Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 1-2 }U1 Dennis Rattie Seattle, WA 98101 tel: (206) 233-9600 eml: drattie@tarragon.com (party of record) PARTIES OF RECORD Madonna Messina 2218 Lyons Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 785-1354 eml: madonna@consultcascade.com (party of record) Ed Horne 5604 NE 24th Street Renton, WA 98059 tel: (206) 571-8524 (applicant) Richard Wilson Hills Clark Martin & Peterson P.S. 1221 Second Avenue ste: #500 Seattle, WA 98101 tel: (206) 470-7604 (party of record) Jay Bankson 569 Graham Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Diane & Dennis Schwartzenberger 601 Shattuck Avenue S Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Robert Wilson 21703 60th Street E Lake Tapps, WA 98391 (party of record) HORNE REZONE LUA11-023, ECF, R Debra Rogers 5326 NE 22nd Court Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Bruce Christopherson 5502 NE 24th Court Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Newfourth LLC 19244 39th Avenue S SeaTac, WA 98188 tel: (425) 444-0461 (owner) Karen Walter Watersheds & Land Use Team Leader Muckeshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 tel: (253) 876-3116 (party of record) Doug Prellwitz 14302 156th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Sherry Williams & Greg Schwartzenberger 2706 NE 5th Court Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Paul F. Mackay, Jr. 5625 NE 26th Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Bryan & Kendra Vadney 5404 NE 24th Court Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 235-7239 eml: blyvadney@aol.com (party of record) Tom Redding Encompass Engineering and Surveying 165 NE Juniper Street ste: #201 Issaquah, WA 98027 (contact) Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Duana Kolouskova Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Kolouskova, PLLC Bellefield Office Park - Alderwood Building 1601 114th Avenue SE ste: #110 Bellevue, WA 98004 tel: (425) 467-9966 (party of record) Kolin Taylor 4735 NE 4th Street Renton, WA 98058 (party of record) William Kombol 30533 - 234th Avenue SE Black Diamond, WA 98010 (party of record) Updated: 10/17/11 (Page 1 of 1) aye'+y •Y ••'1..{.�M1u SNOWONOO 3118 5141SI%3 3NOZ3H 3NUOk ss' "ed Lif65 J� ,o Q cc e4 ro a �1 I'I PSP �} f MeD*��00 �L■�C � r it �pm0 1�r' E 1 ' r �} f MeD*��00 IL 7q (. OL VINMAWN WWAKW V,..«P.IM \1 , PARTIES OF RECORD HORNE REZONE LUA11-023, R Dennis Rattie Debra Rogers Bryan & Kendra Vadney 600 Stewart Street ste: #1920 5326 NE 22nd Court 5404 NE 24th Court Seattle, WA 98101 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 tel: (206) 233-9600 (party of record) tel: (425) 235-7239 eml: drattie@tarragon.com eml: blyvadney@aol.com (party of record) (party of record) Madonna Messina 2218 Lyons Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 785-1354 eml: madonna@consultcascade.com (party of record) Ed Horne 5604 NE 24th Street Renton, WA 98059 tel: (206) 571-8524 (applicant) Bruce Christopherson 5502 NE 24th Court Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Newfourth LLC 19244 39th Avenue S SeaTac, WA 98188 tel: (425) 444-0461 (owner) Tom Redding Encompass Engineering and Surveying 165 NE Juniper Street ste: #201 Issaquah, WA 98027 (contact) Updated: 07/18/11 (Page 1 of 1) �- U i Denis Law Mayor . -C l Of r .t November 8, 2011 Department of Community and Economic Development -AlexPietsch, Administrator.. . ..Tom-Redding Encompass EngineeHng:and Surveying ' 155 NE Juniper St, Ste 201.. �.. 15saquah,'WA 98027 .' SUBJECT: Hearing Examiner Recommendation Houle-Rezone, LUA11�023, ECF, R Dear. Mr. Redding: + .. This .letter is"to' inform 'you that, the date of decision issuance by. the City of.. Renton.. Hearing examiner. on the above-captioned project- is November 1; 2011.. A-copy_ of .the - - 1­1earing-Ex6miner decision is enclosed. NOTICE of RIGHT-of RECONSIDERATION ; "Any interested person feeling that the recommendation of the Examiner is based on. an erroneous prgcedure,:errors•of law or. fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of. new . evidence which .could not: be: reasonpoly .available at .the prior hearing may. file .a '. request/motion: for reeonsideration in .writing an or before 5:00- p.m.,. November'22, :. . 2011. The .[request%motion. far reconsideration] shall set forth the specific. errors :relied -upon. (RMC 479-100G4]: Any .requestf motion for:rs?cansideration shall. be.addressed -to -the Renton Hearing Examiner and filed with the City-Clerk. See RMC.4=8-100G4 and. RMC .: . 4-8-1108 far additional information and'.requirernents re garding•reconsideration.'. NOTICE of R1 -.of APPEAL'. This-:recamrnendation becomes final- and- conclusive..as .of the. fifteenth calendar .day , after- the date of issuance' tif, this letter. Unless reconsideration is timely requested.. if , recorisideration .is' timely requeited, :the- Examiner'.s' order granting "or denying ! :reconsideration' becomes the final and :.conclusiiie recommendation 'for'.the, Ci The. tY•. Examiner's:final'recommendation'is subject to the right of the.a_ppiicant, City, or•,.a. party of record- with standing,'. as provided.,i.n RMC 4-8-110F1; to file an, appeal with the City Council, In -accordance with the procedures of.-RMC 4-8-110F. Any appeal must. be filed , in-wilting on or before 5:00 p.m., November 22, 2011. See RMC 4-8-110E9 and RMC 4- ua '8-%110F for additional 'information and requirements regarding, appeals.,to the City Council. Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057.. •. rentonwa•90v Hearing Examiner's Deeisfun CITY OF RENTON NOV 03 2011 RF: CEIVEQ CITCCEY RK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON Emily Terrell, Hearing Examiner Pro Tem RE: Horne Rezone Request FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS Rezone OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION. LUA 11-023, ECF INTRODUCTION The Applicant has requested a rezone to change approximately 7.37 acres from R-1 (Residential 1 dwelling unit per acre) to R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre). The Examiner recommends approval of the rezone request. ORAL TESTIMONY Rocale Timmons, Planner for the City of Renton, described the project and presented the Staff Report. Ms. Timmons presented this application as an application for rezone without the need for Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Ms. Timmons noted the rezone requests affected 12 parcels, encompassing nearly 7.4 acres. She further noted there are eight existing homes on site which will stay. To the west of the subject property is Greene Creek. North of the subject property and beyond the Stonegate subdivision is May Creek. Ms. Timmons reported the application was submitted July 2011. A SEPA DNS was issued on July 22, 2011. There were no appeals. Ms. Timmons stated the property had been annexed into the City of Renton in 2009 from unincorporated King County. In 1997, the property was pre -zoned with an R-1 zoning designation. When the property was annexed into the City, its pre -zoning designation remained the same. Ms. Timmons reported the areas north and west of the property are zoned Residential 1, with one dwelling unit per acre. The area located to the east of the property in unincorporated King County is zoned rural RA5 and Rural RIGA, allowing for one dwelling unit per 5 acres and one dwelling unit per 10 acres, respectively. Properties to the south of the subject are also in unincorporated King County with an R-4 zoning designation, allowing for four dwelling units per acre to be developed. Ms. Timmons stated the City Staff recommends a denial of the rezone request for four reasons. Ms. Timmons noted the City created the R-1 zone and other low density zones to offer a diversity of housing options and also to offer a transition between the city center and rural areas in King County. Ms. Timmons stated the City Staff felt the Rezone P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Applicant had failed to demonstrate compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The current zone was placed on this property for resource protection, and Staff felt the Applicant failed to prove the rezone would not deteriorate environmental quality in the immediate and downstream areas. Furthermore, Ms. Timmons stated the May Creek Drainage Plan recommends keeping the zone in its current very low density level to prevent further downstream flooding incidents. Finally, Ms. Timmons stated the rezone is inconsistent with zoning and existing developed densities. Ms. Timmons felt that any of these four were enough singly to recommend denial of the application. The Applicant was represented by Duana Kolougkova of the firm Johns, Monroe, Mitsunaga, Kolougkov4, PLLC. Ms. KolougkovA started by referencing a Memorandum of Authorities in support of the rezone (Exhibit 6). She explained this MOA was a compilation of her legal review of the issues surrounding the application and an expert on-site analysis. She then noted that the City's SEPA DNS was not appealed. She noted that the Applicant has provided a Level I Downstream Analysis and a critical areas review of the subject site. Ms. Koloui;kova stated the Applicant felt the City Staff analysis was incorrect on all counts. She noted comment from the public that there is concern this is a spot zoning. She noted the Applicant disagreed with this assessment arguing the rezone is consistent with the current built densities in the area and is in compliance with Comprehensive Plan policies. She further stated the property's current R-1 designation is inconsistent with the physical characteristics and surrounding development of the subject site. Further, she stated the 1996 pre -zoning discussion was arbitrary and could have resulted in either an R -I or R4 zoning designation. She also noted it is possible to both rezone the property and meet the May Creek Basin Action Plan recommendations. The Applicant, Ed Horne, provided a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit 8). Mr. Horne has lived in the area for 27 years. He is a licensed professional engineer working in research and development at Boeing. Mr. Horne stated approximately 113 of the rezone area was already developed at the equivalent to R-4 densities. He also noted the rezone request did not include the Stonegate utilities easement which bisects the requested rezone area. Mr. Horne stated the rezone would be in the public interest by providing sidewalks, lowering crime, increasing the tax base, removing blight, providing short term jobs, increasing property values in the nearby area, and providing connections to the public sewer system. Mr. Horne also noted the new surface water regulations require treatment to better than existing conditions and, in fact, to pre -developed forested conditions. He also noted the rezone would protect critical areas. Mr. Horne stated that May Creek is separated from the rezone area by an existing development. There is a small Class III wetland and an associated Class IV stream and the southeast corner of the proposed rezone area. The stream, Greene Creek, has a buffer set in 1997. Mr. Horne stated Greene Creek was ditched and piped prior to the development of the Stonegate subdivision in 1997. When Stonegate was constructed, the creek was moved back to Rezone p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision its original bed, which alleviated flooding issues that had been caused by the alteration of its flow. Mr. Horne stated Stonegate was platted to a build -out density equivalent to R-5, with the realized density of R-2 or R-3. He noted development to the south of the rezone area is also at a build -out equivalent to R4. There is also a nearby Urban Separator district which was designated in 2001. The Urban Separator designation does not cover the proposed rezone area. Mr. Horne stated the properties along the Nile Avenue are already developed to a build -out density equivalent to R-4, and therefore the issue of whether the rezone area makes an effective transition zone between the city and the more rural densities in unincorporated King County across Nile Avenue is moot. Finally, Mr. Horne stated the R -I zoning was overlaid on the properties when they had already been substantially built out to an R4 equivalent density. Chad Allen, a licensed stormwater engineer from Encompass Engineering and Surveying, testified his firm prepared the application, site plan, and a Level I Downstream Drainage Analysis (Exhibit 6). Mr. Allen stated the developed densities surrounding the rezone area are more consistent with an R-4 zoning, than an R -I zoning. He further stated, the Greene Creek buffer is wider than what would currently be required by the critical areas ordinance. Mr. Allen stated he felt the application was in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan policies. John Altman, a wetland ecologist with Altman, Oliver Associates, LLC., stated his firm had prepared a September 2011 on-site reconnaissance and had submitted letters to the file (Exhibit 9). He noted there are a Class III wetland and a Class IV stream at the southwest corner of the site. He stated there are very few critical areas on-site. He further noted the site is not separated by critical areas and is not limited by critical areas in terms of access to the property or development continuity. Mr. Altman further stated May Creek is off-site and separated by a major roadway and several houses from the proposed rezone area. He stated there would be no impact on the creek or its buffers from the proposed rezone. In terms of Greene Creek, Mr. Altman stated the wetland buffer would intrude less than 10 feet into the proposed rezone area. Bill Kombol has an ownership interest in the proposed rezone area. He spoke in support of the application, noting the property is more closely suited to the definition of an R4 rather than an R -I zone. He noted the potential benefits from a large subdivision stormwater system rather than through piecemeal development. He also stated he felt the application was in compliance with Comprehensive Plan policies LU -147, LU -151, LU -146 and LU -153. Steve Beck is the manager of Newfourth, LLC. The company has an ownership interest in properties within the rezone. Mr. Beck is a real estate agent. He spoke in support of the application. He noted the potential for improved safety, stormwater detention and treatment, and sidewalks. Rezone p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Bob Wilson also spoke in support of the application. Madonna Messina owns property abutting Greene Creek. She spoke in opposition to the rezone, stating she liked the rural nature of the area. She also stated concerns regarding safety, stormwater management and environmental protection. Deborah Rogers of the Stonegate subdivision stated the Stonegate subdivision plat was originally proposed for twice as many homes as are currently there. She expressed concerns about protection of the creeks and stormwater management. Bruce Christopherson noted all but one home in the rezone area already has access to the public sewer line. He expressed concerns about fish and wildlife habitat. He stated he felt this was not an appropriate transition zone. He noted that Stonegate is built to a density of 1.38 du/ac. The Applicant had stated that Stonegate was built to a density closer to 2-3 du/ac, but the Applicant failed to account for open space requirements within the Stonegate plat. Dan Larkin stated he opposed the application because he likes the rural nature of the area and is concerned about protection of the ecosystem surrounding the creeks. Richard Wilson is an attorney with the firm Hillis, Clark, Martin and Peterson, PS. Mr. Wilson was retained by the Stonegate Homeowners Association. Mr. Wilson referenced a letter he submitted to the record (Exhibit 3G). Mr. Wilson stated he felt the application represented an illegal spot zone. He noted without the inclusion of Tract I in the rezone application, the effect of the rezone would be to create two islands of R-4 zoning surrounded by R-1 zoning. He stated the use was very different from existing uses and not in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Wilson stated the decision to put this area in the R—i zone was not arbitrary. The Council chose to retain the pre -zoning designation in 2009 when they annexed the property. He further stated he believed the application did not meet the public interest. Mr. Wilson quoted section 3.30 of the May Creek Basin Plan and stated he felt any up -zoning in this area would be detrimental based on the history of flooding downstream. Mr. Wilson stated the Stonegate Homeowners Association felt the existing zoning is appropriate. He further stated the Hearing Examiner must give deference to the Staff opinion, especially with respect to the Comprehensive Plan. Finally, Mr. Wilson noted there is no GMA requirement for further density in this area. In rebuttal, Ms. Timmons stated the Applicant hasn't demonstrated the rezone serves the public interest. She reiterated the Staff opinion that the rezone does not meet the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. She also stated there had been no material change in circumstance since the last area -wide rezone. She again stated she felt the application created a spot zone. She also stated the rezone area does make an adequate transition zone going from east to west and lower to higher densities. Rezone p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision F/ Ms. Timmons entered Exhibit 13 which is the City of Renton Resolution 3506 adopting the May Creek Basin Plan's recommendations and creating an interlocal agreement for its execution. Upon questioning from the Hearing Examiner, Ms. Timmons stated she was concerned about impacts to critical areas even given the new stormwater standards. She further stated the interlocal agreement is still current and needed. Ms. Timmons entered Exhibit 14, Renton Ordinance 4667 for the May Valley rezone in 1997. In reference to how the zoning designation was created, she noted the Ordinance is the regulatory mechanism setting the zoning for the area notwithstanding any discussion that led to its adoption. Ms. Timmons also entered Exhibit 15 into the record. Exhibit 15 is the staff report to the Planning Commission on an area -wide Comprehensive Plan land use review in 2005. This land use review was prompted by a Growth Management Hearing's Board decision related to minimum residential densities, the so-called "bright line". Therefore, this area was considered in the last area -wide rezone review. The Planning Commission did not choose to recommend a change from the R-1 zoning in this area to the City Council. Also upon rebuttal, Mr. Allen stated there had been a change in circumstance since the last area -wide zone review in the form of new stormwater standards. The 2009 standards are far superior to the 1999 standards that were in place at the time of the 2001 May Creek drainage plan. Mr. Allen stated he felt stormwater impacts could be fully mitigated under the new stormwater codes. EXHIBITS All exhibits listed in the Exhibit List on Page 2 of the staff report, dated September 13, 2011, are admitted. In the addition, the following exhibits were admitted during the hearing on this matter: Exhibit 5A -H: Public Comment Letters Rezone p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision A: Prellwitz B: Schwartzenberger C: Williams and Schwartzenberger D: Taylor E: Kombol F: Mackay G: Wilson H: Kombol Exhibit 6: Memorandum of Authorities in Support of Rezone, October 17, 2011 Exhibit 7: Application Narrative, January 18, 2011 Exhibit 8: Plat Description and Application Summary for Horne Rezone Request, Ed Horne Exhibit 9: Letter from John Altman, September 13, 2011 Exhibit 10: Letter from Robert Wilson, undated Rezone p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Exhibit 11: Map showing Rezone Area and Stonegate Plat Open Space Exhibit 12: Phoenix Development v, City of Woodinville decision, June 2011 Exhibit 13: City of Renton, Washington Resolution 3506 and Renton City Council meeting minutes, May 21, 2001 Exhibit 14: City of Renton, Washington Ordinance 4667, June 2, 1997 Exhibit 15: Planning Commission rezone analysis discussion, September 7, 2005. FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. The Applicant is Newfourth, LLC. 2. Hearine. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application at 1:00 p.m. at Renton City Hall in the Council Chambers on October 1.8, 2011. Substantive: 3. Site/Proposal Description. The Applicant has requested a rezone to change approximately 7.37 acres from R-1 Residential to R4 Residential at the intersection of 148th Ave. SE (Nile Avenue) and NE 26th St. in the City of Renton. The Comprehensive Plan designation is Residential Low Density. The R-4 zoning designation is consistent with the uses contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan's Residential Low Density use designation. The rezone area comprises 12 subject parcels with eight existing homes. The remaining four parcels are vacant. The proposed rezone area was a part of a larger 74 acre pre -zone. The May Valley pre -zone Phase 1 in 1996 (adopted by Ordinance 4667 in 1997), pre -zoned the property Residential ldulac. The subject parcels were annexed into the City in May of 2009 and maintained their pre -zoned R-1 designation. 4. Characteristics of the Area. Properties surrounding the rezone area are either vacant or developed single family residences. Properties to the north and west are located within the City and are zoned R-1. Properties the south are located within unincorporated King County and are zoned R-4. However these properties are pre- zoned R-1 by the City should they annex. Properties to the east are located opposite the Urban Growth Boundary and are currently zoned RA5 with one residential unit per five acres or RA10 with one residential unit per 10 acres in the unincorporated County. There are no critical areas on-site. There is a Class IV stream (Greene Creek) and an associated Class III wetland off-site proximal to the southeast comer of the site. May Creek is located to the north of the site beyond existing residential development and open space. The property is located within the May Creek Drainage Basin. Rezone p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 5. Adverse Impacts. Members of the public testified they were concerned that their properties would suffer material damage from the rezone in the form of a loss of the existing peaceful and bucolic natural surroundings, potential stormwater and environmental impacts, potentially higher crime, potentially Iower property values, and the potential for more traffic. Given the size of the rezone at less than 8 acres and the surrounding development density, the proportion of increased traffic related to the rezone is relatively minor. Expert testimony suggests potential stormwater and environmental impacts can be fully mitigated. As no specific development project is currently proposed, issues related to future development including the type of homes, income range of potential new residents, or any other information related to new development cannot be assessed at this time and there is nothing in the record to suggest that the City's permitting review processes would not be able to fully mitigate all project specific impacts. There are no material adverse impacts discernable from the record. Additionally, the SEPA DNS issued on July 18, 2011 was not appealed. The Examiner concludes, as evidenced by the DNS, there are no potential adverse impacts if the proposed rezone is granted. 6. Impacts to Critical Areas. As noted on page 4 of the Staff Report, there are no critical areas on-site. There are off-site critical areas. Expert testimony stated approximately 10 feet of the off-site critical area buffer would impact the subject site. The 2001 May Creek Basin Action Plan provides recommendations for protection of the May Creek Drainage Basin. These recommendations relate to development density and also to how stormwater management is treated. Specifically, the Basin Plan (page 3-29) states, "in areas of the basin draining to May Creek or any of its tributaries upstream of the Coal Creek Parkway bridge, existing zoning densities (including adopted pre -zoning for unincorporated areas to be annexed) should not be increased unless a qualified hydrologic analysis demonstrates that stormwater runoff peaks and volumes can be fully mitigated to pre -developed conditions," (Exhibit 4). Since the adoption of the Action Plan, stormwater regulations have changed considerably. The Action Plan was created when the 1999 King County Surface Water regulations were in place. In 2009, King County adopted new stormwater regulations that require, amongst other things, stormwater treatment and management to pre -developed forested conditions. In expert testimony, Chad Allen stated his company had performed the hydraulic analysis contemplated in the Action Plan and determined that stormwater runoff peaks and volumes could be fully mitigated to pre - developed conditions using the Level 2 flow control criteria in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (Exhibit 6). The City's Critical Areas Ordinance ("CAO") prescribes buffers for critical areas, including streams and wetlands. As required by the Growth Management Act, the buffers and other CAO protective measures are based upon best available science to fully protect critical areas from the adverse impacts of development. Prior to adoption of the 2009 stormwater regulations, the May Creek Basin Action Plan provided compelling evidence that the CAO is in fact not adequate to protect against the impacts of stormwater runoff. For the reasons identified in the preceding paragraph, the adoption of the 2009 Rezone p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision stormwater regulations negates the evidentiary value of that study. Application of the City's Critical Areas Ordinance in conjunction with the 2009 King County Surface Water regulations will provide adequate protection to both the off-site critical areas and the larger May Creek Drainage Basin. It is recognized that the precedent set by this decision could be used to question all of the City's R-1 zoning. However, it should be noted that this decision is based upon the evidence of this record. The Applicant was able to provide compelling expert testimony that the 2009 stormwater regulations were adequate to protect critical areas. There was no evidence to the contrary. Clearly, in future rezone requests if the City or other parties are able to produce evidence that lower densities are still necessary to protect critical areas, the resulting recommendation could well change. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: I . Authority of Hearing Examiner. RMC 4-9-180D provides that the Nearing Examiner shall make recommendations on rezones that do not require a comprehensive plan amendment. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and as further concluded below the project is otherwise consistent with the City of Renton Comprehensive flan. Substantive: 2. Zoning Designation. The property is currently zoned R-1 Residential. Permit Review Criteria RMC 4-9-18OF Decision Criteria for Chan a of Zone Classification. RMC 4-9-180F(1). Criteria for Rezones Requiring a Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The following f ndings shall be made: The proposed amendment meets the review criteria in RMC 4-9-020; 3. RMC 4-9-184F requires rezone applications to conform to RMC 4-9- 020F. RMC 4-9-020F(2). All applications must meet at least one of the following criteria: a. The request supports the vision embodied in the Comprehensive Plan; or Rezone p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision b. The request supports the adopted business plan goals established by the City Council; or c. The request eliminates conflicts with existing elements or policies; or d. The request amends the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate new policy directives of the City Council. 4. RMC 4-9-020F(2) requires applications to support the vision embodied in the Comprehensive Plan, support the adopted business plan goals established by the City Council, eliminate conflicts with existing elements or policies, and/or amend the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate new policy directives of the City Council. Of these, the only applicable criterion is the support for the vision embodied in the Comprehensive Plan. RCM 4-9-180F(2), _Criteria for Rezones Not Requiring Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The Reviewing Official shall make the following findings: d. The rezone meets the review criteria in subsection FI of this Section. S. RMC 4-9-180F(2)(d) requires the rezone to meet to review criteria in subsection RMC 4-9-180F(1). RMC 4-9-180F(I)(a). Is consistent with the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan; 6. The analysis of specific Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives below will discuss how the application meets the Comprehensive Plan policies and vision. RCM 4-9-180F(1)(b). At least one of the following circumstances applies: i. The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; or H. Since the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. 7. RMC 4-9-18017(1)(b) requires one of two circumstances to apply; the first is that the property subject to the rezone was not specifically considered at the time the last area land use analysis and area zoning. The second requirement is that since the most recent land use analysis for the area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. The first of these criterions is not met because the subject property was Rezone P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision considered during the 2005 area -wide land use review in response to the Growth Management Hearings Board decision on minimum residential densities. Development in the area immediately surrounding the subject property has materially changed since the pre -zoning was set in 1997 including the construction of the 53 - home Stonegate subdivision to the subject's west and north and the construction of Windstone, a 76 -home development located to the south of the subject property which was built out at a realized density of approximately 4 dwelling units per acre. Since the last area -wide zoning review in 2005, there have also been significant improvements to public infrastructure in the form of a sewer line and sewer lift station adjacent to the subject property as well as the provision of natural gas lines along the northern border the subject property. Also, in 2009, King County adopted a new stormwater management manual that requires stormwater to be managed to pre - developed, forested conditions. The new stormwater regulations represent a significant change to the way stormwater is managed and treated from the regulations in place at the time of the last area -wide zoning review. RCM 4-9-180E(2). Criteria for _ Rezones Not Requiring Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The Reviewing Official shall make the following findings: a. The rezone is in the public interest, 8. RMC 4-9-180F(2)(a) requires the Official to find the rezone is in the public interest. Page 4 of the Staff Report states, "the Applicant asserts that the proposed density would only further the existing development densities in the area, which are also in compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA) ... while the surrounding properties might be developed with a density range comparable to the R- 4 zoning designation, this would not constitute a public interest to further expand the R4 designation and/or development potential in the additional area," (emphasis added). The Applicant testified the rezone implements the Comprehensive Plan and serves the public interest by promoting urban densities in the Urban Growth Area in accordance with the Growth Management Act. The Applicant also demonstrated the build -out densities in the area already approach 4 dwelling units per acre. The Staff Report further stated, "The property will still be surrounded by the City's R- 1 zoning designation and the properties to the south would are [sic] pre -zoned R- l should they annexed into the city. The subject parcels would also continue to be bisected by an R-1 tract." As noted both in the above italicized text, and in the Applicant's response, build -out densities surrounding the subject property are closer to 4 du/ac than I du/ac in the areas immediately south of the subject properties as well as within 1,000 feet of the subject properties to the west. Though the properties to the subject's south are pre -zoned R-1, these lots are predominantly build -out at higher Rezone P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision densities. When these properties annex into the City, the majority of them will not meet the R-1 pre -zoning designation. The Stonegate development was built at an overall density of 1.38 du/ac because of the need to preserve critical areas and open space. However, the lot sizes for home sites within Stonegate average around 1 S,000sf per lot, a realized build -out density of approximately 3 dwelling units per acre for the portions of the plat with developed lots. The Comprehensive Plan views both the R-1 and R4 districts as Low Density Residential. The public interest is not undermined by incompatible adjoining land use designations as asserted in the Staff Report because the zoning designations are highly similar and the realized densities are in fact more comparable with R4. An issue associated with the public interest criterion is whether the proposed rezone constitutes an illegal spot zone. The Staff Report references the judicial standard for illegal spot zoning from Narrowsview Preservation Association v, City of Tacoma, 84 Wn.2d 416 (1974), in which the court ruled: "We have recently stated that illegal spot zoning is arbitrary and unreasonable zoning action by which a smaller area is singled out of a larger area or district and specially zone for use classification totally different from and inconsistent with the classification of the surrounding land, not in accordance with the comprehensive plan. " The proposed rezone is not arbitrary or unreasonable and it is not inconsistent with the classification of surrounding land. As to consistency of classifications, the R4 classification is different from the surrounding R-1 classification, but its differences are consistent with the Comprehensive Pian. The Renton Comprehensive Plan defines both the R-1 Residential zone and the R-4 Residential zone as Residential Low Density Land Use designations. The purpose statement encompassing both zones states this designation is, "appropriate for a range of low intensity residential and employment where land is either constrained by sensitive areas or the City has the opportunity to add larger lot housing stock, at urban densities of four dwelling units per net acre, to its inventory ... Lands that either do not have significant sensitive areas, or can be adequately protected by the critical areas ordinance, are zoned Residential 4." As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the Critical Areas Ordinance provides adequate protection to May Creek and the offsite critical areas in conjunction with the 2009 King County Surface Water manual. Consequently, a rezone to R-4 would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Further, as previously discussed, the R4 designation would not be incompatible with the surrounding R -I classification given that the actual densities of the surrounding properties are similar to those of the proposal. Given these factors the proposed rezone cannot be considered "totally different" from the surrounding R-1 zones and it is certainly not incompatible. While it is true the proposed rezone would be bisected by a lower density zone, the area of Rezone P. I 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision the bisection is a 30 foot utility easement which may not be developed in any case. Its presence does not constitute an illegal spot zone. As to whether the rezone could be characterized as arbitrary or unreasonable, the Applicant has amply demonstrated that new stormwater regulations eliminate the underlying rationale for the R-1 designation in this area, i.e. protecting critical areas from stormwater run-off. The Applicant has provided a sound policy justification for the rezone and there is nothing in the record that suggests that the rezone would create any corresponding public detriment. City Staff stated the Action Plan recommendations related to zoning densities must be enforced because the interlocal agreement adopting these recommendations is still in place and therefore must still be needed. Enforcement of the interlocal agreement is outside of the jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner and is not relevant to the rezone criteria. RCM 4-9-18aF(2). Criteria for Rezones Not Requiring Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The Reviewing Official shall make the following findings: h. The rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner 9. RMC 4-9-180F(2)(b) requires the Official to determine if the rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner. Both the Staff and Applicant agree granting the rezone would further the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the petitioner by increasing the allowable zoning in the area and thereby increasing the development potential of the property. RCM 4-9-18QF(2). Criteria for, Rezones Not „Reggiring„Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The Reviewing Oficial shall make the following findings: c. The rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof 10. RMC 4-9-18OF(2)(c) requires the Official to determine if the proposal is materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons located in the vicinity of the subject property. Staff argued the proposal would be materially detrimental to the public based on the potential for increased flooding and damage to critical areas in the May Creek Drainage Basin. As discussed above, Staff did not provide conclusive evidence to demonstrate the Applicant's expert testimony is false and that the recommendations of the Action Plan cannot be met. Additionally, if the property is rezoned and eventually platted, the City will have the ability to review and Rezone p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Decision approve or deny any site plan for this property based on impacts to critical areas, stormwater, or any other development regulation within the City code. Concerns related to material damage from the rezone in the form of a loss of the existing peaceful and bucolic natural surroundings, potential stormwater and environmental impacts, potentially higher crime, potentially lower property values, and the potential for more traffic have not been substantiated. Traffic impacts will be relatively minor in proportion to existing traffic. Expert testimony suggests potential stormwater and environmental impacts can be fully mitigated. As no site plan is currently proposed, issues related to future development including the type of homes, income range of potential new residents, or any other information related to new development cannot be assessed at this time. No substantial evidence was provided to prove the rezone would provide material damage the surrounding property owners. Additionally, the SEPA DNS issued on July 18, 2011 was not appealed. Consistency with the Comlarehensive Plan. 11. Several Comprehensive Plan policies are relevant to the rezone application. City Staff provided an up/down analysis of four Comprehensive Plan policies including LU -51, LU -147, LU -151, and EN -1. In each case, City Staff felt the application had failed consistency requirement with the applicable Comprehensive Plan policy. In their analysis of Comprehensive Plan consistency, Stam' referred to their discussions in relation to the rezone criteria. The Applicant discussed Comprehensive Plan consistency for LU -11, LU -FF, LU -147, LU -148, LU - HH, LU -151, LU -153, LU -l1 and LU -157. Each of these policies is discussed in detail below. Comprehensive Plan Policy LU -11: Minimum density requirements shall be established to ensure that land development practices resulted in average development density in each land use designation sufficient to meet adopted growth targets and create greater efficiency in the provision of urban services. 12. City Staff noted in the Hearing the City of Renton is on track to meet its Buildable Lands requirements under the Growth Management Act. As no further density is required to meet GMA requirements, no action is required related to this Comprehensive Plan Policy. Comprehensive Plan Policy LU -51: Zoning should be applied areas for purposes of resource protection, when appropriate, during the annexation process. 13. City Staff stated in the Staff Report (page 6) this Comprehensive Plan objective has not been met. However, this property was annexed with an existing pre - zoning. As stated by Staff in both the Staff' Report and the Hearing, the R-1 designation was applied, in part, to preserve the existing critical areas in the May Creek Drainage Basin. The pre -zoning designation was applied to the properties when annexed in May 2009. The question at issue here is not the zoning applied during the Rezone p. 13 Findings, Conclusions and Decision annexation process, but whether or not an alternative zoning designation may be applied to the property going forward. The intent of the policy is to provide resource protection, when appropriate. As discussed earlier, the Applicant has provided reasonable evidence that resources may be protected through the application of the City's existing critical areas ordinance and the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual in accordance with the recommendations of the 2001 May Creek Basin Action Plan. Comprehensive Plan Policy LU -FF: Manage and plan far high-quality residential growth in Renton and the Potential Annexation Area that supports transit by providing urban densities, promotes efficient land use utilization, and create stable neighborhoods incorporating built-in amenities and natural features. 14. The City of Renton has many zones and development standards that promote the implementation of this policy. This policy is related to citywide issues and is not necessarily applicable to individual lots. As discussed above, the City is meeting its GMA requirements for population growth. No further action is required related to this Comprehensive Plan Policy. Comprehensive Plan Policy LU -147: Adopt urban density of at least four (4) dwelling units per net acre for residential uses except in areas with identified and documented sensitive areas and are areas identified as urban separators. 15. City Staff contend this area should not be rezoned to four dwelling units per net acre because this increased development density would conflict with the recommendations of the May Creek Basin Action Plan. The Applicant noted there are no critical areas on the subject site. The Applicant also notes the property is not included within a designated Urban Separator. The Action Plan allows for the contemplation of increased residential densities in circumstances where a qualified hydrologic analysis demonstrates that stormwater can be treated and managed to pre - developed conditions. The 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual requires any stormwater treatment facility to treat stormwater to pre -developed, forested conditions. The Applicant's expert testimony suggests all potential stormwater and environmental impacts can be fully mitigated. The site does not contain critical areas, impacts to stormwater and critical areas can be fully mitigated, and the area is not a designated urban separator, therefore rezoning the property to allow for four dwelling units per net acre for residential uses is appropriate. This Comprehensive Plan Policy is met. Comprehensive Plan Policy LU -148: Encourage larger lot single-family development in areas providing a transition to the Urban Growth Boundary and King County Rural Designation. The City should discourage more intensive platting patterns in these areas. 