive Plan designation and re-naming the designation to "Low
DenSity Single Family." In addition zoning code text amendments are proposed to change the maximum density in the
R-5 zone from 5 dulac net to 4 dulac net, to amend its development standards, and, to allow a potential density bonus to
8 dulac net in portions of the study area. Prezoning is proposed within the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation
Area, potentially ranging from 4 dulac net to B dulac net.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable MOIe Element of the Probable Probable MOIe
Environment IIlnor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacfs Necessary
Earth lousing
Air
Water
Plants
LandiShoreline Use ~
Animals
Environmental Health Public SeNices
Energy/
Natural Resources
:~:~:~:;
B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS
C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS
\Jf\
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas jn which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas where add-tional -nfonnation is needed to properly assess thjs proposal. ,,-,-B"'-1jf.Jli.>e~\f"""'-lI--_----
Date 1~
Rev. 10193
City of Re ••• _n Department of Planning / Building / Public I. _ •.. s
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ~ rt\.~ ~ ~.,.,. COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 25, 2003 ._",1::1"\
APPLICATION NO: LUA-01-168,CPA~REZONE,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 13, 2003 KI:\lt;.,,,,,,-
APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Don Erickson 1\"(; \ 3 2003
PROJECT TITLE: East Renton Plateau Compo Plan Amend. WORK ORDER NO: 7892Z ,.,-v ()~ RENTO>
IlllLliY Sy~ I~" ~
LOCATION: Renton Potential Annexation Area, east of City limits, north of Cedar River to edge of Urban-.;rowth Area
boundary.
SITE AREA: 4.3 sq. miles I BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: City sponsored Comprehensive Plan map amendment from Residential Single Family (R-B
net) to Residential Rural lR-4 net) and Comprehensive Plan text amendment allowing a maximum density of 4 dwelling
units per net acre in the ~esidentlal Rural Comprehensive Plan designation and re-naming the designation to "Low
DenSity Single Family." In addition zoning code text amendments are proposed to change the maximum density in the
R-5 zone from 5 dulac net to 4 dulac net, to amend its development standards, and, to allow a potential density bonus to
B dulac net in portions of the study area. Prezoning is proposed within the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation
Area, potentially ranging from 4 dulac net to 8 dulac net.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable
Environment Minor Major
Impacts Impacts
~h
Air
Waler
~use
~:::: ..
--n:::c::l-lLllcAL ~1C:E''2::>
A.HE1---l'OHE::Lrf"'
B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS
More Element of the Probable Probable More
Inlormation
Necessary
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
~
~ lion
1i~g~::r
HA.? 1-.1= COHI--1l=:Uf aW jHE" coMpo -pLAW
~ t=ESSE1=l
e/ezjo 3
We have reviewed this application with parlicular attention to those areas in which we have experlise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal.
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative
routing.doc
Date
ReV. 10193
·c .•.... f'e--L .,.-,
Jesse Tanner -Mayor
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton WA 98055
August 20, 2003
Dear Mayor Tanner,
Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council
P.O. Box 3501
Renton, WA 98056
FolI'_ Creeko_ UAC@yahoo.com
We lIave reviewed the matarials presented at the July 1" Open House, on the City of Renton Website and at the
July 23rd meeting held in the Renton City Council Chambers. We thank you for you efforts to inform us of the
changea proposed to the Renton Comprehensive Plans. We have serious concerns for the concept of zoning,
existing or proposed, beceuse we have seen the application of zoning regulations as development along
3rd/4"'/128 Di has exploded over the last couple of years. .
We have been concerned first and foremost with the growth of transportation needs precipitated by creation of so
many new homes in our area. As you well know, there is a serious lack of road network connectivity for the East
Renton Plateau. The citizens of this area, individually and through the Four Creeks UAC, have addressed this
need for additionel North/South access to the City of Renton as well as to King County for years. We have heard
nothing but each jurisdiction blaming the other.
To no avail, we have asked for interiocal agreements so that the new developments would be permitted with
mitigations and standards required to meet Renton's standards, as we understand Renton will ultimately be the
jurisdiction to maintain and serve the areas inside the Potential Annexation Area in the long run. But there has
. been no progress on that front.
Now we find that our repeated and consistent claim that the infrastructure improvements required under the
State's Growth Management Act and King County's Comprehensive Plan Policies to ensure that capacity is
Improved to meet increase demand have been confirmed by the King County General Government Budget
Advisory Task Force and the various cities of King County. .
The requirement for all new subdivisions in the unincorporated areas to be served by sewer is also causing
concern and worry. By allowing individual private developers to plan and build these system extensions and then
charge existing property owners to hook into them, we fear that we will be left with no recourse for poor
installation or for being unreasonably bearing the fi nancial burden for infrastructure for which we hold the City of
Renton responsible.
We have heard from no resident in favor of any level or degree of higher density in the East Renton Plateau.
Rebecca Lind and Don_Erickson presentad data from the twenty year planning cycle that shows that the housing
targets 9iln tie met witliout a single increase in zoning density. In fact,. they told us that Renton has sufficient
capacity for a full range of housing types and costs -except 'Executive Housing'.
Yet every one of the Proposed PreZone Scenarios includes some configuration of increased density.
~,'", . ., . .
. ' .,
. -•
The character and scale of the existing neighborhoods in the East Renton Plateau are compatible with such larger
lot development, and no increase in zoned density would be required to allow that type of development to occur.
We support the update of Renton's Comprehensive Plan to specify the legislative guidelines that will ensure the
application of the Land Use designation for the East Renton Plateau in such a manner that no density higher than
the proposed Residential Rural designation (R-4/R-5 net) would be allowed.
We adamantly oppose all Pre Zone proposals that increase the density. Such higher density will destroy the
character and scale of our neighborhoods, will not achieve any progress toward Renton's Comprehensive Plan
goals to provide a full range of housing options to its citizens, and can not be supported by the existing or
. anticipated infrastructure.
We urge the City of Renton to amend the presented Scenario 1 to codify the existing densities into its
Comprehensive Plan. We would even encourage and support down zoning where appropriate.
Sincerely,
_~u/~~
Gwendolyn High
Secretary -District 2 Four Creeks UAC
Adopted at the August 20, 2003 Regular Meeting
.cc: Renton City Council
Renton StrategiC Planning Department
i
August 20, 2003
To:
Don Erickson
Project Manager, Strategic Planning Division
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
Subj:
CITY OF RENTON
RECEIVED
AUG 22 2003
BUILDING DIVISION
LUA~01-168, CPA, PREZONE, ECF: East Renton Plateau CPA #2003-M-04, and annexation issues
Dear Mr. Erickson:
I am a thirty-year resident homeowner of the East Renton Plateau. I currently live in King County, am
served by Issaquah Schools, and have a Renton address. The address is 13125 158th Ave. SE., Renton,
WA, 98059.
This letter is to ask for your help in maintaining the current zoning for my area, which is in the proposed
annexation area for the City of Renton. I understand that you have four proposed plans set before you on
which you and your staff must make a decision, since you are shortly required to submit one for the
Comprehensive Plan as a "procedural place holder".
It is my understanding that Scenario #1 proposes keeping the same zoning we now have which is 4 houses
per acre. The current Urban Growth Boundary was set without a vote of the residents of this area. The
area I am defining extends from 153rd Ave. SE. on the west, to Lake Kathleen on the east (approximately
I 87 th Ave. SE), and is bounded by SE 128th on the north and SE 144th on the south.
We acknowledge that development will take place in this area. However, I can count a minimum of 40
neighbors in the immediate area that I know personally and have spoken with, who desire this growth to be
reasonable and in concurrence with Scenario # I and current zoning laws on the books.
I. The residents of this area have grave concerns about the manner in which systematic methods are used
by various developers in order to get around the current zoning. We have personally observed coordination
by King County, DDES, and the City of Renton staffs, in applying property line adjustments, boundary line
adjustments, density credits, mitigation of road and park improvement fees, etc., in order to work around
(selectively modify) the current zoning laws. In addition, since the City of Renton zoning is not the same
as King County zoning, Renton may be left holding the bag for developments that are not up to Renton
standards.
a. While each entity is trying to get the most for the funds they have available, the effect is to
enroach on the current zoning until it has no resemblance in practice to the current legal zoning on the
books, which is a maximum of 4 houses to an acre, period.
b. ACTION: AS A GROUP WE ARE IN FAVOR OF DOWNZONING in order to achieve the 4
houses or less to an acre, and request that no density credits be given to expand zoning modifications to 6 to
8 houses per acre. A classification of "Residential Rural" is an oxymoron. You can't have 6 to 8 houses an
acre and be Rural. Nor can you put clusters of high density within a Zone 4 and call it Rural.
c. We bring to your attention Comprehensive Plan Policy U-119 which "reqnires that urban
density increases shall not be approved through the rezone process unless 'the development will be
compatible with the character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood .... To rezone pockets of area
within R4 to R6 or R8 does not maintain the rural character, or even suburban character of the
neighborhood AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS.
2
d, We bring t 0 your attention Objective LU-I from the City of Renton Land Use Element
attachment of 8/13/0 I, "Preserve open space and natural resources and protect environmentally sensitive
areas by limiting residential development in critical areas identified as part of a city-wide or regional open
space network, or agricultural lands within the City," This sounds good until you read the rest oftbe LU-
26 through LU-33 which mitigate that statement until the LU-I policy is of no effect. Thank goodness it is
policy and not law,
(I) Policy LU-26 sounds good until you see the 5 homes per acre, which is not Zone 4,
ACTION: Please amend LU-26 from "I home per 10 acres to 5 homes per acre" to read "I home per 10
acres to 4 homes per acre", Please do not add/utilize boundary line or property line adjustments, or density
credit modifiers. Four homes to an acre is four homes to an acre, without exception.
(2) Policy LU-27 and LU-29 through LU-32 appear to be designed to ensure Policy U-28, the
clustering ofresidenlial development occurs, Again an area cannot be rural with more than 4 homes to the
acre, It is an oxymoron to say that it is,
e, Frankly, I resent that certain parties and departments in the City and County have labeled our
property owners' land, as not being put to its "highest potential use and density" and ''many infilling
opportunities exist", This is my land, bought and paid for, not your land, As a citizen of the United States,
I uphold my right to decide what the best use of my land is as long as I hold the title and deed to it.
(I) We bring to your attention from page 13 (attached) the DOES Land Services Division,
King County, Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner, March 6, 2003, Rezone & Proposed Plat of
Evendell, File No's: LOITY401 and LOIPOOl6, at Comprehensive Plan UI14 and UI19, page 13, under
paragraph 2, Rezone,)
(a) U-119 "requires that urban area density increases shall not be approved through the
rezone process unless' the development will be compatible with the character and scale of the surrounding
neighborhood, ...
(b) U -120 states" King County shall not approve proposed zoning changes to increase
density within the urban area unless: A, the development will be compatible with the character and scale
of the surrounding neighborhood," Note that the developer on Evendell used comparisons for the
surrounding neighborhood OUTSIDE the boundaries they themselves identified as our neighborhood,
Note that many people have livestock (cattle, horses, sheep, goats, ducks, and chickens) in the immediate
neighborhood, By saying that the City or the County reserves the right to restrict our ability to do so in the
future, you are not standing by the letter of the words "shall be compatible with the character and scale of
the surrounding neighborhood" where implied is 'as it currently exists',
(c) ACTION: I am asking the authorities for both the City of Renton and King County to
itemize, to be accurate and to use plain language in their documentation, Where King County is not
enforcing Ul19 and U120, I challenge them to do so without using attached mitigation statements, I
challenge the City of Renton, who subsidizes King County through interlocutory agreements, to uphold
their superior standards for development in constructing proposals for Urban Growth Development,
(2) See the attached response letter to the Clerk of the Council, King County Courthouse,
concerning the inequities in the DOES preliminary report,
2, The City of Renton does nol need higher density in order to meet the Comprehensive Plan for this
legislative mandated goaL It already has met the requirements,
3, The City of Renton does need to meet the legislatively mandated goal for executive housing, That goal
is currently unfilled by the City of Renton and can be done with the current zoning in place,
4, There is no need therefore to change the zoning anywhere in the City of Renton, or in the proposed
annexation in order to meet the growth targets,
:
3
5. The capacity for infrastructure support (traffic, fire, police, environmental pollution limits, noise, etc.)
must be in place and is mandated by law. If the City of Renton annexes and allows workarounds for zoning
up to 8 units per acre, the City (and the County) will be in direct non-compliance of current legislative
requirements.
6. Sewer will go in regardless and is not a valid excuse to change zoning requirements.
7. Under the powers of Eminent Domain the ends have to justify the means in order to satisfy the Federal
Requirements under the U.S. Constitution. While we are aware the lawyers seem to be concentrating on
Civil Law and ignoring Constitutional Law, we believe that by law the City of Renton and King County
are required to disclose to EACH HOUSEHOLDER A DETAILED ITEMIZED BREAKDOWN OF
THE FISCAL AFFECT OF ANY PROPOSED CHANGES and tben put it to a public vote.
ACTION: Tbis is especially true witb the proposed sewer installations, and we are requesting this
itemized accounting for sewers and storm drains be expedited and submitted to tbe public as quickly
as possible.
8. Developers in effect get freebees in gross profits when they succeed in getting the county and city to
rezone. For 44 houses on II acres, plus the addition of 16 more under "density credits" thus allowing a
stretch to 60 houses at approximately $300,000.00 each, with a deduction of $100,000.00 building costs,
the profit freebee of $200,000.00 per house comes somewhere between $4,800,000.00 and $12 million
dollars. Left to fund the infrastructure will be the City of Renton andlor King County wbo will bave
to provide services for communities that no longer meet tbe City of Renton standards and for which
King County does not bave adequate funding. Not only do unincorporated area residents lose, but so
does the City of Renton.
9. Tbe bottom Federal line in all of this is that our area is in Aquifer Protection Area Zone #2. This
Aquifer Is part of tbe Federal Comprehensive Plan, is protected by the Green Water Act, and is the
sole Aquifer in the entire Renton area.
a. If the City of Renton proceeds with rezoning, tbe City may well be In non-c:ompliance
with Federal Law as well as State environmental infrastructure laws and ordinances.
b. ACTION: We need to see through your actions that you acknowledge that with out pure
water, there is no life; it·sickens and dies; and, therefore, you will protect the Aquifer Protection
Area Zone #2, and meet the compliance requirements of the Green Water Act and the Federal
Comprehensive Plan.
10. Tbe City has no legal authority to cause rezone anoexation. What concerns the household residents
of this area is the King County 35-page report by one of their Comprehensive Plan task force groups, which
was recently sent to the Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council representing our Community. This plan
has, as it's numher one recommendation the use of withdrawal of funding for services to force compliance
by ALL county residents within the Urban Growth Boundary (not just our area) to rezoning and city
annexation. They propose to do this by reducing King County's response level for services to our
community to the lowest level legally required. They boldly state that this plan will be accomplished
within 3 years.
a. The money the County is withdrawing is money the residents of this area have to pay by law
and by law is to be used for local improvements and maintenance, as are City taxes. Simply renaming the
CX general budget taxes from "Local" to "Regional" does not hold legal weight in the courts. Policy
is not law.
b. Additionally, as residents we all are experiencing that the County has been giving poorer
and poorer service to our area. Does the City of Renton really want to wind up subsidizing the
County? In effect that is wbat wiII bappen when taxes are renamed from local to regional.
4
c. King County is currently rated as fiscally irresponsible by one of the nations' largest certified
public accountant groups. In a national publication this group listed such facts, as the county has no overall
budget plan and authority to which all county agencies are responsible, and it has no centralized database
with which to track expenditures and ensure fiscal responsibility. The right hand appears not to know what
the left hand is doing. The county cannot tell us how much was spent on roads last year, how much went to
support the court system, etc. How then can the City of Renton plan effectively for expenses they will have
to assume if annexation goes through?
d. It is generally not known to the public that services provided for Health and Human Services,
and parks can be cut because they are run by King County policy which is not legally binding (i.e., they are
not legally required services).
e. A question comes to mind: Is this proposed action by King County a convenient distraction,
and in the end a cover-up from having to layout the extent of the fiscal irresponsibility? And, will the
cities be left holding the bag as well as the citizens of the unincorporated areas?
f. King County, the City of Renton, and the developers are giving the appearance that they are
engaged in coercion to strip property owners of their rights under the law when they abuse the law through
either creating or agreeing to regulatory and policy "run-arounds", and at the same time cut services. A
case in point is the letter from the City of Renton PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works Department under Gregg
Zimmerman, P.E., Administrator, dated June 15,2001, and sigued by David M. Christensen, Wastewater
Utility Supervisor (attached). Qnote "In order to receive sewer service from the City the plat must also be
developed as detached single family AND THE PROPERY OWNER (S) WILL BE REQUIRED TO
EXECUTE A COVENANT TO ANNEX FORM." What Is tbis if not coercion? Since when can
anyone tell anyone else how to vote? And since when has tbe right to vote on this issue been stripped
from the property owners?
By in large those of you who hold the public trust and are confounded with a nightmare of regulations are
decent honest people. You are setting the policy for a huge number of people in East King County.
Before you and your staff make your decision, please read the conclusions of the King County Deputy
Hearing Examiner James O'Conner when he handed down his decision denying the developers request for
rezoning for the Evendell development. His reasons are valid and should be considered when you, as City
Government, make your choice among proposed Scenarios 1 through 4. As citizens we count on your
integrity to make decisions that are fair, ethical, and the best case scenario for the existing residents.
/:;;o~~ory~,ur?J //::7::.'/ ;
/f/{/~~~~
.J Michael Rae Cooke
Program Analyst
13125158"' Ave. SE.
Renton, W A 98059
5 Attachments referred to this letter
2 Attachments of previous letters
James O'Conner, Deputy Hearing Examiner
Greg Kip, Director ofDDES and staff
City of Renton
EDNSP
1055 S Grady Way
Renton WA 98055
COOKE MICHAEL RAE
13125 158TH AV NE
RENTON WA 98059
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
PRESORTED
FIRST CLASS MAIL
U.S. POSTAGE PAID
RENTON,WA
PERMIT NO. 20
A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton,
The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals.
PROJECT NUMBER/NAME:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
PROJECT LOCATION:
PUBLIC APPROVALS:
APPLICANTIPROJECT
CONTACT PERSON:
LUA.o1·168, CPA, PREZONE, ECF; East Renton Plateau CPA#2003·M.o4
City sponsored Comprehensive Plan map amendment from Residential Single
Family to Residential Rural, zoning code text amendments allowing bonus
density between 4 units per net acre up to a maximum of 8 units per net acre for
quality designed subdivisions, and, prezoning to adopt future zoning designations
within the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area.
Renton Potential Annexation Area, east of City limits, north of Cedar River to
edge of Urban Growih Area boundary.
Environmental Review, Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments
City of Renton, EDNSP Dept./Don Erickson, Project Manager
Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Don Erickson, Project Manager, Strategic Planning
Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. by 5:00 PM on August 25th, 2003. If you have questions about
this proposal. or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail. contact Don Erickson at
(425)430·6581. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of
any decision on this project.
PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION
DATE OF APPLICATION: December 15. 2002
NOnCE OF COMPLETE APPLICATlbN: March 15, 2003
DATE OF NonCE OF APPLICATION: August 8, 2003
SEE ATIACHED MAP OF AREA AFFECTED
~ ................................................................................................................................ ~
If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form
and retum to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055.
File No.lName: LUA·Ol·168. CPA, Prezone, ECF/East Renton Plateau CPA #2003·M·04
NAME: j/J1 {( H AX. !" r01t CC}t:) {< [
ADDRESS: --L/ ...... :><....L/-"~'-:,'f-:r: .............. /'--"',fT'-"-_i41--il.M""""-'· ~. =j-'~=-___________ _
TELEPHONE NO.: -4,~'-==.:..'6;v,..l..."'-"--'-I7""""'Uvt...=<.-'--_'(.c...u,y_v~.j'--·---cr.....k.-_
Revised 08/13/01
CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT
Residential Rural
Objective LU-I: Preserve open space and natural resources and protect environmentally sensitive areas by
limiting residential development in critical areas, areas identified as part of a city-wide or regional open space
network, or agriculturaI lands within the City.
Policy LU-26. Maximum development densities
should range from 1 home per 10 acres to 5 homes
per acre in Residential Rural except in areas with
significant environmental constraints including but
not limited to: steep slopes, erosion hazard, flood-
plains, and wetlands where density shall not exceed
1 home per acre.
Policy LU-27. Rural activities, including
agriculture and animal husbandry, should be allowed
except where such uses would have negative
environmental impacts which can not be mitigated.
Policy LU-ZS. To provide for more efficient
development patterns and maximum preservation of
open space, residential development may be
clustered in Residential Rural Designations.
Policy LU-29. Deeds of lots adjacent to rural
residential areas should carry a notice reading "The
Residential Single Family
adjacent lot may be expected to have impacts
associated with ruraI lifestyles. These uses are
expected to continue and are given priority status
over more intensive urban uses on adjacent lots."
Policy LU-30. Minimire impacts of animal and
crop raising on adjacent residential uses and critical
areas such as wetlands, streams, and rivers.
Policy LU-31. Control scale and density of
accessory buildings and barns to maintain
compatibility with other residential uses.
Policy LU-32. Residential Rural areas may be
incorporated into community separators.
Policy LU-33. Undeveloped portions of Residential
Rural areas may be considered as part of the private
open space network.
Objective LU-J: Protect and enhance the Residential Single Family areas, encourage re-investment and
rehabilitation resulting in quality neighborhoods, improve opportunities for better public transportation, and
make more efficient use of urban services and infrastructure.
Policy LU-34. Net development densities should
fall within a range of 5 to 8 dwelling units per acre
in Residential Single Family neighborhoods.
Policy LU-3S. A minimum lot sire of 4,500 square
feet should be allowed in single family residential
neighborhoods except when flexible development
standards are used for project review.
Policy LU-36. Allow development at 9.7 dwelling
units per acre on infill parcels of one acre or less as
an incentive to encourage single family small lot
development on 4,500 sq. ft. lots.
Policy LU-37. Maximum height of structures
should generally not exceed 2 stories in single
family residential neighborhoods.
Policy LU-38. Development standards for single
family neighborhoods (e.g. lot size, lot width,
building height, setbacks, lot coverage) should
encourage quality development in neighborhoods.
Policy LU-39. Development standards for single
family neighborhoods should address transportation
and pedestrian connections between neighborhoods
and compatible boundaries between neighborhoods.
Policy LU-40. New plats developed at higher
densities within existing neighborhoods should be
designed to incorporate street locations, lot
configurations, and building envelopes which
address privacy and quality of life for existing
residents.
Revised 08l131lH
CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT
Policy LU-40.1. New plats proposed at higher
densities than adjacent neighborhood developments
may be modified within the allowed density range
to reduce conflicts between old and new
development patterns. However, strict adherence to
older standards is not required.
Policy LU-40.2. Site features such lIS distinctive .
stands of trees and natural slopes should be retained .
to enhance neighborhood character and preserve
property values where possible. Retention of
uuique site features should be balanced with the
objective of investing in neighborhoods within the
0vera11 context of the Vision Statement of this
Comprehensive Plan.
•
JIlT,//-( H WI &vIT :1 ~ ~
LOl1Y401 and LOlPO016
Evendell
O. ANALysIS I CONCLUSIONS:
SEPA
1. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C, the responsible
official of the Land Use Services Division (LUSD) issued a threshold determination -
~ mitigated determination of non-significanCe (MDNS) for the proposed request on
, December 23,2002. This determination was based on the review of the environmental
I ) .• n, A ;-. .:eY checklist and other pertinent documents, resulting in the conclusion that with
j'l0-''''''''.,,\,p \.tt).J'-" • plementationofmitigation, the proposal would not cause probable significant adverse
~ ~ ts on the environment. .
~'
2. The proposal is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy U-114. The proposed rezone
, would allow the planned density of 5.6 dwellings per acre on site. This density is ~t ~ ~ ~ropriate for the site, the ultimate build out of the IieighboIhood at R-4 density or higher
~~c :;/ has not occurred and many "infilling" opportunities exist within the neighboIhood.
fv \A. S The rezone &.subdivision will be compatible ~th the character and scale of the other
development per Policy U-119. It is recognized that most surrounding properties have not
. \,0' developed to their highest potential use and density. Nearby properties until recently did
~. not have all urban services available (such as sewer) ~ therefore. these properties have
~ l developed at only lower densities (generally 112 acre lots and greater). CJo/ ~v~' ~ \V 0tComprehensive Plan Policy U-119 requires that urban area density increases shall not be
. ' approved through the rezone process unless ''the development will be compatible with the
~ character and scale ,?fthe surrounding neighboIhood". The County Council reclassified . \\ 0... the neighboIhood area surroun . .. .. as a
~ LA. necessary premise that an density residential development at the R-4 classificatlo .
-lrelileclammmllllati1:1le:'. With respect to further increasing densities to R-6, no
r (.' incompatibility issues exist directly north, east and south of the east half of the lat as .
future urbl!1l densities are currentl in uth of the west hal4 existing
e opment at ower densities presents some potential for conflict This
conflict is mitigated, however, by the decision to retain the existing house on a large
4.
26,OOO-sq. ft. parcel, the location of the drainage/recreation tract and the street design,
which will provide neighborhood circulation opportunities between Evendell and parcels
west.
Potential adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive areas on site and environmental
constraints in the vicinity will be adequately mitigated through the King County Code and
SEPA·
~ Per Policy U-120, King County has notified the Ci of Renton and other local agencies of B the rezone request and plat. The Ci urs that the density propo . nsist .
:) _ . . the Ci of for this Potential Annexation Area. e density . o es not exceed six dwellings per ac •
The City did express concem with the road improvement standards to be used. At this time
interloca1 agreement has not been signed between the two jurisdictions by which King
County would altemativeiy recognize City of Renton standards for street improvements.
Comprehensive Plan Policy U-121 supports "increases in urban residential density through a
rezone ... when the proposal will help resolve traffic, sewer, water, parks or open space
deficiencies in the immediate neighborhood". When new neighboIhood infrastructure is
made feasible by the additional density requested within a rezone, the ~tia1 infrastructure . . \.Y /,!>enefits to be derived from the density jncrease are to f2C viCWC(! as a s rting ranoDlile [or
~~ ~ the rezone reques~~ In the instant situation, the Evendell applieation will provide J1 •
~. 13 ~~
~ ~~~\ . ~
, ,"
May 19, 2003
Clerk of the Council
RoomWI025
King County Courthouse
5163«1 Avenue
Seattle, W A 98104
Dear Council Member:
I am submitting this letter In reference to :
Rezone from R4 to R6 or greater for Proposed Plat of Evendell File No's: LOIPOOl6 and
LO I TY 40 I. (plan I for II and Y; acres and plan 2 for 15 acres)
This rezone has been denied by Mr. James O'Conner, Deputy Hearing Examiner, King County Hearing
Examiners Office, 850 Union Bank of Cal ifomi a Bldg., 900 4th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98164, and is now
being appealed by the developers.
I am In full agreement with the denial as presented by Mr. James O'Conner. I have previously
submitted letters and comment to King County DDES, Land Services Division (Current Planning Section)
and the King County Surface and Water and Land Management (KCSWLM) and testified at the bearing.
As a Party of Record I request to be allowed to present oral arguments at this appeal hearing.
Unfortonately for current residents it appears we fall out side of any environmental protection on our side
of the Urban Growth Boundary. and reside in a "no-mans" land with confusion among jurisdictions about
who has authority within it.
I have grave concerns about the Piggyback ReZone applications being filed should the developers of
the Proposed Plat of Evendell File No's: LOIPOOl6 and LOITY401 be granted their original or somewhat
modified request. The parcel to the east of Evendell, across 160th Avenue SE. has filed for Zone
Reclassification from R-4 to R-6 as well. This is the Liberty Grove Contiguous Plat & Rezone (L03P0005
and L03TY401). Already the Hamilton Place Proposed Plat, File No: L02POll, has been granted.
This means an Increase of approximately 300 homes within one-half mile of my home in an area
where the roads, safety evacuation routes, drainage, and wildlife are already strained and will now
be severely affected and compromised.
Issues I have addressed previously include:
a. Density at R-4 and the allowed transfer of Density Credits. It is of grave concern to see that
the law setting the zoning at R-4 can be worked around by the transfer of Density Credits, so that in effect
an R-4 zoning instead of allowing 4 houses to an acre can be stretched to allow 6 houses to an acre while
still maintaining its R-4 zoning rating. That is what is happening with the Hamilton Place Proposed Plat.
Frankly, tbis makes a mockery of saying that it is R-4 zoning. (See page 5, paragraph 3 under "g." of the
DDES Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner, March 6, 2003, fur the Evendell Proposed Plat)
b. Other adlustments included in the DDES Prelinrinary Report to the Hearing Examiner
March 6, 2003, for the Evendell Proposed Plat Evendell are.
(I) Lot line adlustments to revise the boundary: On pages 5, paragraph 8 and 9 under g of
the DDES.
(2) Boundary Lipe Adjustment (BLA): On page 16 at paragraph 4, paragraph 2.
(3) Density TransCer and Density Incentive Programs: Page 9 last paragraph at the bottom.
c. The law is dear and is not based on subjective flnding. Calculation mistakes aDd
conflicting statements are throughout the Evendeil application: Some examples are
(I) References in the original application were unclear or incorrect. Some examples.
(a) On page I, paragraph two cites a 46 lot plat based on existing R-4 zoning on the east
11.46 acres. However, the description below at "Acreage RezonelPlat" lists 13 acres with a density of 5.6
dwellings per acre with 7.4 dwellings per net acre. Which is it?
(b) On attachment 4 page I is shown R-6 zoning and 4-12 units per acre; on attachment
4, page 2, is shown a 12.43 acre site with 6 houses per acre, for'74.58 dwelling units, and residential
subdivision and townhouses developed at a density of 8 units or less per acre, number of proposed units 70;
on attachment 4, page 3, 48.17 minimum dwelling units are required; on attachment 4, page 4, there is a
maximum density of 12.43 acres. Which is it? for this proposa\.
(c) The original application stated the application was in the Renton School District. It is
served by the Issaquah School District.
(d) This is the Four Creeks Unincorporated area, bounded by Briarwood, Coalfield, Lake
Kathleen, May Valley, and 160 Ave. SE. It was referred to as Community Plan "Newcastle."
(2) Subjective language is used throughout. Examples:
(a) page 14, paragraph 3 "DOES and DOT staff do not anticipate ... "
(b) page 15, paragraph 3, line 6 "potential deficient condition."
(c) page 3, at 15 Plat, paragraph 3. "Minorrevisions to the plat which do not result in
substantial changes may be approved at the discretion of the DOES."
(3) Throughout the proposal are a lot of "should's", "mosts" and "expectations" in the
language. These are not binding, are subjective conclusions of opinion, and carry no forroaI weight.
I request that ail calculations he put out in a Cactual tahle.
I Curther request that the manual calculation requirements of the King County Surface Water
Control Manual oC 1998, be shown hy a hydrologist or flow engineer to have heen accurately applied
hy the Evendeil developer and the DOES prior to this appeal by the developer heing granted.
d. SEP A standards must he adhered to by law. The calculations are extremely important
hecause of inaccuracies in the presentation oC tbe developer and DOES testimonies during the
Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner, March 6, 2003, on tbe proposed rezone and proposed
plat oC Evendell. Tbe cumulative Impact of all tbe plats heing flied In such a small area will directly
affect existing flooding and surface water management.
(1) DDES made a determination of "insignificant environmental impact." in ligbt of the
testimony from many current residents as to flOOding on their land," we believe DDES needs to sbow in a
more concrete manner how they addressed the SEP A standards.
(2) I appeal that the thresbold of determination he applIed concerning I!ow SEPA is
suppose to work so that the county, the DOES, and tbe developers have ensured that the hest
conditions prevail and that mitigations and land density credits will not cause the plat
development(s) to Call helow tbe SEPA standards.
2
./
/.
/
.1 it
(3) At page 4, F. N atoral Environment we note that water flow is significant when there is a
20 foot drop. In addition:
(a) The soil survey reference shown in the application was made 30 years ago. Substantial
changes in tree growth, etc. bave occurred. It is a known fact that trees absorb many thousands of gallons
of water. If these are removed where is the water going to go in an area that already floods.
(b) They list 7,000 square feet of wetland. That is a substantial flooding area. (See
paragraphs P3, paragraph 3, paragraph 4, 5, and 6.
(4) At page 6, Drainage:
(a) Until storm pond statistics from the KCSWLM Offices and the Cedar River Basin
Steward are obtained for comparison on how well the storm ponds (detention as they are called in the
application) actoa1ly function in this area and surrounding areas oflike land during the wet season and over
time, and are presented for public access. the reports by DOES and the Haozous Engineering, Inc., are
subject to subjective misinterpretations and conjecture.
(b) We have heard about the sewers but not about the storm drains. On page I '6 at 7.c.
there is no approved permanent storm drain outlet # yet on file with DOES and/or the King County
Department of Transportation.
(c) On Attachment 9, page 2 of3, at the top "4." "As a result, controlled outflows from
the western area will be released FARTHER UPSTREAM IN THE DITCH SYSTEM OF I 56TH AYE.
SE."
(I) DOES states in the report that these culverts are undersized.
(2) I can testify as a resident of 3(lyears the building on the hill bas affected the
drainage such that it now drains onto my property to the East from those culverts during heavy storm
conditions and floods my flat areas with a minimum of 4 inches of water across the entire surface. I also
have flooding under my house for the last 3 years which I have never had in the 20 years prior.
(3) When my neighbors and I cannot take showers in the summer months because of
low water pressure, how is the fire protection at page 8, 1.3 going to be maintained?
(d) There are three residential ponds within 800 ft of my property, and at the base of the
bill at Coalfield there is a huge pond the size of a small lake.
e. Traffic and personal safety:
(I) The City of Renton, who anticipates annexing us is not happy abont the single egress shown
in the Evendell Plat and neither are we. How will 70 homeowners get out at the sarne time firefighters and
or rescue crews are trying to get in. .
(2) In addition, 156th Ave. SE. is a primary evacuation route, is not geared to handle 300 more
residential homes, and at its current capacity the safety of both the current and new residents will be
severely compromised by the addition of 300 new homes in such a small area.
(2) No provision has been made for sidewalks outside the developments from which DOES
states "700 vehicle trips a day will be generated." Not only is this a huge safety issue for all ofus who
enjoy evening walks, but for our children crossing to school bus stops.
f. Legalities already in place:
3
· .
(\) U-UO states "King County shall not approve proposed zoning changes to Increase
density within the urban area unless: A. the development will be compatible with the character and
scale of the surrounding neighborhood." Most of the comparisons used by the developer for the
surrounding neighborhood are OUTSIDE the boundaries they themselves have identified as our
neighborhood. .
(2) Written Into the homeowners agreement for the new homeowners signature is the
agreement that if you purchase one of these houses. you agree not to fight annexation when It comes
to a vote. This is an abridgement of constitutional rights and the guarantee of future freedom of
choice.
(3) The DDES and the developer identify the neighborhood themselves as the immediate area
bounded by I 60th Ave. SE., SE 128th ,SE 138tb, and I 56th Ave. SE., in unincorporated King County. (See
page 9.a.b.c.e., and on page 11.) Yet throughout they use Renton City covenants and zonings that do not
apply to Unincorporated King County. R-4 in the City of Renton Is not the same as R-4 in
unincorporated King County.
In conclusion: This is a landmark case for this area of King County. I quote page 14, the last paragraph of
the original DDES Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner, March 6,2003, for the Evendell Proposed
Plat: "The sewer and road improvements for this rezonelplat are necessary to make this first stage of
urban conversion successful, and will provide an infrastructure foundation for the further
developmeut of other properties consistent with the R-4 designation."
We are not against progress. We know development is coming. But say that progress must be in
accordance with the existing SEPA laws, the KCSWCM of 1998, and U-120.
As an access professional I know that you have a myriad of sometimes confusing and overlapping
regulations to deal with in making your decisions. As the existing community, and in the protection of the
new neighbors we have yet to meet, we look to your expertise from different disciplines to provide careful
analysis and consideration as you make your official determinations on the appeal filed by the developer(s).
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Michael Rae Cooke
Program Analyst and FOIA Officer by profession
13125 I 58 th Ave. SE.
Renton, Washington
Message phone (425) 413 8623
4
"
-fie"
J_ Tanner, Mayo,
June 15, 2oin,
'" .', Dear Mr. ROnimij;;';,
......
" .. .... : .... '
'.'" ,"'.': ... I· ....
::'
~.... ..
CITY d'RENTON
PlanningIBuildinglPublic W9l'ks Department
Gre&i ZllDmerma. P.E.; Admilliltntol'
"'.'\.::' "
" :". ".~ ' •• 1,
)Am~OHME:N:"t::' ::',~i{: ;.:;.,'
,','
"
' .. ":' ;.,', \
·>1\\"''': < ". i'ffpj~,t"' .. ~,~ ~'''::''l r~~€§E'
~ ;--""": v. .!..'j.. "
" :.~.;." <>:'~~."'."" ~1' ~ ,,' ';
.: l.",~., .:.~ ~...... ~.'~" .;~ -1 .
',,' .. \\.v •. ··~.:...\;...>·""""' .. "'""':" , .' .' ~ . IJJ',U'~'
....... "
....... :'"
',' ..........
',',' ..
·L'; .. ' " , ,
3/8/02
Mr. James O'Cormer
Deputy Hearing Examiner
King County Hearing Examiners Office
850 Union Bank of California Bldg,
900 4th Avenue
Seattle, W A 98164
Dear Examiner OIConner:
RE: Rezone from R4 to R6 or greater for Proposed Plat of Evendell File No's: LOlTY401 and LOIP0016
(plan 1 for 11 and 112 acres and plan 2 for 15 acres),
Also RE:
Also in preparation for two more hearings scheduled on 2 other plots plarmed for development. I have
been unable to get a copy of the hearings from DDES for them so I do not have the File No's, but they are:
o Rezone ofR4 to R6 or greater for approximately 4 and 112 acres bounded by 158th Ave, SE, SE 136th
134th and 160thSE,
o Rezone ofR4 to R6 or greater for an additinnal2 and 112 acres bounded by 158th Ave, SE, SE, 132nd
and 134th and 160th Ave. SE, (in a reverse L shape),
o Rezone: There is a fifth area being eyed within the same boundaries. See the King County proposed
development maps submitted by land developer companies,
General Conunents:
1, First let me say thank you for coming out of retirement to hear this case. It is a landmark case for
our area, since outside developers and land companies are vying to develop 5 substantial acreage plots, 3
within 1,600 feet afmy home, and 2 within 200 and 400 feet of my home. (See the maps presented by
Gwendolyn High and Marsha.) How do we know it's a landmark case: Page 14, last paragraph, of the
report says "The sewer and road improvements for this rezone/plat are necessary to make this first
stage of urban conversion successful\ and will provide an infrastructure foundation for the further
development of other properties consistent with the R-4 designation."
P.S. Thank you for the interception and questlOning you did from time to time in difficult areas.
2, Secondly, let me say thank you for extending the hearing so that the current family residential
land owners could be heard adequately. It is my hope that in the future there will be enough time
allowed for the resident citizens land owners to cross examine the developers and DDES as they have been
allowed to do to us.
3. Ifthe R6 or greater zoning for these two plots is placed in the middle of our R4 zoning, the impact
of this will open the way for the other 3 acreage plots to be re-zoned as R6 or above which would have
substantial adverse effects. The safety of the current residents and the environment of this area, which
contains Class II Wetlands, cannot support such a great number of homes in such a confmed area,
a, This would conservatively add 132 homes on approximately 22 acres, (Evendell File plat at R-6
zoning would be Evende1l90 homes all both plots, plus 27 and 15 on the other proposed developments).
b. In comparison, at R-4 the density would be 72 homes total as follows: the Evendell plot at 44 on
one plot, plus 18 and 10 for the other two proposed plots.
c, Again this does not even include the 5th plot development which is plarmed,
'... . .'
*4. OF GRAVE CONCERN TO ALL THE RESIDENT FAMILY PROPERTY OWNERS IS THE
UNMISTAKABLE SUBVERSIVE WAY IN WHICH LANGUAGE AND ACTIONS WORK
AROUND THE EXISTING LAW BY GIVING "MODIFICATIONS.
2
EXAMPLES ARE: THE TRANSFER OF DENSITY CREDITS (see page 5, paragraph 3 under "g"),
AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS TO REVISE THE BOUNDARY (see page 5, paragraph 8 and 9
under "g", and again as "BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT (BLA) on page 16 at 4 paragraph 2),
and "DENSITY TRANSFER" OR "DENSITY INCENTIVE PROGRAMS" (see page 9 last
paragraph from the bottom), WITH LANGUAGE SUCH AS "DDES AND DOT STAFF DO NOT
ANTICIPATE ... " (page 14, paragraph 3), "POTENTIAL DEFICIENT CONDITION" (page 15 p.
3. line 6), "MINOR REVISIONS TO THE PLAT WHICH DO NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL
CHANGES MAY BE APPROVED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE DDES." (Page 3, at 15 Plat,
paragraph 3).
In other words the statutes, zones, and laws are "grayll rather than "black and white". Together
with a passing-of-the-buck to the other jurisdiction and back again, our experience as resident family
land owners is that we are factually being ping-ponged back and forth between the city who hopes to
annex us and provides partial services under the new King County Charter, and the County who
provides the rest of the services, so as to make the R-4 zoning almost null and void and open to
anything developers, the city, and the county would like to do. That is painfully obvious in this
DDES Preliminary Report.
5. There are a lot of "should 1s", "mosts" and "expectations" in the language. These are not binding
and are subjective conclusions of opinionl which carry no formal weight and may never come to
fruition. They should not be admitted as fact l in favor of, nor influence a decision to rezone.
These types of irregularities in the DDES PrelIminary Report to the Hearing Examiner, March 6, 2003,
Rezone & Proposed Plat of Evendell, File No's: LOlTY401 and LOIPOOl6 make the resident land owners
suspect that important issues the report addresses are inaccurate and subject to conjecture.
6. Regarding the hearing on March 6, 2003, I was not able to get a copy of the Preliminary Report to
the Hearing Examiner, March 6, 2003, at thc DDES Hearing Room in Renton, until the evening of the
day before and thus my earlier comments did not include a response to the report used during the hearing
on March 6, 2003.
• Question: I have previously requested to be on the DDES mailing list in April 2002 when I submitted
the "Resident Survey Response to Proposed Rezone and Preliminary Plat of Evendell, LO 1 POO 16 and
LOITY401" and again at this hearing. Karen Scharer, DDES assigned planner, to whom I made this
request again in writing during the hearing said it should not go to her but to the clerk who was taking
in letters for THIS case. I want to be included on all cases within 2 miles of my home. Can you tell
me how to ensure this?
7. Conduct of the hearing: Even though you cautioned all to speak up, the microphones, nQt being both
recording and speaking did not enable us to hear the DDES staff, who most of the time had their backs
either fully turned to us or partially turned when testifying. Therefore, it was very difficult for many of us
to follow and I heard public frustration, even anger, about this over and over. For the benefit of all this
should be corrected.
8. Please review the following comments made subsequent to the hearing, which I was not able to
express to DDES or the developer and his representatives due to the time and formalities imposed.
The comment. are made in respon.e to the text of the Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner,
March 6, 2003-Public Hearing at 9:30 a.m., at 900 Oaksdale Avenue SW, Renton, 'WA. (The species
are contained in the attachment to my initial submittal presented at the DDES hearing on the 6th of
March.)
3
a. PAGE ONE: ZONING AND PROPERTY RIGHTS: paragraph two cites a 46 lot plat based on
the existing R-4 zoning on the east 11.46 acres. However, the description below at "Acreage RezonefPlat"
lists 13 acres with a density of 5.6 dwellings per acre with 7.4 dwellings per net acre.
These statistics seem to stretch 4 single family dwellings to an acre to 7 an acre and are incongruous.
The numbers have been bandied about throughout. Further in to the document 15 acres is the amount
listed. On attachment 4 page one is shown R-6 zoning and 4-12 units per acre; on attachment 4, page 2 is
shown a 12.43 acre site with 6 houses per acre, for 74.58 dwelling units, and residential subdivision and
townhouses developed at a density of8 units or less per acre, number of proposed units 70; on attachment
4, page 3,48.17 minimum dwelling units are required; on attachment 4, page 4, is a maximum density of
12.43 acres.
ACTION: I CALL THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION AND I WOULD LIKE AN EXPLANATION OF
SO MANY VARIANCES. It is very confusing and opens the way for misinterpretation.
On page 13 of the report at Rezone, 2. Paragraph one states 5.6 dwellings are appropriate per acre. Page
13 determines that the properties now owned by resident families "have not developed to their highest
potential use and density". JUST WHO IS MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT BY LIVING ON
MY ONE ACRE, OR ON FIVE ACRES, WE ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE HIGHEST
POTENTIAL USE AND DENSITY AS OTHERS who are not the property owners SEE IT. WE
EACH OWN THESE PIECES OF LAND BY LAW. NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL ANY
OTHER OWNER OR ME WHAT THE BEST USE OF THAT LANDIS NOR TO SETUP
ORDNANCES IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS AS PROPERTY
OWNERS.
b. On page one and in appendix 8, the Renton School District is listed. It is the Issaquah School
District. Yes I see where the Issaquah .transportation officer's card business card appears on appendix 8~
but page one remains unchanged, and Karen Scharer, DDES, made an administrative error when she said
that the East side of 158th Ave. S.E. goes to Issaquah and the West side to Renton. In fact, both go the
Issaquah.
ACTION: Please ensure the testimony data is corrected.
c. Page 2. "Community Plan: Newcastle". This is not the Newcastle community, which ends at the
May Valley Road substantially north of here. It is the Four Creeks Unincorporated area, bounded by
Briarwood, Coalfield, and Lake Kathleen, with May Valley on the North and East Ilanks.
d. Page 2, C 1.
• Question: What pipeline are we talking about? We are unaware of any existing or planned.
e. Page 2, D. Threshold Determination of Environmental Significance: All of the submittals to
DDES by a large number of the current residents in April 2002 requested an environmental impact study
(EIS) be done. As residents we find the mitigated determination of non-significance (MDNS) rather
surprising in that we presented evidence to the contrary on animal, reptile (newts, snakes, lizards), bug,
insect, flora, and fauna, as well as surface water Class II Wetlands, the presence of substantial ponds in the
area (two private on 158 th Ave SE, and a large one the size ofa small lake on 164th Ave. SE), and other
drainage issues.
ACTION: We request again that an EIS be required by the Cedar Basin Steward and other
appropriate officials from the King County Surface Water and Land Management offices, of the
Department of Natural and Land Resources, Killg Street Station, 201 South Jackson Street, Suite
700, Seattle, WA 98104, prior to rezoning. An EIS was also requested on page 5 of the resident survey
submitted by Gwendolyn High in April or so of 2002 regarding species with sensitive classifications. I
attached this April 2002 request to my initial letter presented at the DDES hearing on March 6, 2003.
f. Page 2, D, MDNS: Notification was not received by the current residents on the mailing list that I
contacted, of the 21 days to appeal the MDNS.
g. Page 2, D. The statement is made in the MDNS "other sources of substantive authority may
exist but are not expressly listed."
• Question: If they have substantive authority, why aren't they listed.
h. Page 3, E, Agencies Contacted:
4
• Question: Why were four State agencies contacted, but not other King County Agencies. At the very
least King County Surface Water and Land Management of the Department of Natural Resources
(address listed at e.), and the appropriate King County offices for Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, and
Transportation should have been contacted, apart from DDES for analysis input.
•
ACTION: Please require that the other King County offices are coordinated with and included in
the analysis requirements for rezoning and not just DDES.
i. Page 4, F. Natural Environment: We ask you to consider in your determination:
(I) A 20-foot difference in height IS substantial.
(2) The soil survey was made 30 years ago. Substantial changes in tree growth, etc. have occurred.
(3) 200 square feet of wetland to be filled means permanent loss. My Iymnologist Civil Engineer
daughter who has lived here over 30 years and worked for King County as a lake manager for six, says that
the wetland will never recover.
(4) Almost 7,000 (6,989) Square Feet of wetland impact is substantial.
(5) Paragraphs P3, Par 3, paragraph 4, 5, and 6.
ACTION: The analysis items at page 4, F. should be done by the King County Surface Water and
Land Management office of the Department of Natural Resources, listed ear1ier at u e."
(6) Paragraph 6. Wildlife: The flat statement "there was no specific information provided in the
citizen's documentation to indicate the presence of nesting sites on the proposal property for any protected
species" is inaccurate. Submittals were made as required, in time for the deadline.
j. Page 5, G. Neighborhood Characteristics:
(l) Paragraph 1. As stated earlier this is the Four Creeks Area, not the Renton Highlands, which is a
distinct community within the City of Renton and has been for 60 years.
(2) Paragraph 2 and paragraph 6 refer to a rezone within the Renton City Limits.
ACTION: Please investigate and note that and R-5, R-6 or R-8 zone within the Renton City Limits is
not the same as an R-5, R-6 or R-8 zone outside the Renton City Limits.
(3) Paragraph 2. The sewers for Highland Estates are over a mile away.
(4) Paragraph 4. Please spell out what .9 d.u. per acre means.
(5) Paragraph 5. Time for submittal of the applications for three other plats IS partially !mown. My
neighbor just received notice of a hearing on March 18, 2003, for one of them, prior to the March 6, 2003,
DDES hearing ..
(6) Paragaph H. 1.
QUESTION: If it is R-4 than how can density be accepted at 5.6 d.u.'s? until the re-zoning is
approved?
(7) Paragraph H. 2. The 46-lot plat is more than 4 single family dwellings to II acres. No accuracy
here.
k. Pages 5 and 6 regarding the "public loop". One access entrance into the entire development at 70
pIns homes traps homeowners and is not safe should a major disaster created by high winds or fire occur
and all be trying to exit at the same time and find emergency vehicles or simply mass exodus blocks the
way.
I. Page 6. Drainage: Drainage is referred to in several pla«s throughout the document, the
largest sections being on page 3, page 18, page 20, and 21 of the DDES report.
There are confusions and inequities which are important issues prior to the type of permit being
granted. During presentations on March 6, 2003, at the public hearing there were many regarding
sewers and drainage.
5
Mr. Romano's and the DDES presentations were confusing and alluded that sewers and stonn ponds would
alleviate the ground water problems in the area, while protecting the Wetlands and provide recreational
space.
ACTION: We request that DDES present Gwendolyn High, our chosen representative, with reports
from King County Surface Water and Land Management, and from the Cedar River Basin Steward
regarding the following issues:
Note: My daughter is a professionallymnologist by trade and a civil engineer. She lived at 13125 158th
Ave. SE. for over 30 years. For 6 years, ending in June 2001, when she married and left the immediate
area, she worked for King County Surface Water and Land Management (KCSWLM). She was a specialist
and lake manager for numerous lakes and streams in King County. She is especially concerned about the
sewer, stonn pond, and stonn drainage systems, and that KCSWLM be included as authorities with
substantive shareholder rights in this rezone.
a. Stonn Ponds:
(1) Until storm pond statistics from the King County Surface Water and Land
Management offices and the Cedar River Basin Steward are obtained for a comparison on how well
the storm ponds (detention as they are called in this document) actually function in this area and
surrounding areas of like land during the wet season and over time. and .are presented for public
access, the reports by DDES and the Haozous Engineering, Inc., are subject to subjective
misinterpretation and conjecture.
(2) As landowners owners we fcel we are subject to being easily misled without accurate
studies and facts from these other authoritative and substantial shareholders analyses being required and
incorporated into the DDES findings. .
b. Sewers and Stonn Drains:
The issues of sewers and ground water handling as presented were confusing.