16. The Urban Growth Boundary is located along Nile Avenue on the subject property's eastern boundary. In testimony, City Staff stated the rezone area is an Rezone p. 14 Findings, Conclusions and Decision adequate transition zone going from east to west and lower to higher densities at its present zoning classification. However, both the R-1 and R-4 districts are classified in the Comprehensive Plan as Residential Low Density Land Use districts. RMC 4-2- 020D states, "The R-4 designation serves as a transition between rural designation zones and higher density residential zones. It is intended as an intermediate lower density residential zone." RMC 4-2-020C states, the R-1 zone is "intended to protect critical areas, provide separation between neighboring jurisdictions through designation of urban separators as adopted by the Countywide Policies, and prohibit the development of incompatible uses that may be detrimental to the residential or natural environment." As noted above, there are no critical areas on the subject site and it is not part of the designated Urban Separator. Therefore, the R-4 zoning designation meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan Policy by providing a transition to the Urban Growth Boundary and the King County Rural Designation. Comprehensive Plan Policy LU -HH.- Provide for a range of lifestyles and appropriate uses adjacent to and compatible with urban development in areas of the City and Potential Annexation Area constrained by extensive natural features, providing urban separators, andlor providing a transition to Rural Designations within King County. 17. As noted above for Policy LU -148, the subject site is not constrained by extensive natural features and is not designated as an urban separator. It does provide an adequate transition to Rural Designations within King County. As both the R-1 and R4 zones are designated Low Density Residential districts in the Comprehensive Plan, either zoning designation will meet the criteria of compatibility with this Comprehensive Plan Policy. Comprehensive Plan Policy LU -151: Base development density should range from one home per 10 acres to one home per acre on Residential Low Density (RLD) designated land with significant environmental constraints, including but not limited to: steep slopes, erosion hazard [sic], jloodplains, and wetlands or where the area is in a designated Urban Separator. Density should be a maximum of 4 du/net acre on portions of the Residential Low Density land where these constraints are not extensive and urban densities are appropriate except as provided in Policy LU -134a. 18. The subject property does not contain critical areas and is not in a designated Urban Separator. It is designated as Residential Low Density land in the Comprehensive Plan. Since 2004, there has been no Comprehensive Plan Policy LU - 134a. The Policy specifically states that density should be a maximum of four dwelling units per net acre. Either the R-1 or the R-4 zone would meet the intent this Comprehensive Plan policy. Com rehensive Plan Poli LU -153: For the purposes of mapping, the prevalence of significant environmental constraints should be interpreted to mean critical areas encumber a significant percentage of the gross area; developable Rezone p. 15 Findings, Conclusions and Decision areas are separated from one another by pervasive critical areas or occur on isolated portions of the site and access limitations exist; the location of the sensitive areas result in a noncontiguous development pattern; the area is a designated urban separator; or application of the Critical Areas Ordinance setbacks/buffers and/or net density definition would create a situation where the allowable density could not be accommodated on the remaining net developable area without modifications or variances to other standards. 19. This policy does not apply to the subject property as there are no critical areas on site. Comprehensive Plan Policy LU -IT Designate Residential 4 du/acre zoning in those portions of the RLD designation appropriate for urban levels of development by providing suitable environments for suh urban andlor estate style, single-family residential dwellings. 20. The Applicant argues the subject property is a suitable environment for suburban and/or estate style single-family residential dwellings. As there are no critical areas on-site, and there is sufficient acreage to support suburban and/or estate style single-family residential dwellings, an R-4 designation in this area would meet the criteria of this Comprehensive Plan Policy. Comprehensive Plan Policy_LU_ 15 7: Within the Residential 4 du/acre zoned area allow a maximum density of four units per net acre to encourage larger lot development and increase the supply of upper income housing consistent with the City's Housing Element. 21. The subject site is not currently zoned R-4. The R-4 zoning designation already allows a maximum density of four units per net acre. There is no site plan application currently before the Examiner; therefore, there is no way to ascertain what style of housing at what income level might be constructed on any lot, with any zoning. This Comprehensive Plan Policy does not apply. Comprehensive Plan Policy EN -1: Manage water resources for multiple uses including recreation, fish and wildlife, flood protection, erosion control, water supply, energy production, and open space. 22. On page 6 of the Staff Report, Policy EN -1 is presented as, "Prevent development on lands where development would create hazards to life, property, or environmental quality." The Staff version appears to have been superseded in 2009. Comprehensive Plan Policy EN -1 in the currently adopted Comprehensive Plan is presented above. As currently adopted, this Comprehensive Plan Policy does not apply. Rezone p. 16 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Consisteney with the Zoning Classification. 23. On page 7 of the Staff Report, Staff state, "The R -I zone is established to provide and protect suitable environments for residential development of lands characterized by pervasive critical areas were limited residential development will not compromise critical areas. It is intended to implement the RLD Comprehensive Plan designation. The zone provides for suburban estate single-family and clustered single-family residential dwellings, at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per net acre, and allows for small-scale farming associated with residential use. While the site is not directly encumbered by critical areas it is adjacent to a stream and drains into a large drainage basin that has been described as having moderate and extensive flooding which is exacerbated by increases in development. Moreover, the proposal would not be consistent with the R-4 designation in that it would be considered a spot zone and would not offer a transition between rural and higher density residential zones. Based on the analysis above the subject property is most properly zoned R-1 and a rezone to R4 is not supported." With respect to the City's zoning code, the Applicant stated the subject properties are more appropriately zoned R-4 based on the City's zoning description and intents. The Applicant noted the zoning code statement of purpose for both the R -i and R4 zones. The applicable section for each zone is stated below (emphasis added). RMC 4-2-020C Residential -1 DU/Acre (R-1): The Residential -I Dwelling Unit Per Net Acre Zone (R-1) is established to provide and protect suitable environments for residential development of lands characterized by pervasive critical areas where limited residential development will not compromise critical areas. It is intended to implement the Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan designation. The zone provides for suburban estate single family and clustered single family residential dwellings, at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per net acre, and allows for small scale farming associated with residential use. Density bonus provisions, of up to eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre, are intended to allow assisted living to develop with higher densities within the zone. It is further intended to protect critical areas, provide separation between neighboring jurisdictions through designation of urban separators as adopted by the Countywide Policies, and prohibit the development of incompatible uses that may be detrimental to the residential or natural environment. No minimum density is required. (Ord. 5590,2-28-2011). RMC_ 4-2-020D Residential4 DU/Acre (R4): The Residential -4 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre Zone (R4) is established to promote urban single family residential neighborhoods serviceable by urban utilities and containing amenity open spaces. Rezone p. 17 Findings, Conclusions and Decision It is intended to implement the Residential Low Density Comprehensive Plan designation. The Residential -4 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre Zone (R-4) will allow a maximum density of four (4) dwelling units per net acre. The R-4 designation serves as a transition between rural designation zones and higher density residential zones. It is intended as an intermediate lower density residential zone. Larger lot subdivisions are preferred; however, "small lot clusters" are allowed on sites where open space amenities are created. Resulting development is intended to be superior in design and siting than that which would normally otherwise occur. Small lot clusters may also meet objectives such as the provision of efficient sewer services. (Ord. 5355, 2-25-2008). As noted above, the property is not characterized by the presence of pervasive critical areas. It is also not designated as an Urban Separator. The Applicant has demonstrated through expert testimony that stormwater and environmental impacts may be fully mitigated through application of the City's existing Critical Areas Ordinance and development codes and in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Additionally, the City will have the opportunity to provide development and environmental review for any permits for future development in the rezone area. Both the R-1 and R4 zones are designated Low Density Residential districts in the Comprehensive Plan. Both zones provide an effective transition between higher density residential development to the west and rural development in the unincorporated County to the east. The R4 zone is, in fact, intended to be a transition zone. Furthermore, the rezone site is serviceable by urban utilities including natural gas, public sewer, and public water. The buffer along Greene Creek may be used to provide amenity open spaces. For these reasons, the rezone to R-4 is supported. DECISION The Hearing Examiner recommends approval of the rezone request. Dated this 1 st day of November, 2011. c Emily Terrell City of Renton Hearing Examiner Pro Tem Rezone p. 18 Findings, Conclusions and Decision i CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY &ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: To: City Clerk's Office From: Stacy M Tucker Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following Information to facilitate project closeout and Indexing by the City riark's Offire_ Project Name: Horne Rezone LUA (file) Number: LUA-11-023, ECF, R Cross -References: AKA's: Project Manager: Rocale Timmons Acceptance Date: June 23, 2011 Applicant: Ed Horne Owner: Newfourth LLC Contact: Tom Redding PID Number: 0323059322; 0323059004; 0323059106; 0323059193; 0323059194;0323059199;0323059219;0323059221; 0323059224;0323059233;0323059257;0323059298 ERC Approval Date: July 18, 2011 ERC Appeal Date: August 5, 2011 Administrative Denial: Appeal Period Ends: Public Hearing Date: r�pr 4-�T p Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date: ii Date Appealed to Council: FI By Whom: Council Decision: Date: Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: The applicant is requesting a rezone for 12 single family lots from the R-1 to the R-4 zoning designation. The 12 parcels comprise 7.37 acres of area and are located along the eastern boundary of the city just south of NE 26th St adjacent/abutting Nile Ave NE. Location: Along the west side of Nile Ave NE just south of NE 26th St i Comments: A -' Oct /y, 201/ Rocale Timmons City of Renton Planning Dept. 1055 So. Grady Way, a floor Renton, WA 98057 Subject: Horne Rezone (Ref. WA111-023) Dear Ms. Timmons, CI$y Of Planning Renton Division "'z7all Although I do not live adjacent to or near the Home Rezone properties, I have become aware of the proceedings through a friend who Is involved in the rezone effort. I Ilved In Renton for 40 years and still own property within the qty of Renton. I wish to offer my support and comments for the subject effort to increase a R-1 classification to a higher density. As I understand it, the R-1 classification was typically administered to areas that may contain localized wetlands, very steep slopes, unstable soils and possibly other factors. I believe that each property should be judged on its own merits with an "on the ground" technical analysis by licensed engineers that address the issues listed above. Consideration can also be given to compatibility with surrounding areas and City development planning. In addition, property owner rights to develop their property has to be given significant consideration. In August 2010,1 was given a Preliminary Plat approval by the City of Renton for subdivisions of my property (Ref. LUA09-148). This property contained overlays of zoning designations R-8, R-1, R-14. Based on rat€onal examination of the property and technical data, together with consideration for city ordinances, a reasonable compromise acceptable to the applicant (myself) and the City was reached. I am currently involved in the submittal process on my other property, adjacent to the one described above, to obtain a Preliminary Plat approval as well. This property Is zoned R-14 on the western portion and R-1 on the eastern portion. The adjacent property directly to the east is zoned R-8. As I walk the property in the R-1 area, It is hard to see why it is R-1 area because the soils analysis is good, there are no wetlands and there are very good building sites. The "on the ground" examination and technical analysis should support a much higher density potential than R-1. I expect that an acceptable compromise will be reached between the City and myself. I strongly believe it is in the public Interest that the City of Renton should strongly consider the applications that propose higher density usages of properties currently designated R-1 using the "on the ground" examination and technical analysis as described earlier. This will create more dose In urban densities compatible with employment centers and commuting requirements. Not only will higher density housing increase City revenue, but it is apparently what many future home buyers want. Sin rely, �� Robert Wilson City of Renton 9/28/2011 ' Planning Division City Of Renton , OCT 17 1011Attn: Hearing examiner: Rodal Timmons 1055 South Grady Way REMOVED Wa. 98059 V RE: Horne Rezone #LUA 11-02:3 To whom it may concern: I have no economic interest in the groups promoting the rezone. I do however own one of the homes that has had the highest historical sales price in the area at $850,000 in 2005. I am an expert in Renton Real Estate and know values will not go down due to the rezone. Since 2005 when I moved into my home in the rezone area, I have managed to eliminate the criminal activity that occurred in front of my home every weekend by calling the police and adding flood lights to forcing the drug dealers to find a darker place to hang out. Allowing more homes to be built in the area will create more light and more people vested in keeping their families and homes safe. The main reason I'support the rezone'has to due with the fact that Nle Ave NE is a very busy road with a huge open ditch on the east side and no curbs, gutters and side walks on the west side. In fact the distance of the edge the under sized road to the property line of owners is only 6". This 6" is sometimes the only distance for people walking along the road and cars passing by. At 8:80 am Monday — Friday two little children have to walk the 6" to go to the bus stop that is in front of my home. The City of Renton has no plans or money to improve the road beyond to where it is now. Tax dollars seem to be decreasing. If the rezone is improved there is a higher probability of have the road brought up to a safe standard by private development. Please support the Horne rezone to promote future sidewalks along Nile Ave NE so the little kids have a safe walk to their bus stop! Yours, Paul F Mackay Jr 5625 NE 26th St Renton, Wa. 98059 'f r � i > } ° t October 13, 2011 Rocale Timmons, Planning Department for the City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 6th Floor Renton, WA 98057 Re: Project Number LUA11-023, ECF, R Project Name: Horne Rezone Dear Ms. Timmons: RTimmuns Re1rtanwv goy pCY �°f Rendon 9 D1 vision aCT 17 �Utl I am a property owner in the Horne Rezone area. I fully support the efforts of Mr. Horne who, with the unanimous consent of our neighbors, are supporting the rezone of our properties from their current R-1 zone to the R-4 zone, which better fits the attributes of our property. I previously provided you a letter dated October 5, 2011. 1 supplement my previous letter and statement with the following facts, reasons, and rationale based on the recently provided Staff Report, dated October 11, 2011: • In order to fully understand the dynamics of the Horne Rezone area, one must first deconstruct the sophistry of the opponents who have attempted to paint this action as an "illegal spot zone". The City of Renton Staff Report dated October 11, 2011 adopts this reasoning, but in doing so contradicts its own definition of an "illegal spot zone". The Staff Report is instructive, as it quotes the Narrowsview„Preservation _ Association„ -v. ,City of Tacoma case. In it the Appeals court properly defined spot zoning as follows: "illegal spot zoning is arbitrary and unreasonable zoning action by which a smaller area is single out of a larger area or district and specially zoned for use classification totally different from and inconsistent with the classification of surrounding land, not in accordance with a comprehensive plan ”. When analyzing the particular situation it is extremely important to note that while the adjacent Stonegate neighborhood is zoned R-1, it is in fact developed at a density and arrangement much more equivalent to the R-4 zone classification. Calling the Stonegate neighborhood an R-1 area is no more accurate than calling the sky orange. The sky would not become orange even if the City of Renton code held that it was orange. It would still be blue. Though the Stonegate neighborhood is zoned R-1 — that is an historical anomaly. The Stonegate neighborhood was developed consistent with R-4 zoning. In fact, every lot in the Stonegate neighborhood is an inconsistent use in the R-1 zone because the Stonegate densities far exceed (by two orders of magnitude) those allowed under the R-1 density which requires one dwelling unit per acre. A review of the attached density map and the Stonegate lot size report and map of Stonegate will amply illustrate this point. Also attached is a copy of the original Stonegate approval (DDES Report File No. S90P0068), which also reflects that Stonegate when it was developed in an area increasingly characterized by "urban residential subdivisions." That report is instructive as it makes clear that the vast majority of the Stonegate lots were developed as part of a SR -15000 zone which is about 3 lots per acres. This approval was in June 1994. Yet, the Stonegate opponents of this rezone like to "pretend" that they are in an R 1 zone. They're not, except in name. Their build -out density is R-4 but their zoning is R-1. Just because the Stonegate neighbors want to pretend that they live in an R-1 density area; is no reason to deny the Horne neighbors their right (under the City of Renton code definitions) to an R-4 zone and density. • The City Staff report repeats this same sophistry when speaking of the properties to the south of the Horne Rezone (see Revised Report of October 11, 2011, page 3, section G.I. Project Description/Background). In this paragraph the City Staff report trumpets the fact that "the properties to the south are zoned R-4 according to the County's zoning map but are pre- zoned R-1, by the City, should they annex." What the City Staff report doesn't tell you is that the built out density of this area to the south is 2.5 to 5.0 dwelling units (DU) per acre. The City Staff adopts a "see no evil" attitude when it pretends that an R-1 pre -zone is somehow demonstrative of an R-1 density. It isn't. The County's current R-4 zone is consistent with the built -out density of the area to the south. Pretending that an area developed at an R-4 density (like this area to the south) is really an R 1 zone is pure sophistry, reasoning sound in appearance only. • The City Staff report does get to the heart of the issue on page 5, section 5.b. The build -out difference between an R-1 and R-4 zone is a `possible" 16 lots (12 lots under R-1 and possibly 28 lots under R-4). With 400 or 500 current lots and residences in this sub -area (all of which have been able to build out under an effective R-4 density, regardless of their R 1 or R-4 zone classifications), and zoning allowing several hundred more lots, are we really to believe that a "possible" 16 lots will be materially detrimental to the public welfare of other persons located in the vicinity? Are 500 lots just perfect, but 516 lots material detrimental? , • The City Staff report commits another non -sequitur on page 7, section 2, Consistency with the Zoning. Classification. In the second paragraph the Staff Report states, "The R-4 designation serves as a transition between rural designation zones and higher density residential zones. It is intended as an intermediate lower density zone". Then in the third paragraph, the Staff Report states, "the proposal would not be consistent with the R-4 designation in that it would not offer a transition between rural and higher density zones." How, in the name of logic, can the R-4 designation "serve as a transition between rural designation zones and higher density zones" (as it is defined in the Renton municipal code, Section 4.2.020 D), yet "not be consistent with the R-4 designation in that it would not offer a transition between rural and higher density zones" (as used as a rationale in the Staff Report)? If someone can make logical sense out of two statements that are completely contradictory, it will surprise me. Yet, this same Staff Report adopts that contradictory non -sequitur to conclude, `used on the analysis above the subject property is most appropriately zoned R-1 and a rezone to R-4 is not supported by staff." • The Staff Report makes a factual error on page 4, Section 0.1. Project Description. In the second paragraph on page 4, the Staff Report states, "the site is also bisected by a 30 -foot wide tract, owned by the Stonegate neighborhood ...." This is not true. The Stonegate H.O.A. is the taxpayer of record for this 30 -foot wide property commonly known at Tract i in the Stonegate plat (see King County File S90P0068 recorded under recording number 9609101362). According to the Stonegate plat notes and restrictions on Sheet 1 of 7, Condition 17, "Tract I, access tract in favor of properties to the south of Tract I shall be dedicated by separate deed from the Chaffey Corporation to the abutting property owners". The "abutting property owners to the south of Tract I" are the properties within the Horne Rezone. The Stonegate H.O.A. is not "abutting property owners to the south of Tract I" (see sheet 2 of 7 which shows Tract I and its relationship to the Stonegate Plat to the west, and the abutting Horne Rezone properties to the south). Therefore the Stonegate H.O.A. does not own Tract I (the 30 - foot wide tract). Chaffey Corporation did issue a quit claim deed to the Stonegate H.O.A. but that deed did not dedicate what it could not dedicate, since the Stonegate Plat Condition 17 in King County records is the controlling dedication. Also, there are a number of other easement holders (including Mr. Horne, utility companies, etc.) who have easements rights across that tract. The Staff Report should be amended to correct this error. • What the Staff Report is really trying to say is this: "we are biased against this rezone request, and even though this rezone request meets the definitions and the criteria set forth in the R-4 zone, we are going to oppose it anyway. " 91 The Horne Rezone meets all the requirements set forth by the definitions and the criteria of the R-4 zone. The Horne Rezone is not a "spot zone" as defined by Washington courts. The City Staff Report uses sophistry and non -sequiturs to oppose the rezone. The City Staff Report incorrectly lists the owner of Tract I as the taxpayer of record for Tract I. The City Staff bases their opposition to this rezone on biases, not logic and facts. The proponents of the Horne Rezone have met their burden of proof and the rezone should be granted. Very T iy Yours U William Kombol, a property owner in the Horne Rezone area 30533 — 234' Ave. S.E. Black Diamond, WA 98010 Enclosures: Area Density Map showing the existing densities of properties surrounding the Horne Rezone Stonegate Lot size report and map of Stonegate lots (from King County Assessor and King County MAP information) Stonegate Approval Report -- DDES File No. 89P0068 dated June 10, 1994 (11 pages) Stonegate Plat under King County File No. 89P0068 recorded under King County recording number 9609101362, Sheet I of 7 with Note No. 17 highlighted, and Sheet 2 of 7 with Tract I highlighted (both highlights with a red dot) 4 1 r --w AarsH30 _ _ -jr aoo►+a� 3aazaa -WWPP 1 Hidz !R rr 9 �+ 1 cc Zo 1.1[ T T AP 8 r �F m jj d C fV1 I W j7 CIC 100 ?0 C1 Pry 4aU NN Z pW1iUj 1 Hidz !R rr 9 �+ 1 cc Zo 1.1[ T T AP 8 Stonegate lots Lot # Address Tax Lot sq ft 3 5608 NE 26th St 803540-0010 15000 4 5602 NE 26th St 803540-0020 15000 5 5512 NE 26th St 803540-0030 16575 6 5506 NE 26th St 803540-0040 15312 7 5500 NE 26th St 803540-0050 15136 10 2508 Lyons Ave NE 803540-0510 15448 11 2502 Lyons Ave NE 803540-0500 13915 12 2406 Lyons Ave NE 803540-0490 13579 13 2400 Lyons Ave NE 803540-0480 12872 14 5502 NE 24th Cr 803540.0530 29305 15 5505 NE 24th Cr 803540-0520 27775 16 2310 Lyons Ave NE 803540-0470 13047 17 2302 L ns Ave NE 803540-0460 14452 18 2218 Lyons Ave NE 803540-0450 15026 19 2212 Lyons Ave NE 803540-0440 15883 20 2208 Lyons Ave NE 803540-0430 15492 21 2202 Lyons Ave NE 803540-0420 14877 22 2106 L ns Ave NE 803540-0410 15844 23 5504 NE 21st CT 803540-0400 15268 24 5510 NE 219 CT 803540-0390 14978 25 5511 NE 219 Cr 803540-0380 15096 26 5505 NE 21st CT 803540-0370 17568 27 5501 NE 21st CT 803540-0360 14130 28 2003 Lyons Ave NE 803540-0350 14527 29 2009 Lyons Ave NE 803540-0340 16328 30 5401 NE 22nd Cr 803540-0330 17133 31 5321 NE 22nd Cr 803540-0320 13952 Average lot Size 16805 Median tot She 36058 Lot # Address Tax Lot sq ft 32 5315 NE 22nd Cr 803540-0310 141.92 33 5309 NE 22nd CT 803540-0300 16058 34 5303 NE 22nd Cr 803540-0290 16503 36 5302 NE 22nd Cr 803540-0280 16870 37 5308 NE 22nd Cr 803540-0270 19726 38 5314 NE 22nd CT 803540-0260 26111 39 5320 NE 22nd Cr 803540-0250 16861 40 5326 NE 22nd CT 803540-0240 16525 41 2205 Lyons Ave NE 803540-0230 16906 42 2211 L ons Ave NE 803540-0220 14169 43 2217 Lyons Ave NE 803540-0210 13113 44 5313 NE 23rd CT 803540-0200 16992 45 5307 NE 23rd CT 803540-0190 18111 46 5301 NE 23rd CT 803540-0180 17832 47 5300 NE 23rd Cr 803540-0170 16684 48 5306 NE 23rd CT 803540-0160 19397 49 5312 NE 23rd Cr 803540-0150 16954 50 2303 Lyons Ave NE 803540-0140 15243 51 5405 NE 24th CT 803540-0130 14897 52 5311 NE 24th CT 803540-0120 16383 53 5305 NE 24th CT 803540-0110 22998 54 5304 NE 24th Cr 803540-0100 18401 55 5310 NE 24th Cr 803540.0090 20535 56 5316 NE 24th Cr 803540-0080 16437 57 5404 NE 24th Cr 803540-0070 17389 58 2401 Lyons Ave NE 803540-0060 21853 Tracts not part of the General Aneylsis 803540-0540 803540-0580 803540-0550 803540-0560 June 10, 1994 OEUCE OF 'lila ZONING AND SUBDIVISION MU INER 700 Central Building 810 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 REPORT AND. RECOMU DATION TO THE RING COUNTY COUNCIL. 602=t Department of. Development and Environmental Serviced File No. 890P0068 Proposed ordinance No. 91-763 Proposed Plat of STONEGATE Generally between 148th Avenue southeast and 143rd Place Southeast (if extended) and generally between Southeast 104th Street and Southeast 96th Street (if both roads were extended) Division's Preliminary: Approved, "subject to conditions Division's Finals Approved, subject to conditions (modified) Examiner: Approved, subject to conditions (modified) The Land Use Services Division's preliminary Report on Item No. S90POO68 was received by the Examiner on May 12., 1994. Atter reviewing the Land Use Services Division's Report and examining available information on file with the application, the Examiner visited the siteacid surrounding area and conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing on Item No. 890POO68 was opened by the Examiner at 9:20 a.m., May 26, 1994, in Hearing Room No. 2, Department of Development and Environmental Services, 3600 - 136th Place S.E., Suits A, Bellevue, Washington, and closed at 12:16 p.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in the attached minutes. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the office of the Zoning and Subdivision Oxaminer. FINDINGS. CONCLUSION AL RECOIiIMMION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS• 1. General Information: Developer: The Leavitt Company, 301 116th Avenue SE, suite $570, Bellevue, WA 98004/(206) 455-4224 MASTER CCPY Stonegate S98P0068 Page 2 Engineer: David Evans i Associates, 301 116th Avenue 88, Suite 1170, Bellevue, NA 98004/(206)455-3571 Owner: The Levitt Compare , 301 116th Avenue BE, Suite 570, Bellevue, WA 98004/(206)453-4224 STR: 3-23-3 Location: Generally between 148th Avenue southeast and 143rd place Southeast (if extended) and generally between Southeast 104th street and ' Southeast 96th street (if both roads were extended) Zoning: Acreage: Number of Lots: Typical Lot size: Proposed use: Sewage Disposal: water Supplys Pire District: School District: Date of Application: SR 15,000, SC -P & G -5-P 38.4 53 Ranges from approximately 15,000 to 28,000 square feet Detached single family residences septic Ring County Water District #90 #10 - Issaquah #411 - Issaquah August 9, 1990 2. Except as modified below, the facts set forth in the King County Land use Services Division's Preliminary Report to the Soning•and Subdivision Examiner for the May 26, 1994 public hearing are found to be correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. Copies of the said report will be attached to the copies or this report submitted to the County Council. 3. Urban residential subdivisions exist adjacent to and west of the southern portion of the site. Thoselate (Summerwind and Newcastle Terrace) drain onto the subject property. cats in the Summerwind development are approximately 7000-8000 square feet in area; those in Newcastle Terrace are approximately 13,000 square feet. The Applicant has agreed to'provide biofiltration for untreated surface water run-off from those developments. 4. The extended environmental review process for this proposal has resulted in project modifications and mitigating measures which will eliminate significant adverse impact of the development upon the environment. These modifications and mitigating measures have'generally been agreed to by the Applicant, and have won support for the development from many adjacent -property owners. S. The Applicant has been willing to develop the proposed plat with either public sanitary sewers or individual septic systems and drainfields. In 1989 and 1991 the applicant made formal requests to Renton for annexation, which would enable sever service to be provided by the city; these requests were denied. 6.. The subject property is above an extensive aquifer used by the City of'Renton for its potable water supply. The nearest city well which draws from the aquifer is approximately two miles•west; the next closest well is approximately four miles from the site. The preliminary design for savage disposal by septic tanks and drainfields. Stonegate S20P0068 Page 3 has received preliminary approval from the King County Department of Public Health. The subject property is underlain by glacial till, an impermeable soil, below the sands and gravels which.exist near the surface. The testimony of the DDES geologist is that there would be essentially no impact an the aquifer from septic drainfields on the site. This testimony is consistent with virtually all other evidence and information contained in the environmental -documents. There is no substantial evidence in the record to support the City of Renton's concern for aquifer contamination, and no evidence was presented at the public hearing to indicate that the information contained in the Htivironmental Impact Statement is inadequate. QOXCW,dicxs 1. If approved subject to the conditions recommended below, the proposed subdivision will comply.vith the goals and objectives of the King County Comprehensive Plan, Newcastle Community Plan, Subdivision and Zoning Codes, and other official land use controls and policies of King County. 2. If approved subject to the conditions recommended below, this proposed subdivision will make appropriate provision for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open spaces, for drainage ways, streets, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supply, sanitary wastes, parka and recreations, play grs o , schools and school grounds, and safe walking cond tionsifor students who only walk to school; and it will serve the public use and interest. 9. The conditions for final plat approval recommended below are in the public interest and are reasonable requirements to mitigate the impacts of this development upon the environment. 4. The dedications of land or easements within and adjacent to the proposed plat, as recommended by the conditions for final plat approval or as shown an the proposed preliminary plat submitted by the applicant, are reasonably necessary as a direct result of the development of this proposed plat. S. The Environmental Impact Statement prepared for this action provides adequate information and reasonable discussion of the proposal, .its impacts, alternatives and the impacts of the alternative proposals. There is no evidence that the factual information contained in the Environmental Impact Statement or the discussion of impacts upon the environment is inadequate. APPROVE the proposed preliminary plat of Stonegate as revised and received May 10, 1994 subject to this following conditions of final plat approvals 1. Compliance with all platting provisions of title 19 of the King County.Cods. 2. All persons having an ownership interest in the subject property shall sign on the'face of the final plat a dedication which includes the language set forth in King County Council Motion No. 5952. Stonegate S90P0068 Page 4 3. Proposed Lots 1 through 5, and 50 and 51 are zoned 8C -P. The area and dimensions of these lois shall meet the minimum requirements of the SC zone classification or shall be as shown on the face of the approved preliminary plat; whichever is larger. !linos revisions to the plat aich do not result in substantial changes may be approved at the discretion of the band Use Services Division. 4. Proposed Pats 6 through 49, and 52 and 53 are zoned SR 15000. The area and dimensions of these lots shall meet the minimum requirements of the OR 15000 zone classification or shall be as shown on the face of the approved preliminary plat, -whichever is larger. Minor revisions to the plat which do not result in substantial changes may be approved at the discretion of the Land use services Division. 5. The applicant must obtain final approval from the Ring County Health Department. If the applicant proposes to serve the final plat with sewers, in lieu of septic tanks, approval of a Local service Area (LSA) extension must first be secured from King County or the subject property must be annexed to the City of Renton. (dote: an LOA extension would require the convening of a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner, and the passage of an ordinance by the County Council.) 6. All -construction and upgrading of public and private roads shall be done in accordance with the Ki County road st aularda established and adopted by Ordinaace•Mo. 8041, subject to variances granted by the Ring County Road Engineer. 7. The Applicant must obtain the approval of the King county fire Protection "inear and demonstrate oampliance with the fire hydrant, rater main,.and fire flow standards of chapter 17.08 of the King County Code. a. Final plat approval shall require full compliance with the drainage provisions set forth in King County code 9.04, and the storm drainage requirements and guidelines as established by the Surface slater Management Division. Compliance may result in reducing the number and/or location of lots as shorn on the preliminary approved.plat. The following conditions represent portions of the Code and apply to all plats. a. Drainage plans and analysis shall comply with the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual.(except as modified by Condition 9 below). LUSD approval of the drainage and roadway plans is required prior to any construction. b. 'Current standard plan notes and BBC notes, as established by LUSD Engineering Review, shall be shown. on the engineering plans. C. The following note shall be shown on the final recorded plats "All building downspouts, footing drains, and drains from all impervious surfaces such as patios and driveways shall be•connected to the permanent storm drain outlet as shown on the approved construction drawings.# on file with LUSD and/or the . Department of Public Works. ,this plan shall be -submitted with the application of any building permit. All connections of the drains must be constructed and approved prior to the final building inspection Stonegate S90Po068 Page 5 approval. For those late that are designated for individual lot infiltration systems,.the systems shall be constructed at the time of the building permit and shall comply with the plans on file.". 9. The following conditions specifically address drainage issues for this particular plat: a. Stormwater detention shall be computed using an SCS - based hydrograph method (or other method as approved by King county). The performance of the proposed - detention facilities shall be such that discharge from the developed area shall be no more than: * One-half of the pre -developed, 2-year/24-hour release rate for design storm'events up to and including the 2-year/24-hour design storm; + The pre -developed, 2-year/24-hour release rate for design storm events greater than the 2-year/24- hour design storm event and up to and including the 10-year/24-hour storm event; +► The pre-developed,.10-pear/24-hour release rate for design storm events greater -than the 10- year/24-hour storm event and up to and including the 100-year/24-hour design storm event. All other aspects of the storm water system design shall conform to the 1990 Xing County Surface Water Management Design Manual, including wetpond and biofiltration. b. Offsite water from the Summerwind Division a Tract X detention pond and Newcastle Terrace shall be conveyed through the site. This offsite water shall receive biofiltration per the 1990'SVM M prior to' discharge. C. Offeite drainage currently enters the southwest corner of the proposed subdivision via a pipe from NE 20th Street. The final engineering plana approved by Ring County shall incorporate this system into the final design of the drainage plans. d. Tho cross culvert which will ultimately convey the Tract A and Tract 8 stream beneath Road A shall be designed to accommodate the 100 -year design storm. 10. A note shall be shown on the final plat and engineering plana which states that the finish floor elevation for residences on Lots i+S shall be at a minimum of one foot above the 100 year floodplain. 11. All clearing'and grading for roads, drainage facilities and utilities shall be performed between April let and September 30th. LUSD may allow clearing and grading activities beyond these seasonal limits, at its discretion. In determining whether to allow clearing and grading beyond the seasonal restriction, LUSD shall consider the Applicant's construction practices and actual weather conditions. A note implementing the preceding clearing and grading requirements shall appear on the final engineering plans. 12. All utilities within proposed rights-of-way must be included within a franchise approved by the King county Council prior to final plat recording. Stonegate S90P000S Page 6 13. The Applicant'cr subsequent owner shall comply With King County Code 77.40, King County road Mitigation Payment system (MPS), by paying the required MPS fee as determined by.King county Public Works, plus an administrative fee. The Applicant has an option to either:' 1) Pay the MP8 fee and MPS administrative fee at final plat application, or Z) pay the MPS fee and MRS administrative fee at the time of building permit application. If the first option is chosen, a note shall be placed on the face of the plat that reads, *All fees raquired•by King County Code 27.40, King County Road Mitigation Payment System (MPS), have been paid.° If the second option is chosen, the fee paid shall be the amount in effect as of the date of building permit application. 14. The following are required road improvements for this subdivision: a. Streets A end 8 shall be designed to the urban subcollector standard. b. Streets C, 0, E and P shall be designed to the urban minor access standard. c. grontage improvements to 148th Avenue Southeast are required as follows: * The frontage along the rest margin of,148th Avenue Southeast shall be improved in accordance with approved Road Variance 892volai. * A bus pullout area shall be designed, and constructed near the intersection of 148th Avenue Southeast and street A. * Street illumination shall be provided at the intersection of Street A and 148th Avenue, in accordance with KCR8 5.05. * Plana for the above -noted improvements to 148th Avenue Southeast shall be submitted to the Department of Public works for review by the Traffic and Planning section and the Bridge Engineer at the time of engineering plan submittal for the subdivision. d. 148th Avenue Southeast shall be regraded and lowered to achieve adequate entering sight distance at the Street A intersection, per the King County road Standards. Pians shall be submitted for this improvement with the engineering plan submittal. e. Any pavement failures in the west lane of 148th Avenue Southeast between the Street A intersection and the above road lowering'section shall be repaired. f. Modifications to the above road conditions may be considered by King County purstiant io the variance procedures in KCRS 1.08. g. Lots 52 and 53 shall have undivided ownership of Tract E and be responsible for its maintenance. Tract E shall be a minimum at 20 feet in width and be improved with an 18 foot wide paved surface. The paving shall have a cross slope in one direction, with curb or thickened edge on one side. stonegate 090P0068 Page 7 h. Tract F shall provide for pedestrian use and emergency vehicle access. The tract shall be a minimum of 30 feet in width, and shall have.& 20 -foot -vide, paved surface. The 20 -foot -ride, paved access road shall have a cross slope in one direction, with curb or thickened edge on one side. the access road shall have bollards placed at both ends of the tract, consistent with the requirements of the lCing County Road Standards. Tract F shall be dedicated to King County. 15. A geotechnical report, prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer, shall be.submitted with the engineering plans to address any structural fill needed for development of the plat. In this regard, it has-been noted that structural fill may be,needed an Lot 1. 16. The planter islands (if any) within the cul-de-sacs shall be maintained by the abutting lot owners. This shall be stated on the face of the final plat. 17. the on-site portion of May Creek Wetland #5, a Class I wetland, shall have a minimum 100 foot buffer of undisturbed native vegetation, except to the extent that disturbance is allowed as provided in condition 24 below (May Creek Wetland #5 line in Tract 8 on the'preliminary plat map.) is. May Creek, a Class Ii stream used by salmonids, shall have a minimum i0D foot.buffer of undisturbed native vegetation. 19. The Class iII stream (lying within Tracts.A, B, D and E) shall have a minimum 25 foot buffer of undisturbed native vegetation. 20. Wetlands, streams and their buffers shall be placed'in a separate sensitive area tract. A minimum building setback line of is feet shall be required from the edge of a sensitive areas buffer. 21. The approved filling of the 0.07 acre Class 3 vetland shall be mitigated by setting aside 0.1 acres of existing.forest adjacent to the Class 3 stream buffer. (The proposed mitigation area shown on the May 10, 1994 preliminary plat map is acceptable.) 22. All approved alterations of streams shall. insure that there will be no net loss of stream functions on the site, -and no impact on stream functions above or below the site due to the alterations. 2.3. All stream crossings by roads or driveways shall use bottomless, arched culverts or other construction techniques which do not disturb the stream bed or bank. All crossings shall be constructed during summer low flow. Crossings shall not diminish the flood -carrying capacity of the stream. Crossings shall be minimized and.serve multiple purposes whenever possible. (The location of the crossings for Street A and Tract 8 are acceptable.) 24. A Stream Mitigation Plan for the relocation of the stream shall be submitted for review and approval by LUSD. The mitigation plan shall be submitted as part of the subdivision engineering plans. The Stream Mitigation Plan shall include proposed final grades and hydrologyt outlet to May Creek wetland #5; a detailed planting plan showing plant species, sizes and locationsi and construction notes. 25. Required stream mitigation must be completed prior to Ring County's granting of final approval to the subdivision. Stonegate B9OP0068 Page $ However, it the applicant demonstrates that seasonal requirements or other circumstances beyond their control prevent completion of the mitigation prior to final approval, the applicant may post ap�rfoimanoe bond or other security instrument as approved, which guarantees that all required mitigation measures will be completed no later than the time established by LUSD. Upon satisfactory completion of the performance inspection, LUSD wetlands staff shall recommend release at the performance band and its replacement with a maintenance bond. A maintenance bond shall be required, in a form and amount sufficient to guarantee satisfactory workmanship,' materials, andperformance of structures'and improvements allowed or required, for a period of up to fiveyears. Upon satisfactory completion of the final monitoring inspection of the site, Xing County MSD wetlands staff shall release the maintenance bond. If the project has not met its performance standards at the and of the monitoring period, the Applicant is responsible for preparation and implementation of a contingency plan to remedy the situation. 26. Prior to recording of the final plat, the owner of the property shall submit proof that a Notice on Title has been filed for record with the Records and Elections Division, to run with the land containing sensitive areas. The Notice shall be approved by LUSD and informs the public record of the presence -of a sensitive area or buffer, the application of KCC 21.84 to the property, and that limitations on actions in.or affecting such areas'ar buffer any exist. 27. Prior to coamencing construction activities on the site, the applicant shall mark wetland and stream sensitive areas in a highly visible manner, and these areas must remain so marked until all development proposal activities in the vicinity of the sensitive area are completed. 28. Prior to commencing construction activities on the site, permanent survey stakes using iron or cement markers as established by current survey standards shall be set delineating the boundary between adjoining property and the sensitive areas tracts. 29. Prior to final approval of construction activities on the site, the boundary between a sensitive area tract and adjacent'land shall be identified using permanent signs. Sign specifications shall be supplied by LUSD and shown on the subdivision engineering plans. 30. Prior to final approval of construction activities on the site, the boundary between a sensitive area tract and adjacent land shall be permanently fenced. Fencing details shall be shown on the subdivision engineering plans. 31. The following note shall be shown on the final engineering plans and recorded plat: RESTRICTIONS FOR SENSITIVE ARBA TRACTS AND SENSITIVE AREA SETBACK AREAS Dedication of a Sensitive Area Tract/Senaitive Area Setback area conveys to the public a beneficial interest in the land within the tract/setback area. This interest includes the preservation of native vegetation for all purposes that benefit the public health, safety and welfare, including control of surface water and erosion, maintenance of sldpe stability, visual and aural buffering, and protection of stonegate 690Poo68 Page 9 plant and animal habitat. the sensitive Area Tract/ Sensitive Area.Setback Area imposes upon all present and future owners and occupiers of the land subject to the tract/setback area the obligation, enforceable an behalf of the public by Ring County, to leave undisturbed all trees and other vegetation within the easement. The vegetation within the tract/setback area may not be cut, pruned, covered•by fill, removed or damaged without approval in writing from Ring County nand One Services Division or its successor agency, unless otherwise provided by law., The common boundary between the•tract/setback area and the area of development activity must be marked or otherwise flagged to the satisfaction of Ring County prior to any clearing, grading, building construction or other development activity on a lot subject to the Sensitive Area Tract/sensitive Area Setback Area. The required marking or flagging shall remain in place until all development proposal activities in the vicinity of the sensitive area are completed. No building foundations are allowed beyond the required building setback line, unless otherwise provided by law. 32. The subject plat shall comply with RCC 19.38 by providing a fee -in -lieu of open space. The amount of the fee shall be determined by DDES and the Ring County Parks Division, consistent with the provisions of RCC 19.38. The fee shall be paid to King County prior to recording of the final plat. 33. A homeowners' association or other workable organization shall be established to the satisfaction o! WSD which provides for the ownership and continued maintenance of the open space areas and sensitive areas tracts. 34. The final engineering plans for the proposed subdivision shall limit the clearing and grading to the minimum necessary to install roadways aril utilities including the grading associated with the relocation of the unnamed tributary. All trees and undarstory shall be retained on the proposed lots'until recording of the final subdivision. Due to the grading necessary to relocate the unnamed tributary, Lot 1 shall be exempt from this requirement. 39. Per Exhibit No. 18, the engineering plans for this project shall identify the location of any wells on the site and provide notes which address the requirements for the contractor to abandon such wells pursuant to requirements outlined in the Washington Administrative Code (VAC 173-160). ORDERED this loth day of June, 1994. J N. O'Connor Sa and Subdivision Examiner TRANSMITTED this loth day of June, 1994 to the following parties of record: John Affolter Julie Bonwell Eric Evans/Donald Leavitt Chaffey Corp. DMI Michael Donnelly George Dorselt Peter Gonzales/Ron Kranz Halinen t Associates George Mathewson Stonegate S90Pd058 Page 10 M.C. McLeod Dave Miller David & Vickie Olson A.R. Tabacek Henry vonjouanne Cindy Meritt Dennis Noland M.A. Stemwell Anil Butail R. Jean Yourkowski TRANSMITTED this loth day of June, 1994 to the following: Lanny Henoch, Land Use Services Division Joe Miles, Land Use Services Division Bruce Whittaker, Land Use Services Division Rich Hudson, Engineering Division Larry West, Land Use Services Division Vaughan Norris, Ring County Council Paul Reitenbach, Community Development section Tammy'Johnson, Land Use Services Division Paulette Norman, Public Works Department King Conservation District Roger Dorstad Larry Ratte/Dept. Fisheries Gayle Kreitman/Dapt. Fisheries Ellen Guliholm Tom Kellogg Diana Xinared Harbour Homes Don Erickson New Construction Services Janine be Tracy In order to appeal the recommendation of the Examiner, written notice of appeal nust•be riled with the Clark of the King County Council with a fee of $125.00 (check payable to King County Office of Finance) on or before June 24, 1994. if a notice of appeal is filed, the original and s copies of a written appeal statement specifying the basis for the appeal and argument in support of the appeal must be riled with the Clerk of the Xing County Council on or before July 1, 1994. Appeal statements may refer only to facts contained in the hearing records new facts may not be presented on appeal. Filing requires actual delivery to the Office of the Clerk of the. Council, Room 403, King County Courthouse, prior to the close of business (4:30 p.m.) on the date due. Prior mailing is not sufficient it actual receipt by the Clerk does not occur within the applicable time period. The Examiner does not have authority to extend the time period unless the office of the Clerk is not open on the specified closing date, in which event delivery prior to the close of business on the next business day is sufficient to meet the riling•requirement. if a written notice of appeal and filing fee are not filed within 14 days calendar days of the date of this report, or if a written appeal statement and argument are not filed within 21 calendar days of the date of this report, the Clerk'of the council shall place a proposed ordinance which implements the Examiners recommended action on the agenda•of the next available Council meeting. At that meeting, the Council may adopt the Examiner s recommendation, may.defer action, may refer the matter to a Council committee, or may remand to the Examiner for further hearing or further consideration. Action of the Council Final. The action of the Council approving or adopting a recommendation of .the Examiner shall be final and conclusive unless within thirty (30) days from the date of the Stonegate S90P0068 Page 11 action an aggrieved party or person applies for a writ of certiorari tram the superior Court in and for the County of Ring, State of Washington, for the purpose of reviev of the action taken. MINUTES OF THE MAY 26, 1994 PUBLIC HEARING ON LAND USE SERVICES DIVISION FILE NO. 590POO68 - STONEUTE James N. O'Connor was -the Searing Examiner in this matter. Participating in the hearing were Lanny Henoch, Larry Nest, Eric Evans, Curt Smelser, Donald Leavitt, Everett Wilcock, Mary Keech, Andrew Duffus, Dennis Noland, ad Horn, Don Erickson, Mike Merritt, Julie Bonvell, Peter Gonzales, Ron Kranz, Anil Butail, Lyn Keenan, Don Tubbs, Mark Jacobs. The following exhibits were offered and entered into the records Exhibit No. 1 LUSD File No. 690POO68 Exhibit No. 2 staff Report 5-26-94 public hearing Exhibit No. 3 Application, received 8-9-90 Exhibit No. 4 DEIS, date of issuance 4-13-93 Exhibit No. S PHIS, date of issuance 11-30-93 Exhibit No. 6 DS - effective date 10-8-91 Exhibit No. 7 Affidavit of Posting - date of posting.4-26-94 received affidavit 4-26-94 Exhibit No. 8 Revised preliminary plat map (3 sheets) which includes a conceptual drainage plan - received S-10-94 Exhibit No. 9' Land Use Map - Kroll Maps 8008, 8o1N, 460E, 464W, portion of SOON Exhibit No. 10 Assessor Map NE 3-23-5. Exhibit No. 11 LUSD File for Road Variance 892VOiS2 Exhibit No. 12 Modification of Condition 9 and additional condition #34 Exhibit No. 13 Applicant's hearing presentation notebook at Labe 2-9 Exhibit No. 14 Letter dated May 26, 1994 to DDBS/LUSD from Jean Rollens Exhibit No. 15 Statement prepared by and read into record by Andrew Duffus \plat6\89Op\s90p0068 JNOC:jo/ckp CL ur og 1 2 �o J IJ M W O WU w W N Q 4 V) \ w Liz Z Y W �U- Z \0 oL� W ~ Z W D O II 4�6 w 14 I's 2 o 1 41 It Ini 1!11 4 Y 8 •. i1 o � 11 k+ I� 4, AAO/30 Mir"70 'd3mT wjjm A44C g1�'!YU YOf:JJ rrM 01 di YpI 321/10 CIAU 0/ 03f111W? f1N3MST!i 1-awf wimwim Oo Avr ]YjOJI JYX1 `""•::.177 62 ,) tl� �� C'6�... I h l� � f/n10 AYOf V]YA 'Yi6YNYN � Ywruro AY,i�r]Y1 , &0 fAY 'f137ftf rr r m Anuaw404um?w TTY JrYJ "tjYx 482WH ! b01�3blO.:��NVNIl ' Q Ig tjINV, s �F R pal, V1, Ito 'g W: W :V) N a a k19 : _i a pit a � 0 0 0 0 0® 00,10 0 `,,�gr`. ®'O ® m v 0 W A h$1 4 00 00 V) 0 16 U Z e ac LZ 09 PgE JZ.O&W N awts),sreCal, - 3.LZ.,M,0 N 3 •LO.VLLO 0 ----------- -- 77. 63 LL. C) W V) Z W Z Y-. . LL - Z 0 0 LLJ z I =) 0 LLJ C) CO M 00 z I -- Z Ld L4- 0 36 - L6 0 X W 0 Z rss His,; L6 0 X W 0 Z CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 11th day of October, 2011, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Revised Recommendation to the Hearing Examiner documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Parties of Record See Attached Owner See Attached Applicant See Attached (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ,, } 5S moo COUNTY OF KING ) gjts I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker NL W00 signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for !Iwurposes mentioned in the instrument. Notary Publit in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): 14r A. &r My appointment expires: hvju4+ a9l kOL3 'Project Name: Horne Rezone Projeet Number: LUA11-023, ECF, R {. d N r - PARTIES OF RECORD Dennis Rattle 600 Stewart Street ste: #1920 Seattle, WA 98101 tel: (206) 233-9600 eml: drattie@tarragon.com (party of record) Madonna Messina 2218 Lyons Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 785-1354 eml: madonna@consultcascade.com (party of record) Ed Horne 5604 NE 24th Street Renton, WA 98059 tel: (206) 571-8524 (applicant) Richard Wilson Hills Clark Martin & Peterson P.S. 1221 Second Avenue ste: #500 Seattle, WA 98101 tel: (206) 470-7604 (party of record) Jay Bankson 569 Graham Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Diane & Dennis Schwartzenberger 601 Shattuck Avenue S Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) HORNS REZONE LUA11-023, ECF, R Debra Rogers 5326 NE 22nd Court Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Bruce Christopherson 5502 NE 24th Court Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Newfourth LLC 19244 39th Avenue S SeaTac, WA 98188 tel: (425) 444-0461 (owner) Karen Walter Watersheds & Land Use Team Leader Muckeshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 tel: (253) 876-3116 (party of record) Doug Prellwitz 14302 156th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Sherry Williams & Greg Schwartzenberger 2706 NE 5th Court Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Bryan & Kendra Vadney 5404 NE 24th Court Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 235-7239 eml: blyvadney@aol.com (party of record) Tom Redding Encompass Engineering and Surveying 165 NE Juniper Street ste: #201 Issaquah, WA 98027 (contact) Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Duana Kolouskova Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Kolouskova, PLLC Bellefield Office Park - Alderwood Building 1601 114th Avenue SE ste: #110 Bellevue, WA 98004 tel: (425) 467-9966 (party of record) Kolin Taylor 4735 NE 4th Street Renton, WA 98058 (party of record) William Kombol 30533 - 234th Avenue SE Black Diamond, WA 98010 (party of record) Updated: 10/11/11 (Page 1 of 1) DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D city of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING October 18, 2011 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 1:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Horne Rezone PROJECT NUMBER: LUA11-023, ECF, R PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a rezone for 12 single family lots from the R-1 to the R-4 zoning designation. The 12 parcels comprise 7.37 acres of area and are located along the eastern boundary of the city just south of NE 26th Street adjacent/abutting Nile Avenue NE. HEX Agenda 10-18-1i.doc DEPARTMENT OF COMi..JNITY city of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REVISED RECOMMENDATION REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARYAND PURPOSE OF REQUEST REPORT DATE: October 11, 2011 Project Name: Horne Rezone Owner: Newfourth LLC; 19244 39th Ave S; Seatac, WA 98188 Applicant: Ed Horne; 5604 NE 24`h St; Renton, WA 98059 Contact: Tom Redding; Encompass Eng ineering and Surveying File Number: LUA 11-023, ECF, R Project Manager: Rocale Timmons; Associate Planner Project Summary: The applicant is requesting a rezone for 12 single family lots from the R-1 to the R- 4 zoning designation, The 12 parcels comprise 7.37 acres of area and are located along the eastern boundary of the city just south of NE 26t6 St adjacent/abutting Nile Ave NE. Project Location: Along the west side of Nile Ave NE just south of NE 26" St Site Area: 7.37 ac (320,910 SF) •Ail '+::-1: tf n' pSl1♦1p0i : 1. _.'A, $1 :.7J If Jew J1 Rezone Recommendation. doc City of Renton Department of Cor. nity & Economic Development Rezone Recommendation HORNE REZONE LUA 11-023, ECF Revised Report of October 11, 2011 Page 2 of 8 B. EXHIBITS. Exhibit 1: Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 2: Aerial Photograph Exhibit 3; Public Comment Letters A: Mesinna 13: Slaton C; Anonymous D: Donnelly E: Walter— Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division F: Christopherson G: Wilson — Stonegate Homeowners Association H: Rogers Exhibit 4: May Creek Drainage Plan C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner(s) of Record: 2. Zoning Designation: 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: 4. Existing Site Use: Newfourth LLC 19244 391h Ave S Seatac, WA 98188 Residential —1 du/ac (R-1) Residential Low Density (RLD) Single Family Residential /Vacant 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: a. North: Single Family Residential — (R-1 zone) b. fast: Urban Growth Boundary -Single Family Residential (King County RA -5 and RA -10 zone) L c. South: Single Family Residential (King County R-4 zone) d. West: Single Family Residential (R-1 zone) 6. Access: Primary access to the collection of parcels is provided via Nile Ave NE. 7. Site Area: 7.37 acres (320,910 gross square feet) 8. Critical Areas: The site is bordered by a stream to west (Greens Creek) and May Creek is located just to the north of the subject area. All 12 parcels are within the May Creek Drainage Basin. D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Comprehensive Plan N/A 5099 11/01/04 Rezone Recommendation. doc City of Renton Department of Corr—unity & Economic Development Rezone Recommendation HORNE REZONE LUA 11-013, ECF Revised Report of October 11, 2011 Page 3 of 8 Zoning N/A 5100 11/01/04 Annexation N/A 5456 05/31/09 May Valley Pre -Zone N/A 4667 06/06/97 E. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities a. Water: These parcels are located in and served by the Water District 90 service area. b. Sewer: The parcels are located in the City of Renton wastewater service area. There is an existing 8 -inch sanitary sewer main in Nile Ave NE and in NE 26th Street c. Surface/Storm_Water: There may exit storm drainage facilities in Nile Ave NE (148th Ave SE). There are existing storm ponds owned and maintained by King County. There is also a public storm line on the north side of the parcels in NE 26th Street, west of Nile Ave NE. 2. Streets: Some street improvements including pavement and shoulder striping exist at this time. 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODES: 1. RMC Title 4 Chapter 2 Land Use Districts a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts 2. RMC Title 4 Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria a. Section 4-9-180: Rezone Process 3. RMC Title 4 Chapter 11 Definitions G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. Proiect Description/Backeround The 12 subject parcels are located along the west side Nile Ave NE (148th Ave SE) south of NE 26th St. The site was apart of a larger 74 acre prezone, the May Valley Pre -Zone -Phase I, in 1996 which was adopted by ordinance (Ord. #14667) in 1997. The ordinance pre -zoned the property Resldential-1 du/ac (R-1). The subject parcels, maintaining their R-1 zoning classification, were annexed into the City in May of 2009. There are existing single family residences which are proposed to remain, should the rezone be approved, on the following eight tax parcels: 032305-9219, 032305-9257, 032305-9224, 032305-9258, 032305-9193, 032305-9199, and 032305-9194. The remaining four parcels are currently vacant. All surrounding properties are either vacant or developed with single family residences. The properties to the north and west are located within the City's boundary and are zoned R-1. The properties to the south are located within unincorporated King County, but within the City's Potential Annexation Area (PAA). Curently, the properties to the south are zoned R-4 according to the County's zoning map but are pre -zoned R-1, by the City, should they annex. The properties to the east are located opposite the Urban Growth Boundary and are currently zoned RA -5 (which is a rural zoning in which one residential unit is allowed per every 5 acres) and RA -10 (which is also rural zoning in which one residential unit is allowed per every 10 acres) in the County. Rezone Recommendation.doc City of Renton Department of Com—lenity & Economic Development HORNE REZONE Revised Report of October 11, 2011 Rezone Recommendation LUA 11-023, ECF Page 4 of 8 On page one of the Environmental Review report (dated July 18, 2011) a mistatement was made with regard to critical areas on site. There are no critical areas on site. A tributary (Greens Creek) to May Creek, which flows from south to north, is located within an open space tract off-site to the west of the subject property. May Creek is located to the north of the site. The properties are also located within the May Creek Drainage Basin. Several comments, in opposition to the proposed rezone, were received by interested parties. Concerns raised, with regard to an increase in density, include: the worsening of drainage/flooding issues in the area, the deterioration of neighboring streams and creeks, the compromise of the rural character of the area, and potential increases in traffic and access points into existing neighborhoods. The site is also bisected by a 30 -foot wide tract, owned by the Stonegate neighborhood, which would remain R-1 zoning in that the Stonegate Homeowners Association in large is opposed to the proposed rezone. 2. Environmental Review Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on July 18, 2011, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for this project. A 14 -day comment/appeal period commenced on July 22, 2011 and ended on August 5, 2011. No appeals of the threshold determination were filed. 3. Compliance with ERC Conditions N/A 4. Staff Review Comments Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed development. They identified no issues and documentation of their response is contained in the official file. 5. Consistency with Rezone Criteria a. The rezone Is In the public Interest. In order to meet this criterion the applicant is required to demonstrate that a rezone is needed in order to achieve city policy objectives. The applicant contends that the proposed rezone serves the public interest insomuch that it seeks to create urban densities, as allowed In the R-4 zoning designation and thereby fulfilling the City's Comprehensive Pian. Objective LU -II outlines that properties should be designated R-4 when appropriate for urban levels of development with the provision of suitable environments for suburban and/or estate style, single-family dwellings. The applicant asserts that the proposed density would only further the existing development densities in the area, which are also in compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA). The applicant stated that the surrounding densities are between 2.6 and 5.0 du/ac within 1,000 feet of the subject properties. While the surrounding properties might be developed with a density range comparable to the R-4 zoning designation, this would not constitute a public interest to further expand the R-4 designation and/or development potential to additional area. The argument does, however, demonstrate the further preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner (see discussion below under Section B). The site would continue to be bordered on the east by rural zoning; the RA -5 (Rural -0.2 residential units per acre) and RA -10 (Rural -0.1 residential units per acre). To the north and west the property would continue to be bordered by the City's R-1 zoning designation and the Rezone Recommendation. doc City of Renton Department of Corr—unity & Economic Development Rezone Recommendation HORNE REZONE LUA 11-023, ECF Revised Report of October 11, 2011 Page 5 of 8 properties to the south would are pre -zoned R-1 should they annex into the City. The subject parcels would also continue to be bisected by an R-1 zoned tract. Spot zoning is basically disfavored in our state. The basic definition of spot zoning In Washington was outlined in Norrowsview Preservation Association v. City.of Tacoma, 84 Wn.2d 416 (1974), in which the court said: "We have recently stated that illegal spot zoning is arbitrary and unreasonable zoning action by which a smaller area is singled out of a larger area or district and specially zoned for use classification totally different from and inconsistent with the classification of the surrounding land, not in accordance with a comprehensive plan." The applicant has not adequately demonstrated the rezone would serve the public interest and it appears the rezone merely accommodates the private interests of the proponent and bears no rational relationship to promoting legitimate public interest. While some code and Comprehensive Plan provisions can be construed as supporting further development within the Low Density Residential areas of the City, the extent, character and timing of any such development is not indelibly predetermined. Based upon plans, goals, policies and timeframes of the City, staff has found that there is no validity favoring the action of rezoning. The current property zoning Is currently serving the public interest and is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and the City is on target to meet its growth targets and has the diversity of housing to allow for a wide variety of housing types, incomes, and living situations for all the citizens in the City. Additionally, the City has prioritized development of the downtown area and other key areas of the City in order to increase densities that can be supported by existing infrastructure. b. The rezone tends to further preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner. Currently, a total of 12 single family residences would be allowed on the subject parcels if they remain as is. With a rezone to R-4, a total of 28 homes could possibly sited on the parcels through applications for short plat. The applicant contends that the rezone would further the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the owners in that it allows the flexibility to develop the subject parcels at a greater density. Staff concurs, the rezone would further the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the property owners. c. The rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons located in the vicinity. The applicant contends that the rezone would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons located in the vicinity in that there are no critical areas on site and there are no sensitive areas that would preclude development. The applicant also argues that the City's critical areas code and adopted drainage manual would address any impacts caused by potential development at a higher density. However, the subject property drains into the May Creek Drainage Basin and is bordered, to the west, by Greens Creek. In 2001, the May Creek Basin Action Plan (Exhibit 4), included studies that identify Greens Creek as a very sensitive hydrology system that is easily altered by human activity. Additionally, May Valley is noted as a natural floodplain and historically has experienced periodic and sometimes extensive flooding. The May Creek Basin Action Plan was developed by King County and the City of Renton, with the cooperation of the City of Newcastle and input from the Citizens Advisory Committee comprised Rezone Recommendation. doc City of Renton Department of Con, -unity & Economic Development Rezone Recommendation HORNE REZONE LUA I1-023, ECF Revised Report of October 11, 2011 Page 6 of 8 of area residents in order to address the drainage concerns in the basin which have worsened through the years as channelizing of streams and development in upland areas increased stormflows to the valley, and as natural deposition of sediment in May Valley continued to reduce the conveyance capacity of the May Creek channel. The action plan created measures in order to restore the natural functions of the basin and maintain the quality of life for those who live and work in the basin. A City resolution (#3506) was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an inter -local agreement with King County and the City of Newcastle for implementation of the May Creek Basin Plan in 2001. The May Creek Basin Action Plan provides a set of actions to: 1) address the threat of flooding of homes; 2) facilitate stormflow conveyance, stabilize steam banks and reduce erosion; 3) protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality in the basin; and 4) prevent existing problems from becoming worse in the future. The Action Plan attempts to make use of existing County and City policies and stormwater management controls, such as those contained in the revised King County Surface Water Design Manual (SWDM). Conclusions outlined in the plan note that the density of upland development is a key contributing factor to the flooding that occurs in May Valley. The plan recommends that zoning densities not be increased above existing levels in upland areas draining to May Valley, including adopted pre -zoning for unincorporated areas to be annexed. Therefore, staff finds that the re- designation of the subject properties to a classification of R-4, with the potential of development at a higher density, would aggravate identified drainage and flooding concerns in the May Creek Drainage Basin and would be detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons located In the vicinity. d. The rezone is consistent with policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The site is designated Urban Residential -Low Density on the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The proposal is inconsistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use policies: Policy LU -51. Zoning should be applied to areas for purposes of resource protection, when appropriate, during the annexation process. ❑ Policy Objective Met ® Not Met See discussion under Section 'e' below. Policy LU -147. Adopt urban density of at least four (4) dwelling units per net acre for residential uses except in areas with identified and documented sensitive areas and/or areas identified as urban separators. ❑ Policy Objective Met ® Not Met See discussion under Section 'c' above. Policy LU -151. Base development densities should range from 1 home per 10 acres to 1 home per acre on Residential Low Density (RLD) designated land with significant environmental constraints, including but not limited to: steep slopes, erosion hazard, floodplains, and wetlands or where the area is in a designated Urban Separator. Density should be a maximum of 4-du/net acre on portions of the Residential Low Density land where these constraints are not extensive and urban densities are appropriate. Rezone Recommendation. doc City of Renton Department of Corr—unity & Economic Development Rezone Recommendation HORNE REZONE LUA 11-023, ECF Revised Report of October 11, 2011 Page 7 of 8 ❑ Policy Objective Met ® Not Met See discussion under Section 'c' above. Policy EN -1. Prevent development on lands where development would create hazards to life, property, or environmental quality. ❑ Policy Objective Met ® Not Met See discussion under Section 'c' above. e. The rezone was either not considered in the last area wide rezoning, or, since the last area wide zoning circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. While the property was not considered in the City's last area -wide rezone in 2004; the property was reviewed very thoroughly as part of the May Valley Pre -Zone -Phase I in 1996 and finally adopted by ordinance (Ord. #4667) in 1997. During the public process two public hearings were held before the City Council to discuss the possibility of the 74 acre area, which included the subject parcels, either being zoned R-1 or R-5 (since that time the R-5 zone has been replaced with the R-4 zoning designation). After months of contemplation and deliberation of drainage concerns raised, Planning staff recommended and the Council affirmed, the pre -zoning of the subject property most appropriate with an R-1 application. The properties have been zoned R-1 since annexation in May of 2009. Since the time of annexation it does not appear that the subject property has undergone significant changes that would constitute a change from the R-1 zoning designation. Therefore, the proponents of the rezone have not me their burden of proof in demonstrating that conditions have changed since the original zoning. 2. Consistency with the Zoning Classification The R-1 zone is established to provide and protect suitable environments for residential development of lands characterized by pervasive critical areas where limited residential development will not compromise critical areas. It is intended to Implement the RLD Comprehensive Plan designation. The zone provides for suburban estate single family and clustered single family residential dwellings, at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per net acre, and allows for small scale farming associated with residential use. The R-4 zone is established to promote urban single family residential neighborhoods serviceable by urban utilities and containing amenity open spaces. It is also intended to implement the RLD Comprehensive Plan designation. The R-4 zoning designation will allow a maximum density of four du/ac. The R-4 designation serves as a transition between rural designation zones and higher density residential zones. It is intended as an intermediate lower density residential zone. While the site is not directly encumbered by critical areas it is adjacent to a Green's Creek and drains into a large drainage basin, May Creek Drainage Basin, that has been described as having moderate and extensive flooding which is exacerbated by increases in development. Moreover, the proposal would not be consistent with the R-4 designation in that it would not offer a transition between rural and higher density residential zones. Based on the analysis above the subject property is most appropriately zoned R-1 and a rezone to R-4 is not supported by staff. Rezone Recommendation. doc City of Renton Deportment of Corr—miry & Economic Development Rezone Recommendation HORNE REZONE LUA 11-023, ECF Revised Report of October 11, 2011 Page 8 of 8 H. RECOMMENDATIONS: The rezone decision is a discretionary land use permit made by the City Council. Based upon the applicant's failure to demonstrate compliance with all of the above criteria staff is recommending denial of the Horne Rezone. Rezone Recommendotion.doc C6 - 34 T24N R5E E 112 ZONING MAP BOOK E6 -10 T23N R5E E 112 PW TECHNICAL SERVICES PRINTED ON 11/13/09 nh �. w. rYYw �.awweYw„�w M MI wkmwim�.4lh wM Ar 44 qA4 M wy Y Nw�dN trOq fy4r pugwwY� s,. LES:F1 fir; EXHIBIT 1 F-IT11 03 T23N R5E E 112 5303 '� � }f'S^-ri �- §1 - � '^•' 'G „�yZ"'; ti hT ,C` ra' ti tr °2": rf -. j �a. F. , 55r��, rf,F• 7. r r" � Ly � -1c y.,F { ~ ��i 'z ` G•! ! Ti•• J' Sd' � 1 f 1�'x �` $i� '°��w-"+ ro C3 CIO LID 1�rr[I AL • G•' :. Y=om 1��.ig • •[ ' h �6t L�.r +a.. " . A.v f i.- i A rF L +l sj'd_•aSrr {• %� " SGT �'• ? �Y � � •,\,,ate,; r r v f i.4 1��;- '�• .�`r 1rSi� •q. ° •' r [4 - - i `« S + c t - -,.� a far rr r r yc,�yn rryS•a- . r • •j '��r 3•'� -• >,i +r_• �. r � - ._ F�a ` l' 1 r 1�c.-r` '� r r�+•�ry'G.�yi� /'y� �'��'�F6' s�, =7 � � �. a'r�}, - a I��I ':� -. �ik l '? '. .r1'- "'(•�''ytiT�'�,i-fir/ M !- TO RT 'v H J[.'FriC. ti ) • F t t i •+.° .-:,,tt J r - E p ,SS- :l '.'art L b ,. k�l� -? 1 Ir�,, •. Y � -.r ,rt_ � 'x: �s`a'�aya� �y��,,,��r tri �t ��tt .. , 1 •� cax,�,� I.r�: ~qf 1! 1pyY.,_.,-t a.. ♦ fir- 'R�G���t,,,r+�f 7�}r L;I "14 r. .i„ i t i , i _ s• is i -" F.c i. •' q s` r. 4 t F' 5„i� qr a 4 "3 .+ j1 t 7 � i r ti, /• ; 'r +'.1�-f,M,�=�i V.i� [ it r r 7" r - '} � •. rEr •s �`iS Y�. ,w y5 tjy'kr., f r ti f v A 7 i t•'c„Zi a 39 �•F ct I r l� sr";- Y q .� •L. rt ! y,� 5 t :! "_� � •�-' s- fie"�,j� r' ea. f, F �+i q f r,.t--- 'S .>,-.,-. ' -' y.xvfr •i- C i, rjtr' �]nnnn4���i Y'rd V,. 1, �ly� P • v :} i, i rk i r �., • - r i tqq. r t 4 { { r IrYr [ .rw 9 �# , r ySC: r !�r S •1 � � � 4�� fir, � e } r [�—­5 r � x .aF �¢ L .L,A. •• VI 1 a- -rl iii. `tts t{' .. I'�,! �6�r�:i t{ ,' ar r ^���r-'•� r ri�r �y°;k7 7r,�-Sy��iIf r r iii >.�htl"; ■ y+f�•;B.'�St [ 'u r :-y►� .%:1 i, r,•• 3 c 4 r -w It Il • tel. �y r_° -3S 'i 1 .�r y r Illll r ' ��aft•�;fl s .+Y ,l. NL' ,ys •kfi' 115 +[[ ' Oyw/,�_ tG:F ':r 1` i•~�� ��� .�e A{ TF'" j -=i ��,� � [ �{3�. � �� �9� . _� ._.t•i1A�, , ?' �,an a {\l vua ' rss�.:t �_ rr °� J� 5 fL r_ ..7 ••; ' :i!�•',-''+. _ - t�•-• 'r c- � �k. �f--J •� 6. j ^i�r `r i,,ik. �rs r - J`'.-" •—}�.'.- ^,�! �r, ,'t�r1S`'� 1'11'•. :7}'� r 1 ,1 ,.. �, .+.�,�v�M�y4Y� r..r'[:,4i;l�S ��'"I • �,•'t_'R/^r_; `-,•Irr�� s'�1�r�".'� . _'���',, . rs� � �,i.� �, t�rr,�'t,, � � �__,. � 'i`�~S �SS��� 5 � i .s'�y.•�,3 a�-„�. �r� Fa• T — "n'�i-LSI � �.-,�, � .yam G { C� �•� r !"!''�'`a: 'f '...y�`.+j I• _.�i� /rr , 'Sty s.�.r. 1 .� �' 'r'4_�, rr- _ � [ �, �, �... �� ,.;�wr hlb 'i'.�_ • .t}} ' `� ,! a 4 ,r! b, • �'. r rjS {` ' ':� 'w SrT,j'�r a 1.... t.1i`,q w r1 �, 'r�}-' i� 'z, .-J i�}•r. • •^f� S 1 )i, • [ i __ ,e� ��T,d> iii -y � .,; � . Z �� . � ��,-, ry � �, ~, �'l _i,�� � 't "1 'll �y'IYY •� �� � i ays�. w.-t.� �-V�}' •~ � i�.r °r �t. r�fr � ►f r-� S y,� r� � 'La''+d�C:e $ _� r ,# ���k'� ��,-� � �, '� ' �I*'{��, r ri it ':yL - F,.�••ff�IIII RL.�h�vr �, { ,. _ _ �{' ..f.�� ' k•e .,�.�b' - �J�L �y; "'1 t _ rr •a �� '! iJ,r r�-. 1 [ . - r°_ s t � r .' r�r C , - � �'1•'r` n�llY" r � ". Jf�� �1' � l� T. •MN Y e�'J A'bt' .�• rywk? ►`. 1}� � � i. .� i'f " ', Rt ,.� . �, i . ..• � A� �::- �, i.'{��r� °tel. _.� -.�s `F'���' � , • w� `�. 4, •� '' 73 ifI ' �� ��'#y �? { kik a ' i S[.-• '' � � f •'71,•-�t� �' i� L' ! .• 00, RQcale Timmons From: Messina, Madonna [madonna@consultcascade.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 8:02 AM To: Rocale Timmons Subject: No Horne Resone Dear Ms. Timmons, Our family owns lot 45 in the Stonegate development and would be greatly affected by the development plan named the. Horne Rezone. Please consider the expressions of concern on behalf of our neighborhood that you have received as well as ours which echo the others in our community. Tamely, We are opposed to higher density housing in this area, which we believe is inconsistent with the "Rural" nature of this area. • We are opposed to increased traffic on Lyons Avenue that would result from this development. • We are apposed to smaller lot development that abuts our frontage which is inconsistent with the overall design standards of our neighborhood. • We are opposed to any additional access points to the neighborhood which could propose a threat to overall security. • We are opposed to any negative environmental impacts relating to development occurring adjacent to sensitive areas. • We are opgoosed to the City of Renton's "strong encouragement" of site design that uses alleys for access in R-4 zones. Thank you for considering our request, M.M. Madonna Messina Cascade Business Group, LLC Phone: 425-785-1354 Fax: 425-228-2260 Email: Madonnaeconsultcascade.com Web: www,consultcascade.com Your Partner for Business Improvement Strategies and Implementation This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed in the message body. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender and delete it from your files immediately. EXHIBIT 3-A Rocaie Timmons From: st)slaton@comcast.net Sent: Friday, July 15, 2019 5:36 PM To: Rocale Timmons Subject: MacKay annexation Dear Ms. Timmons, My family and I live in Stonegate which is adjacent to the Mackay annexation. The building of new developments is' always hard on those currently living in the area. I'm sure it was difficult for those living around Stonegate when our neighborhood was built Now it's our neighborhood's turn to be concerned. That said, I am trying to balance the reality of inevitable development versus our personal desire to keep things as they are. When I balance the two, our main concern is regarding the density of the proposed development. Currently, the houses in the area of Stonegate and along 148th are on larger lots. The proposed development is' inconsistent with the look and feel of Stonegate and the houses along 148th which are rural in nature. Additionally, the proposed development wouldcreate higher density abutting and within the entrance to. our neighborhood creating an overall inconsistent design and standard for our neighborhood. We are a neighborhood that has prided itself on a community feel and have appreciated the recent grants from the City of Renton to build a community park with our own labor. Finally, we are concerned about additional access points into our neighborhood which could result in increased crime. Currently, our neighborhood has one point of entry and exit. Additional entry points will increase traffic and potential crime. I hope the City of Renton will consider the concerns of existing families when considering the desires of developers to maximize their profit. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Susan and Dan Slaton EXHIBIT 3-B Rocale Timmons From: urban separator [urbanseparator@hotmail.comj Sena: Thursday, July 21, 2011 11:45 AM To: Rocale Timmons Subject: rezone May Creek Basin Action Plan (adopted April 2001) of which City of Renton was a co -participant and subsequently ratified by city council states: "Require Full Mitigation for Future Increases in Zoning Density in Areas Draining to May Valley" in East Renton Plateau and Highlands subareas. (Summaryof Recommendations number 17 page 3-2, May Creek&fton Plan 2001) Figure 3-1 shows the subject property in the East Renton Plateau subarea. "In areas draining to May Creek or any of its tributaries upstream ..., existing zoning densities (including adopted pre - zoning for un'icorporated areas to be annexed) should not be increased unless a qualified hydrological analysis demonstrates that stormwater runoff peaks and volumes can be fully mitigated to pre -developed conditions." (pages 3-27 & 3-28, May CreakAction Plan 2001) EXHIBIT 3-C CrtY of REWON 10415 — 147` Avenue SE AUG 012011(� Renton, WA 98059 RECENED August 1, 2011 M Y CtERK'S OFFICE Ms. Rocale Timmons Planning Dept, City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Horner Rezone —LUA 11-023 Dear Ms. Timmons: Please accept this letter and documents as my comments regarding the Horner Rezone. Two comments that I have previously mentioned to you -- about notifying residents of this proposed rezone and posting signs notifying the public of this possible rezone are included in this letter. Maybe the Hearing Examiner cares about following state law. As I told you, a family living across from this proposed rezone was not notified by Renton officials of this rezone proposal. The address of this property is 10032 —148` Avenue SE. I looked at your list of people who received notice —this family is not listed. I provided notice to them on July 22. Does this make a difference? DOE was notified that Renton didn't follow state law. The second item involves posting notices in appropriate places. You stated that Renton follows SEPA rules when it comes to posting notices. This is what I found under WAC 197-11-510 regarding posting notices (the SEPA Help Desk said this): (2) Each agency shall specify its method of public notice in its SEPA procedures, WAC 197-11-904 and 197-11-906. If an agency does not specify its method of public notice or does not adopt SEPA procedures, the agency shall use methods (a) and (b) in subsection 0). Public notice. (1) When these rules require notice to be given under this section, the lead agency must use reasonable methods to inform the public and other agencies that an environmental document is being prepared or is available and that public hearing(s), if any, will be held. The agency may use its existing notice procedures. Examples of reasonable methods to inform the public are: (a) Posting the property, for site-specific proposals; EXHIBIT 3-D (P9 1 of 40) Rocale Timmons From: Karen Walter [KWalter@muckleshootnsn.