Homeowners were led to believe by the language used by both DDES and the developer and his
representatives that sewer installation would take care of part of the surface water issues. There was barely
any mention of stonn drains in the hearing presentation itself, if they were mentioned at all.
In fact this is still a significant issue which needs to be clarified and resolved before ANY
approval is giving to the developers who seek to expand the zoning beyond R4.
(1) Sewers are specifically designed so that storm drain surface water cannot penetrate them.
This is because penetration from storm drain surface water will compromise the entire sewer system and
leads to overflow and collapse
(2) On page 3 at A. East Drainage Basin, you do not mention who hired Haozous
Engineering to do the level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis by Haozous Engineering. There is no
provision for upstream, which evacuation of downstream will surely impact. (In fact on attachment
9 this is alluded to, page 2 of 3, at the top of the page .t "4."
... , .
6
What King County Surface Water and Land Management authorities has DOES submitted this
Analysis to. If Haozous Engineering was hired by the developer, then the county has a responsibility
to ensure through County authorities that the analysis is accurate and unbiased when it affects
county residents.
(3) 1,700 ft downstream is an insignificant area when talking about the affect or non-
affect on the larger area of this neighborhood which such installations will have. Therefore, using it
as a justification for applying this to the greater neighborhood, is in question.
(4) On page 3 at B. West Drainage Basin DDES quoted KCSW!!M Core requirement 2. How
old is the manual. Has it been affected by any modifications or changes? Where is a current and
comparative study from the KCSW and LM? Furthermore DDES did not identify the streets as they did on
page 3 at A. East Drainage Basin.
(5) Note on page 16 7.c. that there is no approved permanent storm drain outlet # yet on file
with DDES andlor the King County Department of Transportation. And, I still wonder at "e" how you can
use a drainage tract for required recreation space.
(6) On Attachment 9, page 2 of 3, at the top "4." "As a result, controlled outflows from the
western area will be released FARTHER UPSTREAM IN THE DITCH SYSTEM OF IS6TH AVE.
SE." In the analysis, DDES states that the culverts are undersized. It is my understanding that the Cedar
River Basin Steward has a legitimate concern about this fall out.
m. Page 6. I. 2: Transport Plans: "Most trips will be via 156th Ave. SE." That is pure conjecture.
You cannot predict what drivers will do. We get heavy overflow from I 60th across 132nd and up 158th,
now and opening 136th with one egress to the development is sure to increase traffic up 158th
substantially.
At 1.3. The report states "700 vehicle trips a day will be generated" leaving the single egress under
the developer's plan for R-6 zoning. Even at zoning for R-4, those residents living on IS8th believe
these cars will go in a straight line up IS8th.
n. Page 7, 4. Adequacy of Arterial Roads: Relies heavily on modifying traffic standards by allowing
a payoff Mitigation Payment System. Fact: As residents who will suffer over the six years mentioned, we
find this most curious and again a way of taking an existing ordnance and moving it into the gray
area rather than black and white to get around or stall the requirement, which gives a break to the
developer and not the existing residents.
o. Page 7, Public Services J. 1. Does not apply as stated since it refers to the Renton School
District and School Board and should be from the Issaquah School Board and District.
ACTION: Please see that this is corrected.
p. Page 7, 2., and page 19 at items 18. and 19. Parks and Recreation Space.
(I) We understand the county is selling the one parcel that would have benefited all of the
immediate neighborhood (adjacent to 160Ih).
(2) The county is not in a position to guarantee parks for us since they are closing so many due to
funding.
(3) Later in the DDES document it states that the homeowners will be responsible for upkeep of the
"park" in the Evendell plots. The neighborhood at large will not be comfortable going to a park inside the
Evendell development, and with 70 house on II acres, plus a pump station, and a storm pond, the park
will be insufficient to serve the entire neighborhood surrounding the Evendell plot.
ACTION NEEDED ON A FIRE SAFETY ISSUE: Sandwiched in here ON PAGE 8, J.3 is water for
fire prevention. Documented FACT: When my neighbors and I cannot take showers in the summer
because of low water pressure, how is the fire protection going to be maintained?
q. Page S Comprehensive and Community Plan:
(1) As I established in the hearing on March 6'" the KC Comprehensive Plan with Land Use Map
designating this area at 4-12 dwellings per acre, docs not override the R-4 zoning in affect in this area.
ACTION: Therefore this statement is irrelevant, misleading, and should be removed.
7
(2) U-1l4 and U-llS appear to be in conflict with U-120 which states, KING COUNTY
SHALL NOT APPROVE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES TO INCREASE DENSITY WITHIN
THE URGAN AREA UNLESS: A. THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE
CHARACTER AND SCALE OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD." Going on below to
r.:
r. Page 9. a. b. c. e., and on page 11, especially the last two paragraphs: Regarding the
neighborhood identity referred to here, as residents with knowledge of the neighborhood we note
that THE "NEIGHBORHOOD" IDENTITY IS USED VARIOUSLY by DDES and the Developer
TO INDICATE THE IMEMDIATE AREA BOUNDED BY 160TH, SE 12STH, SE 13STH, AND
156TH IN UNCORPORATED KING COUNTY AND THEN IS STRECHED INTO THE CITY OF
RENTON AREA OR FUTURE PLANS, WHEN IT SUITS THE PURPOSE OF THE DDES AND
THE DEVELOPER.
IF WE WERE TO FOLLOW THE LINE OF LOGIC THAT RENTON'S PLANS SHOULD
OVERRIDE THE PLANS OF THE RESIDENTS OF UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY
BECAUSE THE LATER'S PLANS MIGHT NOT FIT IN TO THE FUTURE ANNEXATION
PLANS OF CITIES, THEN ALL LAW FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE UNINCORPORATED
COUNTY RESIDENTS WOULD BE OF NO EFFECT, AND WE WOULD BE AT THE MERCY
OF THE CITY.
FACT: THE RESIDENTS OF UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY E ARE NOT PART OF THE
CITY OF RENTON, YET, AND UNTIL WE ARE, RENTON CITY COVENANTS AND ZONINGS DO
NOTAPPLY.
THEREFORE AT
(9.d) The DDES comment that the Evendell plat plan does not exceed the City of Renton
Comprehensive Plan for S dwellings per acre, has no bearing on applications in unincorporated King
County. I repeat, City of Renton zoning is not the same as unincorporated King County
ACTION: THESE COMMENTS in section U120 AS RELATED TO THE CITY OF RENTON.
SHOULD BE REMOVED AND NOT APPLY IN THE DECISION TO GRANT A REZONE IN
UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY.
s. Page 10: Charts;
(I) Footage statistics developers and DDES are using on page 10 of the DDES report are truly
miniscule when you look at the area to be served and make the chart totally irrelevant.
t. Page 12 KCC20.24.195 at Additional examiner findings -preliminary plats. A. "Appropriate
provisions are made for the public safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, ... Etc, II
Please consider these requirements carefully and apply them to your decision. There will be no open
spaces when the developers get through. No safc roads to walk on except in Evendell itself. The rest of us
are asked to put up with unsafe road conditions for a minimum of 6 years. We who have lived here 30
years will not have access to parks contained in private neighborhoods. Our children will have to endure
700 more cars a day without benefit of sidewalks or wider streets because once they leave the egress to
Evendell, guess what, they go straight past my house.
u. Page 13 SEP A and Rezone.
(I) MDNS, which applies to SEPA is addressed on page 3 at items e, f, and g of this letter.
8
(2) Rezone and property owners rights are addressed on page 2,8 a of this letter.
(3) The maps shown by the developer of how they will develop properties and seek permits to do so
are in question. A minimum of 4 large tract property owners stood up in the meeting and said they do not
plan to sell and they find it unnerving that the DDES or anyone else can give permits, or design overlap,
ahead of the fact to developers.
w. Attachment 6, We as property owners and resident citizens find it questionable ethics and a
breach of property owners rights and wonder how it will stand in a court oflaw, for the City of Renton, to
make the statement that "In order to receive sewer service from the City, the plat must also develop as
detached single family and the property owner(s) will be required to execute a covenant to annex
form. Will future buyers be presented with this requirement before they have already sold their homes and
are ready to sign the final papers to buy in this area so they can change their minds, or will they not find
that they must sign away their voting rights until the day they sign their final papers, have already sold their
other house and are in effect forced to sign.
In closing: THERE APPEAR TO BE SERIOUS LEGAL ISSUES HERE REGARDING AN
ABRIDGEMENT OF PERSONAL RIGHT, NOT JUST AS PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT AS
VOTERS.
We wonder if this will be construed by the courts and the public that the City of Renton, the County, and
the land developers appear to be in collusion. Especially as it has been the factual experience of many
residents that, when inquiring about who has jurisdiction and how can we get fair and just treatment, the
buck gets passed in this area from one governmental authority to the other and back again, leaving us high
and dry. And then we get a document likc this full of mitigations which seem to support that conclusion.
So many people worked on this report at DDES, and with the confusion they must experience in dealing
with so many laws and regulations, and probably being short funded and short staffed, I wonder if anyone
in a higher position checked it to see to it that each one's work agreed with the others. There are so many
inconsistencies in this document that I don't see ethically and in good conscience how you can award the
rezone to R-5 or higher. Even at R-4, the inconsistencies will need to be addressed before granting any
current or future permits and zoning standards to the developer(s) at all.
Thank you for the time and effort you will be putting into your decision.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Rae Cooke
13125 158h Ave. SE.
Renton, W A 98059
Work number 425-227-2505
Homeowner
Program Analyst, DOT, FAA
Former Sierra Club and Mountaineerts member
.~ .
,
March 4, 2003
To:
Greg Kip, Director ofDDES, King County DDES. Land Services Division (Curtent Planning Section)
Karen Scharer, assigned DDES planner
Kim Claussen, Planner III, Current Planning Section
Trishah Bull, Planner II, Current Plannmg Section
Bruce Whittaker, Senior Engineer, Engineering Review Section
Kris Langely, Supervisor, Traffic and Engineering KCDOT
Laura Casey, Senior Ecologist, Site Development Services
Larry West, Senior Geologist, Site Development Services
At King County DDES
Land Use Services Division (Current Planning Section)
Department of Development and Environmental Services
900 Oaksdale A venue SW.
Renton, WA 98055-1219
David Irons, King County Representative District 12
King County Courthouse
516 Third A venue, Room 1200
Seattle, WA 98104-3272
http::'/\vv.,'w. metrokc.gov/rnkcc/Menlb.l~I~ 'd l)jr)dex. htm
King County Surface Water and Land Management
2062966519
Department of Natural Resources
King Street Station
201 South Jackson Street, Suite 700
Seattle, W A 98104
Jesse Tanner, Mayor of Renton
lOSS S. Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
David M. Christensen, Renton Wastewater Utility Supervisor
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
From: Michael Rae Cooke
13125 158'h Ave. SE
Renton, W A 98059
SUbj: Proposed Rezone and Preliminary Plat of Evendall-LOIPOOl6 and LOlTY401
Proposed Rezone of 4 and V, additIOnal acres bounded by 158 th Ave. SE, SE 136"', and 160"' SE
Proposed Rezone of2 and V, additional acres bounded by '58'h Ave. SE, SE I 32,d, and 160"' SE
Who am I? A Washington native, born in Seattle, and a resident of unincorporated King County for 30
years, who has just completed paying off the mortgage to my home.
I am employed by the Federal Aviation Administration. I hold the position of Program
Analyst and Freedom ofinforrnation Act Officer, and have been a Management and Program Manager.
I represent 4 families, my household, the Fishers next door, and the Peterson and
families who live across the street.
As an access professional, I know that you have a myriad of sometimes confusing and overlapping
regulations to deal with in making your decisions. As the existing conununity, we look to your expertise in
.. /("
/
different disciplines to provide careful analysis and consideration as you make your official determinations
regarding rezoning and· building permits in our area.
I have also been a member of the Sierra Club and the Mountaineers. We would like to see the reports you
are required to seek from King County Surface Water and Land Management, Department of Natural
Resources, located at King Street Station, 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 700, Seattle, WA 98\04.
We recognize that growth is inevitable. As it occurs we have three major concerns
a. That development be within existing zoning and current law and guidelines,
b. That it not pose dangers to ourselves, others, or the envirorunent, and
c. That adequate provisions for water supplies, drainage, utilities, road and traffic maintenance, fire
and police be protected and required.
Regarding item a: development within existing zoning and current law and guidelines. The developers
have not met the conditions of the urban grid pattern zoning requirements.
a. There are current statutes and laws, which were specifically designed to provide reasonable growth
management.for King County, and that impose requirements on applications of this type,
b. The developers application for R8 does not meet the current King County Requirement that
rezoning must be within the character of the existing neighborhood, and that a rezone with no
contiguous boundaries cannot be made deep IN THE CENTER of an existing approved zone, in
this case an area already rezoned as R4.
c. The area has not been properly identitied, which makes the current studies null and void:
(I) This area has never been included in the Renton Highlands, which was a specific area in the
City of Renton.
(2) The area has been known as RentonlIills (see the U. S. Bank designatorl they have another
branch which is in the Highlands), Coalfield, and Briarwood.
(3) This is not the Green River ¥/atershed and Basin. It is the Cedar River Watershed and Basin,
one of only 4 WlRA drainage basins in all of King County.
(4) Therefore, parcel location and context data in this application must be reviewed, and the
assertions ofthe developers reassessed, and a report of this analysis be made and placed in the
public file.
d. The developers have been successful in getting THREE FINAL extensions from DDES. The
existing residents are entitled to know the conditions on which the developer received a waiver
from a final determination three times. Not only is the effort to rezone to R8 irregular, but so is the
extension.
e. The statutes and laws appear not to have been uniformly applied:
(I) One developer has secured a rezone substantially inside the western border of the R4 to R8
within Renton City limits.
(2) Now comes this outside developer trying to add another R8, well into the center of the R4
area in the county, which is clearly in ctefinace of the existing law.
(3) Ifthis is successful we understand the plan by developers is to rezone again in the 4 Y, acres
(bounded by 158"' Ave. SE, 160'" Ave SE" SE 136'h and SE 134th) , adjacent to the Evendall
platt (bounded by I 60th Ave. SE, SE 136'" and 156th Ave SE to about SE 138th), and again
to the north bounded by 160'" Ave SE, SE 132 and SE 134'h and l58 th Ave SE, all without a
vote of the existing residents in the area.
Regarding item b. That it not pose dangers to ourselves, others, or the environment.
Currently the area is under severe stress from unsafe traffic patterns that have resulted in
multiple accidents, one death, and inadequate support for road maintenance by a county
strapped for funding.
(I) The two lane 156th Ave SE has been rec1assifed from a minor throughfare to a major
throughfare due to the increased volume of traffic.
(2) 156" Ave SE is designated by King County as a Life Line Route and already
presents a danger to citizens due the outstripping of the maximum safe traffic
volume. Citizens risk not being able to access this exit route because of a resulting
mass traffic jam.
(3) Inadquate maintenance and over use has caused one death and multiple accidents when
residents try to get onto SE 128'h from current avenues existing from 158th Ave. SE,
through 164 th Ave. SE.
Regarding item c. That adequate provisions for water supplies, drainage, utilities, road and traffic
maintenance, fire and police be protected and required.
a. Regarding the basic need for water, access to adequate water pressure is already
compromised by the addition of the new housing on SE 128'". Water pressure this summer
was so low that my daughter and I had trouble taking a shower.
b. Storm drainage has become an increasing problem with the removal of at least 200 trees
that used up 25 gallons of water a day and breathed it safely back into the atmosphere. That's 5,000
gallons of water that has nowhere to go. As a result:
(1) Neighbors down 160 Ave. SE, and 156 Ave. SE. have had severe flooding of basements,
crawl spaces, and fields that they have never experienced prior to the new 254 new family
residences built in the last two years just on SE 128 th . The impact of 150 new houses in a
small area will be disasterous.
(2) Storm water ponds have proven totally inadequate to contain the run off, breed plagues of
mosquitos, and are not maintained by anyone, remaining public eyesores and decreasing
property values.
(3) I have lived here 30 years and for the first time since the new houses have gone in have
regular flooding under my house which is distinctly unsanitary and for which I now have
to have a sump pump. Sewers will NOT allieviate the majority ofthe problem.
If allowed then to proceed the dwelling density proposed will cause not just new but
addtional endangerment to the existing residents, irreplaceable wildlife, and fauna
regarding:
(I) Exit routes during disasters of fire, flooding will be severely compromised.
(2) Fire danger. As a member of a third generation fire fighting family I can vouch that
allOWing this type of zoning density will increase the serious injury or death rate of
firefighters and residents. It is a scientific fact that houses 10 feet apart will be involved in
a traveling fire. A house is typically fully involved in 5 minutes with family having only 60
seconds to get out.
(3) The current Evendell plan is for one egress with the road branching into a circle inside
the development. That means one egress for fire fighters or police to get in and the same
egress for people fighting to get away from the fire.
(4) The resulting loss of life in the Evendell development is too horrible to contemplate
(5) Contamination of water supplies, destruction of adequate water pressure and water
availability for daily living let alone fire danger.
(6) Severe storm water damage.
(7) .Lack of recreational area forcing children into the streets.
(8) Lack of King County funding has prevented the development of two King County park
lands for the citizens of this area already.
(9) Sociological studies have proven that inadeqnate protection from disease and crime occur
when packing a dense number of people into a contained area. The King County Sheriffs
./
office warned our community of and said that is why they opened the Four Creeks State
Patrol Office on 164'" Ave. SE.
(10) The developer has not adequately answered basic environmental requirements for licenses
to proceed listing as unknown the dangers to the environment, impact on wildlife and
fauna and the results of grading and water runoff to areas south of the proposed
development.
(a) We request a new Environmental Study, including Wildlife Field Data Forms by
qualified, independent biologists.
(b) We request independent assessments by engineers regarding the regrading of the
topography in this neighborhood and the effects on the properties down the hill
towards SE 144'" and the Jones Road as well.
In conclusion, we are here to go on record as saying, the current zoning of four houses to an acre, achieved
without a vote of the current residents, already does not fit the character of the existing community and is
not our ideal. It poses safety issues, quality of life issues, and allows the destruction of some irreplaceable
wildlife and fauna found in our neighborhood.
However, it is for us the lesser of two severe zoning impacts and is currently law. We recognize that you in
your official positions of decision making can determine a reasonable development. You have the power to
address some of the safety issues for the lives of families already living in the neighborhood by choosing to
enforce R4 and other regulations already on the books.
The existing public in this neighborhood has the right to be as valued and protected as the developers, who
do not live in the area, will not inherit the fall out of their actions, and who leave many neighborhoods and
environments irreplaceably damaged or destroyed at the expense of both existing and future residents.
!ffour houses to an acre will protect the character and lives of the families already living there. provide a
modified semblance of safety for the environment and wetlands and still provide housing for the population
in the greater area then that should be your decision. Six or eight houses to an acre will not only totally
destroy the existing character of our neighborhood, but poses serious physical safety issues for both current
and new residents.
In summary, you from many disciplines are in an official position of service to the existing residents and
property owners of our neighborhood. We seek justice and fair application of current statutes on the books
to ensure growth in our neighborhood is reasonable and provides decent conditions and safety for the
existing residents as well as any new residents, and for the environment.
· ,.
Commenls may be submitted in writing to:
City of Renton
Economic Devetopment, Neighborlloods & Sbateglc Planning
ATTN: Oon Ericklon
1055 South Grady Way. Sbdh Floor
Renton, WA 98055
Your Addra •• ··11!5408SE1381hSl
Your e-mail: I ... c~iIlcom
~f1·itM1." options basIt_
""or&·iiIIiOUiK~lands avai" in the
UGA. The flavor and density of existing
neighborhoods a110ws comparitivly litte room for new
building. That building should blend in with, not stand
out like a sore thumb, the existing buildings.
From what I have observed, the attitude of the people
living in the area bas not changed since Liberty High
School was built. Sewers are not wanted because of
......... aAUrrr if. 'I •• pack as It'JlilIf mid
as they oan in an area. This equates to larger two story
homes to get the square footage necessary and means
more money in the developers pocket.
People moved to this area because they like the rural
flavor of the area and the friendly, close
knit,neighborhood.
Scenario #4 is the most viable alternative, even though
I live smack in the middle of the affected area, because
the developers are already here. They must be
controlled and preplanning on the part of Renton seems
to be the least objectionable way.
The area outlined conesponds most with the present
applications for rezone and building.
1 Sm ....... .......uyUllre8listic. The present
volume ofroad usage and new road potential makes
these options out of the question.
, ,', ,
:01 enitilw ni b9l1lmduz ed vsm 81nsmmo:::>
nolnafllo '(ll:::>
;?ninnsq oig9l611<l ~ aboorlloClr1gisll! ,lnemqol9~eO ::>imonoo3
no~>b1l3 noO ,Io1TT A
1Ool'l nTh,avSw '{bs1~ riJu02 allOt
a<l08e AW ,nolf19ft
-----------~~~l '''''xli.! .booR "911lfl1l! lUOY
fe IIfOCt 32 ~ • ~&JIbbA lUOY
ei!08(> ""I.~ ,.: qiS ,elsIe ,VI,O lUOY
(9bo::> B91B 90Lil:Jni) JoO~r.ass:-ast> I: 9flOn'1lUOY
-----:;;;;::;.:;~I',~..,.".. 'J 'Iism ... lUOY
!)J(I nu {),elld ~lIoi1qo 5r1J '10 t~~ :;,dJ ,,; I ~ OnBrnI'Jl(
:Nf! nr :Msfil,IB ebrud :.1d£blilJrno InuomB ~lntJ '(bula
8nilaix:do{fim:ili bas 10'/8n 'lrlT .AuT J
w'Jn 10'111lOO1 'J11i1'~hilimqmo:l ~"101I1l -.boorhodri8bn
bnSll! fon ,rhiw oi OO51d bluorl" ~nibliud lSrIT ~nibliud
,<8nibliud anillix:J :jilt .dmurlJ "0<1 ~ 5XjI fUO
51qooq .,d1"to :;LulitllJ :lflJ .b,)V15~do 5w;rl I llll!'" 1Tl00l
rf&iH~I15di,1 ():lui? iY-lanlllb Ion ?Bd b:nB 5ff) iii ani/il
·to ~..ull:l~ b:»lIfill Jon :o11l ?:I5W')?' "lim! ~lI'N loolf:ll
2~..uod{lUIIn 21l ,b£'1 01 JQ6W OlIN ;mbliurllownni 51ft
'{loll! 0'111 15'.jl/il oJ a,I/;ujXl2;rl1 .1i:nB Q6 ni rtJI'J(,)lb i!II
~nll5ltJ Lnf>(lJlI!~n 5118100'i '.IlIlUp!! 51ft 1!l2 O1ll!1rnorl
.1:1~'J(Xf il1:iqo(5'fflb :llll ni '{:loom ')lOm
Imln :::111 ~;liI("rlt :l2U6m 1I:'11i ?idJ 01 ~vom .,Iqooq
:l?()b ,( ibWJiil ~c!J bru! 1;~li :Jlffto 10VS[t
.ooflfhorlrilj i",n.Jin;/
tflluoru Wi ... :! .:l/iIBm:ll11l :;ldlli'l120Ul 5dJ ei ~ oi~:l2
5WS'J'.J{/ ,11')11) b:'J:I~Thl "dJ 10 .,Ibbim :Mft ni lI~lIffi1! :lViI I
:Id li>JIIII '(:orlT ,:.15il ,(bll')lh: 51Il1l'l'>qobV'.lb 5fh
2m~ notll:lH 10 tmq :lIfJ no gnirUl/,;lq7lq bOllIYJlk)1ino:l
.V.811 :,ldoooit'J!)ldll I'k:il :iill 5d 01
lrnP)lq 5dJ ritiw 120m lbnO/lG:ITI(':i kmiltu(j II".I!S 'Jill
,gniLliud bnll :IOOS~ wl anoils:.ilqqs
Ja5il"IJ :lifT ,'Ji!eilfl:)lntJ ,(116101 :018 r.* blIJl [II oi'u;n:.:.?
2:!JlBm IlIiIn5toq bllm W5f1 bOIl :JlIC<;u Loo'I'I!) :lfflulol
,nOik:1Up ~rlll0 lUG ~noi Iqo ~tft
. .,. ~.
·,
•
.,1I\itt It ide •• ,'$6tIi''Ave SE is appIdlll, .,
IS. AS ,I. b$; This volume occurs moStly
between 6:30 AM and 6:30 PM and, for the greatest
part, is made up of transient traffic. Some one stated
that this growth in traffic is. in a large part, made up of
construction workers. This is so wrong. Construction
workers start at 7:00 AM, or sooner if they can get
away with it. That leaves 7:00 AM on to account for
volumes. With the building of the new Elliot bridge,
this transient traffic volume will increase. People who
would like to use this east hill route will no longer be
aftaid of the relatively narrow width of the lanes (9
feet) and the straight down hill course of the road will
increase the speed traveled. This means a drastilly
more dangerious intersection for people trying to enter
at Jones road also.
There is no place for another road off the plateau to the
south. Our only other route south and west is through
Renton on NE 4th. .... JieeCl more roads, but tlIIIR~
1 placet. To ~~!I1I~tJ!OJtle
Developers already here have stated that within 10
years or less the plateau will be gridlocked becanse of
traffic volumes and the fact that there is no place for
other ways out of the area. If these people, who only
care about money, see the problem why can't Renton?
I fit,"''','',' Send -. ;.",".
•
.t _..,..
Zeuq I Q.8( I
CSLC gpoflf UJOI}I;I.· ~t1 'fJC bWPIt;UJ NIP;' cw.! gWlou.)