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 12:15 PM To: Rocale Timmons Subject: Horne rezone, LUA11-023, ECF, R, Determination of Non -Significance Rocale, The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has reviewed the threshold determination and environmental checklist for the above referenced project We have some questions about the project as noted below: 1. Mill it be possible to rezone the property with the proposed R-4 zoning and 12 parcels without affecting the existing wetlands (noted in DNS) and streams (noted in checklist) and their buffers? If not, then the project should be modified so that the affected wetlands and stream and their buffers are fully protected per Renton's critical areas regulations. I 2. The checklist references a stream 12' to 25'west of the site; however, there is no reference to the wetlands in the checklist referenced in the DNS. Please clarity. We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal and look forward to the City's responses. We may have additional comments subsequently. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 17e Ave SE Aubum, WA 98092 253-876-3116 EXHIBIT 3-E Rocale Timmons Associate Planner City of Renton RE: Home Rezone Dear Ms. Timmons, I T am opposed to the proposed change in zoning from R-1 to R-4 in the Horne Rezone for the following reasons. From the 2001 May Creek Basin Action Plan httpi/hrour kiiiV,COLlllty. oy/dnm/library/200IAcr726/P1NAL-N1av-Creel;-Basin-Plan-4- 16-01-pdf, "Much of the, erosion and sediment transport in May Creek is a result of development in the basin. The May Creek basin continues to provide high quality tributary habitat to the Lake Washington watershed; however, use of May Creek by salmon and other wildlife is declining due to habitat loss, erosion, sedimentation, and deteriorating water quality. As more development occurs throughout the basin, many of these problems are anticipated to worsen". Page 1- 1. The density of upland development is a key contributing factor to the flooding that occurs in May Valley. The plan recommends that zoning densities not be. increased above existing levels in upland areas draining to May Valley, including adopted pre -zoning for unincorporated areas to' be annexed". Page 1-6, emphasis added. "Collectively, impacts associated with human activities have reduced the habitat value of local streams, which has reduced -the capacity of the May Creek system to support migratory and resident salmonids. These impacts also increase the risks to the quality of underground drinking water supplies, -critical to residents of the basin and the City of Renton." Page 2-7. Puget Sound Chinook salmon and steelhead are listed in the Endangered Species Act (ESA}: "Runoff from future development is expected to cause an increase in flood volumes in the valley, resulting in longer durations -of floodwater inundation and - greater frequency of flooding". Page 2-8. "Although the Basin Action Plan accepts existing zoning (including adopted pre - zoning for unincorporated areas to be annexed) in the areas draining to May Creek upstream of the Coal Creek Parkway bridge as a legitimate response to the variety of concerns affecting land use decisions, it recommends that densities in these areas he increased only if a qualified hydrologic analysis demonstrates that hydrologic impacts can be fully mitigated. This would include mitigating all flow- related impacts from development with regard to the entire range of peak flows, flow durations, storm water volumes and.irnpacts on groundwater. recharge." Page'3-30. To my knowledge this has not been done. EXHIBIT 3-F (pg 1 of 6) Millis H C M n Clark r Mor [in & eomoiice. Peterson PS August 5, 2011 Via E -mad (rd mons(grentarrwa.gov) and U.S. Mai! Current Planning Division Depa.rtmeut of Community & Economic Development Cir, of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way, 6th floor Renton, WA 98057 Re: Pmpoted HDnJe Artione, Cilp Pmjec9No. LUAf 1-023, ECF, R Ladies and Gentlemen: -Our firm represents the Stoner to Homeowners Association C`the Association !% whose mcmbets reside in the immediate vicinity of the 12 parcels (totaling 420 acres) seeping zoning reclassification from R-1 to R-4 under the above -referenced project number. The Home rezone proposal is scheduled for consideration before the City Hearing Exarniner on August 16th. The Association opposes the proposed Horne rezone and urges the City staff to recommend denial of the application. The. proposed application utterly fwls to satisfy the rezone criteria set forth in RMC. S 4-9-1800(4 1. Applicable Rezone Standards. Tlae properties included in the Horne rezone request ate all designated RLD (Residential Low Density) on the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan Map. Both the R-1 :end R-4 zones are intended to implement the RLD designation- RD4C 4S 4-2-020(C) and (D). The Horne rezone proposal therefore does not require a comprehensive plane amendmeru. Accordingly, the yardstick for evaluating the Home rezone proposal is set forth in RMC 4 4-9-180(F)(2), as follows (emphasis supplied): 2. Criteria for Rezones Not Requiring Comprehensive Plan Amendment: the Reviewing Official shall snake the following findings: a. The re,-pse h irr the pvb& inky 4 and b. The rezoae tends to Further the preseraation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner, and c. The mune it not rrraleriallj delrir enW la The prrhlie nnlfara of'the prrperlirr of other pemirr localyd in the ria nio lbcreaf; and 1221 Second Avenue, Sulfa 500 4 Seattla, WA 98101 120SE231745 � f-.206.6231739 I flcmp com ! MM E � [�7A�5 EXHIBIT 3-G (p9 1 of 6) Rocale Timmons From: Debra Rogers [herogers@corncast.net] Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 3:16 PM To: Rocale Timmons Subject: Re PROPOSED LAND USE ACTION ADJACENT TO STONEGATE Attachments: mackay annexation.pdf; ORD 4667.pdf Dear Ms. Timmons, Please see my thoughts below regarding the Horne Rezone request I hope to get a paper copy of the below and the documents mentioned () to you as well today before or by Spm. Sincerely, Debra Rogers 425-27.1-8668 »»»»»»»> August 5, 2011 To Whom it nay Concern, I am writing regarding the land use application that has been filed at the City of Renton, File Number LUA11- 023, ECF, R where the applicant has requested the City of Renton to increase denisity zoning from the current RI designation. to R4 for this area. I am Debra Rogers and I live at 5326 NE 22nd Court, Renton WA 98059 in the neighborhood of Stonegate which borders the western side of the above mentioned area. I would like to support the position of the Stonegate Homeowners Association Board which has stated opposition to the rezone based on the following: They are opposed..... -to higher density housing in this area, which we believe is inconsistent with the "rural" nature of this area- -to increased traffic on Lyons Avenue that would result from this development. -to any additional access points to the neighborhood which could propose a threat to overall security. -to any negative environmental impacts relating to development occurring adjacent to sensitive areas. -to the City of Renton's "strong encouragement" of site design that uses alleys for access in R-4 zones.. In addition to the above, I would like to mention that these properties are in the "May Creek Basin Area" which has specific protections and that the recommendations from the city of Renton state regarding that plan that the area east of Coal Creek not be rezoned to a higher density due to the negative environmental impacts that would cause. As well, the City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works memorandum dated October 4th, 1996 for the May Valley R Prezone - Phase 1 (copy.enclosed) specifically points out Greens Creek which runs along the western side of this proposed rezone area as a creek very sensitive to additional impacts that would result from higher than RI density and therefore advised against firture up zones for this area. In June 1997 the City of Renton Ordinance 4667 (copy enclosed) established the zoning classification of these same properites that were being annexed to the City of Renton to Residential 1 DU/AC (R-1). (May Valley Prezone -Phase I; File No. A-96-004). EXHIBIT 3-H (pg 1 of 19) 7;zw R. �' � = ti _ t ; r• _ �, �s .�li.,.E. ,.. r-arc...—'r` ..¢ �wtf _ � � � }}_ yam. ��' •+...-..� ��5'd.41� � _ .�'y�•.r t � W .a.� i� � _ .z'r i__ � 4 � a"Ln •�'� �r•� wa i �� r-� _ �` � �Y i 1< �i.�,�•s - � s 1 ��� ,l''=-'3 •-�''•--' arm � - -=d14 s•..l'., .. - .. �4� �...L-. ��� ��. E_. Y.. }� y .� � .i _ -!n_, r3 = i. t .���,.' d � y {TJ i4 }F: October 5, 2011 Rocale Timmons, Planning Department for the City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 6th Floor Renton, WA 98057 Re: Project Number LUA11-023, ECF, R Project Name: Horne Rezone Dear Ms. Timmons: RTimmons�aRentonwa. gov City of Renton Planning Division OCT - 7 tort W ECE9YED I am a property owner in the Horne Rezone area. I fully support the efforts of Mr. Horne who, with the unanimous consent of our neighbors, are supporting the rezone of our properties from their current R-1 zone to the R-4 zone, which better fits the attributes of our property. I offer the following facts, reasons, and rationale: • According to the City of Renton Code 4-2-020.0 Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts, the R-1 zone "is established to provide and protect suitable environments for residential development of lands characterized b vervasive critical areas where limited residential development will not compromise critical areas" (emphasis added). The Horne Rezone area is not characterized by pervasive critical areas. In fact, there are no known critical areas on the entirety of the Horne Rezone's 7.37 acres. While there might be one low spot in a tiny area of the Horne Rezone area, it is not "pervasive" nor is there any need for an extreme low density to protect any critical areas. The plain meaning of the adjective `pervasive" in the dictionary is "to become spread throughout all parts thereof'. The Horne Rezone properties do not have pervasive critical areas. Therefore, the existing Horne R-1 zoning classification does not comport with the City of Renton definition for R-1 zoning. While the opponents of this rezone seek to throw up procedural roadblocks the plain fact is simple. The Horne properties do not meet the definition of the R-1 zone and at some time the City of Renton must recognize this fact and ' rezone the property to the residential zone for which it does fit the definition, namely the R-4 zone. The only alternative is for the City of Renton to change their definition of the R-1 zone. That would of course run into the Growth Management Act and Growth Management Hearing Board problems as Renton would have to zone perfectly developable property at a non -urban density zone of R-1 in order to provide open space to nearby owners who were allowed to develop at R-4 densities. 1 • According to the City of Renton Code 4-2-020.D Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts, the R-4 zone "is established to promote urban single family residential neighborhoods serviceable by urban utilities and containing amenity open spaces". The facts show that the Horne properties can be or already are serviced by urban utilities defined to mean public sewer, public roads, public/private stormwater retention/detention ponds, electricity, natural gas, telephone, CATV, roads, streets, sidewalks. There is no dispute as to the provision of urban utilities, or their capability to be provided. Open spaces already exist adjacent to the site in the form of the Greene's Creek protected drainage area and many other nearby open spaces. Thus, the Horne properties meet the exact definition of the R-4 zone while they categorically do not meet the definition of the R-1 zone, as there are not pervasive critical areas on the Horne properties. Once again, while the opponents may try to throw up procedural roadblocks as they selfishly seek "open space" owned by someone else, the City of Renton definitions are the final. arbitrator of what the zoning on the Home properties should be. • There is a question as to whether the Horne Rezone is in the Public Interest. I strongly believe it is and offer this evidence regarding sewerage disposal to support that position. Currently, most every home in the Horne Rezone area is on a septic tank with a drainfield. While there is nothing intrinsically wrong with on-site sewage disposal systems, as a matter of policy for properties located within the City of Renton, they are discouraged. In the long run, public sewer systems are a preferred alternative for sewerage disposal. The existing Horne Rezone properties will not hook up to public sewers unless public sewers are installed. Public sewers have not been installed to the vast majority of the Horne Rezone properties during the time period that the property has been zoned R-1 for a very simple reason. It is uneconomical to install public sewers at such a low density. For very low density zoning such as R-1, the costs to install public sewers to just a few properties on lots. approximating 1 -acre in size, is prohibitively expensive. A property owner or a collection of property owners can not amortize the costs of the public sewers over a sufficient number of new lots to justify the expense. Thus, public sewers will likely never serve the Horne Rezone property as long as it is zoned R-1. However, the R-4 zone provides a suitable density for the provision of public sewers. Since septic tank/drainfields are discouraged by long- standing Renton policy to encourage public sewers (and in fact mandates them in most new developments), it is in the public interest to zone the property R-4 to facilitate a more rapid conversion to public sewerage systems. 2 • On the continuing question as to whether the Horne Rezone is in the Public Interest, I offer this evidence regarding stormwater retention/detention to support the position that the Horne Rezone is in the public interest. Currently, only one property in the Horne Rezone area is served by stormwater retention/detention ponds. All other stormwater from the site's roads, driveways, rooftops, and other impervious surfaces leaves the site by flowing overland without benefit of stormwater retention/detention facilities. Given a R-1 zone, it is highly unlikely that new developments would be of sufficient size to require platting and the resulting requirement for newly constructed stormwater retention/detention ponds. Instead, new development would likely be in the form of single family homes whose stormwater protections are far less stringent than those required by platted developments. Under -a R-4 zone, the platting of the Horne Rezone will require the installation of stormwater retention/detention ponds which will be built to the most recent stormwater manual requirements. New stormwater, ponds will help mitigate existing development which is currently mostly untreated. Since only single -fan- fy development with limited stormwater treatment (limited to the newly constructed home) will likely be available under the current R-1 zone, it makes sense to move towards R-4 zoning where newly constructed stormwater retention/detention ponds would be built to mitigate existing development within the Horne Rezone area. Providing stormwater facilities to untreated areas is in the public interest, therefore the Horne Rezone is in the public interest. • The current City of Renton Staff Report (we understand staff may revise its report prior to the hearing) and letters from some residents of the Stonegate neighborhood have tried to claim that the Horne Rezone would be materially detrimental to the public welfare. They have cited impacts to Greens Creek and May Creek - as examples. However, the facts speak otherwise. Greens Creek is a small basin area which flows from heavily developed properties in the south, northerly through the Stonegate neighborhood towards May Creek. Over the past 70 years of development (see 1936 aerial photos of the area - attached), Greens Creek has been heavily altered by man-made actions, and in fact the entire course of Greens Creek was rerouted by the developers of the Stonegate neighborhood back in 1995-96. I will leave it to Mr. Ed Horne to recite the entire history of the alteration of the course of Greens Creek (as he was a first hand observe), but suffice to say it is not the environmentally pure and unaltered stream that the staff and Stonegate residents make it out to be. The Staff Report states that "Greens Creek is a sensitive hydrology system that is easily altered by human activity." Interestingly, the City of Renton was part of the 1995-96 approval process (through the inter -local agreements with King 3 County) by which the nature of Greens Creek was significantly altered by channeling and changing its course to promote better water flows through the neighborhood. The history of May Creek is similarly fraught with human activity to improve the flow regime through the May Creek valley. For decades May Creek has been dredged and channeled in order to improve flows and prevent the establishment of wetlands where none previously existed. After decades of intense human activity in which the creek was dredged repeatedly, the creek channel altered, and creek -side vegetation removed; to now claim that it is too "sensitive" to accept new development at R-4 densities with full stormwater protections, is almost too farcical to accept ,at face value. The City of Renton has adopted a new Stormwater Manual that will protect Greens Creek and May Creek. In fact, new development of the Horne Rezone area will help mitigate impacts from the large portions of the area that currently is not provided with any stormwater retention/detention protections. • I believe that even just a casual review of the facts demonstrates there have been significant material changes in the vicinity of the proposed Horne Rezone area including but not limited to: 1) the build -out of the Stonegate neighborhood at densities far above the underlying R-1 zone; 2) alteration and channeling of Greens Creek to allow a higher lot utilization in the Stonegate neighborhood; 3) a new sewer pump station; 4) build -out of major areas south of the Horne Rezone (Windstone development) at a R-6 density, the stormwater from which flows into Greens Creek; and 5) the build -out of major areas to the southwest of the Horne Rezone (Langley Ridge development) ' at R-6 density. Second, the Staff Report mischaracterizes the May Valley Pre -zone Phase 1 action in 1996-96 (Ord. # 4667). When one reads the City of Renton Memorandum dated October 4, 1996 from Gregg Zimmerman (Planning/Public Works) to Kathy Keolker-Wheeler (Chair of the Planning Commission) it is crystal clear that the R-1 zone on the Horne property was "somewhat arbitrary" (see page 5). The zoning designations were a result of the City of Renton "generally assigning each zoning designation to the property owners who requested it". The October 4, 1996 memo clearly states, "Unless overriding evidence of dire consequences of R-5 zoning is presented, allowing the higher density appears justified" (emphasis added). The September 13, 2011 Staff Report does not accurately represent the findings of the 1996-97 rezone process. I recommend that the Hearing Examiner closely examine the October 4, 1996 City of Renton Memorandum so that the misrepresentations of the current Staff Report (9-13-11) can be exposed and the Horne Rezone treated fairly without bias. 4 Considering the above and all the materials submitted under the application, the Horne Rezone meets all the requirements of the R-4 zone. The Horne Rezone by providing new public sewers and new stormwater ponds, where none currently exist, is in the public interest. The Horne Rezone will not be material detrimental to the environment. The history of the zoning in this area, particularly the 1996-97 studies and recommendations, support R4 zoning for the Horne area. The proponents of the Horne Rezone have met their burden of proof. Very Truly Yours, illiam Kombol, a property owner in the Horne Rezone area 30533 — 234' Ave. S.E. Black Diamond, WA 98010 Enclosures: October 4, 1996 City of Renton Memorandum 1936 Aerial Photo of the area* with Greens Creek highlighted in blue 2007 Aerial Photo of the area* with Greens Creek highlighted in blue * Note: the source of these aerial photos is the King County iMAP service at www.Kin ounty.&ov. Both aerial maps show the current (as of 2010) lot pattern and the current location of Greens Creek. It should be noted that the lot pattern shown on the 1936 black and white aerial photo did not exist at that time. Also, the location of Greens Creek has changed significantly since 1936. The black and white map has the current lot pattern and the current location of Greens Creek superimposed onto a 1936 aerial map. The Horne Rezone area is highlighted in red on both maps E Zoning designations for Phase l of the May Valley Pmone. (Exhlbit 1) • Assign R-1. zoning to the northern portidn and R-5 zoning to the south. (ExhlbIt 2) The Council held the lirst public hearing on the proposed prezone of 74 acres of the City's Potential Annexation Area on June 10, 19%, and the second public hearing on September 16, 1996. The statutory prerequisites for adoption of zoning for an area outside the City's corporate boundary have been fulfilled. Council is now at liberty to adopt a zoning ordinance. , orti prehencive Plan and potential zo= The area is designated Residential Rural on the Comprehensive Pian land use map. Potential zones consistent with the designation Include: Resource Conservation (RC) which allows up to one unit Per 10 acres; • Resldentlal- 1 (R-1) which allows up to one unit per net sera; and, Resldenttal- 5 (R-5) which allows up to 5 units per net 4cre. None of the potential zones requires a nun murn CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BTRLDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEM•ORAN,DUM DATE; October 4, 1996 T0: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Cha' , Punning and Development ornrniltee Members IIIA: Mayor Iesse Tanner PROM: Gregg Zimmerman, A inistrator G PlanninglBuildingiPuhlic Works Department STAFF CONTACT: Mike Kattermann (ext. 15190) Owen Dennison (ext. #2475) SMECT: May Valley Prezone • Phnse 1 Zoning designations for Phase l of the May Valley Pmone. (Exhlbit 1) • Assign R-1. zoning to the northern portidn and R-5 zoning to the south. (ExhlbIt 2) The Council held the lirst public hearing on the proposed prezone of 74 acres of the City's Potential Annexation Area on June 10, 19%, and the second public hearing on September 16, 1996. The statutory prerequisites for adoption of zoning for an area outside the City's corporate boundary have been fulfilled. Council is now at liberty to adopt a zoning ordinance. , orti prehencive Plan and potential zo= The area is designated Residential Rural on the Comprehensive Pian land use map. Potential zones consistent with the designation Include: Resource Conservation (RC) which allows up to one unit Per 10 acres; • Resldentlal- 1 (R-1) which allows up to one unit per net sera; and, Resldenttal- 5 (R-5) which allows up to 5 units per net 4cre. None of the potential zones requires a nun murn October_ 4, 1996 Page 2 Ths subject area Is zoned >R -4i except far the isolated pockcr.% the northern and which is zoned R-1. Staff MMMcalsw x A description of the area and potential zoning dignationa was referred to varlous departments and divisions throughout the City.. Respondents wertasked to provide a preWence for a zoning pattern with respect to existing plans, environmental conditions, potential costs to the City br other criteria. Most comments indicated that service provision would not be affecied by specific zoning, except that greater density may increase demand for City resotimes. The Wastewater Utility 'stated that R-5 zoning would make 'sewer service provision more economically feasible than would lower density z+onIng. However, the Utility noted that any attempt by the City to provide sewer service to this area may be met with opposition from. Water District 90, ,as it is within the District's water service boundary. The Surface Water Utility expressed ccmcerns about the potential eftt of greater density'on run-off, erosion and flooding. 'fife Utility recommended that density should not exceed that allowed under existlag County zoning. , However, critical areas should be zoned R- L. The only mapped- critical area are an erasion hazard urea at the southwest axtreme and Greene's Creek. no' Surface Water Engineering Sectkan conducted a rough calculation of the anticipated flow increases withR-1 and R-5 zoning." The results shown in the fbIlowing table, list the peruentege increase in R-5 over R-1. 'life calculations include only the southern portion, south of S.E. 104th Street_ Storm Event Increased Flows {no detention is assumed)' increased Volume 2 Year 48% 32% 10 Year 28% 21% 25 Year 23% Ae 18% 100 Year 19% 16% With detention, the 2 and 10 year events should have flows about equal to the pra-development pattern. ''lata percentage difference between It -1 and R-5 would also be lower at the 75 and TOD year events, with detention. While a 19% difference at the 100 year event is not consldered'siga canc, the effect would depend on downatreani factors. Additional detention requirements could be imposed on development in the area to mitigate potential flooding and erosion problems. Five citizens spoke at the public hearing. Of these, only throe made a specific recommettidation on zoning. All three supported R-1 Por the entire Phase I area. A fourth speaker expressed concern that Ootnbcr 4, 1996 Page 3 . zoning may be implemented that would preektcte him from building homes on previously platted Tots. The fifti expressed antipathy toward annexing to the City of Renton. Attrong the issuas raised was existing drainage and erasion probleazs int , may Creek Drainage Basin in general and the subject area in particular. The rnnccrn y development arrowed under R S zoning would exacerbate the existing situation. Additionally. two of the speakers noted ;tt the Comprahcnsive Pian SAS stated than the R-5 inns would not be applied to R.esidetltial Rural areas of the May Cheek Drainage Basin. lfh 111 Comment $eZ+4Qt Four May Valley residents and property owners spoke in favor of R -I zoning fk-tr the entire area. Proponents of R-1 expressed concerns over the potential far increased property damagr. and babltat degradation due to flooding anti erosion. Photographs were submitted as evideme tlf existing flooding problems. for thoir ed R-5 ri Three property owners with holdings totaling about 21 acres aero supporta dansltyxot'Fvgu; 4ni� perproperties. Proponents staled that downstream impacts of de amen net acre can be mitigated with appropriate retention facilities or City storm sewers• The City has received a number' of letters sjnt a the second public .hearing. No new issues were raised. Five supported R-1 zoning for the northern portion of the subject area.- Of these, four recommended R-5 for the soutl Wn patrien. An owner of property Iocated near the center of the area supported R-1 for an undefined area. Exhibit Z shows prefereac" indicated by property owners within the subject area. Several proponents of R -I zoning own properties northwest of the subject gree along May Cmk. ¢ars not shown in Exhibit 2. Existing QevAssignment of either of the three potentiai v a - zones would not preclude development of a single faintly home on an existing legal lot of any size, providing that all setback, lot coverago and other requirements of the zone are met, even the tnnrc restrictive development standards of the R-1 Zane do not appearihe create hardship envelope on this lot or existing lots in the subject area. The smallest existing lot is nearly 7,ODO q e f lot would still be, 2,024 square feet under the R-1 development standards. However, the setback requirements or the R-1 Zone may make some existing structures non- copformittg. For sltugic fldtnily homes, VIOn-mlIfOrming can be ti[lat in the only nlimitedIY evem of fi e-efferor an a1. cct of . established, non-confarming s<inglc faintly structU providingthat those 'God. Additions to legally established, non -conforming structures can be ltnade!'tion. Alterations, additions conform to the standards in efW at the rima of building perm &pP such as an interior remodel, can Decor, providing that the total cost of the work doe's not succeed 50% of the value of the original stnwWra. Alterations that Dost from 50% to 100% of the value Of the crura can be made under a Conditional Approval Permit. .. Tha Report suggests hot ten art development of the subject area will have soma effba on May Creek• however, the Report itrdicates that the primary problems associated .with sew developunrnt will primarily impact the areas October 4, 1996 Page 4 surrounding Greerie's Creek, which originates within the tubject area. Supporting Surface Water Utility comments, the Report states, "Chsnging land uses actttalty seem to affect Greene's Creek hydrology more than nearly every- other May Creek tributary... More common floods in the 2- to 10 -year range would increase even more. Only aypsy creek in the l..ciwer Basin experiences comparable flow increases. These flows may be -quite defeterious to the Cireene's Creek channel morphology; a result of this Increase in the .size of peak flows is additional scour of the steep slopes between the plateau and the mainstem of May Creek. TMs its causing increasing sediment movement into May Creek and is resulting in property damage due to gully erosion and' culvert blockage. The actual flow values in Greene & Creek are low enough (due to the small size of the drainage -area and moderate slopes) that the effects on May Creek will be only moderately significant." (Page 4-42) "Even greater increases in flows are predicted for Green's Creek. 'i'iris combined with the sandy alluvial substrate will [sad to further c:hxnnel erosion. Without mitigation for the past increases' in flows and sediment transport. find without any significant LWD [large woody debris), • the channel will continue to degrade, delivering increased sand downstream. increased flow and sediment transport will increase sand delivered to May Creek." (Page 7- CiLy Of Renton e As noted by one speaker in h€s comments to Council, in reference to the creation of,the R•5 Zone the FSEIS states, Low Density Single Family jnow'•Residential Rural) sirens located within the May Crash Drainage Basin will continue to be limited to a maximum of one unit per alae." (Page 3.14) The flooding noted by two "kers at the second public hearing may be attributable to the routing of Greene's Creels outside of its historic path by ono of the same property owners. The original creek course apparently cut aunss a lot and passed under S.E. 104th through a Winch culvert. Now, it more closely follows tht: property lines with several severs angles and passes under the right-of-way through ai 24 inch culvert. The smaller culvert may account for at least a portion of the existing disi"itulties. increased ticiws from upstream may be contributing to the current flooding but it sloes not appear to be exclusively responsible, CONCLUS1ONo There is not unanimity among the property owners in support of either,R-I or R -S zoning. (Exhibit 3, ZonLng Preferences) Certain property owners wish to maintain the current development potential if annexation should occur. Since annexation of this area is not anticipated in'the immediate future, these property owners should have ample oppariuniry to complete lite platting process through lbs County. Tire action of adopting R -I zoning would not produde platting is the County at the densities permitted under King County zoning regularkint. Hi,wever, plats for which 'preliminary plat approval is granted by, the County could not be etxepted by the City for final approval, if density exceeds that allowed tinder the adopted City zoning. Density would not preclude annexation after the -_ prat is cpmptgtrrt - - October 4, 1996 Page S If -sanitary sewers are necessary to meet the allowed de: Ahy under County zoning, platting at these densities without approval of City sewer extension rttay not be possible. Currently, there is no affernative to the City for sewer sorvica in tha area. R -i zoning would generally make the Axtcnsion of sewers to the area ec orkimieally infeasible, unles% extension'o=rs prior to annexation. The application of the R -I Zane in lite prezone area would appear to make several existing structures non -conforming. This should not create hardship situations Por property Owners. ttrs to be whether development at five units per net acre would have The .primaiy fissile appr significant deleterimis envirrtnmental consequences. As noted in the May Creek Conditions Report, development will Itctve. some impact on the Creek and ultimately on May Creek.' Althqugh the Conditions Report Sue -, that CMO's Creek is sensitive to changes in land use, modeling conducted by the City's'Surface Water Engineering Sectinn suggests that, with appropriate detention facilities, the difference bettvezlt k- I and R-5 may WE bt significant in tarns of incremed ft! w and total volume of run-off. Tide does not nr�sarily contradict the anraiyais of the Conditions Report, as even development at one unit per acre would likely result in the lass of ezesting forested auras and would increase im(ie virnts'surf ice area. ne existing flooding problems presented In support of R-1 may. be discounted to a degree, as other factors appear to obntribute to the current situation. In total, the evidence does not appear to entirely support dither R-1 or R -S. Therefore, the tecotnmendation.is basal on -staff r, unden.mding of two basic Council policy direalons. First► single fAmiiy nelghbrirhaods should be encouraged where appropriate. Seoond, property owners should be allowed acs much discretion over the use of their land posssIbl et providing ithee environment and the Inierests'of surrounding residents and property p overriding evidence Of direct Wn"quences of R-5 zoning is presented,:allowing the higher density appears justified. -Any division between R -I and R-5 would.be somewhat arbitrary. Consequently,. the 1ecommendation genially assigns each z ming designation to the property owners who requested it. Titin pattern provides a buffer areal of R-1 between propeftles zoned R S and May Creek. At Council's direction, .staff will explore mea:hanisnu to create an overlay designation for the area that would require a higher detention Standard than is applied elsewhere in the City or would identify the area for additional environmental mitigation through SERA review of proposed developments..This would be consistent with tke Kinb Groote Critical Drainage BaSin designation currently assigned to the subject area. - N _1DrVIB10N,S1P.kMPLAaJ NJH0IANNSMPlati7_0N OP& b ISS3 MayValley- Prezone -- Vicinity Map - Phase mA T SerAMSPrezone 'Area -- Phase rt r r �^v/P�61ia Wor6 �----� R. MoeOriM, O. Dom+ 0 500 1,000 1:6,O00 1936 Aerial Map 2007 Aerial Map October 3, 2011 Attn; Rocale Timmons City Of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA. 98059 RE: Horne Rezone Request #LUA 11-023 Pity of Renton Hing Divrsipn OCT - g 1611 ulece#wl eo My Family owns multiple pieces of properties inside the city limits of Renton and has resided in Renton for many generations. We have seen the slowing of growth and the loss of many small businesses recently which does not help any property owners where ever they live. The value of properties inside the city limits and the value of their life savings in those properties depend on the zoning. The Horne rezone appears to be requesting a zoning classification which is standard for most properties that are being developed within the city limits so why do these property owners have to request a rezone and go thru this process. When ever an area that has been run down or has an extremely amount of old housing and gets annexed to the city of Renton, isn't it likely that it should be developed into a new neighborhood with side walks and livable new homes! I do not think it is fair and quit frankly, it is UN -American to devalue a property owner's life savings with a zoning value that makes the property worthless, when all the other property around the Horne property are built out on standard sized lots! For the above reasons, l support the Horne rezone request and please let your department supervisors know my feelings also! Thank you for letting me airs my views on this land rezone. anks, Diane and Dennis Schwartzenberger 601 Shattuck Ave S. Renton, WA. 98057 October 3, 2011 City of Renton Attention: Rocale Timmons 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA. 98059 RE: Rezone Request #LUA11-023 Dear Rocale, City Of Pento/anno. , l� . stun OCT - 6 7#11 bZD My sister-in-law Diane told me about a rezone filing by a property owner named Ed Horne and that some of the neighbors are protesting the rezone. So my husband, Greg and I took a ride over to see what all this protest was about and what Ed Horne was requesting. We got information off your web site, although the information was limited, it did give us the location and properties involved. I do not understand why the property is zoned R-1 and why any property in the City of Renton would be zoned R-1. We live in an R-8 neighborhood and If the Horne property owners are trying to get R-4, that's only half of what we have, so I don't think anything would be wrong with approving this request. When Greg and I drove by, there was horse pasture, run down houses and the general feel for this change. I don't know why the surrounding property owners would protest this change, it can only improve the total area. As a Renton resident, please let the judge know that Greg and myself support the Rezoning of Horne property from R-1 to R-4. Thank you, Sherry Williams Greg Schwartzenberger Rocale Timmons City Of Renton 1455 South Grady Way Renton Wa. 98059 RE, Horne Rezone Request #LUA 11-023 September 26, 20Z1010f R OCA o,� I own property to the south of the Horne Rezone and ask that you support the rezone request to an R-4 designation for the following Reasons. 1. All properties inside the city limits and the Urban growth boundry line shall be developable to a minimum of R-4 as designated by the state legislation. 2. There are no documented pervasive sensitive areas on the Horne Rezone properties. 3. There are recently installed sewer installed along 148th Ave SE to SE 102"a and along 26th Ave NE 4. There is a Large newly completed City of Renton Sewer pump station in a tract adjacent to 261h Ave NE to service the entire Horne Rezone area. 5. All the properties in the area happen to be built out too or equal too a R-4 density within a half mile surrounding the Horne Rezone Area. G. With the New 2009 SWM manual in place, no untreated Storm water will. reach the drainage ditch in the Stongate Neighborhood to the West of the Horne rezone area, unlike currently huge amounts of untreated storm flows into the drainage system daily untreated. 7, Newer Homes can replace the abandoned homes currently onsite in the Rezone area. B. It will be safer when the area is built out with sidewalks, so Kids anti Adults will be able to walk to schools and the Newly planned Jennifer Dunn Memorial Park just south of the Horne Rezone area Yours Koli n Taylyr(/ Rocale Timmons City Of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa. 98059 RE; Horne Rezone Request #LUA 11-023 September 26, 2011 �ityoff pl an171. 6 9 D ent,0h 's'on OCT - . lull MLO) gc IVES I own property to the south of the Horne Rezone and ask that you support the rezone request to an R-4 designation for the following Reasons. 1. All properties inside the city limits and the Urban growth foundry line shall be developable to a minimum of R-4 as designated by the state legislation. 2. There are no documented pervasive sensitive areas on the Horne Rezone properties. 3. There are recently installed sewer installed along 148th Ave S8 to SE 102nd and along 26th Ave NE 4. There is a Large newly completed City of Renton Sewer pump station in a tract adjacent to 266 Ave NE to service the entire Horne Rezone area. 5. All the properties in the area happen to be built out too or equal too a R-4 density within a half mile surrounding the Horne Rezone Area. 6. With the New 2009 SWM manual in place, no untreated Storm water will reach the drainage ditch in the Stongate Neighborhood to the West of the Horne rezone area, unlike currently huge amounts of untreated storm flows into the drainage system daily untreated. 7. Newer Homes can replace the abandoned homes currently onsite in the Rezone area. 8. It will be safer when the area is built out with sidewalks, so Kids and Adults will be able to walk to schools and the Newly planned Jennifer Dunn Memorial Park just south of the Horne Rezone area Yours Kolin Taylo rr, 9/28/2011 City Of Renton Attn; Hearing examiner Rocal Timmons 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa. 98059 RE; Horne Rezone #LUA 11-023 To Whom it may Concern C'ty of Renton Planning Division OCT `4 1011 � E(CE#V6D a I ask that you support the Horne rezone for the very reason I bought my property in the Renton area and that is the right to develop my property someday at a 4 units per acre. A number of years back when City of Renton down zoned the whole east Renton Hill from R-8 to R-4, there was nothing said about down zoning to R-1 especially if the property was in the Urban or City limits. I drove by Mr. Horne's property and read the notice and it appears to be a good developable property with a brand new Sewer Station across the street. So my question is why should Mr. Horne not be allowed to develop to R-4 right now when he is ready to retire, because some rich folks next door don't want him too? Please allow the Horne rezone to go thru! Yours Doug Prellwitz 1-1-302 156th Ave SE Renton, Wa. 98059 C) d W ,C S L � c N S L ♦V� t VV �- Rocale Timmons C/O City Of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa. 95059 Rocale Timmons Let this letter serve as my support for the NE and NE 24th St over By May Valley. 9-30-2011 P'tkof anni 01.enf0h �sfoo .,Oct 3 ml 41 e(Dee D Horne rezone request off Nile Ave After driving by the area and seeing old housing, mobile homes and what appeared to be abandoned and overgrown properties, I believe the property would be a lot better if it would be developed into new housing. If the City of' Renton encourages them to do sidewalks like the rest of the city streets, then I am sure that all the existing neighborhoods would love to see a new neighborhood spring up. Please let who ever will be making the decision on this rezone that I support it and think it will be a nice area for some new homes and it should also help the city tax base. ��° r l JayBan'kson 569 Graham Ave NE Renton, WA. 98059 I Denis Ma Mayor Y City o� September 20, 2011. Department of Community and konomic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator , Tom Redding. Encompass. Engineering and Surveying 165 NE Juniper Street, Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 SUBJECT: Horne Rezone LUA11-023, ECF, R Dear Mr. Redding: This letter is to informyouu'that the public hearing scheduled on September 20, 201.1 for ' the above subject project has been rescheduled for October 18, 2011 at 1:00 p.m.. The applicant. or representatives) of the applicant are required. to be present at the . public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you at least one .week prior to the scheduled hearing. if you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, �Glit�lL�Ytd1 - Roc le Timmons' As ociate Planner cc: Newfourth LLC / Owner(s) Ed Horne /Applicant Dennis Rattle, Debra Rogers, Bryan & Kendra Vadney, Madonna Messina, Bruce.Christopherson, Claudia Donnelly, Richard Wilson, Karen Waiter / Party(les) of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady. Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 13th day of September, 2011, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Recommendation Report to the Hearing Examiner documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Tom Redding Contact Ed Horne Applicant Newfourth LLC Owner Karen Walter POR Ricard Wilson POR Claudia Donnelly POR Bruce Christopherson POR Madonna Messina POR Bryan & Kendra Vadney POR Debra Rogers POR Dennis Rattie POR (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON } SS COUNTY OF KING } I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses an mentioned in the instrument. Dated: 13 as 11 41 C Notary blit in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): H o,-6er My appointment expires: � �. L l —'� p G Project Name: Horne Rezone Project Number: LUA11-023, ECF, R WD, ;Ilk- urposes Denis Law Mayor Cl Ori/ August 22, 2011 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Tom Redding Encompass Engineering and Surveying 165 NE Juniper Street, Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 SUBJECT: Horne Reione LUA11-023, ECF, R Dear Mr. Redding: This letter is to -inform you that the public hearing scheduled on August 30, 2011 for the above subject project has been rescheduled for September 20, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you at least one week -prior to the scheduled hearing. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, Roc le Timmons As ociate Planner cc:. Newfourth LLC / Owner(s) Ed Horne / Applicant Dennis Rattie, Debra Rogers, Bryan & Kendra Vadney, Madonna Messina, Bruce Christopherson; Claudia Donnelly, Richard Wilson, Karen Walter / Party(ies) of Record Renton City Hall 9 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D ;tyof AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 'a HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING September 20, 2011 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 1:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Horne Rezone PROJECT NUMBER: LUA11-023, ECF, R PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a rezone for 12 single family lots from the R-1 to the R-4 zoning designation. The 12 parcels comprise 7.37 acres of area and are located along the eastern boundary of the cityjust south of NE 26th St adjacent/abutting Nile Ave NE. HEX Agenda 9-20-11.doe DEPARTMENT OF COM K.�NITY City of"r AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ,.,�.., ? RECOMMENDATION REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST REPORT DATE: September 13, 2011 Project Name: Horne Rezone Owner: Newfourth LLC; 19244 39th Ave S; Seatac, WA 98188 Applicant: Ed Horne; 5604 NE 24th St; Renton, WA 98059 Contact: Tom Redding; Encompass Engineering and Surveying File Number: LUA 11-023, ECF, R Project Manager: Rocale Timmons; Associate Planner Project Summary: The applicant is requesting a rezone for 12 single family lots from the R-1 to the R- 4 zoning designation. The 12 parcels comprise 7.37 acres of area and are located along the eastern boundary of the city just south of NE 26th St adjacent/abutting Nile Ave NE. Project Location: Along the west side of Nile Ave NE just south of NE 261h St Site Area: 7.37 ac (320,910 SF) Rezone Recommendation, doc City of Renton Department of Con. city & Economic Development Rezone Recommendation HORNE REZONE LUA 11-013, ECF Report of September 13, 2011 Page 2 of 7 B. EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 2: Aerial Photograph Exhibit 3: Public Comment Letters A: Mesinna 13: Slaton C: Anonymous D: Donnelly E: Walter — Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division F: Christopherson G: Wilson —Stonegate Homeowners Association H: Rogers Exhibit 4: May Creek Drainage Plan C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner(s) of Record: 2. Zoning Designation: 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation 4. Existing Site Use: Newfourth LLC 19244 39th Ave S Seatac, WA 98188 Residential —1 du/ac (R-1) Residential Low Density (RLD) Single Family Residential / Vacant S. Neighborhood Characteristics: a. North: Single Family Residential — (R-1 zone) b. East: Urban Growth Boundary -Single Family Residential (King County RA -5 and RA -10 zone) c. South: Single Family Residential (King County R-4 zone) d. West: Single Family Residential (R-1 zone) 6. Access: Primary access to the collection of parcels is provided via Nile Ave NE. 7. Site Area: 7.37 acres (320,910 gross square feet) S. Critical Areas: The site is bordered by a stream to west (Greens Creek) and May Creek is located just to the north of the subject area. All 12 parcels are within the May Creek Drainage Basin. FD. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Comprehensive Plan N/A 5099 11/01/04 Rezone Recommendation. doc City of Renton Department of Comte pity & Economic Development Rezone Recommendation HORNE REZONE LUA 11-023, ECF Report of September 13, 2011 Page 3 of 7 Zoning N/A 5100 11/01/04 Annexation N/A 5456 05/31/09 May Valley Pre -Zone N/A 4667 06/06/97 E PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities a. Water: These parcels are located in and served by the Water District 90 service area. b. Sewer: The parcels are located in the City of Renton wastewater service area. There is an existing 8 -inch sanitary sewer main in Nile Ave NE and in NE 26th Street c. Surface/Storm Water: There may exit storm drainage facilities in Nile Ave NE (148th Ave SE). There are existing storm ponds owned and maintained by King County. There is also a public storm line on the north side of the parcels in NE 26th Street, west of Nile Ave NE. 2. Streets: Some street improvements including pavement and shoulder striping exist at'this time. 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODES: 1. RMC Title 4 Chapter 2 land Use Districts a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of zoning Districts 2. RMC Title 4 Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria a. Section 4-9-180: Rezone Process 3. RMC Title 4 Chapter 11 Definitions G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. Proiect Description/Background The 12 subject parcels are located along the west side Nile Ave NE (148th Ave SE) south of NE 26th St. The site was apart of a larger 74 acre prezone, the May Valley Pre -Zone -Phase I, in 1996 which was adopted by ordinance (Ord. #4667) in 1997. The ordinance pre -zoned the property Residential -1 du/ac (R-1). The subject parcels, maintaining their R-1 zoning classification, were annexed into the City in May of 2009. There are existing single family residences which are proposed to remain after the rezone on these eight tax parcels: 032305-9219, 032305-9257, 032305-9224, 032305-9258, 032305-9193, 032305-9199, and 032305-9194. The remaining four parcels are currently vacant. All surrounding properties are either vacant or developed with single family residences. The properties to the north and west are located within the City's boundary and are zoned R-1. The properties to the south are located within unincorporated King County, but within the City's Potential Annexation Area (PAA). Curently, the properties to the south are zoned R-4 on the County's zoning designation map but are pre -zoned R -1, - by the City, should they annex. The properties to the east are located opposite the Urban Growth Boundary and are currently zoned RA -5 (Rural -5 residential units per acre) and RA -10 (Rural -10 residential units per acre) in the County. Rezone Recommendation.doc City of Renton Department of Coma -'ty & Economic Development HORNE REZONE Report of September 13, 2011 Rezone Recommendation L UA 11-023, ECF Page 4 of 7 On page one of the Environmental Review report (dated July 18, 2011) a mistatement was made with regard to critical areas on site. There are no critical areas on site.- A tributary (Greens Creek) to May Creek, which flows from south to north, is located within an open space tract off-site to the west of the subject property. May Creek is located to the north of the site. The properties are also located within the May Creek Drainage Sasin. Several comments, in opposition to the proposed rezone, were received by interested parties. Concerns raised include: the worsening of drainage/flooding issues in the area, the deterioration of neighboring streams and creeks, the compromise of the rural character of the area, and potential increases in traffic and access points into existing neighborhoods. The site is also bisected by a 30 -foot wide tract, owned by the Stonegate neighborhood, which would remain R-1 zoning in that the Stonegate Homeowners Association in large is opposed to the proposed rezone. 2. Environmental Review Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on July 18, 2011, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for this project. A 14 -day comment/appeal period commenced on July 22, 2011 and ended on August 5, 2011. No appeals of the threshold determination were filed. 3. Compliance with ERC Conditions N/A 4. Staff Review Comments Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed development. They identified no issues and documentation of their response is contained in the official file. 5. Consistency with Rezone Criteria a. The rezone is in the public interest. The applicant contends that the proposed rezone serves the public interest insomuch that it seeks to create urban densities, as allowed in the R-4 zoning designation and thereby fulfilling the City's Comprehensive Plan. Objective LU -11 outlines that properties should be designated R-4 when appropriate for urban levels of development with the provision of suitable environments for suburban and/or estate style, single-family dwellings. The applicant asserts that the proposed density would only further the existing development densities in the area, which are also in compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA). The applicant stated that the surrounding densities are between 2.6 and 5.0 du/ac within 1,000 feet of the subject property. While the surrounding properties might be developed with a density range comparable to the R- 4 zoning designation, this would not constitute a public interest to further expand the R-4 designation and/or development potential to additional area. The argument does, however, demonstrate the further preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner (see discussion below under Section B). Additionally, the site would continue to be bordered on the east by the RA -5 (Rural -5 residential units per acre) and RA -10 (Rural -10 residential units per acre). To the north and west the property would continue to be bordered by the City's R-1 zoning designation and the properties to the south would are pre -zoned R-1 should they annex into the City. The subject parcels would also continue to be bisected by an R-1 zoned tract. Rezone Recommendation. doc City of Renton Department of Com nity& Economic Development Rezone Recommendation HORNE REZONE LUA 11-023, ECF Report of September 13, 2011 Page 5 of 7 Spot zoning is basically disfavored in our state. The basic definition of spot zoning in Washington was outlined in Narrowsview Preservation Association v. City of Tacoma. 84 Wn.2d 416 (1974), in which the court said: "We have recently stated that illegal spot zoning is arbitrary and unreasonable zoning action by which a smaller area is singled out of a larger area or district and specially zoned for use classification totally different from and inconsistent with the classification of the surrounding land, not in accordance with a comprehensive plan." The applicant has not adequately demonstrated the rezone would serve the public interest and it appears the rezone merely accommodates the private interests of the proponent and bears no rational relationship to promoting legitimate public interest and therefore would be considered spot zoning. b. The rezone tends to further preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner. The applicant contends that the rezone would further the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the owners in that it allows the flexibility to develop the subject parcels at a greater density. Staff concurs, the rezone would further the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the property owners. c. The rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons located in the vicinity. The applicant contends that the rezone would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons located in the vicinity in that there are no critical areas on site and there are no sensitive areas that would preclude development. The applicant also argues that the City's critical areas code and adopted drainage manual would address any impacts caused by potential development at a higher density. However, the subject property drains into the May Creek Drainage Basin and is bordered by Greens Creek. In 2001, the May Creek Basin Action Plan (Exhibit 4), included studies that identify Greens Creek as a very sensitive hydrology system that is easily altered by human activity. Additionally, May Valley is noted as a natural floodplain and historically has experienced periodic and sometimes extensive flooding. The May Creek Basin Action Plan was developed through funding by King County and the City of Renton, with the cooperation of the City of Newcastle and input from the Citizens Advisory Committee comprised of area residents in order to address the drainage concerns in the basin which have worsened through the years as channelizing of streams and development in upland areas increased stormflows to the valley, and as natural deposition of sediment in May Valley continued to reduce the conveyance capacity of the May Creek channel. The action plan created measures in order to restore the natural functions of the basin and maintain the quality of life for those who live and work 'in the basin. A City resolution (#3506) was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an inter -local agreement with King County and the City of Newcastle for implementation of the May Creek Basin Plan in 2001. The May Creek Basin Action Plan provides a set of actions to: 1) address the threat of flooding of homes; 2) facilitate stormflow conveyance, stabilize steam banks and reduce erosion; 3) protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality in the basin; and 4) prevent existing problems from becoming worse in the future. The Action Plan attempts to make use of existing Rezone Recommendation.doc City of Renton Department of Comr—nity & Economic Development Rezone Recommendation HORNS REZONE LUA 11-023, ECF Report of September 13, 2011 Page 6 of 7 County and City policies and stormwater management controls, such as those contained in the revised King County Surface Water Design Manual (SW DM ). Conclusions outlined in the plan note that the density of upland development is a key contributing factor to the flooding that occurs in May Valley. The plan recommends that zoning densities not be increased above existing levels in upland areas draining to May Valley, including adopted pre -zoning for unincorporated areas to be annexed. Therefore, staff finds that the re- designation of the subject properties to a classification of R-4, with the potential of development at a higher density, would aggravate identified drainage and flooding concerns in the May Creek Drainage Basin and would be detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons located in the vicinity. d. The rezone is consistent with policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The site is designated Urban Residential -Low Density on the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The proposal is inconsistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use policies: Policy LU -51. Zoning should be applied -to areas for purposes of resource protection, when appropriate, during the annexation process. ❑ Policy Objective Met ® Not Met See discussion under Section 'e' below. Policy LU -147. Adopt urban density of at least four (4) dwelling units per net acre for residential uses except in areas with identified and documented sensitive areas and/or areas identified as urban separators. ❑ Policy Objective Met ® Not Met See discussion under Section 'c' above Policy LU -151. Base development densities should range from 1 home per 10 acres to 1 home per acre on Residential Low Density (RLD) designated land with significant environmental constraints, including but not limited to: steep slopes, erosion hazard, floodplains, and wetlands or where the area is in a designated Urban Separator. Density should be a maximum of 4-du/net acre on portions of the Residential Low Density land where these constraints are not extensive and urban densities are appropriate. ❑ Policy Objective Met ® Not Met See discussion under Section 'c' above. Policy EN -1. Prevent development on lands where development would create hazards to life, property, or environmental quality. ❑ Policy Objective Met ® Not Met See discussion under Section 'c' above. Rezone Recommendation.doc City of Renton Department of Com—nity & Economic Development Rezone Recommendation HORNE REZONE LUA 11-023, ECF Report of September 13, 2011 Page 7 of 7 e. The rezone was either not considered in the last area wide rezoning, or, since the last area wide zoning circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. While the property was not considered in the City's last area -wide rezone in 2004; the property was reviewed very thoroughly as part of the May Valley Pre -Zane -Phase I in 1996 and finally adopted by ordinance (Ord. #4667) in 1997. During that public process two public hearings were held before the City Council to discuss the possibility of the 74 acre area, which included the subject parcels, either being zoned R-1 or R-5 (since that time the R-5 zone has been replaced with the R-4 zoning designation). After months of contemplation and deliberation of drainage concerns raised earlier in this recommendation, Planning staff recommended and the Council affirmed, the pre -zoning of the subject property most appropriate with an R-1 application. The property was annexed in May of 2009, where the zoning of R-1 took effect. Since the time of annexation it does not appear that the subject property has undergone significant changes that would constitute a change from the R-1 zoning designation. 2. Consistency with the Zoning Classification The R-1 zone is established to provide and protect suitable environments for residential development of lands characterized by pervasive critical areas where limited residential development will not compromise critical areas. It is intended to implement the RLD Comprehensive Plan designation. The zone provides for suburban estate single family and clustered single family residential dwellings, at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per net acre, and allows for small scale farming associated with residential use. The R-4 zone is established to promote urban single family residential neighborhoods serviceable by urban' utilities and containing amenity open spaces. It is also intended to implement the RLD Comprehensive Plan designation. The R-4 zoning designation will allow a maximum density of four du/ac. The R-4 designation serves as a transition between rural designation zones and higher density residential zones. It is intended as an intermediate lower density residential zone. While the site is not directly encumbered by critical areas it is adjacent to a stream and drains into a large drainage basin that has been described as having moderate and extensive flooding which is exacerbated by increases in development. Moreover, the proposal would not be consistent with the R- 4 designation in that it would be considered a spot zone and would not offer a transition between rural and higher density residential zones. Based on the analysis above the subject property is most appropriately zoned R-1 and a rezone to R-4 is not supported. H. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the Horne Rezone. Rezone Recommendation.doc C6 - 34 T24N R5E E 1/2 ZONING MAP BOOK PW TECHNICAL SERVICES PRINTED ON 11/13/09 7 E6 - 10 T23N R5E E 1/2 EXHIBIT 1 D 6 03 T23N R5E E 1/2 f !CY fes' � �, ` ���;r'•'/,., l j�Lj ate" A', y Y cc Wi E 8i ,� �} �,��=-�r:•,, •-Vf.� w 't-'�w "- "J 'r•#ga =Y � pi�.�. Flt:' ;`r f•# +� c�'�a � a r 1• ! , , �+i ' ...1�-!�-�f,,�s7 h r ! sY .Ail� A , S-. •r ��Y 1 ' rT•'.'FY-i�f47 °. y,f a f . r rA.sf�' _' , / y`r✓" "� •Sid �a y 1 \ T, .,•, • 2 s � �ii`�t $? � ,':?I��Ji ■��y '■P Y N,'Hy �.. {'f �,'i ''�'%!� t `•}'^•I f �;• "r fRi�� � r 'ii .-, '� �', ;:.. � �r ��? ���'t `+S 1.4� - sE � a j- •tv. _ " �' � i�." 4 : r�up•�," »+,:'- '4: y;�'.r`' � "7 k .ry! *� `(•, !F;'•yi /� r '-� rA,,f �F �,:�u.?r�Y r �,.r . b' � i�� • ��� q�f r r y , '"tR. �r rPT �.. k` •. E• .r s ' , �• 5 4. r�t.y•�. " i� 'IIL :�Ci. �•;� ,4+ 4 y r. ��' '�}'.t itivgS V' �� •tet �_P� I,`��f; �« v ;f ,1�1? r .a��,, t"�� �y�, �. ':f'i�tr;lYY� f•� � »� f -1N �Ir'� »'yy�� � .j�'�q�' K�`�'.�,s j t� �9�.iY}:,. Ale 1.4 qo " y !�" �.4 t r V e ro. '• ` Vii' { *7d' YS 1t ~`'1'..- i x `'sa'••S . „Ip •YJ/J� f(/ ,� r�''Sj���'#"' t I�i' �y ',�,rjF�{q.�,�.C�'� �Fa'•��f� .� �-.� c... _� •a 4.0 rV •' k• y�' f V *'SL"y//� "`t�1`;I! '+C.� ��,�,�{•• - ��mlii�w•� � 1p� ! 1■}�, uT' ? 1_ ,� tPs7? � � , � tam ��„a. 2 ,asry�;4•t`",,� t R .r ,t _ _ •1••c,. -4 1V Y�,Y'Ik ry � I A' . YsS i _./ •. s} • ��y�,�, xit i #•ryyy� .A f•. `im 1aL 4 F}."` 'x `.'kir ��•�I1 •4:'� 4 it �j'�} S �Yi, t,'s 1 �'�' �f�itil •t'�� !1'rr.`. p.1 ; dl'.. T -:Sr yl�:'�.i.l;. +,iaa �.+_:1?�14e�. •."t.'-- mv •Q'"'[ ...Y y' L., �' , k. - {� �ii �t r 'j - `4' • i i r .'�. t �, .1'y -�' 1 1. "! � �i ���[%' ,r ( � S ► �. f � / sq .. ,py �ify��� � � • 'I.°ate � k:::r 1'+: J �,.' - c+; n�',�. �(3'i�r� I �r,, I � , Y � r'` ,L� / �p" j� � ♦' •17�''� "� � t, "� t1J �.o � .. ;i• '� ' 'r'�+ l 44: t!'�a +.1.t "f �"`, ? Y�,•�;,;r:�i.�� � u 'L•.'!• � � r � r �.i'.Y•�� {}.rte r.I'/��' �� t. ..�� j+q.'.l y1 hE�� Y' �-1 �{Y•_ �,,, w* ,.,.. ,;.fit. ��.��� .'`..lr � �: ' , (�} •�`,`�_.F1� , �. M'... ^ � �; •'4 '+.q{ v +`" •moi �)��i Ir., 9 Aftw 11 IV �f ,f y �,r.r �!-. �� _��,� .t,P.• �i.'� ����'1� _;:_� � �.a r,{+.t; `{S' j-G-A•�. Y� 1�' J 1I a 'Fj�!•�5r e. Yrj�• 'i�•:i i' ' �� r . �Y s ��I` ^ bar' `LyS,li Isi� Al ' •.^� ,�'� '"' S �i. �*, _ .:6-.'I J ' x•e. r t �C L . 11`3'' +x' S`�.S'J �'�l v Y �Ir� I�� � l � e�. ,. S `.Wi +rf� ,V '� .+ ��4 • � �: t'P '""s�45� I;� ';�Y kAMA wif�„ala ci rL IVA �` S k I f+^•'1 r .t 1''A" r!� „moi 'i.+"�}"!, ',�� .�:. �i ..Ji ';0 ��w•_ �;. _ '-.•„�. Roca[e Timmons From: Messina, Madonna [madonna@consultcascade.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 5:02 AM To: Rocale Timmons Subject: No Home Resone Dear Ms. Timmons, Our family owns lot 45 in the Stonegate development and would be greatly affected by the development plan named the Horne Rezone. Please consider the expressions of concern on behalf of our neighborhood that you have received as well as ours which echo the others in our community. Namely, We are opposed to higher density housing in this area, which we believe is inconsistent with the "Rural" nature of .this area. • We are opposed to increased traffic on Lyons Avenue that would result from this development. + We are opposed to smaller lot development that abuts our frontage which is inconsistent with the overall design standards of our neighborhood. • We are opposed to any additional access points to the neighborhood which could propose a threat to overall security. + We are opposed to any negative environmental impacts relating to development occurring adjacent to sensitive areas. • We are opposed to the City of Renton's "strong encouragement" of site design that uses alleys for access in R-4 zones. Thank you for considering our request, M.M. Madonna Messina Cascade Business Group, LLC Phone: 425-785-1354 Fax: 425-228-2260 Email: Mad onnaCcDconsultcascade.com Web: www.consuitcascade.com Your Partner for Business Improvement Strategies and Implementation tt*# #r*++tt# tt,t*i***-krr*,ttr*�*ra.t*t+r+,t*i-k�-++rf.i.it*ir,rt**,t+,tw�*i.,t#sr#ttttretkir*,tkkirt+-t+ttt�*+-k*kkir�* This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed in the message body. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender and delete it from your files immediately. EXHIBIT 3-A Rocale Timmons From: sbslaton@comcast.net Sent: Friday, July 15, 20115:36 PM To: Rocale Timmons Subject: MacKay annexation Dear Ms. Timmons, My family and I live in Stonegate which is adjacent to the Mackay annexation. The building of new developments is always hard on those currently living in the area. I'm sure it was difficult for those living around Stonegate when our neighborhood was built. Now it's our neighborhood's turn to be concerned. That said, I am trying to balance the reality of inevitable development versus our personal desire to keep things as they are. When I balance the two, our main concern is regarding the density of the proposed development. 'Currently, the houses in the area of Stonegate and along 148t4 are on larger lots. The proposed development is' inconsistent with the look and feel of Stonegate and the houses along 1481h which are rural in nature. Additionally, the proposed development would create higher density abutting and within the entrance to, our neighborhood creating an overall inconsistent design and standard for our neighborhood: We are a neighborhood that has prided itself on a community feel and have appreciated the recent grants from the City of Renton to build a community park with our own labor. Finally, we are concerned about additional access points into our neighborhood which could result in increased crime. Currently, our neighborhood has one point of entry and exit. Additional entry points will increase traffic and potential crime. I hope the City of Renton will consider the concerns of existing families when considering the desires of developers to maximize their profit. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Susan and Dan Slaton EXHIBIT 3-B 1 Rocale Timmons From: urban separator [urbanseparator@hotmail.com[ Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 11:45 AM To: Rocale Timmons Subject: rezone May Geek Basin Action Plan (adopted April 2001) of which City of Renton was a Co -participant and subsequently ratified by city council states: "Require Full Mitigation for Future Increases in Zoning Density in Areas Draining to May Valley" in East Renton Plateau and Highlands subareas. (Summary of Recommendations number 17 page 3-2, May CreekAdion Plan 200I) Figure 3-1 shows the subject property in the East Renton Plateau subarea. "In areas draining to May Creek or any of its tributaries upstream ..., existing zoning densities (including adopted pre - zoning for unicorporated areas to be annexed) should not be increased unless a qualified hydrological analysis demonstrates that stormwater runoff peaks and volumes can be fully mitigated to pre -developed conditions." (pages 3-27 & 3-28, May Creek Action Plan 2001) EXHIBIT 3-C 10415 — 147"' Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 August 1, 2011 Ms. Rocale Timmons Planning Dept. City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Horner Rezone —LUA 11-023 Dear Ms. Timmons: CRY OF RENTON AUG 012013 RECEIVED CITY CLERK`S OFFICE Please accept this letter and documents as my comments regarding the Horner Rezone. Two comments that I have previously mentioned to you — about notifying residents of this proposed rezone and posting signs notifying the public of this possible rezone are included in this letter. Maybe the Hearing Examiner cares about following state law. As I told you, a family living across from this proposed rezone was not notified by Renton officials of this rezone proposal. The address of this property is 10032 —148th Avenue SE. I looked at your list of people who received notice — this family is not listed. I provided notice to them on July 22. Does this make a difference? DOE was notified that Renton didn't follow state law. The second item involves posting notices in appropriate places. You stated that Renton follows SEPA rules when it comes to posting notices. This is what 1 found under WAC 197-11-510 regarding posting notices (the SEPA Help Desk said this): (2) Each agency shall specify its method of public notice in its SEPA procedures, WAC 197-11-904 and 197-11-906. If an agency does not specify its method of public notice or does not adopt SEPA procedures, the agency shall use methods (a) and (b) in subsection M. Public notice. (1) When these rules require notice to be given under this section, the lead agency must use reasonable methods to inform the public and other agencies that an environmental document is being prepared or is available and that public hearing(s), if any, will be held. The agency may use its existing notice procedures. Examples of reasonable methods to inform the public are: (a) Posting the property, for site-specific proposals; EXHIBIT 3-D (P9 1 of 40) Rocale Timmons From: Karen Walter [KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2.011 12:15 PM To: Rocale Timmons Subject: Horne rezone, LUA11-023, ECF, R, Determination of Non -Significance Rocale, The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has reviewed the threshold determination and environmental checklist for the above referenced project. We have some questions about the project as noted below: 1. Will it be possible to rezone the property with the proposed R-4 zoning and 12 parcels without affecting the existing wetlands (noted in DNS) and streams (noted in checklist) and their buffers? If not, then the project should be modified so that the affected wetlands and stream and their buffers are fully protected per Renton's critical areas regulations. 2. The checklist references a stream 12' to 25'west of the site; however, there is no reference to the wetlands in the checklist referenced in the DNS. Please clarify. We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal and look forward to the City's responses. We may have additional comments subsequently. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015172nd Ave SE Aubum, WA 98092 253-876-3116 EXHIBIT 3-E Rocale Timmons Associate Planner City of Renton RE: Home Rezone Dear Ms. Timmons, Cify Q gton r ri A --vision QVC, °5.�.. I am opposed to the proposed change in zoning from R-1 to R-4 in the Home Rezone for the following reasons. From the 2001 May Creek Basin Action Plan http://,our,killgCOLITIty, ov/dnrp/library12001 /kc.r726/FI-NTAL-Mav-Creek-Basin-Plan-4- 16-01.pdf; "Much of the, erosion and sediment transport in May Creek is a result of development in the basin. The May Creek basin continues to provide high quality tributary habitat to the Lake Washington watershed; however, use of May Creek by salmon and other wildlife is declining due to habitat loss, erosion, sedimentation, and deteriorating water quality. As more development occurs throughout the basin, many of these problems are anticipated to worsen". Page 1- 1. • The density of upland development is a key contributing factor to the flooding that occurs in May Valley. The plan recommends that zoning densities not be. increased above existing levels in upland areas draining to May Valley, including adopted pre -zoning for unincorporated areas to be annexed". Page 1-6, emphasis added. • "Collectively, impacts associated with human activities have reduced the habitat value of local streams, which has reduced the capacity of the May Creek system to support migratory and resident salmonids. These impacts also increase the risks to the quality of underground drinking water supplies, -critical to residents of the basin and the City of Renton." Page 2-7. Puget Sound Chinook salmon and steelhead are listed in the Endangered Species Act (ESA): • "Runoff from future development is expected to cause an increase in flood volumes in the valley, resulting in longer durations -of floodwater inundation and, greater frequency of flooding". Page 2-8. • "Although the Basin Action Plan accepts existing zoning (including adopted pre - zoning for unincorporated areas to be annexed) in the areas draining to May Creek upstream of the Coal Creek Parkway bridge as a legitimate response to the variety of concerns affecting land use decisions, it recommends that densities in these areas be increased only if a qualified hydrologic analysis demonstrates that hydrologic impacts can be fully mitigated. This would include mitigating all flow- related impacts from development with regard to the entire range of peak flows, flow durations, storm water volumes and impacts on groundwater recharge." Page'3-30. To my knowledge this has not been done. EXHIBIT 3-F (pg 1 of 6) Hillis HC� /{ P Clark MV � Mar€in8 W. -O 1Cei Peterson P.S. August 5, Z011 Via Frriai! (rrrmmons &entonwa.gnv) and U.S. Mail Current Planning Division Departtneat of Community & Lconomic Development City of Renton 1055 S, Grady Way, 6th Floor Renton, WA 98057 Re: Proposed Hone ReLorle, C.ily Prvled No. LUA11-023, ECF, R Ladies and Gentlemen: 'Dur firm represeats the Stonegate Homeowners Association (°'the Association"), whose inembers reside in the immediate vicinity of the 12 parcels (totaling 420 acres) seeking zoning reclassification from R-1 to R-4 under the above -referenced project number. The Horne rezone proposal is scheduled for consideration before the City Hearing Examiner on August 16th. The Association opposes the proposed Horne rezone and urges the City staff to recommend denial of the application. The proposed application utterly fails to satisfy the rezone criteria set forth in RMC: § 4-9-180(F)(2)- 1. Applicable Rezone Standards. The properties included in the Horne rezone request are all. designated RLD (Residential Lo -%v Density) on the City's adopted Comprehensive Harr Map. Both the R-1 and R-4 zones are intended to implement the RLD designation. RMC §§ 4-2-020(C) sad (D). The Home rezone proposal therefore does not require a comprehensive plan amendment. Accordingly, the yardstick for evaluating the Home rezone proposal is set forth in RMC § 4-9-1 B0(F)(2), as follows (emphasis supplied): 2. Criteria for Rezones Not Requiring Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The Reviewing Official shall snake the following findings: a. The re, -one h h, the public inlrrrst, and b, The rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner, and c. The more it uolsrnlerially dead nerrlal1016& prfGli, iixlfan of the proper2ier of Werperranr lotated in the niarrily tlurr!of, and 1221 second Aveme, suite Soo 1 Seattle, WA 98103- 205.623 k745 h.2fi6.623 7789 1 Acmp con T-11 M E R ITA 5 EXHIBIT 3-G (pg 1 of 6) Rocale Timmons From: Debra Rogers [herogers@com cast net] Sent: Friday, Augdst 05, 2011 3:16 PM To: Rocale Timmons Subject: Re PROPOSED LAND USE ACTION ADJACENT TO STONEGATE Attachments: mackay annexation.pdf, ORD 4667.pdf Dear Ms. Timmons, Please see my thoughts below regarding the Horne Rezone request. I hope to get a paper copy of the below and the documents mentioned (} to you as we -11 today before or by 5prn. Sincerely, Debra Rogers 425-271-8668 »»»»»»»> August 5, 2011 To Whom it nay Concern, I am writing regarding the land use application that has been filed at the City of Renton, File Number LUA11- 023, ECF, R where the applicant has requested the City of Renton to increase deni.sity zoning from the current Rl designation to R4 for this area. I atn Debra Rogers and I live at 5326 NE 22nd Court, Renton WA 98059 in the neighborhood of Stonegate which borders the western side of the above mentioned area. I would like to support the position of the Stonegate Homeowners Association Board which has stated opposition to the rezone based on the following: They are opposed..... -to higher density housing in this area, which we believe is inconsistent with the "rural" nature of this area- -to increased traffic on Lyons Avenue that would result from this development. -to any additional access points to the neighborhood which could propose a threat to overall security. -to any negative environmental impacts relating to development occurring adjacent to sensitive areas. -to the City of Renton's "strong cneouragement" of site design that uses alleys for access in R-4 zones.. In addition to the above, I would like to mention that these properties are in the "May Creek Basin Area" which has specific protections and that the recommendations from the city of Renton state regarding that plan that the area east of Coal Creek not be rezoned to a higher density due to the negative environmental impacts that would cause. As well, the City of Renton Planning/Building/Public works memorandum dated October 4th, 1996 for the May Valley R Prezone - Phase 1 (copy, enclos(-,d) specifically points out Greens Creek which runs along the western side of this proposed rezone area as a creek very sensitive to additional impacts that would result from higher than Rl density and therefore advised against firture up zones for this area. In June 1997 the City of Renton Ordinance 4667 (copy enclosed) established the zoning classification of these same properites that were being annexed to the City of Renton to Residential 1 DU/AC (R-1). (May Valley Prezone -Phase I; File No. A-96-004). EXHIBIT 3-H (pg 1 of 19) A313 A 11 :�� Z .8 9co "o x c � r- .13 Sin ti. p 5 5 q F SU:; N vrq o c'u ri u s yq $ Z U a � CL o � Q 0.W a•g °' °' p� c a�'�za�„c� y � O� • � � � R cd �. w � � � R OD o c� U ' o V ` i.t����• �..� o o w 3 a' R. c cd -d ml r. Z o y rGPMG "O � O � � 3 • � � Qui y j, � p � � dW, C14 0 WQ=ri: °Go�� oma, z Ute. C C -r V�•U �,.� y��z � � y �y .w � o V1 ��•., �� Off, -� ���W can; c o� CL wtA r. rm CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 22nd day of August, 2011,1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Notice of Public hearing date change documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Tom Redding Contact Ed Horne Applicant Newfourth LLC Owner Dennis Rattie POR Debra Rogers POR Bryan & Kendra Vadney POR Madonna Messina POR Bruce Christopherson POR Claudia Donnelly POR Richard Wilson POR Karen Walter POR 300' Surrounding Property Owners See attached (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON ) " ) SS COUNTY OF KING } �. AilL'w I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for t mentioned in the instrument. Dated: Notary/Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): P . A- & fa Ler My appointment expires: ALI k5} ? 41 PO 13 Project Name: Horne Rezone Project Number: LUA11-023, ECF, R es 523000001009 803540051007 803540002000 ANDERSON PAULINE+RONALD LEE BOYDSTON TAMIE BYUS DEAN T TTI+KIERSTEN G 10205 148TH AVE SE 2508 LYONS AVE NE 5602 NE 26TH ST RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 803540043004 803540053003 523000012006 CHAPPELLE DOUGLAS & CAROL CHRISTOPHERSON BRUCE K COSTANTINI MAURICE ]+JENNY 2208 LYONO AVE 5502 NE 24TH CT 10228 147TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 NEWCASTLE WA 98059 523000003005 032305922406 803540048003 DOVEY CHARLES ] FELLABAUM MATTHEW+BETSY FOHRELL WILLIAM B & JAN E 10227 148TH SE 2411 NILE AVE NE 2400 LYONS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 803540006001 032305919402 803540049001 FRIEDRICH HOWARD R+BARBARA GROWTH CAPITAL PARTNERS II HENRY MICHAEL+HEIDI 2401 LYONS AVE NE 1411 4TH AVE #850 2406 LYONS AVE NE RENTON WA 98059 SEATTLE WA 98101 RENTON WA 98059 032305921903 803540046007 803540005003 HORNE WILLIAM E LIVING TR HUDGINS DAVID ]+KELLY A KIM BARO HORNE WILLIAM E+MARY A TTEE 2302 LYONS AVE NE 5500 NE 26TH ST 5604 NE 24TH ST RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 022305909404 803540052005 803540001002 KOZIOL KERRY B LARSON DAVID TROY LIEN LAURIE A 10202 148TH SE 5505 NE 24TH CT 29928 PACIFIC HWY S RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98059 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 032305925706 032305910807 803540045009 MACKAY PAUL F JR+TAMMY L MERRITT MICHAEL M+CYNTHIA L MESSINA MARC & MADONNA 5625 NE 26TH ST 2505 LYONS AVE NE 2218 LYONS AVE NE RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 803540047005 523000016007 523000013004 MUTTART GEORGE M+GINGER A R NAGEL MAXINE M OKESON CHRISTINA M 2310 LYONS AVE NE 10217 147TH AVE SE 10218 147TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 803540050009 803540003008 032305919303 REAMY ELIZABETH A+REAMY SALAS MELISSA ORANGE DAVID T CHARLES L III C/O WILLOUGHBY 2357 NILE AVE NE 2502 LYONS AVE NE 5512 NE 26TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 032305919907 523000018003 022305908901 SCOFIELD JONATHAN N SHARP MICHAEL+NINA SIMON RANDY K+KAREN S 14701 SE 100TH ST 12824 SE 265TH ST 6947 COAL CREEK PKWY SE RENTON WA 98059 KENT WA 98050 RENTON WA 98059 523000014002 SMITH NORMAN W 14705 SE 102ND ST RENTON WA 98059 523000002007 TERAMANTA 10217 148TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 803540044002 WINN STEPHEN G 2212 LYONS AVE NE NEWCASTLE WA 98059 803540004006 SPIER ROBERT+MONIQUE BLOCH 5506 NE 26TH ST RENTON WA 98059 022305907507 TSEGAY TSEGE+AYELE KIDANE 10008 148TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 803540055008 STONEGATE HOMEOWNERS ASSOC PO BOX 2691 RENTON WA 98056 523000017005 TUPOU ELIZABETH 10221 147TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 of RESCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON The Public Hearing before the Renton Hearing Examiner, previously scheduled on August 30, 2011 has been rescheduled to September 20 2011 at 10:00 a.m. In the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington to consider the following petitions: Horne Rezone FILE NO. LUA11-023, ECF, R LOCATION: Along the west side of Nile Ave NE, just south of May Valley Road. DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a rezone for 12 single family lots from the R-1 to the R-4 zoning designation. The 12 parcels consists of 7.37 acres of area and is located along the eastern boundary of the city just south of 5E May Valley Road adjacent/abutting Nile Ave NE. The project area is encumbered by steep slopes and wetlands. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE PROJECT MANAGER, ROCALE TIMMONS AT 425-430-7219 DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. RCMP Ma is Clark Martin & Low Offices Peterson P.S. August 16, 2011 City of Renton c/o Bonnie Walton Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 CITY OF RENTON AUG 17 20111 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Re: Horne Re, -one Application; Cite Project No. LUA 11-023, ECF, R Dear Ms. Walton: I am enclosing for filing in the above -referenced matter, our Notice of Appearance, Stonegate Homeowners Association's Motion to Continue Rezone Hearing, and Declaration of Richard R. Wilson in Support of Stonegate Homeowners Association's Motion to Continue Rezone Hearing. 'thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, �� (3, � � Karla A. Holmes Assistant to Richard R. Wilson RRW:kah E-Nlaih rrw@hcmp.com hcmp.com Direct Dial- (206) 470-7604 Fax (206) 623-7789 Enclosures cc: (w/encl.) Ed Horne Newfourth LLC Tom Redding 1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500 1 Seattle, WA 98101 1 206.623.1745 1 f:206.623.7789 I hcmp.com TIT M E R ITAS ?h PFvi ',:ORt DV!'DE ti i k 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER In re Horne Rezone Application CITY PROJECT NO. LUA 11-023, ECF, R NOTICE OF APPEARANCE TO: THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TO: ED HORNE, APPLICANT AND TO: NEWFOURTH LLC, OWNER AND TO: TOM REDDING, APPLICANT'S CONTACT Stonegate Homeowners Association hereby makes appearance in the above -entitled matter by and through the undersigned 'attorneys, and hereby requests that service of all further pleadings and papers in this cause, except original process, be made upon the Sionegate Homeowners Association's Notice of Appearance - Page I of 2 Hii.Lls CLARK MARTIN & PE'T'ERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 .;r 1' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 undersigned attorneys at their address below stated. DATED this 16th day of August, 2011. HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. BIL&. Richard R. Wilson, WSBA #6952 Attorneys for Stonegate Homeowners Association CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that on this day she caused a copy of this document to be mailed to the last known address of each of the parties listed above. 