0IJJG L w{n onl Ol.ffJC 91.I;S' IUPC1l!; btobJ!;' MVO OU)"
namc J,O)OWr.~ suq IfJC I,IIC! JIJ~llpt;LG !" UO b)l1CfO I,OL
IG!J1.2 lI~ Jt;~? IIJG b(!JICllfl M!II pc f.J.!q)ocycq pGC!IJ1l!G lit
D<;I,G]ObtL~ II]LCsq). pcu: jJ!J/C 4l1Jcq qJ:ll M~fIJ!11 10
1].It; uqq!l!ollllJ !UfLtr'.nnqnu; !? !w;~bolP.!PI~'
bJsc!; l0!. 9ui, 1.0 bw:r WOlC btobJC !U flU !JLCU H,!fPOIII
IfculOU Oil liE 11jl' /f,r. uccq In!>lt; 1.OlKJZ" pfll rp<:lC !1I 00
?onfIJ' Om. OU(I. OfPC1LOflI(' ;romp wq N\G?f !2 fIlwnlip
l.Pcu; !~ uo blllcr. lOL UOOIVCL wtJq "lU].It; bllllGSn 10 flJc
iII 'IOU!;? wsq 9J?O'
wou: quufiGl!oo? !UI~(;j!OU If'L bGob(c lu.!u8 I') WIGL
!UCLGrnG IV<-?bl';Gq 11.91 GIGq' l.JJ!~ wcsu~ U qLU?I!JI/,
l,Gt;() !IIffj IV-: ?IL[JIlipl '1o"u Jl!IJ n1t1W; otIpc LOOq /'I !II
9f¥1!q OtlPC LG(III!/.cli iJ9Wllf lI!qrp 01, rpc (SUG? (0
n,onlq !!In: 10 naG rp!? C~ P!lIwOIc N!JIOO (ou!'!cJ. )JG
rp!~ IJ.:ru~IGUIIJ.UWc lIolnwG H~II !UCLt9?C' [{'.obIC fl,PO
J.f>Jnwr,,' /f,!IJlIVG pn!lq!u8 oUpc UGH. FlI!ol pl.!qlrG'
!IN.n;. H!IJI !I' lP!I1 )"IIG? ~;OO '11l ou 10 SCWOIJI I()I.
MOL(!'CL? alsLI 91 ~:oo v'If 01.200l1CI. !lIW:), CSU IIGf
C0I121L1Ir.!!OU H.OlfGl2' Ipl?!a?O NILOull' COU?ILflCl!OU
£PUI IP!2 f,wMfll !U fU1UlC !~' !ll 9 l!llJ;G trn.' umqt; nb ot
bin( !2 wsqc nb ol fl!JU?lt'lJI II.!lUlC' lIoWC OUt; 7191','1
pcr/'l,!;Cu \1::10 VW suq Q:]O bW SU(r lOI. {JlI'; fiLC:W.~l
I~'O()O C91.2 bel. qui, JJl!>.lIoImm; ocr.m, Wf)'.i!A
.!J IG hll;<!I";ul ,,0InwG ou nel!1 V/·G d~: 12 Sbbl.OlqflJJ!flJl.
August 18, 2003
Don Ericson
Project Manager
Strategic Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
/'l.UG 2 1 2003
Project #LUA-01-168,CPA, Prezone, ECF; East Renton Plateau
CPA#2003-m-04
NO. NO. NO. Do not rezone for more density. We purchased our
home here with the understanding this was not going to become a
zoo on the Plateau. We chose to live on the Plateau not downtown
Seattle!!!
I can hardly get out of my driveway for the traffic has increased
300% in the last year. Crime has increased dramatically. Each one
of my neighbors has had either a break-in or attempted break-in in
the last year.
The loss of open space and wildlife habitat is bad enough, but to
make the housing even denser than is already allowed by law is
ludicrous. With the increased paving making impervious surfaces
for the rainwater to drain naturally, there will be more flooding
which even the ugly drainage ponds will not be able to control.
Yours truly,
~~
Sue Henderson
14031 -144Ave. SE
Renton, W A 98059
425-271-8554
I
1 ,
.. ~~
I
AUG 1 2 2003
NEIG ;JI'\H DS
AND SFil.' ;'.:': p;~ ~' .. r:.
ECONOM~DE"!ELOPMENT'
\..;) ~~,.:j '\S ,~~ ~'\~\ ~ ~~"""~~ ~~\~<\
"<\c> <i:."""'''''' \....~,\~~ ~""~~-I<...> ~00E;.,hc::.9~,,\<"
~ ~ '\'-=' -""'E.-Ss.. '\"'~ ~ "'\~~~, "'t::,V--s.""~"'0"":l» ,
~ ~"0~"~ ~'\~e... "f::''->.. ~"-' '" 'b,<:::.,\",,,,
""l0-""" ",'<..f!..-S"V-':::' ""~,~IO\ \..;), O"'~ ,,",E...~~~'~ '?\~
\...0\;..."0.-'; \0\"-."-.. 0\~'-'-S \....:>~ .'\~ \\0 c,,;~~"",,(.,~ "-~~\
,(-e""-~~0~ \~ ~l:>";:' ,0 ~\, '<::.~~~.~,'~'i\';,
t.-"-.""S(:'" ""S ~<:::.~",~. ~"'\A..""b' c;;,.1.:)x.,~\ ~~'\
~'>0 ~,\). \\"e...~ ~~~'\.o.A~'\0'\\-')~ ~«:.;o~«... \\.~a(i0;
~,"'....::,~\W~ \".;)~~~ ~ ~NC.\0 ,\Q.\A. ""\\\)~"'\~"b
~""'''>\ ~"'~\\,'~ ~~r::;~ ~ "'e..."".~ "'S\~'Z'e,..~
~""'\..,\..., '\""'~ ~~e. ~'" '\ ""' ,~W '\ ~~~~ ~"'~
\..0 'Y\ E;.., 'V .....,.'S, (., ~ \ ~~ ~ ~ ES "-"" ':. ~ ~ . \~ \ ~~-.:>
't. ~ "" ~ '" ~"'" ~~ -.;:>e..'-V 0 >0~ \ ~ ~~ '\ "-J 0 0
Q...~,,",'<-~"'''<-'i ~"""''>:l ~ ,s:...\..~ ..
~\)..~ 6"''-'..~'~\~<G, ~~"'\A:'\: ~'¥-,~ ~u.::>~""-""
<;'><> 't0~S '\6"~t)~ '\\.s, ~ ~-..:~
On the S daYOf_....,...:.~,..:..;..;~<1.:.... _____ -', 2003,1 deposited in the mailsolthe United
States, a sealed envelope contaTrliflg'
lllo ;1
documents. This information was sent to:
(Signature of Sender) __ -'-~~~:::.k.=-~::::::::~~:::"'~=:--___ _
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) SS
COUNTY OF KING ) ;1:\
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that !-;ht<J,.L(. f/e&uJ signed this
instrument and acknowledged it to be hislher/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes_~~n~Rtt<!
in the Instrument. K.q~' " I
C'L". (). .~~
Dated: ~£r <:I. a, , o;;JOO~ '~\
~ j
!
.;-.: --r-=""""'""....,.,,.,----------------------------...:.IJ ..... :: ........................... ~ .... Project Name:
Project ",UII""""
NOTARY.DOC
Dept. of Ecology'
Environmental Review Section
PO Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
WSDOT Northwest Region'
Attn: Ramin Pazooki
King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240
PO Box 330310
Seattle, W A 98133-9710
US Army Corp. of Engineers '
Seattle District Office
Attn: SEPA Reviewer
PO Box C-3755
Seattle WA 98124
Jamey Taylor
Depart. of Natural Resources
PO Box 47015
Olympia, WA 98504-7015
KC Dev. & Environmental Serv.
Attn: SEPA Section
900 Oakesdale Ave. SW
Renton, WA 98055-1219
Metro Transit
Senior Environmental Planner
Gary Kriedt
201 South Jackson Street
KSC-TR-0431
Seattle, WA 98104-3856
Seattle Public UtilRies
Real Estate Services
Eric Swennson
700 Fifth Avenue, SuRe 4900
Seattle, WA 98104-5004
AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING
(ERC DETERMINATIONS)
WDFW -Stewart Reinbold' Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. '
c/o Department of Ecology Attn. SEPA Reviewer
3190 160" Ave SE 39015 -172nd Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092
Duwamish Tribal Office' Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program'
14235 Ambaum Blvd. SW -Front A Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert
Burien, WA 98166 39015 172nd Avenue SE
Aubum, WA 98092-9763
KC Wastewater Treatment Division' Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation'
Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Stephanie Kramer
Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343
201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
City of Newcastle City of Kent
Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP
Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director
13020 SE 72 nd Place 220 Fourth Avenue South
Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895
Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila
Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official
Joe Jainga 6300 South center Blvd.
PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188
Bellevue, WA 98009-0868
Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and
cRies will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. '
Als~ note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices he gets his from the web. Only send her
the " ERC Determination paperwork.
Last printed 07122103 9:40 AM
CITY OF R:il0N' ' .. . ..
., .•. ··,FqR.REttT~~l;I~:.~J~~!~f)I<; ~~!P"VIT OF SER!!~I1lJ~l;~N~r .. "
. . .
On the 1:S day of ~. .2003, I deposited in the mailso{ the United
States, a sealed envelope contaimng
PMI) k' ~ vi5,pA ool'l ~'-U !st
I I
documents. This infonnation was sent to: .
~ Rell!:llsenUog
~ Ai-\..e.pA ....A l \"" -c--1'+.". J> L~:i
(Signature of Sender) //i, /' f//5
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) SS
COUNTY OF KING ) /I
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that m,k G<-()~w signed this
instrument and acknowledged It to be hislher/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned
in the instrument.
Dated: ~ IX Q., c::l 00 ....
Notary (Print) MP.RIL¥N KPMCiolEif
My appointment expilMll~pPt)!NlMENT EYRlaES@ :1ll rl7
ct'A
OOTARV..DOC
.'
.
AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING
(ERG DETERMINATIONS)
Section clo Department of Ecology
3190160'· Ave SE
WA
Attn. SEPA Reviewer
39015 -172nd Avenue SE PO Box 47703
WA
Attn: Ramin Pazooki
•
King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240
PO Box 330310
WA
US Army of
Seattle District Office
Attn: SEPA Reviewer
PO Box G-3755
WA 98124
Taylor
Depart. of Natural Resources
PO Box 47015
Real Estate Services
Eric Swennson
700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900
WA981
Duwamish •
14235 Ambaum Blvd. SW -Front A
Burien, WA 98166
Environmental Planning Supervisor
Ms. Shirley Marroquin
201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050
Municipal Liason M''''Ano.r
Joe Jainga
PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01 W
Bellevue, WA 98009-0868
Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert
39015 172nd Avenue SE
Auburn, WA 98092-9763
& Historic
Attn: Stephanie Kramer
PO Box 48343
Olympia, WA 98504-8343
Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an ·Optional DNS", the marked agencies and
cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application .•
Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices he gets his from the web. Only send her
the ERG Determination paperwork.
Last printed 07122103 9:40 AM
•
City of Renton
clo Don Erickson -Project Manager
Strategic Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
(425) 430-6581
Brian Lindemuth
14034 SE 122nd St.
Renton, WA 98059
(425) 451-9300
Aug. 25, 2003
" I am writing to 0JIIl0IIe tile annexation of our 11I!jgbhoIh!OJd to tile City OfR ••••
We are getting a petition signed to block the annexation of this area. I would support,
however, the incorporation of the southern areas which are needed to bring sewage to
Liberty High as long as our neighborhood isn't included.
Brian E. Lindemuth
g
_ APPlIC'ATI01 NO~FnF ,floc
•
City of Renton
Strategic Planning Division
Don Erickson--Project Mgr
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Wa 98055
Mr Erickson,
RE
AUG 2 5 2C08
ECC"I~")M: ",
~i'.
I would like to voice my opposition to the proposed rezone of the East Renton Plateau.
I do not live within the zone to be rezoned and eventually annexed to be within city
limits. I live on the boundary outside the urban Growth Boundary. It is my understanding
of the Growth Management act that the idea is to keep development to areas with existing
infrastructure to handle growth while preserving lower elevation treed areas within the
greater Puget sound area.
My first objection is based on the lack of transition from 'urban' to 'rural', what makes
(in my case) 184th Ave SE a wondrous boundary that one side could have 5000SF lots on
one side and on the other require 5 acres for any development. Generally there are good
natural boundaries that can define this sort of transition. Present use of the area on both
sides of the growth management line is very similar, making the designation all the more
arbitrary.
Second is with the push to get cities to take on more unincorporated areas ends up with
someone in my situation to end up with even less in the way of county services as my
neighborhood is effectively in city limits but my property is not.
My final objection is more philosophical in that I do not believe in the way that
developments are being done (and only need to look along 128th to see prime examples)
where all trees and vegetation of any sort are completely stripped away on large swaths
of land. Then dozens of cookie cutter houses are built to an overly homogenized maze
and artificially pack areas with people of too similar ages and backgrounds.
Thank you,
~ = J Ken Bryant
13914 184th Ave SE
Renton, Wa 98059
425-255-3554 home
425-828-5865 work
ken_bryant@comcast.net
City of Renton
EDNSP
1055 S Grady Way
Renton WA 98055
BRYANT KENNETH W
13914 184TH AV SE
RENTON WA 98059
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
PRESORTED
FIRST CLASS MAIL
U.S. POSTAGE PAID
RENTON, WA
PERMIT NO. 20
A Master Application has been filed and .accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton.
The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals.
PROJECT NUMBER/NAME:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
PROJECT LOCATION:
PUBLIC APPROVALS:
APPLICANT/PROJECT
CONTACT PERSON:
LUA-01-168, CPA, PREZONE, ECF; East Renton Plateau CPA#2003-M-04
City sponsored Comprehensive Plan map amendment from Residential Single
Family to Residential Rural, zoning code text amendments allowing bonus
density between 4 units per net acre up to a maximum of 8 units per net acre for
quality designed subdivisions, and, prezoning to adopt future zoning designations
within the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area.
Renton Potential Annexation Area, east of City limits, north of Cedar River to
edge of Urban Growth Area boundary.
Environmental Review, Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments
City of Renton, EDNSP Dept./Don Erickson, Project Manager
Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Don Erickson, Project Manager, StrategiC Planning
Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on August 25th, 2003. If you have questions about
this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail. contact Don Erickson at
(425) 430-6581. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of reoord and will be notified of
any decision on this project.
PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION
DATE OF APPLICATION: December 15, 2002
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 15, 2003
DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: August 8, 2003
SEE ATIACHED MAP OF AREA AFFECTED
~.-.... -....... ---.-----------------.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form
and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055.
File No.lName: LUA-01-168, CPA, Prezone, ECF/East Renton Plateau CPA #2003-M-04
NAME: (gPll1fTH U) J3i2-J'Ai\YC
ADDRESS: 139/1 18cf JL AVF SE iZt:''''-'1PvV, WA 98C59
TELEPHONE NO.: 125"-255'--,1569
To Don Erickson
Renton Dept EDNSP
lOSS Grady Way
Renton, Wa 98055
r REt
I AUG 25 20m
i, lCC.\IC!,'.1 C ~),~
. f\:~'(c~i-::-'-
I_~,~~~;:'.~:,.. .
King Co. Department of Development + Environmental Services -Rezoning
900 Oakesdale Avenue SW
Renton, Washington 98055-1219
From/Larry A. Barnes
13601 S.E. 141 st St
Renton, WA 98059
Subject Land Rezoning Project # LUA-01-168 East Renton Plateau CPA # 2003-M-04
The City of Renton has given me every little time to respond to the proposal and no
further information. I requested further information on the above Rezoning project
several time and no information has been sent. This appears to be another of Renton's
were going to do what we want and were not telling you anything about it and you have
no say. I find it very offensive on Renton's part, and they wonder why we don't want to
be annexed. What are they proposing to do about traffic, sewer, and the rights of people
who moved there because it was quiet neighborhood and already developed? It looks like
they are trying to turn our neighborhood into another packed rat colony with no say at all
by the people.
I don't understand how the city of Renton can rezone an unincorporated area of King Co.
Did I miss something in the news that allows a city to decide what rights people have
living in the county. The city tried to annex this area and the people said NO. It appears
what the people voted for does not matter, and they have no rights.
I don't agree with what Renton is trying to do and neither do any of my neighbors that I
have talked to. If King Co. is allowing this, then it sounds like it maybe time to contact
lawyers and see what rights we do have.
If I have missed something, would someone please contact me.
Sincerely
Larry A. Barnes
City of Renton
Don Erickson, Project Manager
EDNSP
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
August 23, 2003 /
14120 144th Ave SE
Renton, WA 98059
Subject: LUA-01-168, Prewne, ECF; East Renton Plateau CPA #2003-M-04
Dear Mr. Erickson:
I strongly objeCt to the density cniinges proposed in tile above-mentioned subject. The
quality of life in our area has already declined because ofthe density of units being built
along the NE 4thl128th st. corridor. ------
Trees in our area -those wonderful air cleaners are no longer in existence. Traffic and
dust are now the norm along that corridor and if your proposal is adopted the future will
see the whole area just as congested. --~---
Sincerely,
~ry~
---" --------
August 22, 2003
Don Erickson
Project Manager Strategic Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Wa 98055
Dear Mr. Erickson:
Steve Porthen
14020183"' Ave Se.
Renton WA .98059
I have just received the notification of LUA-01-168, CPA, PREZONE, ECF; East Renton
Plateau CPA#2003-M-04 which took me by surprise. I had not idea that it was being
considered, which is probably my fault. Anyway I would like to voice my concern and make it
a point of record that I'm totally against the annexation and especially the rezoning attempt. I
see no value added as far as quality of life and would like to be kept informed as to the
progression of the proposed project.
Sincerely,
Steve Porthen
August 22, 2003
Don Erickson
Project Manager Strategic Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Wa 98055
Dear Mr. Erickson:
Steve Porthen
14020 183"' Ave Se.
Renton WA .98059
I have just received the notffication of LUA-01-168, CPA, PREZONE, ECF; East Renton
Plateau CPA#2003-M-04 which took me by surprise. I had not idea that it was being
considered, which is probably my fault. Anyway I would like to voice my concem and make it
a point of record that I'm totally against the annexation and especially the rezoning attempt. I
see no value added as far as quality of life and would like to be kept informed as to the
progression of the proposed project.
Sincerely,
Steve Porthen
August 22, 2003
Don Erickson, Project Manager
Strategic Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton WA 98055
Subject: LUA-01-168, CPA, PREZONE, ECF; East Renton Plateau CPA #2003-M-04
Comment: It seems inappropriate to rezone the area for higher density prior to
annexation, because if the annexation did not occur the character and environment of the
area would be unnecessarily altered.
')u~~
J MikeJ.Partridge
16144 SE 146t1i Place
Renton W A 98059
.. II ...
August 21, 2003
Attention Don Erickson;
We have owned the property just below your proposal, parcel # 232305-9072-05,
just off Jones road, and next to 156 Place SE. (See enclosed) for over 50 years.
We are senior citizens, and are in our retirement years, having held on to this
property all these years for our future security,
By not being included in this urban growth plan, our investment will not hold the
value, that we had always hoped for. Even though we are senior citizens, we would like
our voice herd,
The land is valued and taxed as ifit were a development piece. We have been paying
taxes all these years, with this umiers[anding.
Please take us under consideration in your future plans, for we don't have many
years left to realize our investment. We have waiting the last thirty years for a zoning
change,
Thank you for your consideration;
Mrs. Joesph p, Byrne
• J
NOTICE OF APPLICATI01.doc
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton.
The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals.
PROJECT NUMBER/NAME:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
PROJECT LOCATION:
PUBLIC APPROVALS:
APPLICANT/PROJECT
CONTACT PERSON:
LUA..Q1-168, CPA, PREZONE, ECF; East Renton Plateau CPA #2003-M..Q4
City sponsored Comprehensive Plan map amendment from Residential Single
Family to Residential Rural, zoning code text amendments allowing bonus
density between 4 units per net acre up to a maximum of 8 units per net acre for
quality designed subdivisions, and. prezoning to adopt future zoning designations
within the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area.
Renton Potential Annexation Area, east of City limits, north of Cedar River to
edge of Urban Growth Area boundary.
Environmental ReView, Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments
City of Renton, EDNSP DeptJDon Erickson, Project Manager
Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Don Erickson, Project Manager. Strategic Planning
Division. 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on August 22nd, 2003. If you have questions about
this proposal. or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact Don Erickson at
(425) 430-6581. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of
any decision on this project.
PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION
nATE OF APPLICATION: December 15. 2002
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 15, 2003
DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: August 8, 2~~::;::':'
"", "
SEE ATTACHED MAP OF AREA AFF'ecTED
"
If you would like to be made a party of record to receive flirllh'" information; this proposed project, complete this form
and return to: City of Renton. Development Planning. Grady Way]~enton. WA 98055.
oj
I I ".-n1-168. CPA. Prezone, ECF/East Rpnl"", Plate,~u CP+003-M-04
ADDRESS: __ ~~~~ __ ~~
TELEPHONE NO.:
Pall" 1 ..
,.-King CL_ •• ty Department of Assessmenh
Parcel 232305 -9072
Computer: COUNTER 36 0310512003
Parcel
Geo Area : Res Area: 066-006-0
Spec Area: Q-S-T-R: NE-23-23-5
Folio: 22880A1 Type: R
Resp : R Levy: 6530
Block: Lot:
Property Address: 15032 156TH PL SE KING COUNTY 98055
Legal Desc: SW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 & GL 4 LESS W 290 FT & LESS E 515 FT THOF LESS POR OF SO LOT 4
L Y SLY OF J E JONES CO RO LESS CO RO
TaxPayer Accounts
Account Change
232305-9072-051 BYRNE JOSEPH 3937S0RCASST SEATTLE WA 98118 7118901/
Land
HBU If Vacant: Single Family
Present Use: Single Family(Res Use/Zone)
Percent Unused: 0
Zoning Date: 05/19/2000
Sewer System : Private
Corner Lot: No
Base Land Val: 243,000
Tax Year: 2000
Parking:
Land Views
Mt Rainier:
Olympics:
Cascades:
__ Territorial:
HBU As Improved: Present Use
Traffic Volume: 0
Current Zoning : RA5
Water System: Private
Lot SqFt : 921,294
Restrictive Size/Shape: No
Land Val Date: 03/09/1999
Road Access: Public
Street Surface: Paved
Sound:
Lake Washington:
Lake Sammamish :
Seattle:
__________________________ Lake/River/Creek : __ _
Other: r---I ~---, --_ .. -
Land Waterfront
Location:
Bank:
Tide/Shore:
Restricted:
Lot Depth Factor: 0
Land Nuisances/Problems
Topography:
Traffic Noise:
Airport: No
Trans_ Concurrency: No
Access Rights: No
Proximity Influence: No
Poor Quality: No
Footage: 0
Powerlines : No
Other Nuisance: No
Water Problems: No
Other Problems: No
cont. on page 2
Alfrea and Esther Banholu~r /'
14932 -165" Place SE, Renton, Washington 98059
August 20, 2003
Don Erickson, Project Manager
Strategic Planning Division
1005 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
(425) 228-6330
Ref: LUA-01-168, CPA, PREZONE, ECF
East Renton Plateau CPA #2003-M-04
Mr. Erickson:
We are strongly apposed to the change in bonus density from 4 units per acre
to 8 units per acre for subdivisions, proposed by the above application,
The eastern part of Renton along SE 128 Street has become a high density
housing area that has caused traffic problems and any increase in density to
this area will only add to this problem.
This area, in King County, should remain Urban Growth at 4 units per acre,
Any increase will affect the quality of life we now all enjoy in this area. We
moved to this part of King County to escape high-density house and all of the
problems that come with it
Any increase in density would impact the lifestyle of the people now living in
the area,
For the above reasons, we soundly appose any increase in housing density.
We ask that the people now living in the area be permitted to vote on any
such increase in density.
Sincerely,
~~
Al Banholzer
I .
222-
August 20, 2003
Mary Lynn and Gary Kinkade
14436-183'd Avenue Southeast
Renton, Washington 98059
Don Erickson, Project Manager
City of Renton
Strategic Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98055
Re: Project Number LUA-01-168, CPA, Prezone, ECF; East Renton Plateau
CPA #2003-M-04
Dear Mr. Erickson:
When we built our house east of Renton in 1964, we chose to locate in an area where everyone
was not elbow to elbow, and where individuals built their own house on a lot that was bigger
than a postage stamp.
We don't want to be part of the City of Renton because of the increased density of housing that
has been allowed in the past few years; and we surely don't want any of the "quality designed
subdivisions" as proposed in the project. We can clearly see what these "subdivisions" look like
on our drive east on NE 4th and SE 128 th (Cemetery Road), the slums of the future. Row after
row of ugly boxes less than a breath apart.
A City of Renton resident recently told us that if you wanted to construct a home on a lot, you
would not be able to build as you envisioned, but would be forced to build as many homes as that
piece of property could hold; i.e., elbow to elbow. If that is the case, it doesn't add to the desire
to become a part of the City of Renton.
To increase Renton's tax base by annexation as local business interests sag, allowing developers
to strip the rural areas of all vegetation and replace it with asphalt and roofs is not a very pleasing
picture. It certainly does not protect or enhancc the way of life of any of the residents, and I
shudder to think about the increased traffic congestion that annexation and its accompanying
development would bring.
The above proposed project should be rejected.
'--1 Yours trul y,,// , ' _
/ ) ib"JI ;ii{JW~/ll~
v / M~ Lynrl and Gaty Kinkade
Cc: King County Department of Development
-.
August 19,2003
City of Renton
EDNSPDept.
Don Erickson, Project Manager
Re: LUA-0l-168, CPA, Prezone, ECF; East Renton Plateau CPA #2003-M-04
Dear Mr. Erickson,
We recently received a Notice of Application for a pre-zone and annexation
by the City of Renton. This is the first notice we have received.
The application map shows the urban boundary on east unincorporated plateau of
King County that extends to furthest east portion of 183rd Ave. S.E.
This 30 plus year old established community is in the Issaquah school
district and is served by King County Water District #90. The residents who
live in this Briarwood area live here for a reason. This includes but not
limited to the quiet, large wooded lots and those with children, the school
district.
I know thato,upleighbors and we unwelcome tllis move by the City of
Renton. What public approval does Renton have to apply for tllis
application? We the residents don't want to be annexed. We should have a
say in the future of our community.
City planners and construction developers should not be allowed to impose
unreasonable growth in an area that borders rural growth.
d Mary Ann Eccles /
183 rd Ave. S.E.
Renton, W A. 98059
Enclosure
NOTICE OF APPLICATI01.doc
City of Renton
EDNSP
1055 S Grady Way
Renton WA 98055
ECCLES STEVE & MARY ANN
13838 183RD AV SE
RENTON WA 98059
PRESORTED
FIRST CLASS MAIL
U.S. POSTAGE PAID
RENTON. WA
PERMIT NO. 20
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton.
The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals.
PROJECT NUMBER/NAME:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
PROJECT LOCATION:
PUBLIC APPROVALS:
APPLICANT/PROJECT
CONTACT PERSON:
LUA-OI-168, CPA, PREZONE, ECF; East Renton Plateau CPA #2003-M-04
City sponsored Comprehensive Plan map amendment from Residential Single
Famiiy to Residential Rural, zoning code text amendments allowing bonus
density between 4 units per net acre up to a maximum of 8 units per net acre for
quality designed subdivisions. and, prezoning to adopt future zoning designalions
within the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area.
Renton Potential Annexation Area, east of City IimHs, north of Cedar River to
edge of Urban Growth Area boundary_
Environmental Review, Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments
City of Renton, EDNSP Dept.lDon Erickson, Project Manager
Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Don Erickson. Project Manager, Strategic Planning
Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. by 5:00 PM on August 25th, 2003. If you have questions about
this proposal, or wish to be made a party of reoord and receive addHional notification by maii, contact Don Erickson at
(425) 430-6581. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of
any decision on this project. .
PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION
DATE OF APPLICATION:
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION:
December 15, 2002
March 15, 2003
DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: August 8. 2003
SEE ATTACHED MAP OF AREA AFFECTED
~.----.----.-.--.----.----.-----------.--,---.-.------.--------------_._---------------------------------------------------------;}<;
If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form
and retum to: City of Renton. Development Planning. 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, WA 98055.
File No.lName: LUA-01-168. CPA, Prezone, ECF/East Renton Plateau CPA #2003-M-04
NAME: ___ _
ADDRESS: __ _
Steve &:Mary 5Imt 'Eccfes
13838183rif!{ve. SE
:J{etIhm, W!{98059
TELEPHONE NO -: ___ $'-f--"<R"-'5""'---....:OZ""-"2<.!...U'6'_-_S.L.--",Zc.;-'-LY'..><:0.L'_
Thy Statutes are my song
in the house of my pilgrimage.
Psalms 119:54
Steven C. VelOzo Senior
13730 1771 fi JIve. 5.1£. ,/
1?§nton, Wasfiington 98059
EcmK)f\.1,C u(
'"': [C '(~ I-I c-"
-,~~-',52~;.":' .-"
August 18'h, 2003
To:
Mr. Don Erickson
Project Manager, Strategic Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98055
Dear Mr. Erickson,
The signors of this letter do hereby notify you that,
I) We are responding to the Notice of Application dated August 8th , 2003 and
are in compliance with the time line to respond as set forth in said notification.
2) We strongly object to any project, and specifically project number
LUA-01-168, CPA, PREZONE, ECF;EAST RENTON PLATEAU
CPA #2003-M-04. which would allow annexation of affected areas shown per
Notice, rezoning of affected areas shown per notice and allowing of increase of
density as described per Notice.
3) All signors of this letter do agree with the content ofthis letter in its' entirety.
4) The signors of this letter do hereby, individually, wish to be entered as parties
of record and formally request that any public hearing(s) and/or decisions with
regard to the project as proposed be made known to those parties identified as
signors to this letter.
5) If no plans are on the table for public hearing of the issues in and around the
Notice and its' stipulations tbat this also serve as a formal and written request
for such a hearing.
Very Sincerely,
Signors:
. --..-. \ , ,
I
I
._.j
· ,-....
Signors, Continued iH
I ~ ~ I 0 I 7 7 ~,S I
.. ----~)
I 'S 7 /1 i 71"'+ All.!. ::;13 .
Don Erickson, Project Manager
Strategic Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Dear Don:
August 14, 2003
RECEIVED
AUG 1 8 2003
ECONOMIC D[VELOPMEN"I
NEIGHBORHOODS
t..ND ST:=IP.~(, ?LI\N~~NG
1n response to the Notice of Application mailed out to residents now being called East
Renton Plateau, I am sending my comments. T discussed this with Judy earlier today and
she said she would put me on the mailing list for future information about the area.
I have lived in my home for 44 years and it is hard to envision such change as has come
about in recent months.
I am opposed to the zoning amendment allowing up to 8 units per acre. 1n the semi rural
area of Briarwood, it seems to me that even 6 units per acre would change the semi rural
setting that makes it an attractive area. T don't believe it is necessary to fill up every
single piece of property with density housing.
My other reasons for objecting to a high maximum of building is the additional traffic on
the rural streets and the crowding of schools, additional needed fire and police protection.
I can't imagine the CITY OF RENTON being able to provide any better than the county
provides for these semi rural areas. The area that would affect me the most with this is at
the southeast part o£:tt!e near the Renton Fish & Game. My street is one of the main ones
coming offofCemetary Road (SE 12Sth) and any new housing in that area would
somewhat give an increase to the traffic on 175 th Ave SE and SE 134th which is already
heavily used.
Also with the vacant property still available in my area, if the amendment is made, there
will be more and more areas where the higher density is approved. It isn't fair to residents
who have a desire to live in semi rural areas to have high density developments squeeze
in around them.
Thanks for considering my concerns.
~~7.'fraf
Daisy Ward
13322 175 th Ave SE
Renton, W A 98059
August 14,2003
TO: City ofRenfon, EDNSP Dept.'/Don Erickson, Project Manager
RE PROJECT: LUA-Ol-MI. CPA PREZONE.ECFi East Renton Plateau CPA
#2003-M-04
I am writing in regards to the above Project and any other projects 1bat the City or County
may be considering., I have Iiwd in tbil! once beautiful area all my life, paid my ptoperty
taxes and tried to keep this area and community up to a high level. of neighborhoods. I am
now looking at some pretty disastrous things happeningf F_ ot.~.7}J At-
l .. ..., •• If • " .. 7 '. The roads, drainage, facilities are not present for ihlSGrul of
growth. We are going to have some very bad problems if we do not have beUer leadership
inareagrowth. .
The drainage in this area during heavy rainy, snowy years is bad. With all of the trees
being removed that help con1roI storm drainage we are going to have real problems. The
storm ponds will overftow and add to the problem like rivers do. I feel very sony for the
houses 1bat are built on the cliffs around here. I will keep a copy of this letter warning to
this situaIion.
"* .,. •. S "'~ __ .1Iieady becoma;a-,.. 1II121"'-'llIr' • ..,..
laDowiac l' , .. fOr.l ·bt .... witholltanyscl d .. fDII·IW'T-:t'ir'IlM:on
156'1' Ave SE, Renton. I cannot get across my street to my mailbox during traffic hours
and not traffic hours. The fumes from alllhe cars is causing some breathing problems for
me and also my mother who also lives on this street
I am asking for some conunonIgood sense consideration in adding to bad overgrowth in
this area, especia1ly to all the problems it is going and is already causing. I know 1hat
growth is going to occur, but please do it slowly with all of the ptapel' facilities that it·
requires making this neighborhood, area, state a place 1bat people will want to 1M: in and it
does not bring the tenib1e problems that some other areaslstates are having. It will be too
late then.
Thank You, J SaRy N!pert
14004156" Ave SE
Renton, Wa 98059
425-255-9983
·V -I :~;!t~~~~
PEA R /VI. R. f: ~ J ( l< S a 't--I : ! EcmOMlCX.'ELOPME'!T
. i.. -" ~~,+'9,H,lr~!~(~?:"~(,,;,·_,' WE R~cG-1 III?D '/ () ij( K N oil (c= of }I ~rUcIt'1~i/JK')~
(PRb.:rHi lUA -01 -I" ~s\ erA) PRnONt) ECF ; &A5T RENTDf..1
PLArGlr1A C.PA1*-<;100J-M-C'1)n-t15 Plr5T WE-G:-t< ANt? Wt5/-l
TlJ .s vlBM IT 11-+!:-r-o L!.-" oJ 11'--10 CO M.MEN TS ~
'1011\.£ fR.o..T(?-cr OG-5Cj2.1PPot-.f 5c;.c;.MS 5() UN D
&.xc.f2I?r Fu~ ALLvw'il-J£ LtP TV 8 UNITS" PGR.. AcRe;'"
W \-\tnt WE'-&~U~0 is G:A1t. /VD PE4-1.s~ H~ T/+E
C\+MVt-( r(--t OF 11+""15 C 6 M,~~vfl.H,..yt .L"f Y () vi. DR I VI;'
A1<-o IA N II 11* Ai<.r;. A" 5 Itt vJ "'-' 0 t-J 'I ~ ~R. MAP y'd 11
WIl,..L 51*-Wl>-J.,¥r WG-M~k"J.
wG" LNG-( G C(J~I C&f\.N <:'-1'> A-I F L;:'S r W l hi A-LACk-"
DF fR.,tili\\?\NL M{)(,ICt--i,i\L 1~kR./() M-lc SIAc.H (WH-ttH
15 8n"&1-IT iL'-lI1-tG-Nc?vv' f+dMG= Cuo-tSrR.IIl-Lnpc+ Wt-5r
6 r-: vt5)) 81A.. T ~ (j \l1~ /'v\/'rP SthW> ~6 VC-Mi. \\ UN f)6-Vl-L..oPfP
Pl .. ~10 /I M-tlC (-l CAN BE-0 2Vl'1..6 PC""" .ks fIJfIA..LJr"TlvN IhsG-s"
OlAf. C.IARi<.G-Nf CoN U-f_H 15 Hlt Itt--1'\. w-F"FtL VUL.KM(;-S
W t-\ \ l i-\ ) A-T & U"HI T5 I') HF~ A·a.e I /..JuVl U) M&-A1-l AHv\1-l6-f
I b c.kR. 5 (;IZ. C-kUl At ~G OF OnJC-1-o P.M?f.I T TV .HI) /1)
.M--l kLRG-AjJl.t 1Sf\r~ Tf(/I,-}--Pt(. ~ cfl.A)-TId't-1 {3Jn+-() 1:--)
LiJ (I'd .... A cU·>s P-'Ok!) ~AN J) ~"·nC-K~ T~ L{ 0 5"'.
rr=-'talA. KG-!/f ttvVI~\N£ P&i-HITLf "aw""'l,T [,JlLL
L&$.5tN T\-\,A.T I Jlflp.'rcr IA> (,lI(rtL Jr<, R.o.M> M.kIHThlkN{~4
_.
IN (; M cAt., 0 C (.' i'-t U;. ~~N ,,~, TH-P'1 t F 'iH E
HOU,StN" 0 6145 rr'1 t.'> (l) ~ H16/r1) IT WI\"I. .A-Uo Pl.1T
A .,SmA"" .. 1 ON \...(TIl.-IT'\/r5 M-tO ~C~V~C€-5 ~Ut4
AS WIr'rC...-R A-NoJ) b-t.Gi-n<"iL-11"'\/ ~M (...JUt.. kJ .M).-1r:;14~
IT MV\('I+ ,MO-KI:-~l\::Fil.-V\Lr ';1 MJ.--I'I .. 1TA-tN OiA~
t;.." (,G-t..L. (;1...( T F~R. G=-A14 i> » a L-I C E f> R-u ,-G-( ntl N ,
OF CvVl.~SG l-tt& I+C-11. J-A-X6-5 COLA L..1b iR. G-,MG V) 'f
n+G5£-UJNCWI\.!5) t7vtT WH-rl l.{) h+T~ n+~-l
W~&'H nt~ E-CO~OM'1 15 S-T~NM .. ./r, F/WA-L..L'1)
R.,&;ZONINh MSv ~!Zq4(5 ~&Wc~s WI;+\C H
.Ar 1\H,S ilMG-WVVlli) PAP,5G-l+kROSHltos ~N
fv\A-1J. '1 I ~ TlH5 /Yf<-bfr I ~ Fv~'E:1> n tbo l\' I4 P ,
rN. £ V\ M.M1"r'R ~I ) w t=-'i) &\...~ 8J ~ Nk'T Tbh..5
~NG-Xkn()l-.l ) ~n1O\Aldl \1 M,p6--trn5 n BG
13 M \ c..,ALL.'i S,/)"q-llD) I;, PR.o e.6-G-1O I ~-6 TD ~ FA:«)
frUr/) .§ l~ U L III N-() -I kl-(...() W H II l,) P TI! C?lb b4-'i -
IA 14-(I j v> E'1C A (. t. r;. ,
5, ~ cc-VU..-L V )
~4v:~
b &I.e.k U? (N. R og \?'~;~ " t-.I
Jhannn d-HJ-~
5 i:-t-1'rt.tI1-..! b, Rd ~T3G1",J
! J.-834 -l6 :>.!:t;hJ(:. 5);-
R.. G'k T11>-l ) '-11 J\'& t·t Ci...-$' () sq
I~d tq 2 0 ?i~q3 I .v V 4.,J',..t~
I
j)~Ct r tJ/r. 6!nCt:50/~ '~C. J
r do 110+ WcZ1/7+ cJar C{Jree:::L -ro ,be #rt/1-exed
h(f K~J we-do /luI-J1ee-eP /J?tJre houses ,ri our
V( yea....· Lue. /1 Ke.. tJUv~ rdrc:L/ a.+J/J105phere . 14k dJ
170+!))a~ -1 tn ~ U.)/It~ ;i/er q('J'e· .r d/sFKe...
/l;fel//5l Y --In€. {tJ//101/l!-o-f' l1ew Jrt/U5~S A..// a/oP?3
Jt9-8-I-A S+. 7f"} ~ we-fu-P .
,5)1 1 r {-e j J-. I Fva VI 1<::'0
;Vc~T,.5~
/ 7 '-I 5 V SE2 . /I../;;z t/ldJ S,/
/J . A. eM Tv r1 WCL '7 ? () s-c;
?';;2S d d-(p 9,,;2;;Z3
~.............................................................................. . ......•••.•.•..••••.•...•••....••.•••••. ;)<; /
It you would like to be made a party of record to receive further infoonation on this proposed project, complete this form .
and return to: City at Renton, Develop.,-'I Planning, 1055 South Grady Way, Rentf" WA 98055.
File No'/Name: LUA·01·168, CPA, Prezone, ECFfEast Renton Plateau CPA #2003-M-04
NAME: ROj.e,!t~ /?xtia,is ..; iolrla !3tV!~l~ /':J;] 1 9 2C''3
ADDRESS: '13137 Ifil3 !):u Ge-!in1m!J)f) tt~5~ -5 '5'S ~
TELEPHONEIo; 1-~5-.:L)5-?571 M -1;6-21/1-//3;}--
~ ~ flo!.-. ~ Jufodiu ''7/m. M0 ? w~ ~ 01-< N
,.k, :'J~ + (M!;~~ ,r #~ .fUA..L> (plj. kf as ~. ?~~I
Don Erickson, Project Manager
Strategic Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
August 18, 2003
I.US 2 a I
L ..
RE: Project Nwnber LUA-01-168, CPA, Prezone, ECFlEast Renton Plateau CPA#2003-
M-04
Mr. Erickson,
I just want to speak out against allowing a higher density of units to be built for the above
referenced project. There has been overwhelming development along NE 4th street up in
the Renton Highlands to Issaquah area already and also along Duvall. There are not
enough infrastructures to handle more high-density developments in the East Renton
Plateau. There are not enough thoroughfares to handle the traffic congestion even now;
more housing will overburden the roads even more. The schools in the Renton area,
despite remodeling are near capacity.
This area still has a "rural" fuel to it in some areas, how disappointing to diminish this
even more. Just because there is an "Urban Growth Boundary" does not mean that every
available inch needs to be covered in concrete and buildings up to that boundary.
I am asking to keep us more rural, build more parks and keep any currently open spaces
open.
Sincerely,
~tJ~
Rebecca A Letterer
5185 NE Pacific St
Renton, WA 98195
0,
Luis W. & Pacita Q. Tam
August 15'h 2003
City of Renton
Development Planning
lOSS South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Atrention: Mr, Don Erickson
4810 Somerset Dr .. Sf ..
Belle~ue, WA 98006
Tel: 206-763-6868: 425-746-0510
I 1 9
Re: Project: LUA-01-168, CPA. PREZONE, ECF; East Renton Plateau CPA#2003-M-04
Dear Me. Erickson:
We received your NOTICE OF APPLICATION for the above project and are requesting the Strategic
Planning Division to consider amendments to the City sponsored Comprehensive Plan Map for
potential annexation,
We owned a 5 acre lot under tax lot #1-1112305-9083-06. Located on the southeast comer ofSE 124th
st. and 156'h Ave, SE,
As the potential annexation area is proposed, we will be enclosed on three sides by RS8 zoning and
our property will have a King County restriction of 1 house per 5 acres,
We request the City of Renton Development Department to adjust the Urban Growth Boundary Line
to the north on SE 120'h St. and east to 164'" Ave, SE. We further request that this new area be zone
RS8 to be consistent with the contiguolls properties.
I am enclosing a map with the proposed adjustments highlighted for your consideration.
I also discussed this proposal with our neighboring property owner Me. Rick Dickson. We believe
this proposal will provide a better growth plan for the City of Renton and beneficial to all parties,
Thank you for considering our proposal.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ·
0a/!3/2003 02:38 2065750958 D AND R SALES PAGE 02/02
-l -----... ----,
~--t~-J---".-.~
----"1"--
NQT(CE OF APPL(CATl01.Occ
. ' .. ~ .. '
-'-.. ,
, .
August 17, 2003 AUG 20 2003
Subject: LUA-01-168, CPA, PREZONE, ECF; East Renton Plateau CPA #20Q.~:M,:94
Dear Don Erickson,
I'm writing to you because I care about my neighborhood. I live where I do because it is
a quiet, rural neighborhood with largc yards, Neighbors are friendly and like their
neighborhood the way it is.
The proposed amendments to the East Renton Plateau would substantially change our
neighborhood in an extremely negative manor. I am opposed to the changes as well as
the potential annexation.
Not all people want to live in a city type atmosphere with houses built on top of each
other with little or no privacy. I am one of those people. If that is what I wanted, I would
have bought a house in Seattle, not in rural King County.
I want to go on record as opposing the amendments and proposed annexation. Please
keep me informed regarding developments and what myself and my neighbors can do as
property owners to save our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
1J~&~.
17552 SE 134th St
Renton, W A 98059
425-228-6670
August 17, 2003
Marilynn Carlson
13616 1561h Ave SE, Renton WA 98059
rr:~
I AUG 2 0 2003
I cO('r,","", c "
L...::,
Project name / # LUA-01-168, CPA, PREZONE, ECF, EAST RENTON PLATEAU
CPA#2003-M-04; Don Erickson, Project Manager
Dear Sir,
This letter is in response to your Master Application for Zoning in our Area.
I chose to live in King County because I did not want to live in the city, and do not
want all the city services. I can not remember speaking to anyone in our area that wants
to live in the City of Renton. I'm sure that your police are fine but I want to stay with
county law enforcement. I do not agree with most of the decisions of the City of Renton
and many ofthe ways your taxes are spent.
The City of Renton has done an abysmal job of developing the County land it has
already grabbed up in this area. The developments are ugly with no natural vegetation
left, almost all are 100"10 impervious surface, and contain mosquito breeding surmce
water ponds that fill up inunediately in the winter and drain out the overflow pipes to
flood someone else.
The commercial development is no better. On 12th and Hwy 900 you allowed a variety
offive small businesses to be destroyed to put up a national drug store chain, Walgreens.
We already have three drugstores up here, two of which are a little more than a mile away
from each other. We now have no ice cream or natural/vitamin store. Small business is
the backbone of the United States not large national chains.
As for the planned zoning, I do not how you can have a residential rural within an
urhan growth boundary, although it is a nice idea. Furthermore the road 1561h Ave SE is
really no longer appropriate for single family dwellings. Many of the houses on this semi-
steep hill are right along the road. Considering that the road bed is not cut down, many of
the residents are in danger of receiving a vehicle into their home. Both King County and
the City of Renton have refused to provide another road southbound. With the new bridge
the already dangerous road will be intolerable with the increase in traffic. It is only a
matter of time before someone is maimed or killed. With the new bridge there will also
be renewed truck traffic to further increase the danger and foul the air with deadly diesel
emissions made worse because of the grade up the hill If the residents of 156tb can not be
bought out like the Avondale {in Redmond} residents were, a much more appropriate use
is assisted living, retirement fucilities, or small business with air filtration systems.
Unfortunately, the State of Washington has decided to amend annexation to a process
that trades the residents of an urban growth boundary from county to city in a manner
similar to slaves, without the right of self-determination. Without a direct vote of the
residents of the area, our civil rights are being violated.
Thank You
Marilynn Carlson
Don Erickson
Project Manager
Strategic Planning Division
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
August 15, 2003
Re: Proposed Project LUA-01-168, CPA, PREZONE, ECF, East Renton Plateau CPA #2003-M-04
Dear Mr. Erickson,
We have lived in the proposed project area since 1969. There remain questions about where the
proposed new "quality" subdivisions would be built and whether ANY property in Plan map area
could potentially be used for the increased density proposed? However, the answers to these questions
would not change the over-riding fact that we are against this proposed change in zoning to allow 4 -
8 units per net acre.
4-8 units per acre will not provide the space needed for families to live comfortably. The current lots
in the Plan map area DO provide adequate space for children to play in their own yards without
resorting to spending time in the streets. People move into this area because they choose not to live in
a crowded urban development. Adding such housing density, as proposed by this plan, would increase
traffic, increase kids roaming or playing in the streets, and potentially increase crime. It would follow
that adding dense lower cost housing to the area would potentially decrease property values, as well.
Therefore, we recommend to you that this proposed project is not good for our neighborhood.
Please send us any further information on the proposed project.
Sincerely, 1
JJ, hi ".. " f: C"/) A ~ " & (tA.. L' V >-If-(J!A.A.V~ i!e.... ~ V'-""'-"-' OV-
Lawrence and Carolyn Anderson
16713 SE 149th Street
Renton, W A 98059
/.j2 s: Jz'i' (,,",.,-;7
,I
Don Erickson
Project Manager
I,UG 20 2003
I Strategic Planning Division
City of Renton
\055 South Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
August 15, 2003
Re: Proposed Project LUA-01-168, CPA, PREZONE, ECF, East Renton Plateau CPA #2003-M-04
Dear Mr. Erickson,
We have lived in the proposed project area sinee 1969. There remain questions about where the
proposed new "quality" subdivisions would be built and whether ANY property in Plan map area
could potentially be used for the increased density proposed? However, the answers to these questions
would not change the over-riding fact that we are against this proposed change in zoning to allow 4 -
8 units per net acre.
4-8 units per acre will not provide the space needed for families to live comfortably. The current lots
in the Plan map area DO provide adequate space for children to play in their own yards without
resorting to spending time in the streets. People move into this area because they choose not to live in
a crowded urban development. Adding such housing density, as proposed by this plan, would increase
traffic, increase kids roaming or playing in the streets, and potentially increase crime. It would follow
that adding dense lower cost housing to the area would potentially decrease property values, as well.
Therefore, we recommend to you that this proposed project is not good for our neighborhood.
Please send us any further information on the proposed project.
Sin Iy,
\ ~~1--L_-
wrence and Carolyn Anderson
16713 SE 149"' Street
Renton, WA 98059
,
._ .• -.-..1
City of Renton
EDNSP DeptIDon Erickson
Project Manager
!055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
August 14, 2003
Sir
AUG 1 8 2003
ECONOMIC Di:VEl..OPMENT
NEIGi-m:}R'-i(Y)[J-S .
AN[i ~nl_)J~-'-;"'< '~.i..!::...~.I~~(~
I appears that the city of Renton is planning to annex the entire East Renton Plateau with out a
vote of the home owners. Is this true and it the plan?
I appose such a plan based on the more than tripled increase in traffic without appropriate street
and thoroughfare improvements. In my opinion such improvements should be at the expense of
the developers and new home owners, not current home owners.
Is this a done deal before we had an opportunity to press a vote? If so, it would seem the
politician pockets have been sufficiently lined to make such an end run.
R. A Allwine
16254 SE 144th Street
Renton, W A. 98059
August 13, 2003
City of Renton
Development Planning
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
Attention: Mr. Don Erickson
Re: Project: LUA-01-168, CPA, Prezone,
ECFlEast Renton Plateau CPA #2003-M-04
Dear Mr. Erickson,
.---.".-~". REeF
; AUG 1 8 2003
I lCONOMIC DE IiELOPM!::NT L At~,_1 ~;~'~~~:2~:_;:.tI~~~:~r~;:,~:u
We request that the Strategic Planning Division consider amendments to the City
Sponsored Comprehensive Plan Map for Potential Annexation.
We are property owners (approximately 38 acres -tax lots 112305-9012/9079/9072 and
935330-390) located between the White rence Ranch development and the Coalfield
Crossing development.
As the potential annexation area is proposed, we will be enclosed on three sides by RS8
zoning and our property will have a King County restriction of 1 house per 5 acres.
We would like the City of Renton Development Planning Department to adjust the Urban
Growth Boundary Line east on 120th Street to I 64th ; and south on 164 th back to 128 th
Street. With a RS8 zoning in this new area, the property will be consistent with the
contiguous properties.
I have enclosed a map with the proposed adj ustments highlighted in red, and our property
highlighted in yellow.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
..... -~/. . .. . J /'
~~~L.. ...