1 certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington and the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED this > day of August, 2011, at Seattle, Washington. Karla A. olmes I#315152 11101-271 &68031.doc 8116111 Stonegate Homeowners Association's Notice of Appearance - Page 2 of 2 HILUS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER In re Horne Rezone Application I CITY PROJECT NO. LUA11-023, ECF, R STONEGATE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION'S MOTION TO CONTINUE REZONE HEARING I. RELIEF REQUESTED The Stonegate Homeowners Association ("the Association"), by and through its attorneys of record, hereby moves the Examiner for an order continuing the Examiner's public hearing on the Horne rezone proposal from the currently -scheduled August 30th hearing date to an early date after September 7, 2011, but excluding September 16th or 23rd. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Background of Horne Rezone Scheduling, The Horne rezone application is a proposal by the owners of 12 parcels in northeast Renton to rezone their properties, totaling 7.37 acres, from the City's R-1 classification to the R-4 zone. On June 23, 2011, the City's Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED") notified the applicants' contact that DCED deemed the Horne rezone application complete. Thereafter, DCED issued a public notice setting the matter for a public Stonegate Homeowners Association's Motion for Continuance - Page 1 of 5 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 hearing before the Examiner on August 16, 2011. The following events then occurred in short order; • Before the close of the comment period on August 5th, the undersigned counsel for the Association submitted a timely comment letter to DCED opposing the Horne rezone. • The Association's counsel also requested on August 5th that he be made a party of record in the Horne rezone proceedings. • Also on August 5, 2011, the undersigned counsel learned that the rezone hearing had been postponed at the applicants' request to August 30th. • Again on August 5th, the undersigned e-mailed Rocale Timmons, DCED's project contact on the Horne rezone, requesting that the rezone hearing be rescheduled after August 30th because of counsel's unavailability on that date. • On Monday, August 8th, Ms. Timmons notified the undersigned by telephone that the rezone applicants would not agree to a further postponement, but that counsel's request for a continuance had been referred to her supervisor. • On Thursday, August 1 lth, counsel learned from a member of the Association that Ms. Timmons had informed him that DCED did not believe it had authority to grant counsel's request for a continuance. This motion for a continuance has therefore 1011116=11 B. Counsel's Unavailability on August 30th. Counsel for the Association was available to attend, and planned to attend, the scheduled August 16th rezone hearing. However, the undersigned counsel will be out of state on a long -planned vacation on the East Coast on August 30, leaving Washington State on Thursday, August 25th, and not returning until Tuesday, September 6th. As a result, the first feasible date that the Association's counsel could attend a Horne rezone hearing after reasonable preparation would be Thursday, September 8th. The Association's counsel is Stonegate Homeowners Association 's Motion for y I L L I S CLARK MARTIN & Continuance - Page 2of5 PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 01.2 available to attend a rezone hearing on any September date thereafter, with the exceptions of Friday, September 16th, and Friday, September 23rd. There is no other attorney in the undersigned counsel's office who could reasonably appear for the Association in the undersigned's absence at an August 30th rezone hearing. C. The Association Has Standing to Oppose the Horne Rezone and Will Be Significantly Affected by It, The Association's participation in the Horne rezone hearing is of the utmost importance. The Association is composed of the owners of all 53 lots in Stonegate and represents the interests of those owners, The Stonegate community abuts the Horne rezone properties and is located immediately north, west, and southwest thereof. The lot owners in Stonegate will be aggrieved and will sustain perceptible injury to their economic, environmental, and aesthetic interests, if the Horne rezone is granted, • Such injury to their economic interests includes a potential decline in the property values of their Stonegate lots if the Horne rezone is granted and those properties are thereafter developed with higher -density housing out of keeping with the character of the Stonegate community, also currently zoned R -l. • Such injury to their environmental interests includes potential damage to the Stonegate stream and its buffers (Tract F of the plat of Stonegate) that runs in a generally north - south direction on the easterly edge of Stonegate and directly abuts two of the properties included in the Horne rezone application. Again, more intensive R-4 residential development on the Horne rezone properties could result in environmental degradation of that stream corridor. • Such injury to their aesthetic interests includes the potential development of higher - density housing that is out of character with the more bucolic nature of the Stonegate community. In addition, the Association itself owns an access tract (Tract I of the plat of Stonegate) that runs in an east -west direction through the middle of the Horne rezone area. Stonegate Homeowners Association's Motion for H I L L I S CLARK MARTIN & Continuance - Page 3 of 5 PETERSON, P, S, 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 3t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 While this Tract I is not included in the Horne rezone proposal, R-4 zoning on either side of this tract would likely result in development of higher -density housing not favored by the Association or its members because of its incompatibility with the surrounding Stonegate community Consequently, the Association opposes the Horne rezone and desires to register its opposition at the public hearing on the requested rezone through its undersigned counsel, III. STATEMENT OF ISSUE Should the Examiner continue the Horne rezone hearing to September 8, 2011, or an early date thereafter? IV. EVIDENCE RELIED UPON The Association relies on the attached Declaration of Richard R. Wilson. 0' 11t111111101$],11111.1 The Renton Municipal Code is silent as to the Examiner's authority to grant continuances or postponements of hearings. But both judicial and quasi-judicial officers routinely grant continuances to accommodate the availability of counsel, where no prejudice to another party is shown. Here, the Horne rezone applicants can demonstrate no prejudice to their application for a speculative rezone, if a relatively brief continuance is granted. In accordance with state law, a rezone application in Renton must be finally decided within 120 days after the application is complete, unless the mayor determines that there are extenuating circumstances that require a longer processing period. RMC 4-8-080(D); RMC 4-8-050(B)(12); RCW 36.70B.080(i). The Horne rezone application was deemed complete on June 23, 2011. The 120 -day processing period will therefore expire on October 21, 2011. Granting a brief continuance of the open -record hearing before the Examiner to a September date will still allow ample time for the Examiner to render a recommendation, and for the City Council to make a final decision on this rezone. See RMC 4-8-080(G) (Type IV — site-specific rezones). Stonegate Homeowners Association 's Motion for H I I. i. I s CLARK MARTIN & Continuance - Page 4 of 5 PETERSON, P. S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Accordingly, the Examiner has ample authority to grant, and should grant, the Association's request for a brief continuance of the Horne rezone hearing. DATED this 16th day of August, 2011. HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. - INh Byh )L Richar R. Wilson, WSBA #6952 Attorneys for Stonegate Homeowners Association 4315152 11101-271 6r6803?.doc 6116/11 Stonegate Homeowners Association's Motion for Continuance - Page 5 of 5 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 99101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER In re Horne Rezone Application I CITY PROJECT NO. LUA11-023, ECF, R DECLARATION OF RICHARD R. WILSON IN SUPPORT OF STONEGATE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION'S MOTION TO CONTINUE REZONE HEARING RICHARD R. WILSON, pursuant to RCW 9A.72.085, declares that: 1. I am over the age of 18 years and competent to be a witness in this matter. I have personal knowledge of the matters attested to herein. 2. I am an attorney with the Seattle law firm of Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. Our firm is counsel to the Stonegate Homeowners Association with respect to the proposed Horne rezone in Renton. 3. The Horne rezone application is a proposal by the owners of 12 parcels in northeast Renton to rezone their properties, totaling 7.37 acres, from the City's R-1 classification to the R-4 zone. Attached as EXHIBIT A hereto is a true and correct copy of a letter dated June 23, 2011, from Rocale Timmons of Renton's Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED") notifying the applicants' contact that DCED deems the Horne rezone application t6 be complete. Attached as EXHI'BI'T B hereto is a true and correct Wilson Declaration in Support of Stonegate HDA 's H i L f. I s CLARK MARTIN & Motion for Continuance - Page 1 of 4 PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 copy of the public notice issued by DCED for the Horne rezone, setting the matter for a public hearing before the Examiner on August 16, 2011. Both Exhibits A and B were copied from DCED's public file on the Horne rezone. 4. Thereafter, the following events occurred in short order: • Before the close of the comment period on August 5th, I submitted a timely comment letter to DCED on behalf of the Association opposing the Horne rezone. • I also requested on August 5th to be made a party of record in the Horne rezone proceedings. • Also on August 5, 2011, I learned that the rezone hearing had been postponed at the applicants' request to August 30th. + Again on August 5th, I e-mailed Rocale Timmons, DCED's project contact on the Horne rezone, requesting that the rezone hearing be rescheduled after August 30th because of counsel's unavailability on that date. Attached as EXHIBIT C hereto is a true and correct copy of that e-mail message. + On Monday, August 8th, Ms. Timmons notified me by telephone that the rezone applicants would not agree to a further postponement, but that my request for a continuance had been referred to her supervisor. • On Thursday, August 1 lth, I learned from a member of the Association that Ms. Timmons had informed him that DCED did not believe it had authority to grant counsel's request for a continuance. 5. 1 was available to attend, and planned to attend, the scheduled August 16th rezone hearing. However, I will be out of state on August 30, on a long -planned vacation on the East Coast, leaving Washington State on Thursday, August 25th, and not returning home until Tuesday, September 6th. As a result, the first feasible date that I could attend a Horne rezone hearing after reasonable preparation would be Thursday, September 8th. Wilson Declaration in Support of Stonegate HDA 's H I f, I s CLARK Motion for Continuance - Page 2 of 4 Pt,TEKsorl,P..Sa R T i N& S. �.. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 96101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I am available to attend a rezone hearing on any September date thereafter, with the exceptions of Friday, September 16th, and Friday, September 23rd. 6. Because of vacation schedules and conflicting legal matters, there is no other attorney in my office who could reasonably appear for the Association in my absence at an August 30th rezone hearing. 7. The Association's participation in the Horne rezone hearing is of the utmost importance. The Association is composed of the owners of all 53 lots in Stonegate and represents the interests of those owners. The Stonegate community abuts the Horne rezone properties and is located immediately north, west, and southwest thereof. 8. The lot owners in Stonegate will be aggrieved and will sustain perceptible injury to their economic, environmental, and aesthetic interests, if the Horne rezone is granted. Such injury to their economic interests includes a potential decline in the property values of their Stonegate lots if the Horne rezone is granted and those properties are thereafter developed with higher -density housing out of keeping with the character of the Stonegate community, also currently zoned R -l. 9. Such injury to their environmental interests includes potential damage to the Stonegate stream and its buffers (Tract F of the plat of Stonegate) that runs in a generally north -south direction on the easterly edge of Stonegate and directly abuts two of the properties included in the Horne rezone application. Again, more intensive R-4 residential development on the Horne rezone properties could result in environmental degradation of that stream corridor. 10. Such injury to their aesthetic interests includes the potential development of higher -density housing that is out of character with the more bucolic nature of the Stonegate community. 11. In addition, the Association itself owns an access tract (Tract I of the plat of Stonegate) that runs in an east -west direction through the middle of the Horne rezone area. While this Tract I is not included in the Horne rezone proposal, R-4 zoning on either side of Wilson Declaration in Support of Stonegate HOA 's H I L L l S CLARK MARTIN & Motion far Continuance - Page 3 of PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7769 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 14 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 this tract would likely result in development of higher -density housing not favored by the Association or its members because of its incompatibility with the surrounding Stonegate community. 12. 1 certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED at Seattle, Washington, this 16th day of August, 2011. ] W Richard R. ilson 4315152 11101-271 6r68U3!.doe 8116111 Wilson Declaration in Support ofStonegate HOA 's Motion for Continuance - Page 4 of 4 HiLt,ls CLARK MARTIN & PETE=RSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 Denis"Law `— City of; Mayor I , ! �� �" r ,� of Y (J. Department of Community and Economic. Development lune 23, 2011 Alex Pietsch, Administrator Tom Redding Encompass Engineering and -Surveying . 165 NE Juniper St, Ste 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 su.bject:... Notice of Cara lete Application Horne Rezone; LUA11-023, ECF, R Dear Mr. -Redding: The Planning Division of the City of; Renton has determined, that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements a'nd, therefore, is accepted for• review.. It is. tentatively. scheduled for: consideration. by the..Environmental (SEPA) Review Committee•on July'11, 2011. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional ihforn'iation is required to continue processing your application. In addition, this matter is tentatively.'scheduled fog a Public Hearing on August 2, 2011 _ at 1:00 p.m., Council Chambers; Seventh Floor, Renton City Hail, •1055 South Grady Way, ;. Renton. The public "hearing. would be rescheduled in the event of a revision, by the Environmental Review Committee, to .the• threshold" determination or a SEPA appeal'. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to -be pre -sent at the public hearing. A copy.of the staff report will be mailed to you Prior to the scheduled hearing. Please contact me at (425) 43"0-7219 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Roc le Timmons As ociate Planner, cc: Newfourth LLt[Owner(s) Ed Horne / Applicant Parties of Record File No. LUA11-023 Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057• rentonWa.gov OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Horne Rezone PROJECT NUMBER: LUAU -023, ECF, R LOCATION: Along the west side of Nile Ave NE, Just south of May Valley Road. DESCRIPTION: The applicant Is requesting a rezone for 12 single family lots from the R-1 to the R-4 zoning designation. The 12 parcels consists of 7.37 acres of area and is located along the eastern boundary of the city just south of SE May Valley Road adjacent/abutting Nile Ave NE. The project area Is encumbered by steep slopes and wetlands. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Comments and appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. an August 5, 2011. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.8. 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 HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON AUGUST 16, 2011 AT 1:00 PM TO CONSIDER THE REZONE. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 15 APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper fife identification. Richard Wilson From: Richard Wilson Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 12:11 PM To: Rocale Timmons (rtimmons@rentonwa.gov) Cc: Dennis Rattle Subject: New Hearing Date for Horne Rezone Ms, Timmons, I have just learned that the Horne rezone applicants have apparently asked that the August 16th hearing before the Hearing Examiner be postponed to a future date, currently undetermined. My client the Stonegate Homeowners Association wishes me to appear at the rezone hearing on its behalf. I will be out of the office on vacation from Thursday, August 25th, through Tuesday, Sept. 6 (back in my office on Wed. Sept. 7). So I request that the rezone hearing be rescheduled on or after September 7th, so that I may participate. Thank you for your consideration of my request. Richard R. Wilson Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S. 1.221 Second Avenue I Suite 500 1 Seattle, WA 98101 d: 206.470.7604 1 206.623.1745 1 f: 206.623.7769 rrw@hcmn.com I www.hcmo.corn I ward �xq 1-6 IT- C 10415 —147" Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 August 10, 2011 Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Horner Rezone Dear Mr. Hearing Examiner: On August 9, I received notice in the mail that the hearing for the Horner Rezone — which had been set for August 16 at I pm, was postponed to August 30. 1 have already provided documents to your office regarding this proposed rezone. 1 was planning on being present to testify about this area. However, with the date moved to August 30, 1 will be unable to attend. My family and 1 will be leaving on August 23 for an 8 -day vacation to the East Coast — arriving back home at 10 pm on August 31. 1 sent Ms. Timmons a note asking for procedures to call in so that I can participate. She said 1 needed to contact you. She also said that she would email me the "report" so that I could look at it on the East Coast. would like to bring something else to your attention. State SEPA laws states about posting notices around the proposed property: WAC 197-11-510 states regarding ostia notices the SEPA Help Desk also said !Lisjh (2) Each agency shall specify its method of public notice _in_its SEPA procedures, WAC 197-11-904 and 197-11-906. If an agency does not specify its method of public notice or does not ado t SEPA procedures, the agency shall use methods a and b in subsection Public notice. (1) When these rules require notice to be given under this section, the lead .agency must else reasonable minform methods to the public and other agencies that an environmental document is being re aced or is available and that public hearing(s), if any, will be held. The agency may use its existing notice procedures. Evamples of reasonable methods to inform the public are City of Renton Planning Division (a) Posting -the j2ro,2ertX,or site -s eci c ro osaIs The Growth Mana ement Act also states — regarding notification: AUG 1 ;•1 HEMMED RCW 36.70A.035 Public participation — Notice provisions. ( I ) The public participation requirements of this chapter shall include notice procedures that are reasonably calculated to providenotice to pro ertowners and other affected and interested individuals tribesgovernment agencies, businesses school districts and organizations of proposed amendments to comprehensive plans and development regulation. Examples of reasonable notice -provisions include: a Posting -the -property for site-specific property. What's interesting is that Renton officials maybe violating SEPA laws/GMA law again. There are no posted signs in this area telling that the August 16 hearing has been moved to August 30. There is a notice in the Renton Reporter – but no site-specific signs anywhere close to the proposed rezone property. I got a sign – copy enclosed – from the first posting. There is no sign posted to tell about the change of plans. I would like to ask that the Horner Rezone hearing be postponed until sometime in September to give me a chance to participate in the public hearing. Thank you, in advance, for any consideration you give this request. Sincerely, Claudia Donnelly Enclosures Cc: R. Timmons From; Michael/Claudia Donnelly <thedonnellys@oo.neb Subject: thanks Date: August 11, 2011 6:56:45 AM PDT To: Rocale Timmons <RTimmons@Rentonwa.gov> Cc: Alexander Pietsch <Apietsch@Rentonwa.gov>, Chip Vincent <CVincent@Rentonwa.gov>, "Jennifer T. Henning" <Jhenning@Rentonwa.gov>, Inez Petersen <webgirl@seanet.com>, apietsch@rentonwa.gov Ms. Timmons: Thanks for the information. I have a letter already drafted that 1 will send tomorrow -- I have other things to do today. I haven't seen any more notices up announcing the change -- per SEPA laws. I guess I'll just keep looking -- and notify the proper authorities if it doesn't happen. Have a good day. Claudia Donnelly On Aug 10, 2011, at 12:16 PM, Rocale Timmons wrote: Hello Mrs. Donnelly, I understand you will be out of town on the day of the scheduled hearing. As a courtesy I will forward staff's recommendation, to the Hearing Examiner, to an email address you are willing to provide. As for providing a telecom testimony I have never seen this before. You are more than welcomed to provide additional written testimony to the Hearing Examiner that would be entered onto the record by staff at the hearing. If you would like to contact to Hearing Examiner to request a rescheduling of the hearing, please submit a request addressed to him and I will forward.your request on to our Hearing Examiner. Rocale T. -----Original Message ----- Prom: Michael/Claudia Donnelly [mailto:thedonnellys@oo.net] Sent. Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:43 AM To: Rocale Timmons Cc: Alexander Pietsch; Denis Law; Inez Petersen Subject: August 30 hearing Dear Ms. Timmons: I received notice yesterday that the August 16 hearing for the Horner Rezone has been moved to August 30. That will present a problem for me to attend. I will be out of town until late on August 31 -- so I won't be able to attend and 1 probably won't be able to read the position paper you are preparing (we will be leaving August 23). Will there be a way I can see the position paper on-line (I have a Yahoo account) while I am away and will I be able to testify via a telecon? Are there phone hookups in Council chambers? Or should I contact the Hearing Examiner and ask that the hearing be moved to a September date? Thank you, in advance, for any information you can provide. Claudia Donnelly --1 Clt:y of OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Horne Rezone PROJECT NUMBER: LUA11-023, ECF, R LOCATION: Along the west side of Nile Ave NE, just south of May Valley Road. DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a rezone for 12 single family lots from the R-1 to the R-4 zoning designation. The 12 parcels consists of 7.37 acres of area and is located along the eastern boundary of the city just south of SE May Valley Road adjacent/abutting Nile Ave NE. The project area is encumbered by steep slopes and wetlands. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, Comments and appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on August 5, 2011. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: }searing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.6, 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 HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON AUGUST 16, 2011 AT 1:00 PM TO CONSIDER THE REZONE. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL_ WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUM hen calling for proper file identification. Inun�u�I L.� UQx a o$ *i U o� ^ a „ . c� c c G— �¢5 'a 41 -oar �3° C Go O y N O O b ed G� y 3•NaQa� �3� •" cA 4] C ow 3 � �b� � o� •o� � Z� °Owa a w � - � � a �, PC cl t 3 c w to c woo o .� m .� CQ U. Q,0 o Ejo w v opr 3 =.- n. w b x MM AC) r- = 3 °opo o to U •�ani oGLr. c CWs °c °� A. 42 Z PC aaQ m wo..0 m3 o °:H 0 N [a CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 8th day of August, 2011, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Notice of Public Hearing date change documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Tom Redding Contact Ed Horne Applicant Newfourth LLC Owner Dennis Rattie POR Debra Rogers POR Bryan & Kendra Vadney POR Madonna Messina POR Bruce Christopherson POR ,• Claudia Donnelly POR Richard Wilson POR Karen Walter POR 300' Surrounding Property Owners See attached (Signature of Sender): STATE OF`ASHINGTON ) CJ SS COUN'rfe .OF�KIIVI'i�'' = ) 71 �.�... I cJtify, LPA l kn�\v nr�la�e satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker signed.fh,s.iristrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes �.�., .. I Cr, mention S,ir,.the.insi'rument. Dated: / W114 Notary Pub �c in and f e State of Washington Notary (Print) My appointment expires Project Name: Horne Rezone Project Number: LUA11-023, ECF, R 523000001009 803540051007 803540002000 ANDERSON PAULINE+RONALD LEE BOYDSTON TAMIE BYUS DEAN T III+KIERSTEN G 10205 148TH AVE SE 2508 LYONS AVE NE 5602 NE 26TH ST RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 803540043004 803540053003 523000012006 CHAPPELLE DOUGLAS & CAROL CHRISTOPHERSON BRUCE K COSTANTINI MAURICE J+JENNY 2208 LYONO AVE 5502 NE 24TH CT 10228 147TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 NEWCASTLE WA 98059 523000003005 032305922406 803540048003 DOVEY CHARLES J FELLABAUM MATTHEW+BETSY FOHRELL WILLIAM B & JAN E 10227 148TH SE 2411 NILE AVE NE 2400 LYONS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 803540006001 032305919402 803540049001 FRIEDRICH HOWARD R+BARBARA GROWTH CAPITAL PARTNERS II HENRY MICHAEL+HEIDI 2401 LYONS AVE NE 1411 4TH AVE #850 2406 LYONS AVE NE RENTON WA 98059 SEATTLE WA 98101 RENTON WA 98059 032305921903 803540046007 803540005003 HORNE WILLIAM E LIVING TR HUDGINS DAVID J+KELLY A KIM BARO HORNE WILLIAM E+MARY A TTEE 2302 LYONS AVE NE 5500 NE 26TH ST 5604 NE 24TH ST RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 022305909404 803540052005 803540001002 KOZIOL KERRY B LARSON DAVID TROY LIEN LAURIE A 10202 148TH SE 5505 NE 24TH CT 29928 PACIFIC HWY 5 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98059 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 032305925706 032305910807 803540045009 MACKAY PAUL F JR+TAMMY L MERRITT MICHAEL M+CYNTHIA L MESSINA MARC & MADONNA 5625 NE 26TH ST 2505 LYONS AVE NE 2218 LYONS AVE NE RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 803540047005 523000016007 523000013004 MUTTART GEORGE M+GINGER A R NAGEL MAXINE M OKESON CHRISTINA M 2310 LYONS AVE NE 10217 147TH AVE SE 10218 147TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 803540050009 803540003008 032305919303 REAMY ELIZABETH A+REAMY SALAS MELISSA ORANGE DAVID T CHARLES L III C/O WILLOUGHBY 2357 NILE AVE NE 2502 LYONS AVE NE 5512 NE 26TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 032305919907 523000018003 022305908901 SCOFIELD JONATHAN N SHARP MICHAEL+NINA SIMON RANDY K+KAREN S 14701 SE 100TH ST 12824 SE 265TH ST 6947 COAL CREEK PKWY SE RENTON WA 98059 KENT WA 98050 RENTON WA 98059 y 523000014002 SMITH NORMAN W 14705 SE 102N1? ST RENTON WA 98059 523000002007 TERAMANTA 10217 148TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 803540044002 WINN STEPHEN G 2212 LYONS AVE NE NEWCASTLE WA 98059 803540004006 SPIER ROBERT+MONIQUE BLOCH 5506 NE 26TH ST RENTON WA 98059 022305907507 TSEGAY TSEGE+AYELE KIDANE 10008 148TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 803540055008 STONEGATE HOMEOWNERS ASSOC PO BOX 2691 RENTON WA 98056 523000017005 TUPOU ELIZABETH 10221 147TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 �% �' City off>_ a RESCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON The Public Hearing before the Renton Hearing Examiner, previously scheduled on August 16, 2011 has been rescheduled to August 30, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. In the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington to consider the following petitions: Horne Rezone FILE NO. LUA11-023, ECF, R LOCATION: Along the west side of Nile Ave NE, just south of May Valley Road. DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a rezone for 12 single family lots from the R-1 to the R-4 zoning designation. The 12 parcels consists of 7.37 acres of area and is located along the eastern boundary of the city just south of SE May Valley Road adjacent/abutting Nile Ave NE. The project area is encumbered by steep slopes and wetlands. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE PROJECT MANAGER, ROCALE TIMMONS AT 425-430-7219 DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION rm Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. Denis Law Ci of Mayor ('sx ' August 8, 2011 Department of Community and Economic Development' Alex Pietsch, Administrator Tom Redding Encompass Engineering and Surveying 165 NE Juniper Street, Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 SUBJECT: Horne Rezone LUA11-023, ECF, R Dear Mr. Redding: This letter is to inform you that the public hearing scheduled on August 16, 2011 for the above subject project has been rescheduled for August 30, 2011. The applicant or representative(s) of-the applicant are required to be present-at the, public hearing. A copy of the staff report will. be mailed to you .prior to'the scheduled hearing..' If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, Roc le Timmons As ociate Planner M. Newfourth LLC / Owner(s) Ed Horne / Applicant Dennis Rattie, Debra Rogers, Bryan & Kendra Vadney, Madonna Messina, Bruce Christopherson, Claudia Donnelly, Richard Wilson, Karen Walter/ Party(ies) of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov H C M P Clark Mills Martin & Low Offices Peterson PS. August 5, 2011 City of Renton Planning Division AUG - 8 ZVII Via E-mail (rtimmons(?.entonwa.gov) and U.S. Mail Current Planning Division Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way, 6th Floor Renton, WA 98057 Re: Proposed Home Rezone, C'i�l Project No. I Ufl11-023, ECF, R Ladies and Gendemen: Our firm represents the Stonegate Homeowners Association ("the Association"), whose members reside in the immediate vicinity of the 12 parcels (totaling 4.20 acres) seeking zoning reclassification from R-1 to R-4 under the above -referenced project number. The Horne rezone proposal is scheduled for consideration before the City Hearing I'-xaminet on August 16th. The Association opposes the proposed Horne rezone and urges the City staff to recommend denial of the application. The proposed application utterly fails to satisfy the rezone criteria set forth in RMC � 4-9-180(1)(2). 1. Applicable Rezone Standards. The properties included in the Horne rezone request are all designated RLD (Residential Low Density) on the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan Map. Both the R-1 and R-4 zones are intended to implement the RLD designation. RNIC g§ 4-2-020(C) and (D). The Horne rezone proposal therefore does not require a comprehensive plan amendment. Accordingly, the yardstick for evaluating the Horne rezone proposal is set forth in RMC § 4-9-180(1}(2), as follows (emphasis supplied): 2. Criteria for Rezones Not Requiring Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The Reviewing Official shall make the following findings: a. The redone is in the public interest, and b. The rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner, and c. The rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons located in the uicinity thereof, and V 1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500 1 Seattle, WA 98101 1 206.623.1745 1 f: 206.623.7789 1 hcmp.com TIT MERITAS l::N FlIMS VXRLDAIJE Current Planning Division August 5, 2011 Page 2 of 6 d. The rezone meets the review criteria in subsection Fl of this Section. Since subsection (I )(2)(d) incorporates the criteria in subsection F(1), those criteria must also be satisfied. They are as follows (emphasis supplied): 1. Criteria for Rezones Requiring a Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The following findings shall be made: The proposed amendment meets the review criteria in RMC 4-9-020; and a. Is consistent with the policies set forlh in The Comprehensive flan; and b. At least one of the following circumstances applies: i. The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; or ii. Since the most recenl land use anal sis or the area caning of the sWGject properly, aulhoritied public improvements, permitled privale development or other circumstances affecting The subject property have undergone significanl and material change. Since no comprehensive plan amendment is required , the review criteria in RMC � 4-9-020 are inapplicable here. But the other criteria in subsections (0(1) and (1�(2) must be satisfied, in order for the Horne rezone to be approved. And it is the rezone proponents who bear the burden of proving that the applicable criteria have been met: In considering the evidence, we note that (1) there is no presumption of validity favoring the action of rezoning; (2) the proponents of the rezone have the burden of proof in demonstrating that conditions have substantially changed since the original zoning ...; and (3) the rezone must beat a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare.' The Association submits that the rezone proponents here cannot meet their burden of proof. The staff should accordingly recommend that the Horne rezone be denied. 2. The Rezone Is Not in the Public Interest. On page 2 of the Horne Rezone Project Narrative, submitted by the applicants to the City on April 28th, the applicants assert that the rezone is in the public interest "insomuch as it is an effort to establish the R-4 zoning as articulated in Objective LU -II of the Comprehensive Plan ...." Objective 1 -U -II calls for R-4 zoning in those portions of the UD area that are appropriate for urban levels of development, i.e., suburban and/or estate style single-family I Parkridge v. GO oj'Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454, 462, 573 P -2d 359 (1978). Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S. Current Planning Division August 5, 2011 Page 3 of 6 residences." But the applicants have made absolutely no showing that this far -northeasterly RLD corner of the City is appropriate for more intense R-4 zoning, instead of the lower -density R-1 zone. The applicants' Project Narrative is nothing more than a circular argument, in effect asserting: The rezone is in the public interest because we, the applicants, want R-4 zoning. Renton's code establishes that the R-4 classification is intended to serve as a transition between rural -designated zones and higher -density residential zones.' But where would the transition be in this instance? There is no nearby higher -density zone in Renton that supports an argument that the Horne rezone properties qualify as a "transitional" area. �:- Ori the contrary, the 12 Horne rezone properties are appropriately zoned R-1 today, and they should remain so. As Renton's code explains, where critical areas are present, the R-1 zone is the appropriate low-density zone to implement the RLD designation: The Residential -1 Dwelling Unit Per Net Acre Zone (R-1) is established to provide and protect suitable environments for residential development of lands characterized by pervasive critical areas where limited residential development will not compromise critical areas. It is intended to implement the Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan designation..... It is further intended to protect critical areas, provide separation between neighboring jurisdictions through designation of urban separators as adopted by the Countywide Policies, and prohibit the development of incompatible uses that may be detrimental to the residential or natural environment.3 And as even the applicants recognize, a stream and its mandated buffers runs in a north -south direction immediately adjacent to this rezone area.' The stream and its buffers directly abut the westerly -most lots of the rezone area. Increasing the residential density of these properties would thus be counter to a central purpose of the R-1 zone — the protection of critical areas. The continued appropriateness of R-1 zoning for these 12 lots is underscored by the history of this area. All of the Horne rezone properties wete part of the recent MacKay annexation, which became effective on May 31, 2009.5 When Renton annexed these properties two years ago, the City assigned R-1 zoning to all of them, not R-4 zoning, even though all but two had been zoned R-4 by King County prior to their annexation.' If the City 2 RAIC 4 4-2-020(D). 3 RMC 5 4-2-020(C). Applicants' Horne Rezone Project Narrative, p. 3. 5 See City of Renton Annexation History map, available at: hlrp://rentonnet.or�;/ioterne�.�pps/maps/pdf/Cim°�20Afaps/Anoexation°/,20Flistor}.ntlf (Annexation 5456). 6 Applicants' Horne Rezone Project Narrative, p. 3. Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S. Current Planning Division August 5, 2011 Page 4 of 6 had wished to perpetuate the County's more intense R-4 zoning, it had the perfect opportunity to do so at the time of the MacKay annexation. It did not. The clear implication is that R-1 zoning was, and is, the appropriate zone in light of the nearby stream.' Moreover, all properties within Renton that are contiguous to the 12 Horne rezone lots are also zoned R-1. An R-4 rezone will thus not represent an expansion of any contiguous R-4 zone in the City. These 12 lots will instead constitute a tiny island of R-4 zoning amid a large R -1 -zoned area. Flow can that be said to be in the public interestP While neighboring properties to the east in unincorporated King County are still zoned R-4, there is no R-4 zoning in Renton adjacent to the Horne rezone properties. The nearest R-4—'.pr6peiry is located some distance to the south. Creating an isolated island of R-4 zoning here, located next to properties all zoned R-1, will constitute illegal spot honing. Spot zoning has been consistently defined to be zoning action by which a smaller area is singled out of a larger area or district and specially zoned for a use classification totally different from and inconsistent with the classification of surrounding land, and not in accordance with the comprehensive plan. . , . When faced with a challenge to a county's rezone action on the grounds the rezone constitutes an illegal spot zone, the main inquiry of the court is whether the zoning action bears a substantial relationship to the general welfare of the affected community. .. . Only where the spot zone grants a discriminatory benefit to one or a group of owners to the detriment of their neighbors or the community at large without adequate public advantage or justification will the county's rezone be overturned.s The Horne rezone has all these earmarks of illegal spot zoning. If granted, the Horne rezone properties will indeed be zoned totally diervnt firm and inconsistent with the surrounding R-1 lands, and not in accordance with the comptrhensive plan because RLD-designated areas are to be zoned R-1 when critical areas would be affected. This rezone bears no substantial relationship to thegeneral Welfare of the affected community, which is principally Stonegate. The requested rezone wouldgrant a a'ismminato y bend to its proponents, to the distinct detriment of the Stone ate homeowners and the Association, without any public jusli kation. There is thus no way that this rezone can reasonably be characterized as in the public interest. 7 The assignment of R-1 zoning to these lots at the time of annexation was therefore consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy LU -51: "Zoning should he applied to areas for purposes of resource protection, when appropriate, during the annexation process." B Save Our Rural Environmenl a Snohomish Coxnty, 99 Wn.2d 363, 368, 662 P.2d 816 (1983). Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S. Current Planning Division August 5, 2011 Page 5 of G 3. The Rezone Is Materially Detrimental to the Public Welfare of the Properties of Other Persons Located in the Vicinity. The members of the Stonegate Homeowners Association all live in the vicinity of the proposed rezone lots. And on their behalf, the Association opposes this rezone because it would be materially detrimental to the public welfare of their properties. Stonegate was developed as a low-density residential community. Its residents enjoy peaceful and bucolic natural surroundings, exemplified by the stream that runs through the easterly portion of Stonegate. To have higher -density R-4 housing developed so close to Stonegate would materially detract not only from the property values of this existing low-density community, but also from the more intangible aesthetic values inherent in a verdant, low-density community. In addition, the Association itself owns Tract I of the Stonegate plat (Assessor's Tax Parcel No. 8035400590), i.e., the 30 -foot -wide strip running east -west directly in the middle of the Horne rezone properties used for access purposes. While not included as one of the parcels for which R-4 rezoning is sought, Tract I lies completely within the boundaries of the Horne rezone area. Thus, the Association is itself an additional property owner which objects to this rezone as detrimental to its interests. 4. The Rezone Conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan. Granting the requested rezone would also conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. As laid out in Policy I_U-151, one -acre (i.e., R-1) zoning is appropriate for RLD lands with significant environmental constraints, including but not limited to steep slopes and wetlands. The City's Environmental Review Committee Report acknowledges that the Home project area is encumbered by steep slopes and wetlands.' In light of the presence of those critical areas on the Horne properties, granting the requested R-4 rezone would be contrary to Policy LU -151, whose intent is to protect RLD lands with significant environmental constraints via R-1 zoning. The presence of the Stonegate stream immediately west of the Horne properties is another factor that should be taken into account when applying the overall intent of this policy. 5. There Has Been No Significant and Material Change in Circumstances Since the 2009 MacKay Annexation That Justifies the R-4 Rezone. RMC � 4-9-180(f')(1)(b)(ii) inquires whether there has been a "significant and material change" in circumstances affecting the subject property since the time of the most recent land use analysis of the property. RMC § 4-9-180(1-)(2)(d) incorporates this by reference. The Horne rezone proponents cannot satisfy this test. The time of the most recent land use analysis regarding these 12 properties was at the time they were all annexed to the City in 9 City's Environmental Review Committee Report re Horne Rezone (July 18, 2011), p. 1. Hillis Clark Martin 8. Peterson P.S. Current Planning Division August 5, 2011 Page 6 of 6 May 2009. At that time, the City determined that R-1 zoning was the appropriate means of implementing the Comprehensive Plan's RLD designation of this area. In the last two years, nothing has changed significantly or materially that justifies a different outcome now. The Horne rezone should thus be denied on this ground alone. 