Rick Dickson
15630 SE 124th Street
Renton, W A 98059
(206) 551-9132
c
NOTICE OF APPLICATI01.doc
-------------~.~
P.O. Box 2077
Renton, WA 98056-2077
........ ........-... -----'._----.
. """" -~--=.
i", 'c\ _ .. ':::_""~_'~'
. PM rot "."--"'~"lfS"POSTAGE .
: !!i' ~I"I:~~~; 7000 1670 ODDS 5953 7322
C', 1-'{ O~ ~+O(l
'bon t:f,c-\<son) P('oi~ct-\Y1'3 r .
C::;·hc+p'j" L PIU1'1(,H n~ ~",J ',510(\
106"S .s. (':"r,'<d~1 ~o..y
KC<I,rt,n, Wt1 '1805~)
98055 000608~ 1-05
August 13, 2003
Don Erickson, Project Manager
Strategic Planning Di vision
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
AUG 15 2003
Re: File No./Narne: LUA-01-168, CPA, Prezone, EFClEast Renton Plateau CPA #2003-M-04
Dear Mr. Erickson
After reading the Notice of Application for the referenced Master Application, I have a question or
two.
It would appear from the information provided that the major change right now is allowing a
density change from 4 units per acre to 8 units per acre. This does not bother me too much except
for the fact there are no sewers in a major part of this area. Will the City of Renton be extending
sewers to cover the "affected areas"?
If sewers are extended to cover the "affected areas" and at what time will this occur?
If sewers are extended, what will be the cost to a homeowner?
Is the intent, as suggested in the Notice, to include the "affected areas" into the Renton City
Limits? If so, as a homeowner what benefit will I see and when will this occur?
My personal opinion of this proposed annexation is going to cost me money without any evidence
of benefits.
I would appreciate an answer to the above questions.
Siycerel y j. ~ '-#---:
~~~"-;I obI~
Ivan L. Ittner
18212 SE l47th Street
Renton, W A 98059
To: Don Erickson,
Project Manager
Strategic PIanning Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
From: Charles Walters
14205 154th Ave SE
Renton, W A 98059
RE: LUA-OI-168, CPA, PREZONE, ECF; East Renton Plateau CPA #2003-M-04
I object to the rezoning for higher density residential areas in the described location. I
moved out here because I detest the tight packing of people into small areas as is the case
with much of Seattle. When I moved here this area was semi rural, with small farms and
horse ranches. Recently this area has been spotted with countless sites of "Loggers
Daylight," and over-priced cookie cutter housing, all of which reduce the quality ofliving
here.
Please do not allow any such high density rezoning in my
neighborhood.
.j
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
<mailform@ci.renton.wa.us>
<Inicolay@ci.renton.wa.us>
Tuesday, August 12, 2003 12:56:23 PM
Zoning Land Use Information Request
Dear Inicolay@ci.renton.wa.us,
The user chose:
firsUast_name __ = John Todderud
st_address1 = 5316 NE 24th Court
sCaddress2 =
city_state_zip = Renton, WA 98059
phone_number = 425-442-5998
from = jtodderud@yahoo.com
requesUocation_ = My neighbor received a postal mailing describing a proposed rezoning of areas
near my neighborhood, Stonegate. I did not receive that mailing and wanted to make sure my name is
properly registered for these mailings. I moved to this address last fall. Please confirm that you have the
correct name for this address and that zoning-issue mailings are being sent to me. This particular mailing
was from Don Erickson. Thank you.
problem-'_need_ = Same. Why is this a required field?
required = problem-,_need_,requesUocation_
AUG-I 2-2003 11:5TAM FROM-BAYLIS ARCHITECTS 415-453-8013 T-8ST P.OOI/OOI F-819
~. \ '2. -0 -:;,
~iV c:.t1"t:
4'''L.5~ ~'1~
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
A Mastar Applicalio has bean filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton.
The following bri ~fI' describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals.
I
PROJECT NUMBE NAME:
-·PROJECT DESCI~I+lON;.-
PUBLIC APPRO'! 'S:
I
APPLICANT!PROJ CT
CONTACT PER.!! 0 :
LUA-01-168, CPA, PREZONE, ECF; East Ranton Plataau CPA#2003-M-04
, 1A//~
·City sP,9 oreeL Comprehensive Plan map_ . UrQJJ1_Resil:len~iog[e.
Famil to esidential Rural, zoning code t a \lowing bonus
density ween 4 units per net acre up 10 maximum of 8 units r net acre for
quality Clesigned sUDdivisions, and, prezoning to adopt uture zonIng designations
within the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area.
Renton Potential Annexation Area, east of City limits, north of Cedar River to
edge of Urban Growth Area boundary.
Environmental Review, Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments
City of Renton, EDNSP Oept.lDon Erickson, project Manager
Comments on th,! ave application must tJe submitted in writing to Don EricKson, Project Manager, Strategic Planning
Division, 1055 S(.ut~ Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on August 22"·, 2003. If you have questions about
this proposal, or wi h to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact Don Erickson at
(425) 430-6581. An one who suomits wrinen comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of
any decision on t tis ~roject.
I , I PLEASE INCLIJD THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION
_ .DATE OF..APP.ll .ION;. Qec~rnber 15._£002 . _
March 15, 2003
DATE OF NOTI(;E F APPLICATION: AugustB,2003
SEE ATIACHED MAP OF AREA AFFECTED
If you would liKe to !be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form
and return to: C ty f Renton, Development Planning. 1055 South Grady way, Renton, WA 98055.
File NoJName: L A-Ol-168, CPA, Prezone, ECF/East Renton Plateau CPA #200~M-04
NAME: __ 4g~~~~~~~~=~ __ ~ ____________________________ __
ADDRESS: ':i c::;c. N
TELEPHONE N,).: h-fi. 454 -6)5(do {w~
/
City of Renton
EDNSP
1055 S Grady Way
Renton WA 98055
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton.
The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals.
PROJECT NUMBER/NAME:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
PROJECT LOCATION:
PUBLIC APPROVALS:
APPLICANT/PROJECT
CONTACT PERSON:
LUA-01-168, CPA, PREZONE, ECF; East Renton Plateau CPA #2003-M-04
C~y sponsored Comprehensive Plan map amendment from Residential Single
Family to Residential Rural, zoning code text amendments allowing bonus
density between 4 units per net acre up to a maximum of 8 units per net acre for
quality designed subdivisions, and, prezoning to adopt future zoning designations
within the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area.
Renton Potential Annexation Area, east of City limits, north of Cedar River to
edge of Urban Growth Area boundary.
Environmental Review, Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments
City of Renton, EDNSP Dept./Don Erickson, Project Manager
Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Don Erickson, Project Manager, Strategic Planning
Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on August 25th, 2003, If you have questions about
this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive addHional notification by mail, contact Don Erickson at
(425) 430-6581. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of
any decision on this project.
PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION
DATE OF APPLICATION:
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION:
DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION:
Decem ber 15, 2002
March 15, 2003
August 8, 2003
SEE ATTACHED MAP OF AREA AFFECTED
X --------------------------'------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further infonmation on this proposed project, complete this fonm
and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055.
File No.lName: LUA-Ol-168, CPA, Prezone, ECF/East Renton Plateau CPA #2003-M-04
NAME: ______________________________________________________________ ___
ADDRESS: ____________________________________________________________ ___
TELEPHONE NO,: ___________________________ _
NOTICE OF APPLlCATI01.doc
Date:
To:
From:
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
August 13,2003
Don Erickson, Project Manager
Jennifer Henning, Development Services f\iI:J b>-\fH
Subject: LUA-01-168,CPA,Prezone,ECF
East Renton Plateau Compo Plan Amendment
The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the
subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is
accepted for review.
It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on
August 26,2003. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is
required to continue processing your application.
Please contact me, at X. 7286 if you have any questions.
acceplance memo.doc
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
CITY OF RENTON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS,
AND STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
June 3,2003
Planning Commission
Rebecca~lanning Manager
STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson, (X6581)
SUBJECT:
ISSUE:
East Renton Plateau CPA Land Use Alternatives
Initial Background Briefing
If
Whether the current Comprehensive Plan land use designations for specific areas within the
study area are still appropriate?
• What is the desired residential character and density within the East Renton Potential
Annexation Area (PAA)?
• Which areas should be Single Family Residential (RS) with R-5 or R-8 zoning, and
which should be Residential Rural (RR) with R-5 zoning?
• Should a plat and density pattern with larger lots be allowed to encourage upper
income and/or higher quality developments in portions of the study area?
• Does the concept of having a transition zone between rural designations outside of the
Urban Growth Bonndary (UGB) and more intense zones such as the R-8 zone still
make sense?
Whether current zoning classifications adequately address the desired character and
development patterns for the study area or whether revised or new zoning would be more
appropriate?
• Does the R-5 zone as currently configured still fulfill its intended purpose as a
transition zone between lower density rural designations such as R-l and more intense
zones such as the R-8 zone?
• Should a new zoning designation, such as R-4, be considered if it was more
compatible with much of the study area's existing suburban/rural character than the
existing R -5 zoning designation?
June 3, 2003
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
• Continue analysis and study of these issues. Specific recommendations will be presented
to the Planning Commission at subsequent meetings.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
The East Renton Plateau CPA study area is defined as the area within Renton's PAA north of
Maple Valley Highway, east of 13611> Avenue SE (Bremerton Avenue NE) to the Urban'
Growth Boundary (UGB) to the east, and SE May Valley Road on the north. The area is
approximately 2,730 acres in size.
Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning
Renton Plan
Currently the study area is designated both Residential Rural (RR) and Residential Single
Family (RS) on the City's Comprehensive Plan land use map (see Figure 1).
The RR designation represe:its 28 % of the study area and allows three different zones:
Resource Conservation, R-l and R-5. Resource Conservation and R-l are applied to lands
with significant environmental constraints. Lower densities ranging from one unit per 10
acres to one unit per acre are allowed in these two zones. Within the RR designation, the R-
5 zone with density at five units per net acre, is only applied to lands that do not include
significant sensitive areas. Development may be clustered in small lots with a minimum lot
size of 4,500 sq. ft., but typical lots are 7,200 sq. ft. or larger. There is no minimnm density
in the R-5 zone.
The RS designation represents 72 % of the study area and allows two zones, R-5 and R-8. In
the RS designation, R-5 zoning can only be applied within one-half mile of the Urban Growth
Boundary. The provisions of the zoning are the same as in the RR designation. The R-8 zone
allows residential densities ranging from five units per net acre (minimnm density) to as high
as 9.7 units per net acre (the latter on pre-existing lots of less than V2 acrein size). It
typically encourages small lot single-family development with a minimnm lot size of 4,500
square feet. These smaller lots usually are developed with two-story houses and an attached
garage.
Most of the study area is not yet designated with one of Renton's zoning designations.
Renton's Comprehensive Plan applies outside the City within the PAA, but zoning is applied
either upon annexation or upon adoption ofa pre-zoning ordinance.
King County Plan
The study area is designated Urban Residential (4-12 units per gross acre) on King County's
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The wide range allows the flexibility to rezone land
before the King County Hearing Examiner. Currently, most of the area is zoned R-4 with a
small amount of land zoned R-6 near the existing City of Renton boundary. King County
uses gross density, which allows approximately 20% greater density than the net density
P1anning Commission Issue Paper #3.doc
... ,
June 3, 2003
Page 3
system used in Renton. Consequently R-4 zoning in King County is roughly equivalent to R-
5 zoning in Renton.
Services
Renton Fire currently provides service in this area under contract with Fire District #25. The
study area is primarily within Water District 90's service area.
Renton is the sewer provider within the study area. In the late 1990s, the City Council
decided to allow out-of-city sewer service if proposed development within the study complied
with Renton's Comprehensive Plan. However, the Comprehensive Plan was silent on the
issue of whether R-5 or R-8 zoning was appropriate. At that time the City agreed to provide
sewer to single family projects at densities up to 8 units per net acre because this was the
maximum density allowed under the Plan. Because a number of projects approved by King
County in the study area do not conform to City road, lot dimension, emergency access and
other development standards, as well as the prospect of full development at R-8 zoning, the
Administration became increasingly concerned. Due to its inability to reach agreement with
King County on developmeur standards for new plats, the City Council changed policy and
stopped providing out-of-city sewer service to this area early 2002. A number of parcels are
still vested for Renton sewer service, but additional service requests are currently not being
processed within the study area.
Growth Targets
Under GMA, cities receive a growth target based on their zoning and land area, as does
unincorporated King County. The PAA targets are established based on County zoning and
development trends. When Renton annexes land, the City target is amended based on a
predetermined formula and a percentage of the unincorporated area target is added to the
Renton target. The growth target assigned to the East Renton PAA is quite low based on
current R -4 (gross) zoning.
Based on the municipal boundary as of July 2002, the East Renton PAA had 955 units of
capacity on vacant land, and 867 units of capacity on redevelopable land for a total of 1,822
units. The unincorporated area target for 2022 is 35 % of capacity or 638 units.
Within the Renton city limits, capacity is 10,620 units and the 2022 target is 6,198 units.
Character of Existing Development
Development in the study area is exclusively single family. There is no existing multi-family
or commercial development and no zoning that allows it in the future. Most of the area still
retains a rich vegetative cover throughout. Platted lots are in the 7,200 square foot to 21,000
square foot range and there are a significant number of parcels over one acre (see Figure 2).
The area is served by two major arterial roads, NE 4th (1281b St.) and 15()'i' St. (the major
north/south connection to the Maple Valley Highway). The study area includes four schools
Planning Commission Issue Paper #3.doc
June 3,2003
Page 4
and one developed park. King County owns several undeveloped park lands in the area and
another developed park out of the study area. (See Figure 3.)
Development in this area is characterized by suburban style housing on larger lots often with
large front yard setbacks. Housing styles are typical of the architectural styles from the
1960s through the present. More recent development along the NE 4'" corridor conforms to
the Renton R-8 standards. Figure 4 shows the location of new development within the
recently annexed portions of the study area compared with older development that reflects a
larger lot development standard.
Recent applications within both the recently annexed area, and on larger parcels within the
unincorporated area,propose plats at approximately 8 dulacre net or 6 dulacre gross. Two of
these new plats are illustrated on Figure 4. The type of housing most recently built on plats
of this type is also shown.
City of Renton Land Use and Housing Policies
Both the Land Use ElementRfid Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan provide policy
direction for single family development within the RS and RR designations. Several policies,
summarized in Figure 5, are relevant to the issues under review for this study area.
The City Council has expressed an interest in having some opportunities for larger lot
development in order to attract a wider range of housing stock. The policies adopted in the
Housing Element generally call for 30% of Renton's new housing to be upper income units,
and support development on lots larger than 7,200 square feet to accommodate upper income
development. The question is whether the market and the current growth management policy
framework will support land use policy that allows new larger lot single family plats. In the
Growth Management era, urban is defined as a minimum density of four dwelling units per
net acre. Consequently, one-acre or one-half acre zoning can not be allowed to promote
higher income housing types and/or a different type of life style. Many surrounding
suburban cities already have a significant number of recent plats with larger lots (greater than
7,200 sq. ft.), but this type of development is noticeably absent in Renton. Renton has been
an urban city since its beginning and has many smaller lot neighborhoods with older housing
stock. With the present land development and platting patterns in Renton, there are few
places where larger plat develop is an alternative. Some adjacent lower density housing
areas, such as Newcastle, which might have annexed to Renton, have incorporated into
separate cities.
The study area is one district where larger parcels of vacant and under-utilized land are still
available, and there is the potential for a range of housing options. At present there is
significant market demand for R-8 style small lot (4,500 sq. ft.) single-family development in
this area as well as the slightly larger R-5 form of new development (7,200 sq. ft.). Under
present policies it is reasonable to expect the eventual development of remaining parcels in
this area at the higher densities.
Planning Commission Issue Paper #3.doc
June 3, 2003
Page 5
Conclusion
The East Renton Potential Annexation Area Land Use Study provides an opportunity for the
City to debate significant policy issues that will direct both the type and density of future
development in this area. Through land use, zoning and sewer extension policies, Renton can
determine the future development pattern of much of this area. The larger question is: Is it
desirable for a city like Renton to have a residential district that continues to allow the large
lot form of single family development, or should this form of development remain only
outside the UGB, and as vested in pre-GMA cities?
cc: Mayor Tanner
Jay Covington
Alex Pietsch
Planning Commission Issue Paper #3_doc
Project Proposals Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2003
City Initiated
Application 2003-M-Ol (LUA-Ol-165) Comprehensive PIan Land Use Map Amendment
Washington State Department of Transportation, 55 acres located at South Talbot Road
and South 43" Street. Residential Rural to Residential Single Family, Residential Planned
Neighborhood or Residential Options, and Employment Area Office.
This amendment requests consideration of a change in land use designation from Residential
Rural (R-I zoning) to a combination of Employment Area-Office (CO zoning), Residential
Single Family (R-8 zoning) and Residential Options or Residential Planned Neighborhood (R-
IO or R-14 zoning) to promote redevelopment of this area and diversification of the tax-base.
The property owner requests clustering future development sites in three zones based on
topography. The review process will consider whether an increase in residential capacity for
detached and attached homes and additional office capacity implements the overall objectives of
the Comprehensive Plan and City Council Business Plan Goals.
Application 2003-M-02 (LUA-Ol-167) Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment
King County Department of Health, 5 acres located at SE 3"'/4'" St., Employment Area-
Industrial to Employment Area Commercial or Center Suburban.
This amendment is a request to evaluate the redevelopment potential of this site as a mixed-use
designation allowing a combination of residential and office/medical clinic uses. The review
process will consider whether an increase in residential capacity is appropriate at this location.
The office and medical clinic uses are already allowed under existing Industrial land use
policies and IL zoning.
Application 2003-M-03 (LUA-Ol-166) Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment,
20,625 square feet of right of way between the eastern edge of the 1-405 corridor on the
west and Cedar River trail on the east. Owned by Washington State Department of
Transportation, Center-Office Residential to Resource Conservation.
This amendment is a technical correction to the Land Use map rectifying the designation of this
remnant parcel.
Application 2003-M-04 (LUA-Ol-l68) City of Renton, Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
Amendment to review the Single Family Designation for 2,592 acres within the East
Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area. Residential Single Family to Residential
Rural.
This application will consider whether the overall Comprehensive Plan Vision, Land Use
Element and Housing Element policies are better implemented by the Residential Rural
Designation with potential RC, R-J or R-5 zoning or by the Residential Single Family
Designation with potential R - 5 or R -8 zoning. This review will focus on the land capacity, lot
size, housing types and other development standards implementing the R-5 zone compared with
the R-8 zone in the City of Renton, and on the type of development allowed in the
corresponding King County R-4 or R-6 zoning. The review will also consider transportation
and road capacity issues within this corridor.
H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\GMA Update\Map\Project Proposals Summary3.doc
Application 2003-M-6 (LUA-Ol-163) City of Renton, Amendment to Comprehensive Plan
Map to adjust parcel boundary between Liberty Ridge and Aegis Properties Residential
Planned Neighborhood, with R-IO Zoning to Employment Area Industrial with IL zoning.
This small piece of land fronts on NE 3"'. It is currently part of the Liberty Ridge property.
The property owners are proposing a lot line adjustment to consolidate the small wedge with the
Aegis property. The owner of the Aegis property is purchasing this "miss ing piece" to create
full frontage. The proposal is to change the land use designation of the wedge to be consistent
with the Employment Area Industrial designation already on the Aegis property.
Application 2003-M-8 (LUA-Ol-l64) City of Renton, Merlino Map Amendment request to
amend Land Use Designation from Residential Multifamily InfiII to Residential Options
and amend the existing Development Agreement to reduce density on the site.
The proposal is to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for 25.68 acres from
RM-I to RO as well as amend Section 3 of the September 2000 Development Agreement
between the City of Renton and the owners, SR 900 LLC. The site is located along the south
side of SR-900 about 950 feet east of its intersection with 6Slh Avenue South.
H:IEDNSP'Comp PlanlAmendmentslGMA UpdatelMaplProjecl Proposals Summary3.doc 2
'I
PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST:
The Stilte environmental PoIIcy.Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires an govemmenlalagencies
to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before milking decisions. An EnvIronmentallmpad
Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable signiflcant adverse impacts on the,
quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist Is to provide information to help you and the
agency Identify Impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid Impacts from the proposal, If it can
be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS Is required. '
INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS:
fbI!; environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic Information about your proposal.
Govemmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your
proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most
precise information known, or give the best description you can.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases,
you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need
to hire experts. If you really do not knOw the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal,
write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary
delays later.
Some .. questip/ls ask, about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark
designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the govemmental agencies can
assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even If you plan to do them over a period of
time or on differeirt parcels of land. Attach any adclitional information that will help describe your
projl9sal or Hs environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to
explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be
Significant adverse Impact. -
USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS:
Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not
apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D).
For nonproject actions (actiOns invoMng decisions on jl9llcies, plans and programs), the references in
the checklist to the words "project," 'applicant," and 'property or site' should be read as 'proposal,"
'proposer,' and 'affected geographic area,' respectively.
DEVelOPMENT PlANNING
CITY OF RENTON
DEC 1 7 ~~'1
RECEivED
•
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project. If applicable:
2001 ~~~ ~/f(.~A~
2. . Name of applicant:
~cf~,
3. __ Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
lOSS ~~ ~ ~ ~ 'UrOS'," 'I').~ 1/10 {,$"M
Date checkJIst prepared: ~ t.t..t 4.
IZ/n/Ol
5. Agency requesting checklist:
w.,.~
8. Proposed timing or schedule (Including phasing, If applicable):
7. . Do you have any plans for future addillons, expansion, or further activity related to or l:OIIIlecled
wIIh this proposal? If yes, explain. .
8. list any envlronmentat Intormatlon you know about that has been prepared, or win be prepared,
directly related to this proposal. (lIr,ef~~""" f~ ~K fU.1~1~
UJltl ~ ~;..."..,. St.,~ ~IS a.l115
9. Do you know whether applications are pend"mg for govemmental approvals of other proposals
directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. to It..
10. list any govemmental approvals or pennIts that wiN be needed for your proposal, If known. PA
11. Givl!. brief, complete description. of your proposal, IncIudlilg the proposed uses and the size of
the project and site.
~c.~~~1
2
"
Emit .... _ CIIedIIoI
12. Location of the proposal. Give sUfficient Information for a person to understarid the precise
location of your proposed project. including a street address, if any, and section, township, and
range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries
of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map. and topographic map, if
reasonably'avaHabie. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not
required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit appllcalJons related to this
checldlsl
~ wi4 .r.. -h.tt ~ ~ ~ ~ fa.t. rr»r'4WlIIJntlItls
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. EARTH tJA,
a. General description of the site (circle one); fIat,roIling,' hilly, steep slopes; mountainous, '
oIher ____ --,-_,
b. What Is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) ~
c. What general types of soils are found on the stte (for e~mple, clay, sand,. gravel, peat,
muck)? If you know the classification of agricultUral soils"specify them',andnote any
prime farmland. ~
d. Are there surface Indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe. AA
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any fdling or grading
proposed. Indicate source of fill. tJA
f. Could erosion occur as a resuH of clearing, construcllon, or use? If so, generally
describe. "'"
g. About what percent of the site will be covered, with impervious surfaces after project
conslrucllon (for example, asphaH or buildings)? ~
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacls 10 the eaM, if any: IJA
3
E""'iA ...... ChedIIst
2. AIR
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (I.e., dust, automobile,
odors, Industrial wood smoke) during consIlUdIon and when the project is completed? If
any, generally describe and give approximate quanIIies If known. fJ,\
. b. Ate there any off-site sources of emission or odor tJiat may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe. Nf\ . .
. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other ImpactS to air, If anyJ},\
3. WATER IIJA
a. Surface Water:
1) Is thera anyj$urface water body on or In the Immedlate .. vlcinity ofthe!Slle{lncludlng year-
round and seasonal streams, sal\Water; lakes, ponds,. wetlands)? ·.lfyes,. describe type
and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream· or river It flows Into. U\
2) Will the project require any worIt over, in, oradjacentto(wilhin 2OOJeel) the described
waten;? If yes, please descrI!Ie and attach available plans.~
3) Estimate the amount of lin and dredge material that would be placed In or removed from
surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected.
Indicate the source of lill material. ~
") Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give generel
descrlpllon .. purpose, .and approximate quantities If known. ~
5} Does the proposal lie within a 100.year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan.~
6} Does the proposal involve anydisdlarges of waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the Iype of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. ""
4
, ,
b. Ground Water:
1) Win ground water be Withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give
general descrlpflon, purpose, and approximate quantltles if known. ~
2) DescrIbe waste materiallllat will be discharged Into the ground from septic tanks or other
sources, If any (fOr example: Domestic sewage; Industrial. containing the foJlowlng
chemicals ... ; agriCultural; etc.). Describe the generslsize of the system, the number of
such systems, the number of houses to ,be served (If applicable), or the ,number of
animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
C. Water Runoff (including stonn water): lJA
1) DescrIbe the source of runoff (mcJuding stonn wateJ) and method of collection and
disposal, If any (Include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water
flow Into other waters, If so, describe.
2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally descrlbeJJA.
d. Proposed measureS to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, If
any:~
4. PLANTS .....
a. Check or cJrcJe types of vegetation found on the site:
__ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
__ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
shrubs
__ grass
__ pasture
_' _ crop or grain
__ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
, __ ' water plants: water 61y, eel grass, miltoil, other
_._ other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or aHered?
c. Us! threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site, if any:
5
ElMIUW,MI&af a..drIIt
5. ANIMALS tvA
a. Cin;Ie any bInfs and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known
to be on or near the site:
BiIds: hawk, heron. eagle. songb/Ids. other ___ ---, __
MammaJs:deer. bear. ~ beaver. other.,..-"'""'" _____ _
fish: baSs. salmon. trout, heRIng. shellfish. other ____ _
b. . . list anythrealeoedorenclangered species known to be on orneerthe slie.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain
d.PropOsed measures 10 ~ or enhance wildlife. If any:
6, ENERGY AND NAlliRAL RESOURCES IJA
a. . . What kinds of energy (eleclrlc, natural gas. 011. woolhlove. solar) will be used 10 meet
the completed project's energy needs? Descrlbewhelher it,wlllbBused',forheating.
manufacturing, etc.
b. Would your project affect the potential usa of solar energy by:adjacent properties? If so.
generally describe.
c. Whal kinds of energy . conservation fealures are . Included In the plans of this proposal?
list other propOsed measures 10 reduce or control energy impaCts, if any:
7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH. ~
a. Ale there any environmental health hazards, Including exposure to toxic chemicals,
!iSk of fire and explosion. spill, or hazardous wasle; that could occur as a resullof this
proposal? If so, describe.
1) Describe special emergency services thai might be required.
2) PropOsed measures 10 reduce or control environmental health hazards, If any:
6
"--,
Emrironmenlal CheekflSl
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic.
equipment, operation, other)?
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a
short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)?
Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, If any:
8. LAND AND SHOREUNE USE
a. . What Is the current use of the site and adjacent ~perties? ~ ~ ~
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. U\
c. . Describe any structures on the sile.oJ\
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? IJ.\
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Ste. ~ ~
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? .5et, att4dtN 1Itti:t
g. If applicable, what Is the current shoreline master program d .idgnation of the site? IIA
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmenta'~: sensitive" area? If so,
specify.~
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? A)I\
7
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project dlspJace?
k. Proposed measures to avold or reduce displacement irnpads, if any:
I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal Is compatible YJith exisUng and projected
land uses and plans, if any: .' .. ,1
9.
'.0. AESTHETICS l)A
a. What IS the tallest height of any proposed strutture(s), not 1,!cJuding antennas; what Is
the principal exterior building materlal(s) proposed. .
b. What views in the immediate vlcinily would be aHered or obslruUed?
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
11 •. ' 'UGHT AND GLARE ~
a. . What type of light or glare win the proposal produce? What lime of day would it mainly
occur?
b. Could light or glare from the fmished project be a safely hazard or interfere with views?
8
En. ......... ChocIdIsI
12.
13.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? ~
d. Proposed me8$Ures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: A11t
b. Would the proposed project displace any exisIIngrecreatlonal'IISe$?lf$O,descrlbe~
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, Including recreatlon~
opportunitlesio be provided by the project or.apPIicant,.lf any:
HISTORIC AND C'lLTURALPRESERVAnON~a' ~'" ~.~ fJlSttY*,h.'\~~ 111i1~1I.lH1'f11fr1 CS1lld-t OJ~"T-D2 I ~.
a. Are there any pmce~"or~edsli!tedCln, 'for, na6Ofla1· e, •
preservation registers known 10 be on or next io the site? Ifso, generally describe.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic;. archaeological, scientific, or
cutturallmporlance known 10 be on or next to the site. ~
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, If any: ~
9
d. Will the proposaJ require any new roads or streets, or improvements to exIsIIng roads or
streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or
private? Al.\,
e. Will the project use (or occur in the Jmmelfl8le vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportal/on? If so, generally descrlbe~
f. How many vehicular trips per day would .be . generated by' the completed project? If
. known, Indicate when peak voJumes would occur. ~
g. Propc)sed measures to reduce;orlcontroltransportatlon Impacts, It any: ~
b. ProPQsed measures 10 reduce or controJ direct Impacts on public services, It any. ~
16. UTIUTIES trnU114
a. Circle utilities currently available at the sHe: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse
service, telephone, sanHary sewer, septic system, other. A.h\
b. Describe the utilities that are· proposed for the project, the· uti/Hy providing the service,
and the general consttuct/on actIviIIes on the site or In the Immediate v\cInHy which
might be needed. "'A, . -.
c. SIGNATURE .
I, the-undersigned, state that to the best of mykoowledge the above Information Is true and
CoinpJete. It Is understOQd thai the lead-agency may withdraw any declaration of non-
significance that it might Issue In reliance UPQn this checklist should there be any wIIJfuI
misrepresentation or wiotul Jack of full dIsclosUre on my part.
"PropOnent: ~
Name Printed: 1{dw..ij t:.,J
Dale: ]#. n ,'lOo,
10
, .
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
Because these questions are very general,it may be helpful to read them In conjunction with the
list of the elements of the environment.
When ansWerIng these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities
. nkely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate
than if the proposal were,not implemented; .' Respond brlefly'andln general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge towater;emlsslons . .to.alr; production,
storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or:productlon of noise? ~ .
3 ..
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
". How would the proppSeI be nkely to affect plants, animals,:fIsh, or.marinelife? .
~'*"" ."'1-0'/: a...,.. it. I'M" Ifdud~,«t ~ * ~~'P~1M(QtJItLWtt-~aw. ~_~
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani Is, fish, or marine fife are: fttds .
~(~.ntn.-n-ol ~..L1"tcLQtlJJ. t8Wd ~ tlIJ. .... ,~ ~ ~ ~lN)iiT'J:1 ~ vi."j""""''''
. How would the pro~ be likely '!>d~energyornat~~ ~
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas
designated (or erlgible or under study) for govemmental protection; such as parks, wildemess,
Wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered .spectes habitat,historic or cuHural sites,
wetlands, flood plains, or prime farmlands? -
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce Impacts are:
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would
allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
~5 ~lld(I Mtttd\ lIIm,.jUtu Wiofta "ftc. OWM-U {-'a .. L A:,tt "Plan V~"" ~ tAt l~1 %'I~ Mi.k I V'~n . !J Proposed measu~';~oid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
11
7. Identify, If possible, whetIler the proposal may conflict wiIh locaI,state, or federal taws or
.requlrements for the proJection of the envIronment.Uht. .
SIGNATURE
.I,theunderslgned,' state that too the best of my'knowIedge' the abov4.:lnfonnaUon'l$ true and
complete. It· Is understood that the lead agency maywtthdraw!8ny"declaraUon .of non-
significance that it might Issue In reHance upon this checklist should there be any willful
misrepresentation or willfu/lack oHlin disclosure on my part.
proponent: OWHeJ/jJrH
Name Printed: &lweaH Lt rr1
Qate: lft. P, '2GO' -
12
\
\
~~ ~-~~ -~--~ ~ "~--,
:! ,--_ --, ~ -1
~ ~ ---', +
----
NAME:
PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)lLOCAnON and Zip Code:
ADDRESS: 1057 ScIJI.. ~~
CITY:~ ~ ZIP: tt~S''"
KING COUN1'Y ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S):
TELEPHONE NUMBER: ~ -lIZO-"'iBfJ{.R.ti~) !IA
NAME:
COMPANY CIf applicable):
ADDRESS:
CITY: ZIP:
TELEPHONE NUMBER
COMPANY CIf applicable):
ADDRESS:~
CITY: ZIP:
TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS:
nasterap.doc Revised April 2001
~--------------------------~
EXISnNG LAND USE(S): ~ atlttJrtl.,.
PROPOSED LAND USE(S): 5te attae.W 5W
~V"'T"'~ COMPRIFHE'NS:NF PLAN MAP DESIGNAnON:
IrPIROID(),!lED COMPREHENSIVE PlAN MAP DESIGNAnON
EXISnNG ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING (If appoficable):
SITE AREA (In square feet):
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROATYNAYS TO BE DEDICATED
FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING
THREE LOTS OR MORE CIf applicable):
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET
ACRE CIf applicable):
NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable):
NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): -....
NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS flf applicable):
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAl.
BUILDINGS (If applicable): ~ PROJECT VALUE: bI\
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAl.
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (If appIcabIe):~
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAI.
IS THE SITE LOCATED IN NN TYPE OF
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRJTICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE
SQUARE FOOTAGE (If applicable):
BUILDINGS (If applicable): tOA
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIA1.
[J AQUIFER PROTECTlON.AREA ONE
[J AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA lWO
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (If appIcabIe): k~ [J FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. It.
NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (If [J GEOLOGlq HAZARD sq. It.
applicable): l'M. [J HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. It
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE [J SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES sq. It
[J WETLANDS sq. It NEW PROJECT (If applicable): k.1)A.
_ ANNEXATION (A) $ SHORELINE REVIEWS
_ COMP PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) $ _ CONDITIONAl USE (SM-C) $ • _ CONDITIONAl USE PERMIT (CU-A. CU-H) $ _ EXEMPTION (SME) $ !jQCHARGE
_ ENVlRONt..ENTAI. REVIEW (ECF) $ _ SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT (SM) $
_ GRADE & All PERMIT (GF) $ _ VARIANCE (SM-V) $
(No. cu. Yds: $
_REZONE(R) $ SUBDIVISION
ROUTINE VEGETATION $ _ BINDING SITE PLAN (BSP) $
MANAGEMENT PERMIT (RVMP) _ FINAl. PlAT (FP) $
_ SITE PLAN APPRfY>IAI. (SA-A. SA-H) $ _ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (LlA) $
_ SPECIAL PERMIT (SP) $ _ PRELIMINARY PlAT (PP) $
_ TEMPORARY PERMIT (W) $ _ SHORT PlAT (SHPL-A. SHPL-H) $
_ VARIANCE fY-A. V-H. V-B) $
(from SectIon: $ postage: $
_WANER(W) $ TOTAL FEE $
OTHER: $
I. (Print Name) • dedant IhaII am (please check one) _the amm\ owner of the
property Involved In Ills appIIcalion or __ the auIhorIzed representative b act for a corporation (please a\lach proof of authorizallon) and lhatlhe
foregoing statements and answers herein conlalned and the •• fOl1"allon herewith are In •• respecIs true and coned b the best of my knowledge and
be6ef.
(Name 01 OWnerlRepresenblive)
~
(Signature of OWnerlRepresentalive)
masterap.doc Revised Aprit 2001
1 certify IItat 1 know or have satislackxy evidence IItat ----=,....,-.,---.,-c-:--:co:_:_
signed litis InsIntmenI and acknowledged It \0 be hisIherlIheIr free and voluntary act for
the uses and _ mentioned In the Instrument.
Notal)' Public Irt and for the Slate ofWashingIoo
NotaI)'(Prmt), ___________ _
My.~moom~:. ________ ___
East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area
Land Use Study
PROJECT PROPOSAL
Department of Economic Development,
Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning
Alex Pietsch, Administrator
Prepared By:
Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager
May 1,2003
PROJECT OBJECTIVE
To make a recommendation to City Administration on the desired land use designations
for the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area and remaining recently annexed
areas within the City.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project involves review of lands in the existing Single Family Comprehensive Plan
land use designation to evaluate the appropriate, density and potential infrastructure
strategy to address growth on the NE 4th corridor within the existing City limits and the
East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area.
LOCATION
City limits to the eastern Urban Growth BOllndmy, Maple Valley Highway to May Valley Road.
BACKGROUND
The existing Comprehensive Plan designation is Single Family Residential. This land use
may be implemented with either R-S or R-8 zoning under present policies. R-5 zoning is
allowed only within 112 mile of the Urban Growth boundary, a distance that includes the
majority of this study area. Renton's Comprehensive Plan does not now specify which of
these designations is appropriate. The assumption was that upon annexation appropriate
zoning would be applied by working with property owners through the public hearing
process.
History
At the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1995, there was no R-5 zoning
option. The entire eastern plateau was designated Single Family Residential with the
.'
potential of R-8 zoning because the Rural Residential designation allowed only R-l (one
unit per acre net) or RC (one unit per ten acres net). Neither of these very low density
zoning designations was considered appropriate for this area. Approximately one year
later, the City created the option of the intermediate density R-5 zoning for a small
number of parcels within the PAA as part of an annexation proposal. At that time, the
entire PAA was not evaluated for the possibility of R-5 zoning. In those years, the City
did not provide out-of-city sewer service and annexation was required prior to provision
of service.
Several years later, City Council changed its policy and decided to provide out-of-city
sewer service if the proposed development complied with Renton's Comprehensive Plan.
However, the Comprehensive Plan was silent on the issue of whether R-5 or R-8 zoning
was appropriate. Some development occulTed under King County jurisdiction without
annexation. Renton agreed to provide sewer to single family projects at densities of up to
8 dwelling units per acre net because that density was the maximum allowed under our
Comprehensive Plan. In several cases, property owners of R-4 zoned property (County)
applied for re-zoning in King County, leaving the City out of the loop in detennining the
final density. A number of the projects approved in King County do not confonn to
Renton road, lot dimension, access and other development standards. The Administration
became increasingly concerned that a large amount of development, that did not confonn
to Renton standards, was occuning within the PAA. In addition, the prospect of full
development at R-8 zoning triggered concerns about traffic capacity along Renton's NE
4th conidor.
Most recently, due to Renton's inability to reach agreement with King County on the
development standards issues for new plats, and the CUlTent stalemate on annexation by
petition, the City Council changed policy and stopped providing out-of-city sewer service.
A number of parcels are vested for Renton sewer service, but additional service requests
are not being processed.
The Administration initiated this review of land use policies in the PAA in order to
resolve the density issue prior to re-institution of either the annexation processes or
policies allowing resumption of out-of-city sewer.
The question addressed during this review is whether density should be set at eight
dwelling units per acre or something lower. The City Council has expressed an interest in
having some opportunities for larger lot development in order to attract a wider range of
housing stock. The PAA is one area where larger parcels of vacant and under-utilized
land are available and there is the potential of a range of housing options. Minimum
density of four dwelling units per net acre is necessary to meet the definition of urban for
purposes of the Growth Management Act. In order to provide sewer to the area
economically, minimum densities of at least four dwelling units per acre is likely. Staff
concerns include the traffic impact of development at higher densities on the NE 4th
Conidor. Transportation, sewer and water systems will be reviewed, as well as other
pertinent land use and housing element objecti ves and policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
Environmental review would occur on a non-project action on proposed Comprehensive
Plan amendments and would include thc ex isting transportation study completed last year
for this corridor.
PERMITS
Requires Comprehensive Plan text and map amendment if a change from existing
policies is ultimately recommended.
FUNDING SOURCES
None. This project will be completed with existing staff resources.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
• April 30-May 1 Get work program summary prepared for distribution
1. Establish Design Team
• May 5-May 9 Review Work Done to Date (Don and Jason)
1. Transportation Analysis
2. Land Use Sketches
• May 5-May 16 Policy Framework (Don and Jason) Team meeting #1
1. Residential Rural policies as revised
2. Single Family policies
3. Housing Element policies relating to growth, density, range of housing types
and housing for upper income segments. Review balance between larger lot
opportunities and more single family units (goals for both have been
established)
4. Review growth target allocations
5. Review King County Comp Plan and Zoning provisions. Coordinate with
King County staff as needed.
• May 9-May 25 Development Review (Don and Jason) Team meeting #2 on
Development Review
1. Review development applications in R-8 and R-5 zones for realistic
assessment of what the building industry is producing now in the Renton
market. Identify changes needed in development standards to differentiate
these housing products in the two zones. Preliminary recommendations on
zoning text amendments.
2. Review Infrastructure Issucs-sewer line locations (Dave C.)
• May 26-30 Internal review alternati ves, issue paper and draft code Team meeting #3
• June 4 Planning Commission Briefing
• June 5 Developers meeting
1. Identify interested developers e.g. Centurion, CamWest
2. Invite comment on land use alternatives, draft zoning text amendments
• June 5-12 Prepare for Public Open House Team meeting #4
1. Revise alternatives based on PC and public input
2. Revise draft language for pre-zoning and any needed zoning text amendments
(draft 2)
• June 12 Public Open House
• June 13-20 Revise recommendation based on public input Team meeting #5
• July 9 Second Planning Commission briefing follow-up on Open House
• Aug. 4-8 Final recommendations Team Meeting #6
• Sept. 3 Follow-up meeting with Planning Commission on final recommendation
• Sept. 17 Public Hearing
• Oct. 1 Planning Commission deliberation and action
• Oct. -Dec. Council Process
• Dec. 5 Adoption of Comprehensive Plan package (including Boeing)
INVOLVEMENTIPARTICIPA TION
"Project Manager"
The project manager will be Don Erickson, Strategic Planning Section.
IN-HOUSE REVIEW
The appropriate City departments and divisions will be invited to participate in a design team to
review technical studies and land use issues prior to making a recommendation to the
Administration.The following is a proposed list of design team members for this project: Each
Department's Administrator will determine assignment of staff.
Larry Rude
Leslie Betlach
Jason Jordon
Dave Christianson
Nick Afzali
Don Erickson
Fire Department
Community Services Department
Development Services Division
Utility Systems Division
Transportation Planning
Project Manager
AGENCY REVIEW
King County DDES staff will be invited to comment.
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
• A developer forum is planned to facilitate input from the development community.
• A community open house is proposed to involve property owners in the study area.
• The Renton Planning Commission will review the proposal and hold a public hearing
on any proposed land use amendments prior to making a recommendation to the City
Council.
H EDNSPComprehensive Plan amendments 2003 NE 3 rd /4th
East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area Study
General Questions
1. Why are we studying the East Renton Plateau Area now?
The East Renton Plateau Area is located within Renton's Potential Annexation Area (PAA) and
required to be shown on Renton's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The area has had the
current land use designations since 1993. The City is evaluating the current designations to
determine if the existing density and infrastructure planning meet current City objectives.
2. What do the current land use designations within the study area mean?
• Residential Rural (RR)
Approximately 28% of the study area currently has this land use designation. The intent of
this designation is to preserve open space and natural resources and protect environmentally
sensitive area by limiting residential development in critical area, areas identified as part of a
city-wide or regional open space network, or agricultural lands within the City.
Maximum development densities range from 1 home per 10 acres to 5 homes per net acre.
The R-5 zone is used to implement this land use designation when extensive sensitive areas
do not dominate a parcel. The R-5 zone allows clustered development with a minimum lot
size of 4,500 square feet or larger and an overall density of 5 dulnet acre. There is no
minimum density in the R-5 zone. Where sensitive areas occur in a pattern that can not be
adequately addressed through the Critical Areas Ordinance, the R-l zone is used.
• Residential Single Family (RS)
Approximately 72% of the study area currently has this land use designation. The intent of
this designation is to protect and enhance residential single family areas by encouraging re-
investment and rehabilitation so as to create quality neighborhoods, improve opportunities for
better public transportation, and make more efficient use of urban services and infrastructure.
This land use designation is implemented through either the R-5 or R-8 zone. Currently, the
R-5 zone can be applied to areas located within Y2 mile of the Urban Growth Area boundary.
In the R-8 zone net development densities are expected to fall within a range of 5 to 8 units
per acre. On pre-existing lots of less than Y2 acre that were platted before March 15, 1995 the
maximum density can go as high as 9.7 units per net acre.
3. How do these land use designations affect future development within the study area?
Besides determining the future City of Renton zoning for the area (typically applied at the time of
annexation) these land use designations also have a bearing on development occurring in King
County. Renton is the designated sewer service provider for this area. Typically "sewer
availability certificates" issued by the City are for the maximum number of units allowed under
East Renton Plateau Potential An ___ . __ .tion Area Study -General Questions 2
07123/03
the City's land use designation for the area. With an RS land use designation this typically would
be 8 units per acre times the number of net acres in the proposed development.
King County's predominate land use designation throughout the study area is Urban Residential
4-12 dulacre. Under this designation, property owners who have received a "sewer availability
certificate" from the City of Renton, can apply for a rezone up to the number of units authorized
in the City's "sewer availability certificate. For this reason it is important that the City's land use
designations are correctly placed within the study area. Such land use mapping must allow urban
housing of sufficient quantities to meet King County's established housing targets. Even when an
area is annexed into the City, the City is responsible for ensuring that these County housing
targets are met.
4. How do Renton's zoning designations for the study area compare with those of King
County?
The zoning density systems used by the City and King County are different. Under Renton's
system, streets, wetlands, and slopes greater than 40% are subtracted from the gross area, yielding
a net developable. Density (units per acre) is based on this net developable area, not the gross
area of the site. Under King County's system, the entire gross area is used to calculate maximum
density. As a result, the County's R-4 zoning roughly equates to the City's R-5 zoning
designation, and its R-6 zoning (6 units per gross acre) roughly equates to Renton's R-8 zoning (8
units per net acre).
East Renton Plateau 4-Creeks Mtg .. doc\
Revised 08/1310 1
CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT
Residential Rural
Objective LU-I: Preserve open space and natural resources and protect environmentally sensitive areas by
limiting residential development in critical areas, areas identified as part of a city-wide or regional open space
network, or agricultural lands within the City,
Policy LU-26. Maximum development densities
should range from I horne per 10 acres to 5 homes
per acre in Residential Rural except in areas with
significant environmental constraints including but
not limited to: steep slopes, erosion hazard, flood·
plains, and wetlands where density shall not exceed
I horne per acre.
Policy LU-27. Rural activities, including
agriculture and animal husbandry, should be allowed
except where such uses would have negative
environmental impacts which can not be mitigated.
Policy LU-28. To provide for more efficient
development patterns and maximum preservation of
open space, residential development may be
clustered in Residential Rural Designations.
Policy LU-29. Deeds of lots adjacent to rural
residential areas should carry a notice reading "The
Residential Single Family
adjacent lot may be expected to have impacts
associated with rural lifestyles. These uses are
expected to continue and are given priority status
over more intensive urban uses on adjacent lots."
Policy LU-30. Minimize impacts of animal and
crop raising on adjacent residential uses and critical
areas such as wetlands, streams, and rivers.
Policy LU-31. Control scale and density of
accessory buildings and barns to maintain
compatibility with other residential uses.
Policy LU-32. Residential Rural areas may be
incorporated into community separators.
Policy LU-33. Undeveloped portions of Residential
Rural areas may be considered as part of the private
open space network.
Objective LU-J: Protect and enhance the Residential Single Family areas, encourage re-investment and
rehabilitation resulting in quality neighborhoods, improve opportunities for better public transportation, and
make more efficient use of urban services and infrastructure.
Policy LU-34. Net development densities should
fall within a range of 5 to 8 dwelling units per acre
in Residential Single Family neighborhoods.
Policy LU-3S. A minimum lot size of 4,500 square
feet should be allowed in single family residential
neighborhoods except when flexible development
standards are used for project review.
Policy LU-36. Allow development at 9.7 dwelling
units per acre on infill parcels of one acre or less as
an incentive to encourage single family small lot
development on 4,500 sq. ft. lots.
Policy LU-37. Maximum height of structures
should generally not exceed 2 stories in single
family residential neighborhoods.
Policy LU-38. Development standards for single
family neighborhoods (e.g. lot size, lot width,
building height, setbacks, lot coverage) should
encourage quality development in neighborhoods.
Policy LU-39. Development standards for single
family neighborhoods should address transportation
and pedestrian connections between neighborhoods
and compatible boundaries between neighborhoods.
Policy LU-40. New plats developed at higher
densities within existing neighborhoods should be
designed to incorporate street locations, lot
configurations, and building envelopes which
address privacy and quality of life for existing
residents.
Revised 08113/01
CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT
Policy LU-40.1. New plats proposed at higher
densities than adjacent neighborhood developments
may be modified within the allowed density range
to reduce conflicts between old and new
development patterns. However. strict adherence to
older standards is not required.
Policy LU-40.2. Site features such as distinctive
stands of trees and natural slopes should be retained
to enhance neighborhood character and preserve
property values where possible. Retention of
unique site features should be balanced with the
objective of investing in neighborhoods within the
overall context of the Vision Statement of this
Comprehensive Plan.
EAST RENTON PLATEAU PAA STUDY AREA -OPEN HOUSE
COMMENTS RECEIVED
I do not want to become a part of Renton. I like our rural setting with occasional horses,
cows and sheep. I am upset when a developer goes in and cuts all the trees down. At the
meeting many people said our area probably would NOT be annexed, but all the maps
said "potential annexation area." I don't like Renton's growth of adding street by street.
The areas should be added by a super majority like school bongs. I own my home, the
loan is paid off. I want to stay here!!!
1. Do not extend 156th Avenue SE north to May Valley Road! We have 14Sth and l64th
already established. Plus I 56th isn't wide enough, even with the easements. Makes no
sense. My records show 1 56 th Ave. SE as a private road set up for White Fence Ranch
use only. And to the East of 156'h Ave. SE, it is beyond the urban growth area. (I know
the idea was only "conceptual" about extending I 56 th , but please disrelard the
concept...it is a bad concept and unnecessary since both 14Sth and 164 are so close-
save your money!
2. My preference is Scenario 1 -it has clean boundary lines between Residential Rural
& Residential Single (rather than bits and pieces here and there). Seems this would make
things easier as far as providing services etc. And also spreads the density between
Renton School District & Issaquah School District, instead of piling all the density onto
Issaquah School District which is already overcrowded.
3. Developers should be required to put their "Drainage Ponds" somewhere not visible
by the main roads (or other neighborhoods) and should have to establish moving water
(waterfalls?) so the water won't become stagnant or be a mosquito (and West Nile Virus)
breeding ground. Currently the drainage ponds are a health hazard and a complete
eyesore.
4. Mandatory Landscaping standards should be required of the Developers by the City
along the roads and sidewalks so it is not all concrete and tall fences and then
immediately houses. The new developments along 4th (formerly SE 12Sth) is all concrete
and fence and ugly and makes the area undesirable and uninviting to passing traffic and
not conducive to attracting pedestrians. A mandatory landscaping standard could ensure
a more rural feel to the area, making it feel more park-like and desirable. It wouldn't take
that much. Some grassy strips, some shrubs or trees, some benches along the way.
Houses and fences set back further from the main road so that pedestrians don't feel like
they are in the traffic while walking. As someone who commuted by bus for years on
Route 111, I can tell you it is a scary prospect walking along SE 12Sth Street (now 4th)
with cars whizzing by as fast as they do. And walking one ofthose "blocks" is very long
and not pleasant. So a bit of park like feel would be very welcome. I'm hoping someday
we'll see more bus service out this way. Let's plan ahead and make our neighborhoods
conducive for foot traffic and pus patrons. Once you get all those people crammed in
these tiny lots, it would be nice if some of them left their cars at home and commuted by
bus!