6. Summary. For the reasons set forth above, we urge you to recommend denial of the Home rezone in your staff report to the Hearing Examiner. No justifiable policy reason supports granting this rezone. Rather, it is a classic case of an illegal spot zone. Its only justification, and its only benefit, would be to enhance the economic value of these 12 lots for their owners. It would. be contrary to the public interest and the City's Comprehensive Plan, as well as the express intent of the R-1 and It -4 zones as embodied in RMC 5 4-2-020. We therefore hope that the staff will recommend denial of the rezone. Should you wish to discuss any of the points raised in this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. My e-mail address and telephone number are shown below. N7jA truly vours, I , W Richard R. Wilson RRW:kah F -Mail.• rmya hc,n>>.cosn Diad Dial.- (206) 470-7604 Fax: (206) 623-7789 cc: Stonegate Homeowners Association ND; 20357.1X12 4852-4724-76260 Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S. Rocale Timmons Associate Planner City of Renton RE: Horne Rezone Dear Ms. Timmons, 'Vision ',' �'•��� lar, I am opposed to the proposed change in zoning from R-1 to R-4 in the Horne Rezone for the following reasons. From the 2001 May Creek Basin Action Plan http:///your.kin county. ogov/v/dnrp/library/2001/kcr726/FINAL-May-Creek-Basin-Plan-4- 16-01. pddf; • "Much of the. erosion and sediment transport in May Creek is a result of development in the basin. The May Creek basin continues to provide high quality tributary habitat to the Lake Washington watershed; however, use of May Creek by salmon and other wildlife is declining due to habitat loss, erosion, sedimentation, and deteriorating water quality. As more development occurs throughout the basin, many of these problems are anticipated to worsen". Page 1- 1. • The density of upland development is a key contributing factor to the flooding that occurs in May Valley. The plan recommends that zoning densities not be increased above existing levels in upland areas draining to May Valley, including adopted pre -zoning for unincorporated areas to be annexed". Page 1-6, emphasis added. • "Collectively, impacts associated with human activities have reduced the habitat value of local streams, which has reduced the capacity of the May Creek system to support migratory and resident salmonids. These impacts also increase the risks to the quality of underground drinking water supplies, critical to residents of the basin and the City of Renton." Page 2-7. Puget Sound Chinook salmon and steelhead are listed in the Endangered Species Act (ESA). • "Runoff from future development is expected to cause an increase in flood volumes in the valley, resulting in longer durations -of floodwater inundation and greater frequency of flooding". Page 2-8. • "Although the Basin Action Plan accepts existing zoning (including adopted pre - zoning for unincorporated areas to be annexed) in the areas draining to May Creek upstream of the Coal Creek Parkway bridge as a legitimate response to the variety of concerns affecting land use decisions, it recommends that densities in these areas be increased only if a qualified hydrologic analysis demonstrates that hydrologic impacts can be fully mitigated. This would include mitigating all flow- related impacts from development with regard to the entire range of peak flows, flow durations, storm water volumes and impacts on groundwater recharge." Page'3-30. To my knowledge this has not been done. Figure 3-4, Recommended Zonin§ Map, says zoning in the area should be R-1. The land on the other side of 148 Ave. is zoned RA -5, and RA -10 (1 dwelling unit per 5 acres and 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres). The proposed Horne rezone is also at odds with the City of Renton Comprehensive Pian. • Policy LU -141. Priority for higher density development should be given to development of land with infrastructure capacity and land located closer to the City's Urban Center. * Policy LU -148. Encourage larger lot single-family development in areas providing a transition to the Urban Growth Boundary and King County Rural Designation. The City should discourage more intensive platting patterns in these areas. The proposed rezone area lies between land zoned R-1 to the west and land zoned RA -5 and RA -10 to the east. Increasing the density to R-4 would not provide a transition from the adjacent R-1 zoned land on the west to the adjacent rural lands beyond the Urban Growth Boundary on the east. From the 1211108 city council meeting minutes, Associate Planner Angie Mathias comments on the Mackay annexation (the area now in question as the Horne Rezone). "She reported that the site contains five single-family home, steep slopes, and a Class 4 stream that is outside the annexation area, but affects the annexation.” The proposed rezone goes against transitioning to rural areas beyond the Urban Growth Boundary, and goes against the 2001 May Creek Basin Action Plan. The proposed rezone should not be allowed. Sincerely, Bruce Christopherson 5502 NE 24`h Court Renton, WA 98059 1041 5 -- 147" Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 August I, 2011 Ms. Rocale Timmons Planning Dept. City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Horner Rezone —LUA 11-023 Dear Ms. Timmons: Berton C V Vo9 pivts%Qn p1a W; - X TV Please accept this letter and documents as my comments regarding the Horner Rezone. Two comments that I have previously mentioned to you — about notifying residents of this proposed rezone and posting signs notifying the public of this possible rezone are included in this letter. Maybe the Hearing Examiner cares about following state law. As 1 told you, a family living across from this proposed rezone was not notified by Renton officials of this rezone proposal. The address of this property is 10032 — 148`h Avenue SE. I looked at your list of people who received notice — this family is not listed. I provided notice to them on July 22. Does this make a difference? DOE was notified that Renton didn't follow state law. The second item involves posting notices in appropriate places. You stated that Renton follows SEPA rules when it comes to posting notices. This is what I found under WAC 197-11-510 regarding posting notices (the SEPA Help Desk said this): (2) Each agency shall specify its method of public notice in its SEPA procedures, WAC 197-11-904 and 197-11-906. If an agency does not specify its method of public notice or does not adopt SEPA procedures, the agency shall use methods (a) and (b) in subsection (1). Public notice. (1) When these rules require notice to be given under this section, the lead agency must use reasonable methods to inform the public and other agencies that an environmental document is being prepared or is available and that public hearing(s), if any, will be held. The agency may use its existing notice procedures. Eramples of reasonable methods to inform the public are: (a) Posting the property, for site-specific proposals; The Growth Management Act also states – regarding notification: Public participation — Notice provisions. (I) The public participation requirements of this chapter shall include notice procedures that are reasonably calculated to provide notice to property owners and other affected and interested individuals, tribes, government agencies, businesses, school districts, and organizations of proposed amendments to comprehensive plans and development regulation. Examples of reasonable notice provisions include: (a) Posting the property for site-specific property. You said that Renton sent out mailing to residents within 300 feet of the property. One resident wasn't notified – and the 3 postings aren't even close to Stonegate or NE 23`d – where this one person lives. As I mentioned, one sign is below Stonegate (see the picture), a second sign is in front of the wetlands on the other side of the May Creek Bridge – facing west and the third sign is around the corner on SE May Valley Road. None are posted close to the site. How many other people were not notified? I live in King County – within Renton's PAA. That Cass 3 stream – Greenes Stream flows down through my yard from SR 900 to May Creek. May Creek has Chinook, Silver and Coho Salmon in it. I have personally seen these fish in the past. Fish and Wildlife and DOE want to protect May Creek. When the Windstone Development was being platted in King County above me, their biologist found a Chinook "Redd" downstream from where Greenes Stream enters May Creek. May Creek is approximately 114 mile from my home. I have a sensitive area in my side yard that occurs outward from the stream – King County officials won't let me building on it. There is a sensitive area in this proposed up zoned property. The Stonegate Development was platted in King County and annexed into Renton in order to obtain sewer service. This R-4 zoning was in King County. In addition, the developer and King County worked with area residents in order to have just 53 homes built there. If we hadn't, there could have been over 100+ homes in this development. The (tomes were constructed in the late 1990s. There was a green belt and streams to protect from the muddy water – after the trees had been stripped away. When I asked Renton officials if they were going to make the developer protect Greenes Stream or May Creek, they said no. I called Fish and Wildlife to get protection for May Creek and Greenes Stream. The City also allowed the developer to work in the streambed without having an HPA permit. Again, I had to call Fish and Wildlife for help. Last summer, two homes in the Windstone Division 2 development (Lots 8 and 9) were built. These two lots share a common border with the Sensitive area associated with Greenes Stream. The city's attitude was that "it's up to the Building Inspector to require silt fences to go up to protect downstream residences and May Creek". DOE was called and an inspector came out to investigate. They required the builders to install silt fences. Later, the builder left materials either in the stream or close to it. A shingle from one of the houses ended up on my property (I still have it). The residents of the area worked with Renton planners in 1996 to prezone the area bee ause-of-the -stream,- se nsitive-area,-sl opes-and -May-Cree k. --We -req uested-the _R- L__ __... prezone and the City approved it in 1997. These environmental concerns are still present today. From my backyard north to SE May Valley Road, the area was prezoned R-1. The residents who are now asking for an up zone knew in 1997 what the zoning would be — and approved what Renton proposed. This is not a surprise for them that they can only build I house per acre. From my backyard south to SR 900, it was prezoned R-4. (See ordinance and map) After this happened, "one of Renton's Senior Planners — Rebecca Lind", spoke at a 4 Creeks UAC meeting. I was at this meeting and point-blank asked her if the zoning for my neighborhood would ever change. She said "no" — because of the wetlands, Greenes Stream and May Creek in the area. Fast forward to 2008. Residents of this area submitted a petition to the City to annex as the MacKay Annexation. 1 got a copy of the position paper — enclosed — to hand out to residents in my neighborhood. It stated on the position paper that "this area will be zoned R-4" before annexation takes place as there was no prezone in effect. 1 asked about the prezone — and was told, "what prezone"? Under the Public Disclosure Law, I requested information regarding the prezone that took place in 1997. Renton officials — Alex Pietsch — found the prezone ordinance (enclosed) that had been passed in 1997. 1 also asked officials at that time if the R -I prezone would ever be changing. I was told that unless environmental circumstances changed, that the R -I would stay. As far as 1 can see, environmental problems haven't changed. We — the people who reside here — have seen the storm water runoff increase as more upstream development is allowed — by King County and Renton. In a note (enclosed) from Ron Straka, he wants to know more about the problems within the MacKay Annexation area. You yourself state there are steep slopes and wetlands in the area. In the "Horne Justification Statement — page 3, it states: "Properties to the south of the proposed rezone area are currently in King County and area zoned R-4 for urban development". As you can see on the enclosed map, from SE May Valley Road to my backyard —it's prezoned R-1. From my backyard south to SR 900, it's zoned R-4. What map are these residents looking at? Last Friday, while browsing the legal notices of the Renton Reporter, I came across a notice about an up zone application for this area. The owners of the property within this area want to eventually build. Two horses currently use the pasture for grazing. This property — about two acres — is so wet during the winter that the horse's owner has truckloads of wood chips dumped onto the land so she can spread them out in order to keep her horses from getting their feet damaged. I am providing pictures of this property with the wood chips in piles. Water flows from 148" — down SE 102°d Street to the field and then down to Greenes Stream. Water also comes from the drainage ditch on 148'h — under the road through people's yards to a culvert on the east side of 147`h. The water then flows under 147" into Maxine's property down to this field and then onto Greenes Stream. (see pictures and map). To me, nothing has changed to warrant changing the zoning from R-1 to R-4 other than the fact that people want to build and make it profitable. Like I previously said, these residents knew in 1997 that the zoning would be These are other examples of how Renton officials "protect" the environment/ In 2004,yellow water flowed from the Windstone Development — above me to May Creek 2 different times. The second time —December 2004, a Renton Building Inspector was on site and refused to stop it from flowing into May Creek. After filling 4 water bottles, I drove to Eastgate — to DOE. By 1 pm that afternoon, a DOE Water Quality person was on site — and stopped the flow. He also noted that the turbidity level of the detention pond was higher than it should have been. Renton officials didn't care. So who is going to protect Greenes Stream and May Creek if these residents are allowed to build? Where will the increased surface water go from paving over the pasture — into other people's yards and then to Greenes Stream? To May Creek? We — local residents are supposed to be protecting Puget Sound. If Renton allows development on these wetlands, it is preventing Puget Sound from recovering the damage urban development has done to it. On NE 4" Street, there were a lot of wetlands. Safeway built a superstore on a wetland. Every summer, water comes up through the floor; store officials have to rope the area off to protect customers. A little ways from this store is a Bartell Drug Store. A couple of years ago, a store clerk showed my husband and 1 a spot on the floor where water from another wetland seeped into the floor and warped it The Orchards — in the Highlands -- was built on wetlands. Renton doesn't do anything to protect the wetlands or the environment. I hope that you consider all the information 1 provided to you regarding this proposed rezone. As far as I can tell — and I drive by this area every day, nothing has changed. We still get storm water runoff from 148'h Avenue SE flowing down NE 23`d Street to the pasture — and then to Greenes Stream/May Creek. Our neighborhood still gets s runoff from the culvert under 148'h that flows under 147 1h to the field and then to Greenes Stream. The property zoning should remain R-1. Thank you. Sincerely, C&AA.Dm4 Claudia Donnelly Enclosures Cc: Renton Hearing Examiner CITY-OF'RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANC$ NO. 4667 - . AN . ORD]:NANCS ' OF THE CITY OF RSNTON, WASHINGTON ESTABLISHING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES TO SE, -ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF RENTON TO RESIDENTIAL. 1 DU/AC (R-1) AND RESIDENTIAL 5 DU/AC (R-5) (MAY�..',VALLEY PREZONE- PHASE I; FILE NO. A- 96-004) , WHEREAS, under Chapter 31. (Zoning Code), of Title IV,(Building Regulations), of.•Ordinance No. 4260 known as the "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted"inconjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has not'been zoned in the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, said property owners petitioned the City of Renton for assignment of zoning classifications prior to annexation, and the City Council having held two public hearings to consider this prezoning application, the' -first hearing being held on June 10, 1996, and the second hearing being held on September 16, 1996, and said zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant"thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO'ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS; SECTION I.. The following described property in the City of Renton shall bear'the following zoning designations once annexed to the City of Renton; Residential. 1 du/ac (R-1)' and Residential 5 1 !;fiid'.. 1 �r Jr� '~�h ��, r'� j� S':i?.";i'`e:' .••7�:�y +Ir �C 4r?:� �. i ?..� ORD?NANCE*NO.. 4667: du/ac:.A R-5), as hereinbelow specified, the Development Services Director is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to -wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. (Said -property, approximately 74 acres, is bounded by 148th Avenue S.E. on. the east, N.E. Sunset Boulevard on the south, and the Renton corporate boundary on the north and west.) This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 2nd day of June 1997 Marilyn tersen, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this.2nd day of June 1997• Jess anner,:Mayor Approve s to form: _'_Law e'nce J. WarreW City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.654:4/18/97:as. June 6. 1997 2 MAY VALLEY PREZONE - PHASE 1 Exhibit A Legal Description R 1 ZONE' That po;tian0thftgtheast'gtYarter'dthe'Northeast'guarter of Seed Oti-3;'TowwWp 23•Nor4h -Range - .� (.,..:`. �} it k:'l �Iwi: l.�. -... ,•.fi' •M(.• ♦1 .: •� • " ' "Wi**. lyM `northerly of May :Valley. Co-op Community, according . to``tbp`Plat tticci�p4;;asrccorded iii.Volumo'66 of Plats, PagB 93; King County Records ; King County, Washiiogtan and lying; easterly. of Stonegato, according to the Plat ,thcreo as recorded in Volume 177 Of Plats Pages 62 through 68, inclusive; King County Records; King County, Washington; LESS County Road (148th Avenue SE), TOGETHER WITH Lots 15 through 23, Block 2, May Valley Co -Op Community, -according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Volume 66 of Plats, Page 93, King County Records, King County, Washington, R-1 ZONE .. The North 198 feet of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 23 North, Range 5 East,'W.M., King County, Washington; LESS the Sautii S feet of the East 130, feet thereof;, and LESS County Road (148th Avenue SE). TOGETHER, W;M that portion df the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 3, 'Township .23" North, Range 5 East, W.M., Icing County, Washington, described as follows: Beginn4'at the Northeast corner of the South 198 feet of the North 396 feet of said Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter; Thence North 87° 26' 08" West, a distance of 30 feet, to the True Point of Beginning; Thence South 01° 25' 02" West, a distance of 81.5 feet; thence North M. 26'08" West; a distance of 126,63 feet; Thence North 02° 33, 52" East, a distance of 81.5 feet; ";Thence South 87°26' 08" East, 'distance of 25 feet; Thence North 01 25' 02" East, a distance of 5 feet; Thence South 87° 26' 08" East, a distance of 100 feet; Thence' South 01° 25'.02" West, a distance of 5 feet, to the True Point of Beginning, May Valley Prezone-- Phase I Legal Description of Zones MFW1k9)z0 Lots 1 through 14, inclusive, Block 1, May Valley Co -Op Community, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Volume 66 of Plats, Page 93, King County Records, King County, Washington, All situate in the Northeast quarter of Section 3, Township 23 NorthL lange 5 East, W.M.,King County, Washlnjon, _.... R-1 ZONE That portion of Government Lot 1 in the Northeast quarter of Section 3, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington, described as follows; Commencing at tate Southeast corner of Government Lot I in said quarter section; Thence North 01° 25' 22" East, along the east line of said Government Lot 1, a distance of 30 feet; Thence North 88° 01' 27" West, a distance of 30 feet, to the True Point of Beginning, said True Point of Beginning also being the Northeast corner of Tract "I" of Stonegate, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Volume 177, Pages 62 through 68, inclusive, King County Records, Icing County, Washington; Thence continuing North 881 01' 27" West, (North 88° 01' S0". West per said plat), .along the northerly line of said Tract "I", a distance of 425.00 feet; Thence North 01* 25' 22" East, a distance of 262.33 feet; Thence North 651 00' 00" East, a distance of 113.89 feet,. to a point'on the southerly right-of-way margin of NE 26th Street; Thence South 88° 01' 27" East (South 88" 01' 50" East per said plat) along said southerly right-of- way margin, a distance of 323.00 feet, to a point on the westerly right-of-way margin of 148th Avenue SE (County Road); Thence South 01° 25' 22" East, along said westerly fight -of -way margin, a distance of 314.00, to the True Point of Beginning. R-5 ZONE That portion of the East 112 of the Southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington, lying northerly of NE Sunset Boulevard (SE Renton - Issaquah Road, Primary State Highway No. 2) and southerly of the North 198 feet of said subdivision; LESS the East 30 feet thereof for County Road (148th Avenue SE); and EXCEPT that portion of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of the South 198 feet of the North 396 feet of said subdivision; Page 2 From: Michael/Claudia Donnelly cthedonnellys@oo.net> Subject: Re: Growth Management Act Date: July 25, 2011 10:48:04 AM PDT To: _ 1 Attachment, 41.2iK13- .; =Save v,• _� Slideshow w This is what was posted. This is why I am going to send a letter to the Growth Management Board -- and to Olympia. There is also a board in Olympia -- I've callled them in the past about GMA. I'm sure Renton is screwing up. Claudia PROJECT NUMBER: LUA11-023, ECF, R PROJECT NAME: Horne Rezone Description: The applicant is requesting a rezone for 12 single family lots from the R-1 to the R-4 zoning designation. The 12 parcels consists of 7.37 acres of area and is located along the eastern boundary of the city just south of SE May Valley Road adjacent/abutting Nile Ave NE. The project area is encumbered by steep slopes and wetlands. General Location: Along the west side of Nile Ave NE, just south of May Valley Road. Zone: Residential - 1 dwelling unit per acre (R-1) Public Approvals: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Rezone Project Manager: Rocale Timmons, tel: 425-430-7219, email: rtim!llons(@rentonwa.gov Applicant /Project Contact Person: Tom Redding; Encompass Engineering and Surveying; 165 NE Juniper Street #201; Issaquah, WA 98027 Date of Application: April 28, 2011 Notice of Complete Application: June 23, 2011 Comments may be Submitted through: August 5, 2011 Map: The map below is for illustrative purposes only. In the event of omissions, errors or differences, the documents in CED's files will control. Click on map to be directed to the City's GIS Portal. CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Department of Community and September 8, 2008 Economic Development Agenda Status Staff Contact...... Angie Mathias, x-6576 Consent .............. X Public Hearing.. Subject: PROPOSED ANNEXATION Correspondence.. Mackay Annexation - 10% Notice of Intention to Ordinance ............. Commence Annexation Proceedings Petition Resolution............ Old Business........ New Business....... Exhibits: Study Sessions...... Issue Paper, Annexation Petition Certification, 10% Information......... Petition Recommended Action: Council concur ;Approvals: Legal Dept......... X Finance Dept...... Other ............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget N/A Ci Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The petitioners submitted this petition to the City Clerk on July 24, 2008, and the signatures were certified by the King County Department of Assessments on August 6, 2008. The proposed 10.56 -acre annexation site is located in Renton's Potential Annexation Area, abutting the northeastern portion of the current City limits. The area abuts the Urban Growth Boundary with its eastern border. State law requires a public meeting with the proponents within 60 -days of their submittal to consider their request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Set September 22, 2008 for a public meeting to consider the 10% Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation Proceedings petition for the proposed Mackay Annexation. CITY OF RENTON n DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC ♦ ♦ DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: August 29, 2008 TO: Marcie Palmer, Council President City Councilmembers VIA: -y�, Denis Law, Mayor FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator �N4 Department of Community & conomic Development STAFF CONTACT: Angie Mathias x 6576 SUBJECT: Proposed Mackay Annexation - 10% Notice of Intent Petition ISSUE: The City is in receipt of a 10% Notice of Intent petition to annex 10.56 -acres by the direct petition method, as well as the required $2,500 filing fee. State law requires that the Council hold a public meeting with the annexation proponents within 60 days of receipt of a 10% Notice of Intent petition to decide whether to accept, reject, or geographically modify the proposal, whether to require the assumption of bonded indebtedness, and whether to require the simultaneous adoption of City zoning, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if the proposed annexation is successful. RECOMMENDATION: On the basis of the following analysis, the Administration recommends that Council accept the 10% Notice of Intent petition. If Council concurs, the Administration recommends that it take the following actions (pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120): • Accept the 10% Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation Proceedings petition; and • Authorize the circulation of a 60 % Direct Petition to Annex for the 10.56 -acre area; and • Require that property owners within the proposed annexation area accept City of Renton zoning that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan land use designation; and • Inform property owners within the proposed annexation area that they will not be required to assume their proportional share of the City's outstanding Proposed Mackay Annexatio,. r0% Notice of Intent indebtedness ($.07861 per $1,000 of assessed value) as this tax levy is related to a senior housing bond which will be retired in 2009. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The rectangular shaped Mackay Annexation site is generally located west of 148th Ave Southeast, south of 1460' Avenue Southeast, east of the Stonegate subdivision, with parcel lines as the southern boundary. There are no covenants to annex in this area. 1. Location: The proposed 10.56 -acre Mackay Annexation is bordered by the existing City boundary at the north and west. 2. Assessed value: The 2008 assessed valuation of the subject annexation site, at current development, is $4,920,000. Of the 14 existing homes, the average assessed value is $298,000. 3. Natural features: The area has some steep slopes ranging from 15 to 25%, there are also a very small areas with slopes ranging approximately 40%. There is a Class IV stream running just outside the western boundary of the area'that is part of a set aside tract in the Stonegate subdivision. This stream does not run through any portion of the annexation area and there are no identified wetlands. 4. Existing land uses: The existing land uses are residential and vacant land. Of the residential development there are approximately 14 single-family dwellings. The estimated existing population is 32 people. 5. Existing zoning_ Existing King County zoning is R-1 and R-4. This area has not been pre -zoned by the City of Renton, so zoning will occur concurrently through the annexation process. 6. Comprehensive Plan: Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates the subject annexation site as Residential Low Density (RLD). This designation would allow R-4 zoning at a maximum density of four units per net acre, R-1 zoning at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per net acre, or Resource Conservation zoning at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per ten net acres. 7. School District: The Mackay Annexation Area is a part of the Issaquah School District and the schobl district boundaries will not change upon annexation. 8. Public services: All responding City of Renton departments and divisions noted that the annexation represents a logical extension of their respective services and systems. Specific comments follow: Page 2 of 6 Proposed Mackay Annexation 10% Notice of Intent Water Utility. The subject site is located within Water District 90's water service area, by agreement under the East King County Coordinated Water System Plan. A certificate of water availability from District 90 will be required prior to the issuance of development permits within the subject area, following annexation to the City. It is expected that developer extensions of District 90's water mains will be required to provide water for fire protection and domestic use within the annexation area. Wastewater Utility. Currently, sewer does not serve the area. However, the annexation site is located within the Renton Sewer Service Area and in the future it is anticipated that as new construction occurs in the area, developers will bear the costs of extending the sewer lines. The annexation does not present any problems for the utility and it represents a logical extension of their services. Parks. King County's May Valley Park is one park located within approximately %: mile of the proposed Mackay Annexation Area. It is a 54.26 -acre park located to the southeast of the annexation area that features a system of trails. The nearest City of Renton park is May Creek Park located within '/2 mile from the annexation area, May Creek Park is located to the northwest of the annexation area and is a 10 -acre dedicated natural area. Staff noted that the area has a shortfall of parks, as well as recreation amenities and activities when compared with City of Renton Level of Service goals. In order to serve the area at a level that would meet City of Renton Level of Service goals, the City would need to acquire and develop parkland. This ought to occur over the ten-year build out time frame in order to serve the projected population. The development and maintenance of such a park would require additional staffing. However, the Community Services department indicated that the annexation area does not present any problems for their division and that it represents a logical extension of the services provided by their department. Police. The Police Department did not indicate any concerns regarding this proposed annexation. Staff estimated the number of current annual calls for police service as 13.1 and future calls for service were estimated to be 29. The annexation does not present any problems for the department and it represents a logical extension of their services. Fire, Fire District 10 currently serves the area. Upon annexation, Renton Fire and Emergency Services will provide fire and emergency services to the area. Staff did not indicate any concerns regarding this proposed annexation. Surface Water. The proposed annexation is located within the May Creek drainage basin, which has been identified as having significant erosion, water quality, and habitat problems due to urbanization. Staff notes that future development should be conditioned through SEPA to meet the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual or current drainage standards equivalent. The drainage in the area consists of ditches to convey the runoff from streets. King County records list no significant drainage problems in the area. Staff noted that in order to serve the area, staffing levels would need to expand, especially as the area develops and there is additional public infrastructure to maintain and operate. It is assumed that the need for staffing Page 3 of 6 Exhib "1" Mackay Annex bion Map {1/.Y r it l.M tstaCT C �' / s r % �►� i �, TTRUZ 1 lump t s U AN i Im 41 f ddd /t a< 576 /004fiLim- 1 i — v _ � s , XC leer ,Ito hfi 1p/1 f! 11.1a 7 a ,tool otK N.__„ ���t_b it !• f � � � , O f � lee 4 � 11 ; r = - Ira, % NW f 14 x• ,li ,� to - ,.01 t6 ISOCI Rs 17 ; t, y� j 'S' R • � ;' �/ � r � BIW ,1 1 uns t : �° � •••tom 1., r ,. 'p' NI F' �� l 1 7 �� • 1' a ' � H ��` MMI R IWI R UM R KE O7� am a i � itay malt .w.�r;�la C R �iR ft. l 4 i � 41 � . b f 10 , ea r m _ pan • _ f y .! = a tf � 41luY x - �iFI ~ ! lel f S Er r'p1" w tim W ac 1 x f �' FY ltJJ a4'► tstaCT C �' / s r % �►� i �, TTRUZ 1 lump t s U AN i Im 41 f ddd /t a< 576 /004fiLim- 1 i — v _ � s , XC leer ,Ito hfi 1p/1 f! 11.1a 7 a ,tool otK N.__„ ���t_b it !• f � � � , O f � lee 4 � 11 ; r = - Ira, % NW f 14 x• ,li ,� to - ,.01 t6 ISOCI Rs 17 ; t, y� j 'S' R • � ;' �/ � r � BIW ,1 1 uns t : �° � •••tom 1., r ,. 'p' NI F' �� l 1 7 �� • 1' a ' � H ��` MMI R IWI R UM R KE O7� am a i � itay malt .w.�r;�la C R �iR ft. l 4 i � 41 � . b f 10 , ea r m _ pan • _ f y .! = a tf � 41luY x - �iFI ~ ! lel f S Er r'p1" w tim W From: Michael/Claudia Donnelly <thedonnellys@oo.net> Subject: more questions Date: July 24, 2011 10:32:10 AM PDT To: rtimmons@rentonwa.gov Cc: apietsch@rentonwa.gov, dlaw@rentonwa.gov, Terry G Persson <terrypersson@msn.com>, Inez Petersen cwebgirl@seanet.com>, "HOWARDMCOMBER@HOTMAIL.COM President Elect" <HOWARDMCOMBER@HOTMAIL.COM>, "bkappenman@hotmail.com HCA Director" cbkappenman@hotmail.com>, Highlands Neighbors <hlghlands_neighbors@hotmail.com>, council@rentonwa.gov Dear Ms. Timmons: I have more questions to ask you about -- especially since Gwen doesn't want to answer them. According to the Growth Management Act, each jurisdiction is supposed to do a comprehensive plan every so many years. How can I get a hold of Renton's Comp Plan to see what it says about my community? How often is Renton supposed to update it comp plan? Can amendments to the comp plan be initiated at any time or is there a specific time frame in which amendments can and are supposed to be introduced? I know that the KC Comp Plan is only updated during a certain cycle. Was Renton supposed to submit its Comp Plan to the Growth Management Board -- or the State? If the Comp Plan can be updated when Renton planners feel like it, again, doesn't the Planning Commission have to be involved? Also, in 2008, for the MacKay Annexation, when no one remembered that this area had been prezoned R-1 in 1997, 1 asked about upzoning the area to R-4. I was told by the planner at the time that that would only happen if circumstances -- meaning the local environment -- had changed. Can you please tell me what has changed -- other than the residents in this area want to be able to bring cheap sewers into the area and develop it? In the brief description I saw on the list of current land use actions, it says nothing about having Greenes Stream as part of the wetlands area -- or May Creek being close by. Why not -- other than the fact that Renton doesn't recognize the importance of May Creek to the ecosystem. We are part of the May Creek Basin Area. I hope that I can get some answers. Thank you. Claudia Donnelly Begin forwarded message: From: Michael/Claudia Donnelly <thedonnellvs@oo.net> Date: July 23, 2011 8:35:43 AM PDT To: Highlands Neighbors <highlands neighbors@hotmail.com> Cc: Inez Petersen <webgirl@seanet.com>, "HOWARDMCOMBER@HOTMAIL.COM President Elect" <HOWARDMCOMBER@HOTMAIL.COM>, Terry G Persson <terrypersson@msn.com>, "bkappenman@hotmail,com HCA Director" <bkappenman@hotmail,com> From: Michael/Claudia Donnelly <thedonnellys@oo.net> Subject: annexation policies Date: September 14, 2008 10:02:09 AM PDT To: Alexander Pietsch aApietsch@ci.renton.wa.us> Cc: Angie Mathias <AMathias@ci.renton.wa.us>, Citizens to Council <Council@ci.renton.wa.us>, Ronald Straka ¢Rstraka@ci.renton.wa.us>, Gary Fink <GFink@ci.renton.wa.us>, Gregg Zimmerman ¢Gzimmerman@ci.renton.wa.us>, reagan.dunn@kingcounty.gov, brian.sleight @kingcounty.gov, Jennifer Henning <jhenning@ci.renton.wa.us>, Lys Hornsby <Lhornsby9ci.renton.wa.us5, dlaw@cLrenton.wa.us, Inez Petersen <Iawyergir12012 @gmail.com> Dear Mr. Pietsch: I've read in the Renton Reporter how Mayor Law is trying to change Renton's perception and working to make Renton a "better place to live". Prior to the annexation of the Aster Park development, there were "pink" notice all around this area announcing the public hearing for this annexation. I went onto RCW 35.13.140. Here is what it says regarding annexation notification: RCW 35.13.140 Direct petition method — Notice of hearing. Whenever a petition for annexation is filed with the city or town council, or commission in those cities having a commission form of government, which meets the requirements herein specified, of which fact satisfactory proof may be required by the council or commission, the council or commission may entertain the same, fix a date for a public hearing thereon and cause notice of the hearing to be published in one issue of a newspaper of general circulation in the city or town. The notice shall also be posted in three public places within the territory proposed for annexation, and shall specify the time and place of hearing and invite interested persons to appear and voice approval or disapproval of the annexation. The expense of publication and posting of the notice shall be borne by the signers of the petition. Yesterday, in response to Mr. Straka's note, I stated that there were no pink notices in our neighborhood announcing the public hearing on September 22 for the MacKay annexation attempt. I just drove to the White Fence Ranch area -- (Krall Annexation -- and drove down 155th Avenue SE and 156th Avenue SE, Again, I saw NO signs up advertising this public meeting on September 22. If state law hasn't change and Renton just "forgot" to put up these signs, what kind of an explanation will I get this time? That someone forgot? Renton has been a city for how long? and should know what the law is regarding public hearing notification... This is what I don't like about Renton; the city is trying to sneak past the residents of this area by pulling a fast one by not obeying state law -- not putting up proper signs notifying the public of a public hearing. You are the person in charge of Development issues. You should make sure your staff members follow state law, Yet, you are not. Then I see the Sewer Dept. not getting an HPA permit to install the sewer line from Cedar River to 160th. Then I see this same Dept. trying to install a high-speed sewer line through our neighborhood -- again with getting an HPA permit. The White Fence Ranch area and my neighborhood are within a sensitive area -- the May Creek Basin. In the beginning of this conversation regarding the MacKay Annexation, you told me there was no "May Valley "prezone". How can you be in charge of the Economic Development Dept. and not know of this prezone? How can you be in charge of the development dept. and not know of this prezone? You apologized when you found out that there, indeed, was a prezone. My neighbors and I are a little dubious about this claim. I look forward to hearing why there are no signs up within these area notifying the public of this September 22 hearing. Does this change the hearing date? Thank you. Claudia Donnelly From. Michael/Claudia Donnelly <thedonnellys@oo.net> Subject: MacKay Annexation Date: September 5, 2008 9:36:37 AM PDT To: Alexander Pletsch <Apietsch@ci.renton.wa.us> Cc: Jennifer Henning <jhenning@ci,renton.wa.us>, amathias@ci.renton.wa.us Dear Mr. Pietsch: I went to the Council Agenda and looked at the proposed MacKay Annexation. On item 2C -- it talks about schools. Angie Mathias talked about this area being served by the Renton School District. It's funny because earlier she talked about this area being in the Issaquah School District. In addition, she says there are no "surface water problems". There is. At the corner of SE 102nd St. and 147th Avenue SE, there is a culvert going from 148th Avenue SE, down some people's yards to 147th Avenue SE and then under the street to Maxine Nagle's yard. From there it flows through her yard to Greenes Stream. We had some KC SWM -- Brian Sleight and Bob Burns -- out here in July? to look at the problems caused by the water from 148th. They told us that KC didn't have any money to help us fix our problems. It's interesting that people on our street are included in this annexation and yet, none signed the petition. know one set of neighbors who were never informed that they would be annexed. They received no notification. I also am having problems printing this document. Do you have a hard copy at City Hall that I can come and get? Thank you, Claudia Donnelly On Sep 4, 2008, at 4:12 PM, Alexander Pietsch wrote: The staff briefing materials should be posted on the website tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. Alex Pietsch Administrator Dept. of Community & Economic Development City of Renton (425) 430-6592 apietsch@rentonwa.gov http://rentonwa.gov I I Michael/Claudia Donnelly <thedonnellys@oo.net> 9/4/2008 3:44 PM >>> Dear Mr. Pietsch: Thank you for finding the information. This does satisfy my request. My public disclosure request has been satisfied -- so you can throw the letter away I sent. However, I am having a problem. I saw that the City Council agenda has been posted. I went in to get a hard copy of the MacKay Annexation documents. I can't download it. Can someone please forward me a copy of the staff report to be given to the council so that I can let my neighbors know what is going on? Some of them are supposedly in this "annexation attempt" and they have never been told about it. I told them to go to the agenda and they could download it themselves. Now we can't. Thank you -- and thank you for finding the ordinance. I knew what happened. I'm sorry that that developer may have to scale back his/her plans. Claudia Donnelly On Sep 4, 2008, at 3:03 PM, Alexander Pietsch wrote: Ms Donnelly, I stand corrected. According to Ordinance 4667 (attached), the properties in question were pre -zoned R-1 in 1997. We will make this clear during the presentation at the public meeting on 9122. I hope this satisfies your public disclosure request, If not, please let me and the City Clerk know and we will proceed with digging up any additional documentation that may be available Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Alex Pietsch Administrator Dept. of Community & E=conomic Development City of Renton (425) 430-6592 apietsch@rentonwa.gov httpJ/rentonwa.gov I I I Michael/Claudia ael/Claudia Donnelly <thedonnellys@oo,net> 9/4/2008 10:59 AM This letter is being mailed to Ms. Walton this afternoon. Thank you. Claudia Donnelly The area has not been pre -zoned and we will be establishing the zoning if the Council accepts the 10% petition and a subsequent 64% petition is presented. However, the area,has been designated in the Renton Comprehensive Plan as Residential -Low Density. This designation allows the R-4, R-1, and Resource Conservation zones. The Planner charged with processing this annexation is Angie Mathias. She is on vacation this week, but will be back in the office next week. I'll check with her then about the notifications.