5. Cul-de-Sacs -let's see less of these! Why should the new neighborhoods get nice
quiet little roads that nobody else uses, but then they go use the old neighborhoods roads
-\-
to get to the main roads? It seems like "urban cramming" but with the suburbia mind set.
Regular roads with houses along them makes more sense so there is more connectivity
for car and foot traffic, instead of having so many roads that go nowhere and promotes
isolation and difficulty in finding where you're going. The City planning committee
could learn a lot by looking at some Seattle neighborhoods for ideas in urban planning.
Also in Seattle, they don't just enclose each neighborhood behind a tall fence. It is open
and inviting to welcome others. I'm worried that we are not creating what we can be
proud of. In years to come (and even now) will we be disappointed more effort wasn't
expected by the developers to make it a special place. Renton is putting a lot of effort in
updating its image in the Downtown area. Let's do it right as we go so we don't have to
regret it later. Many people I know feel that Renton doesn't care about trying to keep the
rural flavor. I want to believe they are wrong. Prove them wrong ... please.
6. Lastly -more Parks please! I see "undeveloped King County Parks" within the urban
boundary. Will these be developed as Renton Parks? Will more be added? I think we
need them, as we lose so much land to houses. Seattle has done a great job in the number
of City and community parks it has. It makes urban life tolerable to have parks within
walking distance -something we lack out here.
**It would be nice also if R4 meant Y. acre lots as it is in current old neighborhoods.
New developments with R4 seem to have much less than Y. acre lots even ifit is R4. So
it really is changing the zoning.
Having been associated with building industry and development 60 years, I'm well aware
of how land.is bought and auctioned off to big pocket developers. I forewarned this city
that the impact on 128th alone, say north about Sunset or any other major road, would be
inconsiderately monstrous by 8,000 cars. I talked this over with your office years back,
but all that seemingly matters is for the city office to be pulling in more taxes from these
twenty year olds. We are retired at 75 and there seems little concern for us folks. You
revalued out home another $47,000 in two years without consulting us, so now we have
to pay a higher tax. This is a liability we don't appreciate. However, looking at your
zoning departures, we judge that No.1 is the only one since it has one north to sough
"fixed" line. At least for now, and please retire the idea of putting in road across the back
of our land which is a quarter acre east of 1 56 th Ave SE. We will have to move if you do
this. Maybe by then I can get $500,000 for our home, the way things are going. It would
be no surprise.
Thank you for the information. We have the following comments.
1. We like the idea of the R4/5 density.
2. Love the improvements planned for the NE 3rd 4th corridor. Please synchronize the
traffic lights.
3. Help get a Target or Fred Meyer in the area.
4. Would like to see a height restriction on signs plus no billboards.
5. No side street traffic lights in downtown Renton! I was also mot in a serious accident
because I am new to the area and not familiar with that type of traffic light.
-2-
6. It would be helpful to have more access to Maple Valley Hwy from the Highlands
area. With all the growth planned, we will need alternate routes to 1405.
7. More parks and park facilities, playgrounds. Thank you.
Thank you for having the Open House. It was interesting to get a sense of what Renton's
interest is in our neighborhood. I did find it difficult to take advantage of the opportunity
though, because there was not enough of an introduction to, or overview of, the
information presented. The effect was one of scattered, disjointed visual aides and
randomly placed representatives. I did speak with one pleasant and knowledgeable, Jon
Jainga, who did refer me to additional charts and persons, but due to the noise and
crowds, I could not get to them. I would have found it helpful to have a paper explaining
what the various visual aides were, or perhaps a brief presentation by City employees. I
will be looking to the City website for more information. Thank you!
Suggest that the Open House activity be preceded by an overview presentation. This
would allow many of the basic questions to be addressed at one time. I am sure the staff
must hear many of the same questions multiple times during the Open House.
We don't need to be annexed into Renton so you can get more money. Leave us alone.
Collect from the greedy developers who don't care about other people. Renton is after
more money also.
I do not wish to be annexed into Renton. We do not wish to help pay for enlargement of
all our streets and facilities because of all the development! You are destroying our
neighborhoods and packing our roads, raising our taxes. I hope this area can fight you
off!
I was very discouraged to hear the small amount of planning regarding traffic congestion
in our area. The few things being planned are of little help to our current problem. There
is nothing to accommodate the 800+ homes being built and planned. As for the services
offered by incorporation, most of us moved to the county to get away from the rat race of
the city. If! wanted city services, I would not have moved from the city. Something
needs to be done to stop the clear cutting and high-density homes being built everywhere.
I am also concerned about the water retention ponds on almost every block. They are a
health and safety problem. No one has a solution to that.
Although I was unsure as to what the meeting was exactly about, I do have some
comments concerning the growth off 128 th Avenue.
\. I am worried that 128'h (4th) won't be able (0 tolerate all the new traffic. During rush
hour in the mornings and evenings, it's hard to get up or off this hill.
-3-
2. Although the new homes are nice looking, they are placed too close together.
Looking at a wall of homes reminds me of large apartment complexes -not a nice
residential community. So please keep it R-4 if at all possible.
3. It would be nice to see some land go untouched. The Highlands is a "woodsy" area
and still has a country feel. The City of Renton mustn't continue to build in order to
"grow." The tax base is already strong. Let's focus on improving the business
community of the Renton Highlands. Sprucing it up a bit. also, the new homes have no
front or back yard. They are squeezed in tight. Some homes don't even face the street
they're on. The City should demand that the builders allow more room for landscaping
and trees. This is Renton, people want to live here. This is not Spanaway or Covington.
(not to dis' them too much.) But the point is it looks very unattractive to see homes lined
up the way they are, I can't see any green or sky for that matter between them. I realize
the City makes more money with more homes, but long tenn these new subdivisions are
eye-sores and will bring down the value of Renton. We must demand more. Thank you.
My husband and I attended your infonnation gathering on July 1st at the Lord of Life
Lutheran church regarding the East Renton Plateau. We wish to submit our comments
regarding some of your land use suggestions. First -THIS AREA DOES NOT NEED
HIGH DENSITY HOUSING. There is no need for anything higher than an R-4 density.
We do realize that there is a difference between the City of Renton and King County as to
what this means. R-4 should be what it was intended to mean. Four houses per acre-
period. We do realize after being involved with the Evendell project that some of the
King County Council members are unaware of what the land use coding means and it
will be hard for anyone to work with them. Also, with so many jobs being lost or moving
out of the Renton area there is less and less need for more or higher density housing. If
Boeing decides to move from this area there will be less of a need for additional housing
of a high density nature. This area of Briarwood and South Briarwood is a long time
established community with many families being here 20, 30 or 40 years. High density
housing does not promote this type of longevity and would not fit into this already
established area for other reasons also. We like our trees!! We like our water to be able
to run into the ground and not into a swamp pond. We do not want our land covered up
with wall-to-wall houses, driveways and sidewalks. We all moved to this area for almost
all the same reasons and we want our area to grow as it always has up to now, with each
street matching the next.
Your ideas for putting tree islands down the center of Cemetery Road is a day late and is
another unnecessary expense put upon the tax payer. first of all if you hadn't let all these
developers go in and clear out any trace of vegetation, Cemetery Road wouldn't be such
an eye sore. These six foot fences they are putting up to high their ESTATES are not
being property taken care of and are looking SO shabby after one year that it is just adding
to the mess. The so called water runoff holes are green and slimy a lot of the time which
adds to the mess along with a good breeding ground for mosquitoes, not to mention the
dangerous threat they are to the surrounding area for anyone who has children. It is only
a matter of time before some child loses a ball or some object and climbs the fence to
retrieve it and drowns. I called the City or Renton when they first started appearing as I
was concerned about the dangers along with the threat of the West Nile Virus.
-4-
Obviously, it fell on deft ears along with other people I have talked to, as they keep going
in, one after another. Common sense tells you if you pave over the land there is going to
be a water problem -to create another problem to solve the ftrst one is just going to
escalate, as you now know, you have created a third problem. The added strain you have
put on the Fire and Police Departments is unmentionable.
-5-
EAST RENTON PLATEAU PAA LAND USE STUDY & COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
ASSUMPTIONS AND POTENTIAL ISSUES
Assumptions
• Densities within the study area could be as low as 4 dulnet acre and still achieve Renton's
assigned growth target.
f
• King County will continue to maintain for the foreseeable future its "Over Threshold" designation
within the East Renton Plateau Study Area.
• Sewers will only be extended within the Study Area through the annexation process.
• Areas on septic systems will most likely remain on septic for the foreseeable future.
• Water District #90 will continue to the designated water provider within the Study Area.
• Renton will continue to be the provider of fire services within the Study Area under contract with
Fire District #25 until annexation occurs.
• Within the exception of Fire District No. 25 the boundaries of established service districts such as
the Issaquah School District No. 411, Water District No. 90, etc. are not anticipated to change as a
result annexation.
• NE 4th StreetiSE 12Sth Street and 154'h Place SFlSE 142"· Place; 156 Avenue SE will continue to
be the major through arterials in the Study Area.
Potential Issues/Questions
Whether there are minimum threshold densities needed to ensure optimal levels of service within the
Study Area and, if so, what these should be?
Whether higher densities in areas where sewers are being extended for the first time are desirable? Do
higher densities help developers offset some of the initial cost of extending sewers further than the
normal extension?
If the City wants high quality upper income subdivisions how might it go about achieving this? For
example, would it be desirable to condition where such subdivisions occur and possibly restrict them
to larger lot developments having minimum acreage, the retention of special natural features, and
possibly, City approved CC & R's (restrictive covenants)?
Do we want to make existing subdivisions legally conforming as to lot size, density, etc., whenever
possible?
Do we want to allow or preclude short plats of larger existing single-family lots in established lower
density (R-4 or R-5 equivalent) neighborhoods if future zoning (R-S) allows higher density
development?
Assumptions-Iss ues .doc\
MINUTES FROM EAST RENTON PLATEAU LAND USE STUDY
DEVELOPERS MEETING
Those in attendance included Dick and Patrick Gilroy of Northward Development, Wayne Jones of
Lakewood Development, Sarah Slatten representing CAMWEST, Howard Stansbury of U.S. Land
Development Associates, Steve Johns of Conner Homes, Curtis Schuster of KBS ill, and Tom Foster of
Seattle Mortgage. The meeting began at 10:35 AM, Monday, June 911>, 2003.
Rebecca Lind opened the meeting with an explanation as to why the City was conducting this study and
what we hoped to get out of it. Introductions were made and Don Erickson passed out a number of
scenario maps as well as exhibits on existing conditions, character and lot sizes. Rebecca explained that
the City's Housing Element Policies called for at least 30% of Renton's housing stock should be for upper
income
Regarding the question of the developers see as the future housing market for the area, Wayne Jones
weighed in stating that lots were going for $110 K -$120 K each and new houses in the $450 K -$600 K
were not uncommon in the area. However, for the upper end, which is defined as $1 million or more you
need lots that are either * to 1.0 acre in size, provide views, or are located on a golf course. The problem
is in assembling such lots according to Wayne, because of the fragmented ownership patterns that pervade
much of the area.
According to Tom Foster, a big part of the problem in marketing to an upper income market in this area is
what people have to drive through to get there. It is in an area of strong demand but driving along NE 411>
StreetlSE 12811> Street with its strip development, lack of strong landscaping, etc. does not create a
"positive" image. Howard Stansbury said he feels there is already a housing market in the $450 K to
$600 K range for this area and that it could be achieve on 6,000 s.f. to 7,200 s.f. lots. He added, however,
that it would be better if Renton allowed clustering as King County now does.
Don Erickson mentioned that physical character of the study area was different than most of Renton,
which is more urban with smaller, lots often sited on a traditional gridiron blocks. He referred everyone
to the Character Map handed out earlier and noted that the study area was heavily treed with a substantial
vegetative cover. Most of the developers in attendance felt that it was not possible to retain trees and still
do higher density detached housing. 'Too many obstacles for the few trees that might be saved."
Wayne Jones noted that King County has a tree retention program that is mandatory if parts of King
County. Although new R-5 neighborhoods look barren now, he said in 30 years they would look
different. He noted Ravenna Neighborhood in Seattle with its smaller lots but plush landscaping
including mature street trees. He said that these areas were once barren when they also were new. Mr.
Jones thought the City needed a stronger street tree planting requirement and possibly decorative fencing
along major arterials, similar to NE Sll> Street in Bellevue.
Rebecca explained that many of the residents in the study area had voiced their concerns about not liking
the look of much of the new R-5 housing that is now being built and visible from NE 411>/SE 12811> Street.
Whereas the street fa~ades are fairly well articulated the sides and rears are little more than sides of boxes
and when seen on comer lots are often unappealing. Often the front yard appearance, when seen
obliquely, is that of row houses Tom Foster said. The issue was so much density but flexible lot and
street standards. Everyone thought Northward's Orchards demonstration projects turned out well from a
design standpoint even though lots are small or units attached. Also, these appear to be pretty well
received in the community. Rebecca noted that staff had looked earlier into allowing duplexes in the
single-family zones but this was taken out because some felt it would undermine the integrity of the
City's single-family areas.
Pat Gilroy asked what was the City's image for NE 4 th/S E 12811> Street? He wondered if the City would
accept a higher density if it got better design. Rebecca and Don explained that to be competitive Renton
has pretty much avoided design review for fearing of slowing reviews down. She noted that single family
dwellings are typically not reviewed in Renton, and in areas where we have design overlay districts they
Developers Meeting Minutes
06109/03
2
typically only apply to residential, not commercial. Design review would probably be more acceptable to
the City and developers if it was voluntary rather than mandatory. Those in attendance liked the idea of
giving a density bonus to those willing to go through design review. Would it be possible to allow R-8
densities in the R-5 zone, for example, for those willing to go through design review?
Tom Foster said that he likes the bonus idea since it wouldn't force developers to go through a longer
process whereas a density incentive would reward those willing to do so. He stressed the importance of
remembering what it is that residents drive through. He feels the City should focus on enhancing the
visual experience along the study area's main corridors. He and others felt that the City should allow less
stringent setbacks. "A lot of what you and others don't like is a result of the City's rigid development
standards." King County's regnlations provide a developer with more flexibility and because the public
right-of-way is narrower with 24' rather than 32' of paving, and sidewalks are required only along one
side of the street rather than both. As a result, there is more room for developers to create modulated
streetscapes and areas for street tree plantings, decorative fencing, and the like.
There appeared to be a general consensus that what is happening along NE 411> Street is not attractive and
could be improved with design review, flexible dimensions for lots, and flexible street standards, possibly
including some rolled curbs. Wayne Jones said that the Orchards project looks good. He said he felt that
the City should have landscape review at least along its major arterials. He said that good quality
landscaping not only screens unattractive development but helps developers like himself get a better price
for their project. Sarah Slatten also pushed for more flexible development standards. She cited projects
she was familiar with that allowed Z-lots and, or, developer their parking around a courtyard concept.
She cited a couple of examples staff might want to look at. These included Snoqualmie Ridge and Sweet
Briar in Kingsgate.
Curtis Schuster wondered why we couldn't have clustering like in King County. He would like to see a
situation that would allow someone with a 10 acre tract that had environmentally sensitive areas equal to
50% or more of it, be able to get the same density as someone with a 10 acre tract that had no constraints
on it. It was snggested that the City mi ght want to consider dropping its ''net'' density method of
calculating density and instead consider using "gross" density as they do in King County. Although
Renton allows clustering in the R-5 zone, it still requires that the minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet be
met. This effectively precludes the transfer of density from environmental constrained areas on a site to
other less constrained portions of it. Howard Stem said he felt that the City should also consider allowing
flexible lot sizes. For example, rather than requiring 50'X90' for R-8 zoned lots that are 4,500 s.f. each
why not allow lots that are 45' by 100' if the end result was "as good or better?"
In regards to the question of the economics of extending sewer out along SE 13611> Street to Liberty High
School and whether latecomers fees were adequate to recoup the developer's initial cost or whether
increased density, say to R-8, might also be required Howard Stansbury said that he felt that R-8 zoning
would be critical in achieving such an extension. Dave Christensen explained that latecomers fees are
now usually only applied to those abutting the sewer alignment right-of-way since it is difficult to collect
these fees the further one gets away from the line that was initially extended.
Dave Christensen asked whether anybody had issues with water. He said that he had heard there might be
a potential water pressure problem, particularly when residences get over 3,600 square feet in area and
water pressure is required to be 1,500 psi rather the 1,000 psi. Those in attendance thought the problem
was more one of Renton's making since it didn't appear to be an enforcement issue in King County.
The meeting adjourned at 12:05 PM.
cc: Rebecca Lind
Don Erickson
Jason Jordan
Document1\
NE 3rd-4th Corridor Proj *APPENDICES*
DllAFI'
Appendix C:
Carr i -, -Condi tions Report
December, 2002
PageA-6
Technical Memorandum on Future Development Impacts
The City of Renton is considering amending its Comprehensive Plan to provide higher
residential densities in the Renton Highlands area (which includes the NE 3rd-4th Corridor, for
which an arterial master plan is currently being developed). Two higher-density scenarios are
being considered: Scenario 'RR' would increase the current R2 density to RS, and Scenario 'RS'
would increase the current density to R8. In order to do a preliminary assessment of the potential
traffic impacts of the two increased-density options under consideration, the Renton Traffic
Forecasting Model was used to prepare Year 2020 p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts for three
scenarios: Baseline (i.e., current Comp Plan designations), Scenario RR, and Scenario RS.
Conclusions
Traffic generated by the higher residential densities under consideration for the Renton
Highlands will not in and of themselves overload the street/arterial system; improvements
needed to serve 2020 "baseline" traffic (i.e., the traffic generated under the current
Comprehensive Plan) also would adequately serve the 2020 Scenario RR and RS volumes .
• Study area traffic volumes will increase significantly by 2020 with the population and
employment growth forecasted under the current Comprehensive Plan. The additional
2020 population in the study area under Scenarios RR and RS, however, will result in
minimal or limited additional traffic growth. .
• Significant roadway and intersection improvements may be needed to serve forecasted
2020 "baseline" traffic. However, only minor additional improvements -if any -would
be needed to serve the additional traffic generated by the additional 2020 population
under Scenarios RR and RS.
Analysis
Results of the traffic forecasts and analyses are summarized in Tables 1-3:
Table 1 contains p.m. peak hour peak direction traffic volumes on the primary east-west arterials
in the study area (NE 3rd-4th and NE Sunset);
Table 2 contains p.m. peak hour screenline traffic volumes on the main north-south arterials and
collectors in the study area (Monterey, Edmonds, Jefferson, Monroe, Union, Duvall, Hoquiam-
142nd, Jerich-144th, Nile-148th, and 156th); and
Table 3 contains p.m. peak hour peak intersection entering volumes and service levels at three
key intersections on NE 4th (Monroe, Union, and Duvall).
As shown in Table 1, p.m. peak hour peak direction (eastbound) volumes on NE 3rd-4th and
Sunset on the west side of the study area (local and through traffic entering the study area) will
Robert Bernstein, P.E.
Consulting Transportation
Engineer/Planner
NE 3rd-4th Corrido roject *APPENDICES*
DRAFI'
Irridor Conditions Report
December, 2002
Page A-7
increase significantly over the next 20 years; however, those same peak direction volumes
increase only an additional 6-7% under the higher-density land use scenarios. (The increase with
the higher-density land use is the equivalent ofless than 114 lane of traffic capacity). The
situation is similar for traffic exiting the study area on the east (mainly through traffic), where the
peak direction volumes also increase significantly through 2020, but would have negligible
increases caused by higher-density land use. In fact, the traffic forecasts indicate that 2020
baseline peak direction volume on NE 1 28th St east of 1 56th Ave would actually decrease with
Scenarios RR or RS.
Table 1: PM Peak Hour Peak Direction Traffic Volumes
2020 2020 2020
1998 Base RR RS
EB 3rd, west of Edmonds 1,275 2,235 2,385 2,450
increase over Base +7% +10%
(=-0.20 lane) (=-0.25 lane)
EB 4th, (128th), east of 156th 720 1,070 1,040 1,055
increase over Base -3% -1%
EB Sunset (SR 900), west of Edmonds 1,885 2,525 2,675 2,580
increase over Base +6% +6%
(~0.20 lane) (=-0.20/ane)
EB Sunset (SR 900), east of Nile (148th) 490 815 835 850
increase over Base +2% +4%
(=<0.05 lane) (=-0.05/809)
As shown in Table 2, p.m. peak hour volumes on the north-south arterials and collectors in the
study area will increase significantly over the next 20 years; however, as with the NE 3rd-4th
volumes, the north-south volumes increase only slightly under the higher-density land use
scenarios. (The increase with the higher-density land use is the equivalent of about 114 lane of
traffic capacity or less, total for two or three streets).
Because the overall capacity and function of urban arterial systems is controlled by the capacity
and operation of intersections, several key intersections on NE 4th St were analyzed for the
various land use scenarios. The results of the intersection analyses, as summarized in Table 3,
were similar to the results of the arterial volume analysis: intersection volumes will increase and
service levels will deteriorate significantly by 2020, but the additional volume increase generated
by higher residential densities will be modest. It should be possible to provide adequate
intersection capacity for the higher-density scenarios with much the same improvements that
would be necessary to accommodate the 2020 baseline volumes.
Robert Bernstein, P.E.
Consulting Transportation
Engineer/Planner
NE 3rd-4th Corridor Proj
DRAFT
*APPENDICES* Corri' Conditions Report
December, 2002
Page A-8
Table 2: PM Peak Hour Screen line Traffic Volumes
2020
1998 Base
North of NE 3rd-4th
Monterey+Edmonds+Jefferson:
southbound 380 570
increase over Base
northbound 375 695
increase over Base
Monroe+Union+Duvall:
southbound 915 1,405
increase over Base
northbound 690 1,270
increase over Base
Hoquiam (142nd)+Nile (148th):
southbound 240 365
increase over Base
northbound 165 340
increase over Base
South of NE 3rd-4th
Jefferson+Monroe+Union+Duvall:
southbound 215 445
increase over Base
northbound 340 585
increase over Base
144th (Jericho)+156th:
southbound 500 825
increase over Base
northbound 985 1,265
increase over Base
Robert Bernstein, P.E.
Consulting Transportation
Engineer/Planner
2020 2020
RR RS
520 545
-9% -4%
795 835
+14% +20%
(=-0. 15 lane) (=-0.20 lane)
1,485 1,550
+6% +10%
(=-0.10 lane) (=-0.20 lane)
1,290 1,300
+1% +2%
(=<0.05 lane) (=<0.05 lane)
415 470
+13% +29%
(=-0.05 lane) (=-0. 15 lane)
415 420
+22% +23%
(=-0.15 lane) (=-0.15 lane)
475 485
+6% +8%
(=<0.05 lane) (=-0.05 lane)
665 670
+13% +14%
(=-0.10 lane) (=-0.10 lane)
900 940
+9% +14%
(=-0.10 lane) (=-0.15 lane)
1,430 1,550
+13% +22%
(=-0.20 lane) (=-0.30 lane)
NE 3rd-4th Cor rid Project *APPENDICES* )rridor Conditions Report
December, 2002
DRAJiT Page A-9
Table 3: PM Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes and Service Levels'
2000 2020 2020 2020
(counts) Base RR RS
NE 4th I Monroe:
total entering volume 2,510 3,970 4,180 4,255
increase over Base +5% +7%
critical volume sum 825 1,435 1,540 1,505
service level undercap'y overcap'y overcap'y over cap'y
VIC' 0.59 1.03 1.10 1.08
NE 4th I Union:
total entering volume 2,760 3,835 4,130 4,205
increase over Base +8% +10%
critical volume sum 1,265 1,755 1,925 1,895
service level nearing cap'y over cap'y overcap'y overcap'y
VIC' 0.90 1.25 1.38 1.35
NE 4th I Duvall:
total entering volume 2,750 4,205 4,605 4,805
increase over Base +10% +14%
critical volume sum 1,025 1,485 1,805 1,665
service level undercap'y overcap'y overcap'y over cap'y
VIC' 0.73 1.06 1.29 1.19
a For the purposes of this analysis, "service leve'-was determined by use a planning-level analysis of
signalized intersections, which provides a basic assessment of whether or not capacity is likely to be
exceeded for a given set of demand volumes and geometrics. Signal timing is not considered, and delay
and level of service are not determined .. The planning-level analysis is based on a "critical movement"
analysis. This procedure relates the capacity/adequacy of an intersection to lane utilization. The capacity
ola point where intersecting lanes of traffic cross is 1,400 vehicles per hour (.ph), and the degree to which
intersecting lane volumes (I.e., the "crtical movements") exceed or fall short of this capacity indicates the
quality of traffic operations at the intersection. When the sum of the critical movement volumes is greater
than 1,400, the intersection is considered to be ·over capacity." Critical volume sums between 1,200 and
1,400 indicate that the Intersection is "nearing capacity," while less than 1,200 is "under capacity.. (Actually
"level of Service" -lOS -is determined using a different methodology that employs a more detailed
operational analysis. There is a general correspondence between the 'planning-level' and 'operational'
service levels: "Under Capacity" is equivalent to lOS C or better, "Nearing Capacity" is equivalent to lOS
D-E, and "Over Capacity" is equivalent to lOS F.
b "VIC· = volume:capacity ratio. This ratio represents the proportion on of the Intersection's capacity that is
utilized by the traffic volumes entering the intersection.
Robert Bernstein, P.E.
Consulting Transportation
Engineer/Planner
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
12118101
City Staff
Andree DeBauw f<Y'
LUA 01-168,R ,ECF/City Wide 2002 Rezone Associated
W/CPAs
This file has been given an LUA # but there is no material for the file, It has not been routed at
the request of Rebecca Lind, Project Manager.
H:\DIVISION .S\DEVELOP.SER\DEV &PLAN.LNG\Ad\Memos\PW MEMO.doc\cor