<OR D4667.pdf> From: Michael/Claudia Donnelly <thedonnellys@oo.net> Subject: 1 more concern Date: September 13, 2008 1:55:02 PM PDT To: Ronald Straka <Rstraka@ci.renton.wa.us> Cc: Angie Mathias <AMathias@ci.renton.wa.us>, Alexander Pietsch <Apietsch@ci.renton.wa.us>, Citizens to Council <Council@ci.renton.wa.us>, Gary Fink <GFink@ci.renton.wa.us>, Gregg Zimmerman <Gzlmmerman@ci.renton.wa.us>, Jennifer Henning <jhenning@ci.renton.wa.us>, Lys Hornsby <Lhornsby@ci.renton.wa.us>, brian.sleight@kingcounty.gov, will.fogelberg@kingcounty.gov, reagan.dunn@kingcounty.gov Dear Mr. Straka: I thought of one more problem. As of today, my house is not included in this proposed annexation attempt. However, there is always the future. About 1 block from me, is my neighbor's Cathy's house. She lives at the top of a hill. Years ago, Water District 90 installed some new water mains in the area -- and as mitigation for use of her property, the Water District paved her driveway. In the beginning, the water she got off 148th -- going west -- went right down her driveway into another driveway (where Renton wanted to install a high-speed sewer line.) The owner of the house that used the driveway didn't want water there, so he talked the paving company into installing a small "berm" on this paved driveway. This berm now diverts the water from Cathy's driveway into the ditch along side the unpaved portion of the KC Road. (This "catch basin" was provided to us by the Neighborhood Drainage Assistance Program. Every time it rains, the water coming off 148th goes down the hill into her yard and then down the paved driveway into the culvert. (Putting in another drainage ditch on the west side of 148th isn't practical.) She has talked to KC about fixing the problem. At one time, they wanted to install a "catch basin" at the top of her property and then run a pipe along side to carry the water to another drainage ditch. She has never agreed to do this. Now, her problem every winter when it ices up or snows, is that this driveway is covered with a sheet of ice -- so she can't park in her garage area. The person living in the house next to mine -- Christie -- also have water problems. We had asked NDAP to install a larger culvert (36") where the driveway goes with the stream. Christie didn't like the legal document KC wanted her to sign -- so that culvert was never installed. (This culvert is what we proposed to have Renton install for us if they had actually installed the high-speed sewer line.) Sara -- who lives there now -- would like to have a garage for her house. But, with such a high water table, my guess is that no government will allow her to build on her property. In addition, many years ago, when Steve Keech lived in his house, he had a garden behind his house on the slope. He wanted an means of watering his garden from the high water table where the stream is located. So, using a backhoe he had, in August of that year (and I don't remember what year it was), he attempted to dig a well in his front yard. But there was so much water and such a high water table, that the ground sunk in around the whole before he could complete it. Also, when Mr. Fink comes out, we can show him where our little waterfall is. As you maybe aware, in the 70s, the person who lived behind my house asked the person (one of the Cottom's) who owned my house if he would divert the stream for a duck pond. KC came out, said you can't do that without a permit. The owners got their wrists slapped, but the stream course was not changed back to its original course. We bought our house in 1987. After Mr. Luck clear cut his property we had 7 years of "H ". Mr. Wolf, our neighbor, saw our problems and attempted to help us. So, he and Steve Keech changed the course of the stream again. Now it flows over a small enbankment. When we have large storms, we get a little waterfall. It has eroded the bank so much that all the vegetation roots have been exposed. Last December, we had a lake in our side yard again. We asked Mr. Sleight when he came out if we could do maintenance on the stream without having any permits (such as dig it deeper, fix a board that diverts the water under the fence and replace some rotting fence posts. He said yes. He said doing something new would require an HPA permit. I sent Fish and Wildlife a note and asked them about this information. They said that any maintenance'we do has to have a permit from DDES and an HPA permit. Again, upstream development -- just like what the May Creek Basin Plan said would happen -- is causing the problems to our property -- Renton and KC development. It's interesting that the plan was written and warnings given -- but no one listened to what it said. Now we are seeing the consequences of that damage and nothing can be done. Thanks again. Claudia Donnelly Begin forwarded message: From: Michael/Claudia Donnelly <thedonnellvs@oo.net> Date: September 13, 2008 10:51:09 AM PDT To: Ronald Straka <Rstraka@ci.renton,wa.us> Cc: Angie Mathias <AMathias@ci.renton.wa.us>, Alexander Pietsch <Agietsch@ci.renton.wa.us>, Citizens to Council <Council@ci.renton.wa.us>, Gary Fink <GFink @ci.renton.wa.us>, Gregg Zimmerman <Gzimmerman@ci.renton.wa.us>, Jennifer Henning <jhenning@ci,reQton.wa.us>, Lys Hornsby <Lhornsbv@ci.renton.wa.us>, brian sleiahl@kingcounty.gov, will.fooelberg@kingcountv.gov, reaQan,dunn@kingcountt,gov Subject: 3 more concerns Dear Mr. Straka: I thought of 3 additional items to bring to your attention. 1. There is a group of people with 5 Star and KC wanting to develop the 54 acres of KC Parkland (May Valley Park) at the corner of SR 900 and 148th. I am not against parks; in fact, I suggested to the Project Manager that Renton should be included in the negotiations/feasibility study. The only concern my neighborhood has is that if the trees are removed to make ball -fields, picnic areas, etc., there will be more water for our neighborhood (and May Creek) to have to deal with. I have been told that once they get past this feasibility study, then they will look at SEPA. Renton SEPA and KC SEPA requirements are different. (I note that a developer was allowed to develop the Kennydale Blueberry Bog against the wishes of the neighborhood. 2. When Brian Sleight and Bob Burns -- KC Dept. of Natural Resources and Parks -- came out, I asked them what I should do in case we get more yellow water from Renton developments. He said that Renton now has a "Municipal NPDES Permit". I don't know if that will make a difference or not -- I will still probably end up at DOE in Bellevue. 3. There may not be a public hearing on September 22. 1 was told that "Renton has changed". I may get yelled at by one of your colleagues for my "bad" attitude towards Renton. I believe state law says that if there is to be a public hearing on annexation or development, that "pink" signs have to be posted within the affected area. I just came back and drove to the area along NE 26th St. There are NO pink "public hearing signs" posted anywhere announcing this public hearing to the public. (I noted that there is a Krail Hearing at the same date. Have signs been posted in that area also? ) Isn't the city supposed to post signs at least 2 weeks before the public hearing? Also, I get the Renton Reporter, 1 got today's edition and saw the notice regarding this hearing. How do I know that "Renton has changed" when these notices haven't been posted and Renton officials try to dig under our stream (for a high-speed sewer line that Mr. Christensen and Mr. Pietsch know about it) without having an HPA permit? Thanks again. Claudia Donnelly Begin forwarded message: From: Michael/Claudia Donnelly <thedonnellvs@oo.net> Date: September 13, 2008 8:30:20 AM PDT To: Ronald Straka <Rstraka@ci.renton.wa.us> Cc: Angie Mathias <AMathias@ci.renton.wa.us>, Alexander Pietsch <AAPietsch@ci.renton.wa.us>, Citizens to Council Council@ci.renton.wa.us>, Gary Fink <GFink @ci.renton.wa.up, Gregg Zimmerman <Gzimmerman@ci.renton.wa.us>, Jennifer Henning <Jhenning@ci.renton.wa.us>, Lys Hornsby <Lhornsby@ci.renton.wa.us>, brian.sleight@kingcounty.Aov, will.fogelberg@kingcountv.gov, reagan.dunn@kinqcounty.gov Subject: Re: Surface Water Problems - Mackey Annexation - Greenes Creek Dear Mr. Straka: Thanks for this note. I see where i made the mistake in copying you on the original note I sent. To me, this "analysis" should have been done before the position paper was written. As you are aware, we get drainage from 150 acres in this "basin". What's interesting is that the City Council hasn't yet approved this attempt and you are already assuming that this area will be in Renton.... (See paragraph 1). What's also interesting is that the city seems to have a different attitude regarding storm water runoff than it did in 2004 -- when the Windstone detention pond broke, and that Windstone development sent yellow muddy water down Greenes Stream to where I had to drive to DOE in Bellevue to get it stopped. The problem comes from upstream development. We live close to Cougar Mountain. We have our own "unique" climate. Where it is raining in Newcastle or at my parent's old house, we could be getting snow. On Sep 12, 2008, at 1:56 PM, Ronald Straka wrote: The City of Renton Surface Water Utility is very interested in meeting with you and learning more about the existing surface water problems and their locations in relation to the Mackey Annexation area. Gary Fink, Surface Water Utility Engineer, will be contacting you to arrange a time to meet with you in your neighborhood to learn more about these surface water problems. You may contact Gary at 425-430-7392 or you can reach him via Email at qf ink @ci.ren on.wa.us . We want to make sure we know about drainage problems in areas that we annex to understand the future funding needs associated with the annexation and to provide the best service reasonably possible to our new customers, once the annexation has been completed. If these problems exist outside of the City of Renton and the proposed Mackey annexation, King County will still be responsible for addressing the problems. We would try to work with the County to facilitate resolution of the problems however. The problem comes from SR 900 (a state highway) KC -- along 148th to 150th Avenue and from Renton -- allowing additional homes to be built above us -- Windstone 2, etc. In the past, I had WSDOT hydrologists out to look at our problem. They say they can't stop the water from coming off SR 900. The ditch we are talking about runs along 148th Avenue SE -- on the East side. 500 Feet below SR 900 is a culvert diverting water from the ditch under 148th Avenue to a tributary of Greenes Stream. That water then flows down Greenes Stream to my yard and then to May Creek. Beyond that culvert, is another culvert -- running under 148th Avenue SE from the drainage ditch just before SE 102nd St. down to 147th Avenue SE and then; under 147th to a neighbor's yard and through the field to Greenes Stream. There is a shallow ditch along 147th down to where there is an "unpaved" portion of the county road. Just before that area, there is another culvert diverting water from the ditch to a small culvert going under 147th. That culvert was replaced with a same -size culvert. We had so much water that the culvert couldn't handle it. King County Roads didn't want to install a larger one because they would have had to get an HPA permit. As it was, they didn't get the HPA permit for this installation. (Fish and Wildlife was called and I was told that for any culvert installation, an HPA permit was needed.) These culvert get plugged with sediment, leaves and kid's toys. They need to be cleaned out periodically. When Brian Sleight came out, we asked him (Maxine gave him a letter via me) to divert the water from the 148th drainage ditch straight down instead of going into the culverts. He said that there is a CIP project --years out -- to replace the bridge spanning May Creek on 148th. There is a thought that maybe some of the water could be diverted at that time. However, he said that not all of the water could be sent straight down. Eventually KC Roads came out, cleaned out the culvert and deepened the ditches alongside 147th. I also filed a complaint with KC Roads about our problem. Part of the problem we are having are single-family homes being built without catch basin being provided. Renton is also part of the problem by allowing more homes to be built in Windstone. (Not all the water coming from the roads or homes in Windstone will go into the detention pond. Yet, when these short plats were platted, I was "blown away" when I testified before the hearing examiner. It's to the point where I don't even go to those hearings because I know the hearing examiner won't listen to me. Currently, the County doesn't have any money in its Neighborhood Drainage Assistance Program to help fix our problems. Even if they did, our area would have to be "ranked" against other projects. Maxine was told that she should buy a pipe to install on her property. She priced such a pipe and found out at the time that it cost $5000. She decided not to buy it because it wasn't her job to fix a "county -type problem We are aware and familiar of some of the surface water problems within the Greenes Creek sub -basin of May Creek, The City of Renton participated with King County in the development of the May Creek Basin Plan, which identified surface water problems in the Greenes Creek sub -basin. The surface water problems you describe sound significant and may be new problems that didn't exist when the May Creek Basin Plan was developed. I know that Renton participated in the May Creek Basin Program, However, up until recently Renton's attitude towards us was "that's nice to know, we'll keep building anyway". That's one reason why in December 2004, E drove to Bellevue. Renton's attitude then showed me that the City didn't care about May Creek, Greenes Stream or my property. The December 3, 2007 flood was a federally declared flood disaster. In Renton we experienced 4.27 - inches of rainfall in a 24-hour period. The 24-hour total rainfall for the 100 -year storm (1% chance of occurring in any given year) is 3.9 -inches in 24-hrs. The flood event exceeded the 100 -yr storm precipitation amount, which caused flooding at many other locations in and around Renton, in addition to your neighborhood. However, we do want to get better understanding of the surface water problems that you describe. We will want to see if there is anything the City can do to reduce the flood hazard in the area, once it is annexed to the City, and to be prepared for providing assistance and emergency response, if necessary, in the future during a significant flood event. We had water for 2 days. The county can fix the levees on the Green River, but can't provide help to a small neighborhood within the May Creek Basin, Last March, I attended a 4 Creeks UAC meeting where Councilman Reagan Dunn spoke. He said afterwards there maybe some money to help us -- that didn't pan out either. Thanks again for contacting us. Gary Fink will be contacting you next week to arrange a time to meet with you to discuss and learn more about the surface water problems in the Mackey Annexation and the Greenes Creek sub -basin to May Creek in general. I am interested in talking with Mr. l=ink. I am sure that Maxine would also be interested. If he can give me some dates, then maybe I can call her to see if she would be interested in meeting with us also. Thanks much Claudia Donnelly Ronald J. Straka, P.E. Surface Water Utility Engineering Supervisor Renton City Halll - 5th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057 Ph. 425.430.7248 Fax: 425.430.7241 Email: rstraka@ci.renton.wa.us I f i Michael/Claudia Donnelly <thedonnellys@oo.net> 09/05/2008 11:46 AM >>> Dear Ms. Mathias: I would like to bring you up-to-date on surface water problems on 147th Avenue SE. Believe me, we have surface water problems. No one from Renton has ever talked to us about them. Last December our street had 2 days worth of street flooding, along with water in garages and homes. The water comes from 148th Avenue SE from the culvert under the road just prior to SE 102nd St.. The culvert under 147th Avenue SE -- near the top of the road -- gets plugged up with sediment and leaves. Last year, we got that December flood and there was too much water for the culvert to handle. (The water from Maxine's drainage goes into the pasture before it goes into Greenes Stream.) So, the water went into the shallow ditch along the east side of the road. Because there was too much water and the ditch was too shallow -- the water spilled over the road into Maxine's vacant property and into a house just south of where the annexation line ends. That person had new carpet ruined. Down the road, Peg! Morse's house got water in her garage because the culvert underneath the road -- in front of her house -- was too small to handle the water. So, it overflowed into her garage. KC Roads came out and put another same -sized culvert in the place (! was told they didn't want to put a larger one in because they would have had to get an HPA permit to install a larger culvert. However, Fish and Wildlife people told me that any culvert that is installed needs to have an HPA permit,) Our yard -- not within this proposed annexation area -- had a lake in the side yard. We've been told that even to deepen the stream, that we need a permit from DDES and Fish and Wildlife. Like I said earlier, KC SWM people -- Brian Sleight and Bob Burns -- came out and looked at all of the problem areas. We asked them if KC would divert the water coming down the drainage ditch on 148th straight down to May Creek and block this culvert by SE 102nd St. and the one opposite the entrance to Windstone. They said no. And they said there is no money in the County budget to fix our problem(s). Since 1989, we have tried to get help from KC SWM to fix the various problems out this way, They suggested years ago to install a larger culvert at the driveway where SE 104th St. would be. The lady who owned the property didn't like the legal contract the county wrote; so it was never installed. Now, there is no money in the County Budget. Our stream also gets water from Summerwind -- flowing through the yards of some Stonegate residents. At one time, Renton proposed putting a high-speed sewer line through this culvert, Someone said no and that won't be done. We asked Renton to install a larger culvert as mitigation for installing this line. Renton officials told us they can't do a thing until this area is annexed to Renton. Please feel free to come out to our neighborhood and talk with us about the problems. I can show you the culvert on 148th -- going down to 147th and then through Maxine's yard. Claudia Donnelly PICTURES Maxine's house/property-on 147`.h where water from -ditch on_ 148". comes down into the field and then down to Greenes Stream. Picture of location where water flows down to corner property and then onto Greenes Stream. Picture looking back at "sensitive area" on either side of Greenes Stream. Taken in Stonegate on NE 26" St. Second picture looking at sensitive area on either side of Greenes Stream — taken on NE 26" St. Third picture taken from NE 26`h St— looking back at sloping hillside and sensitive area where stream is located. Field at the end of 147" — looking north. Notice the pile of wood chips. Another picture of the field at at the end of 147`h — more piles of wood chips used to prevent horses from damaging their hooves in the wet mud. Picture of the field at the property line. More piles of wood chips. Picture of sloping ground — taken at SE 100" St — which has been vacated. Picture of sensitive area -- looking west into where SE 100`h St. used to be. — Now vacated. Another picture of sensitive area — where stream is located; looking back at Maxine's property. Picture of no signs on the southern boundary of the proposed upzone area. This is NE 23`d St — also known as SE 102nd St. Sign on 148"' across from High Speed Sewer Building. This is about 300 feet north of Stonegate. X - R ' 7 fid' •„k '..���`I ]�IR+�r, �-�� :4 OF A 1y.4�.�y}�}ii, , I s � 1i. � r- Is 1 �(j� ji�Jf 1,4r`�' ,A ! ,-' � ir' � a ��,,�Ji'� � —�•.� • E. +. r ;�+ � w' Il•S4�iri{. al�i' I : v�;�1k. . � ` I+ 7 'p:.,it,''�-; rya i 'y .$yrs i t pyq"`y�j i a ,A Oki y •'� n/ 11 Y• r �.'` t�. } � ; � r 4�� �1! �t rr�}� II�_r� '� {'``I�r �I i, t' il7drs •s rt i I,� s ;,' ��4!r . � � ,� r+. "'h j .�1 ,4}�� •r � • � �, �1� I�7�' I�' � -! 1 rl„p I + �' .. .'yr ` ; I , I, •,/}' 4 Ify �7 moll L. ARM,44 4 ih + 9 y+ f ! i •� 1 r i IAft'� lift - 3'1' 1�• . a, �S. iab.. 1 From: Michael/Claudia Donnelly <thedonnellys@oo.net> Subject: thank you Date: July 28, 2011 12:25:30 PM PDT To: Rocale Timmons <rtimmons@rentonwa.gov> Cc: Denis Law <dlaw@rentonwa.gov>, Alexander Pietsch <apietsch@rentonwa.gov>, Chip Vincent cCVincent@Rentonwa.gov>, Inez Petersen cwebgirl@seanet.com>, "Jennifer T. Henning" <Jhenning@Rentonwa.gov>, Terry G Persson <terrypersson@msn.com>, "HOWARDMCOMBER@HOTMAIL.COM President Elect" ¢HOWARDMCOMBER@HOTMAIL.COM>, "bkappenman@hotmail.com HCA Director" <bkappenman@hotmail.com> Dear Ms. Timmons: Thank you for letting me view the file this morning. In a previous note, I mentioned that a family living across from this property was not notified by the City of this proposal. I looked up their name and address on the DDES web site. Then I looked up to find their name on the list you gave me. I couldn't find it -- it will be part of my letter to the City. How many other people who should have been notified haven't been because they were overlooked? I don't want to offend you -- but these are the types of "oversights" I see all the time from Renton officials. (A good example is in 2008 prior to the MacKay annexation. Our area had been prezoned R-1 since 1997. To begin with, staff refused to acknowledged that that had occurred. Only after I used a Public Disclosure Request to get a copy of the ordinance did staff realize that there indeed was a prezone. I shouldn't have had to use the Public Disclosure Request.) I got home and looked up WAC 197-11-510 about posting notices for land use actions (this information was provided to me by DOE/SEPA office). Public notice. (1) When these rules require notice to be given under this section, the lead agency must use reasonable methods to inform the public and other agencies that an environmental document is being prepared or is available and that public hearing(s), if any, will be held. The agency may use its existing notice procedures. Examples of reasonable methods to inform the public are: (a) Posting the property, for site-specific proposals: The Growth Management Act also states — regarding notification: RCW 36.70A.035 Public participation -- Notice provisions. (1) The public participation requirements of this chapter shall include notice procedures that are reasonably calculated to provide notice to property owners and other affected and interested individuals, tribes,. government agencies, businesses. school districts, and organizations ofprogosed amendments to comprehensive plans and development regulation. Examples of reasonable notice provisions include: (a) Posting the oronerty for site-specific proposals You said that a Code Enforcement person posted the notices. I don't want to offend him or you, but there are..no_.property_specifio_signa_posted on_.NE 23rd_so_that.this_family who. lives across..the street_from this.. property could find out what is going on or in Stonegate to announce this proposed rezone to others who may have not gotten a letter from Renton officials. They also probably can't see the sign facing west across the bridge on May Creek or see the sign before the 3 -Way intersection going east on SE May Valley Road. Renton officials can decide what needs to be done to follow state law. Yes, you mailed out notices. Yes, there was a notice in the paper last week. However a site-specific notice is number 1 on both of these laws. That should mean something.... I am working on my letter and will have it to you and the Hearing Examiner next week. Thank you, again. Claudia Donnelly �'.No gc--ranonQ�,ac�nc T.E u•W �,o +Cy �C p ° 0 3 .c $ .? a, 3 ! Z� 3C �w �.�: =E- �p E� G Ce •7 Vwa G t7 �v� O v s ezr, > O > c* u u E •_' 6J O d F �,U "aZ""ais7C7F�� _ o vM1 oir� ��� E E o �5. c n�n'cbn �-+ a C zF-T 5� CC �a v^ ° v cavi a °te a y'�C4E0.>�7 ��': C d dw �� .�. �'uD�'E ci �a �ia> u e�°"tea, � 2 ou aoU 2� c OC ara ^po U 'r'3' ?`i 3�o5�a S E u�a ��u Fop OpV"= o m ai a,uz v °w �v �w a � 0. c ��� 3 aUti�� ° cv u a as ., c c o G a� ° c c d fln.EUo y��U'D 4CGWa{}.ax �Z� SNS �� �.° $ > y w p oN U xa i�g c_ �a fin c mOta] ..o° cq �m ud.� �, co' c ° .LAE �n Q^� o'�..�r,�•_ry Z��,3yJ�nC�_p- c- T rya dFi n. ¢ d �3 F O T N O 7 u O u � m E 6a7ptzl�sZ a c,cd [u u $ Q'° "ate rCr7, rnr c b^v v EO u Y .a 1 b C O p �+ V C .•r_77 G u C� p O u oo C �: N �u uk U �'�•a�'� d1''v^,� c.� F G E'° u-�� �•5 �v D44 8 riioOO,'�i.r��U���''J�'ca�.� 1 4. ? Q• zoLL i — O C eC O v eC o ny to to Z oar vr. °" pzo� c� o o Z i� 4. 4- Z 0.0 o � '� o. a,.c v a o 0 a. a= °En -n Zoo y�� "a c�, c� cq u c O N "C3 � cd v, yy d A Q IB E 3.� o °� o �o N 4- � S on W dA «'� r- G4 (U bA p o m 7, ,,��,•, c 0 r�� 0.° N Cd 0 for H c F Z W= u urig ~C 4- b - -0 U.0 -d a�i ���W°cam�oZ �.�-'0 3 c•° a� c� a� � a�a� U c to= yuo away obuaa-SU m of ...—WOWICity of �� �•, Ir.yl, 1�11(I:11 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL. DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Home Raeone PROJECT NUMaER: LUA31423, ECF, R LOGaTION1 Along the watt ewe of N5• Ase NR Just south of May Valley Road. DESCRIPTION: The applicant Is requesting a ratan• for 17 W-91- famlM Iota hom the R1 to the Mg toning daslgnatlom The 12 Paresis conthts of 7.37 was et area and It looted along the easum boundary of the clty lust south of $E May Valley Road .dyacentlaburting Nile Aso NE. The pmlett me 4 encumbered by steep dopes and wetlands. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE IERC1 HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Comments and appeals of the environmental determination must be Iliad In writing an or before 9:00 p.m. on August 5, 2011. Appeals must be 61ed In writing together with the required fn with: Hearing Examiner, City of Rentart, 1055 South Grady Way, Rentan, WA 91051. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Cade Section 4.4-110.9. Addltlonai Information regarding the appeal process may be abtalned from the Renton City Clerk's Office, 14251 430.9510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FtOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON AUGUST 16, 2011 AT 1:00 PM TO CONSIDER THE REZONE. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 15 APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD A5 PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY&eCONOMICDEVELOPMENT AT(425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION please Include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file Identlficatlon. CERTIFICATION I, D&gap 6"44St*1J hereby certify that copies of the above document were posted in .3 conspicuous places or nearby the property on Date: 0��01 Signed: as STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to' be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. D Ems\ Notary Publif in and for the State of Washington IF+ i l 3! Notary (Print): • � = G s y`I+ My appointment expires:g A ac���-� CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 18th day of July, 2011, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Notice of ERC Determination, Environmental Checklist documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Agencies See Attached Ed Horne Applicant Newfourth LLC Owner Tom Redding Contact 300' Surrounding Property Owners - Notice only See attached (Signature of Sender); A, /// STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ='r rtwo SS COUNTY OF ICING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act mentioned in the instrument. Notary Vublic in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): W A La --Ler My appointment expires: A"6 USA— aq 2043 Project Name: Horne Rezone Project Number: LUA11-023, ECF, R template - affidavit of service by mailing AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology * WDFW - Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015-172 nd Avenue 5E Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region * Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS -240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172nd Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, M5 KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Boyd Powers * Depart, of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, M5: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 *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, Site Plan PMT, and the notice of application. template - affidavit of service by mailing 032305921903 803540046007 803540005003 HORNE WILLIAM E LIVING TR HUDGINS DAVID J+KELLY A KIM BARO HORNE WILLIAM E+MARY ATTEE 2302 LYONS AVE NE 5500 NE 26TH ST 5604 NE 24TH ST RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 022305909404 803540052005 803540001002 523000001009 803540051007 803540002000 ANDERSON PAULINE+RONALD LEE BOYDSTON TAMIE BYUS DEAN T III+KIERSTEN G 10205 148TH AVE SE 2508 LYONS AVE NE 5602 NE 26TH ST RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 803540043004 803540053003 523000012006 CHAPPELLE DOUGLAS & CAROL CHRISTOPHERSON BRUCE K COSTANTINI MAURICE J+JENNY 2208 LYONO AVE 5502 NE 24TH CT 10228 147TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 NEWCASTLE WA 98059 523000003005 032305922406 803540048003 DOVEY CHARLES J FELLABAUM MATTHEW+BETSY FOHRELL WILLIAM B & JAN E 10227 148TH SE 2411 NILE AVE NE 2400 LYONS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 803540006001 032305919402 803540049001 FRIEDRICH HOWARD R+BARBARA GROWTH CAPITAL PARTNERS II HENRY MICHAEL+HEIDI 2401 LYONS AVE NE 1411 4TH AVE #850 2406 LYONS AVE NE RENTON WA 98059 SEATTLE WA 98101 RENTON WA 98059 032305921903 803540046007 803540005003 HORNE WILLIAM E LIVING TR HUDGINS DAVID J+KELLY A KIM BARO HORNE WILLIAM E+MARY ATTEE 2302 LYONS AVE NE 5500 NE 26TH ST 5604 NE 24TH ST RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 022305909404 803540052005 803540001002 KOZIOL KERRY B LARSON DAVID TROY LIEN LAURIE A 10202 148TH SE 5505 NE 24TH CT 29928 PACIFIC HWY S RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98059 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 032305925706 032305910807 803540045009 MACKAY PAUL F JR+TAMMY L MERRITT MICHAEL M+CYNTHIA L MESSINA MARC & MADONNA 5625 NE 26TH ST 2505 LYONS AVE NE 2218 LYONS AVE NE RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 803540047005 523000016007 523000013004 MUTTART GEORGE M+GINGER A R NAGEL MAXINE M OKESON CHRISTINA M 2310 LYONS AVE NE 10217 147TH AVE SE 10218 147TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 803540050009 803540003008 032305919303 REAMY ELIZABETH A+REAMY SALAS MELISSA ORANGE DAVID T CHARLES L III C/O WILLOUGHBY 2357 NILE AVE NE 2502 LYONS AVE NE 5512 NE 26TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 032305919907 523000018003 022305908901 SCOFIELD JONATHAN N SHARP MICHAEL+NINA SIMON RANDY K+KAREN S 14701 SE 100TH ST 12824 SE 265TH ST 6947 COAL CREEK PKWY SE RENTON WA 98059 KENT WA 98050 RENTON WA 98059 523000014002 SMITH NORMAN W 14705 SE 102ND ST RENTON WA 98059 523000002007 TERAMANTA 10217 148TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 803540044002 WINN STEPHEN G 2212 LYONS AVE NE NEWCASTLE WA 98059 803540004006 SPIER ROBERT+MONIQUE BLOCH 5506 NE 26TH ST RENTON WA 98059 022305907507 TSEGAY TSEGE+AYELE KIDANE 10008 148TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 803540055008 STONEGATE HOMEOWNERS ASSOC PO BOX 2691 RENTON WA 98056 523000017005 TUPOU ELIZABETH 10221 147TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 City of _ r ! l44 f iIIJI�sY r 07F[(� E OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Horne Rezone PROJECT NUMBER: LUA11.023, ECF, R LOCATION: Along the west side of Nile Ave NE, just south of May Valley Road. DESCRIPTION: The applicant Is requesting a rezone for 12 single family lots from the R-1 to the R-4 zoning designation. The 12 parcels consists of 7.37 acres of area and is located along the eastern boundary of the city just south of SE May Valley Road adjacent/abutting Nile Ave NE. The project area is encumbered by steep slopes and wetlands. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Comments and appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or Before 5:00 p.m. an August 5, 2011. Appeals must be filed In writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Munlcipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. 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 HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON AUGUST 16, 2011 AT 1:00 PM TO CONSIDER THE REZONE. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD A5 PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. Denis Law Mayor D City July 18, 12011 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Tom Redding Encompass Engineering and Surveying 165 NE Juniper Street #201 Issaquah, WA 98027 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOLD (SEPA) DETERMINATION Horne Rezone, LUA11-023, ECF, R Dear Mr.. Redding: . This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to inform you that they have completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above -referenced project. The Committee, on July 18, 2011, decided that your project will be issued a Determination of Non -Significance. Please see the enclosed ERC Report and Decision for more details. The City of.Renton ERC_ has determined that it does not have.a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An 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 476-6, 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. Comments and appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on August 5, 2011. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee With: Hearing Examiner, City.of Renton, 1055 South Grady -Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the' -Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110:6. 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 Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on August 16, 2011 at 1:00 pm. to consider the Rezone. The applicant or representatives) of the applicant is required to be present at the'public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be.mailed to you prior'to the hearing. 1f the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Renton City. Hall 9 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 e rentonwa.gov . Contact Name here Page.2 of 2 July 18, 2011 If you have any questio.ns•or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425): 430-7219. For the Environmental Rvview'Committee, . Roc a Timmons Associate Planner Enclosure cc: Newfourth LLC / Owner Ed Horne / Applicant 'Dennis Rattie,.Debra Rogers, Bryan & Kendra Vadney, Madonna Messina, Bruce Christopherson / Party(ies) of Record H:ICEMPlanning\Current PlanningTROJECTMI1-023.Rocale%ERC Determination Ltr DNS 11-023.doc Denis Law Mayor Cl O Ut'�Y Qty July 18, 2011 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator •Washington State ,Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA] DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on July 18, 2011: DETERMINATION'OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT NAME: Horne Rezone PROJECT NUMBER: LUA11-023, ECF, R LOCATION: Along the west side of Nile Ave NE, just south of May Valley Road DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a rezone for 12 single family lots from the R-1 to the R-4 zoning designation. The 12 parcels consists of 7.37 acres of area and is located'along the eastern boundary of the city just south of SE May Valley Road adjacent/abutting Nile Ave NE. The project area is encumbered by, steep slopes and wetlands. Comments and appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in.writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on August 5, 2011. Appeals must be filed in writing together With the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady -Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to'the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B: Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete' details. If you have questions, please call me at (425),430-7219. For the Environmental Review.Committee, �lifyCnLafYt�� . Roc le Timmons As ociate Planner Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way + Renton, Washington 98057 * rentonwa.gov Washington State Departme, Ecology Page 2 of 2 July 18, 2011 Enclosure cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Ramin Pazook1, WS DOT, NW Region Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources Larry Fisher, WDFW Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Duwamish.Tribal Office Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp. of Engineers Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 4L t (S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY �ityof AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Z4Z4l�O ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA11-023, ECF, R APPLICANT: Ed Horne PROJECT NAME: Horne Rezone DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a rezone for 12 single family lots from the R- 1 to the R-4 zoning designation. The 12 parcels consists of 7.37 acres of area and is located along the eastern boundary of the city just south of SE May Valley Road adjacent/abutting Nile Ave NE. The project area is encumbered by steep slopes and wetlands. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Along the west side of Nile Ave NE, just south of May Valley Road LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development 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 p.m. on August 5, 2011. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 110.6. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: July 22, 2011 July 18, 2011 SIGNATURES: r 1 Gregg Zimmer inlstra-tor Dae Mark Peterso , Administrator Dat Public Works Department Fire & Emergency Services Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Date Wex Pietsch, Adm istrator Date Community Services Department Department of Community & Economic Development I Project Location Map ERC Report 2. doc DEPARTMENT OF COMMUN.. !ccyUJ AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Can(b n ' ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT FRC MEETING DATE: July 18, 2011 Project Name: Horne Rezone Owner: Newfourth LLC, 19244 391h Ave S; Seatac, WA 98188 Applicant: Ed Horne; 5604 NE 24`h St; Renton, WA 98059 Contact: Tom Redding; Encompass Engineering and Surveying File Number: LUA 11-023, ECF, R Project Manager. Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner Project Summary: The applicant is requesting a rezone for 12 single family lots from the R-1 to the R-4 zoning designation. The 12 parcels consists of 7.37 acres of area and is located along the eastern boundary of the city just south of SE May Valley Road adjacent/abutting Nile Ave NE. The project area is encumbered by steep slopes and wetlands. Project Location: Along the west side of Nile Ave NE, just south of May Valley Road (Parcel #'s: 032305-9233, 032305-9219, 032305-9106, 032305-9221, 032305-9322, 032305-9257, 032305-9224, 032305-9258, 032305-9193, 032305-9194, 032305-9004, 032305-9199). Site Area: 7.37 ac (320,910 SFJ STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a RECOMMENDATION: Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). I Project Location Map ERC Report 2. doc City of Renton Department of Communh, Economic Development L. onmental Review Committee Report HORNE REZONE LUA 11-023, ECF, R Report of July 18, 2011 Page 2 of 3 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a non -project Environmental 'SEPA' Review as part of a Rezone request for 12 parcels, totaling approximately,7.37 acres in area, from Residential -1 du/ac (R-1)to Residential -4 du/ac (R- 4) zoning. This property is designated for RLD (Residential Low Density) within the City's Comprehensive Plan. Both the R-1 and R-4 are implementing zones of the RLD land use designation. No construction is proposed as part of the rezone while the approval of a rezone would represent an increase in intensity that could result in additional dwelling units, there are no anticipated impacts from this change at a programmatic level. Impacts related to the development of subject parcels may be mitigated at the time of project specific development. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS with a 14 -day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures None. C. Exhibits None. D. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is unlikely to have impacts as no development is occurring as part of the proposal. Any future development would be subject to the Environmental Regulations in effect at the time of application. E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant." ✓ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, August 5, 2011. FRC Report2. dot City of Renton Department of Comm unh, Economic Development L- onmento! Review Committee Report HORNE REZONE LUA 11-023, ECF, R Report of July 18, 2011 Page 3 of 3 Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.13 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing at the City Clerk's office along with the required fee. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98057. ERC Report 2. doc City 0#ton Department of Community & Economic ,plopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATI�O [ VIEW`•SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 1, 2011 APPLICATION NO: LUAI1-023, ECF, R DATE CIRCULATED: J APPLICANT: Ed Horne PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Horne Rezone PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 320,910 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: Along the west side of Nile Ave NE, just south of May Valley Road PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a rezone for 12 single family lots from the R-1 to the R-4 zoning designation. The 12 parcels consists of 7.37 acres of area and is located along the eastern boundary of the city Just south of SE May Valley Road adjacent/abutting Nile Ave NE. The project area is encumbered by steep slopes and wetlands. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics LightlGlare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,D00 Feet 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 proposal. AA&&Aa SignaturqAfDirqIbtor or Authorized Representative Date DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITYn i of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT elm (a M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 27, 2011 TO: Rocale Timmons FROM: Bob Mac Onie 14 SUBJECT: Horne Rezone, LU -11-023, ECF, R - Review I have reviewed the above referenced submittal and have the following comments: Legal Description Comments: The legal description for Parcel B includes "portion of Government Lot 1 in the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter." Please note that Government Lot 1 and said Southeast quarter are mutually exclusive. Government Lot 1 lies north of and adjoins said Southeast quarter and is not relevant to the subject legal description at all but does not lead to an ambiguous result. The legal descriptions for Parcel C and D contain the same error but do create ambiguity. This brings into question exactly which Northeast corner "thereof" is the beginning point that of Government Lot 1 or said Southeast quarter in the Parcel C description and "said subdivision" in the Parcel D, I & L descriptions. The legal descriptions for Parcels F, G, H & K include "portion of Government Lot 1 in the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter," Please note that there is no Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter is it just called Government Lot 1. There is no patent ambiguity in these descriptions just meaningless and unnecessary verbiage. Policy Comments: This application indicated that there are currently no plans for the platting of the properties involved. Of course approval of the rezone makes such very likely, therefore it would be in the best interest of the public that the rezone request be part and parcel of a specific development proposal since it would allow up to 30 SF units more than doubling the existing allowable density and a quadrupling of the actual. Much of the undeveloped portion of the properties at issue is owned by a known developer. hafile sysllnd - land subdivision & surveying recordsl1nd-01 - legal descriptionslreviewslhorne rezone.doc Addressee Name Page 2 of 2 Date of Memo Environmental Comments: Any change in actual density will have impacts so again this requested should be evaluated in the context of an actual development proposal Ufile sysllnd - land subdivision & surveying recordsllnd-01 - legal descriplionslrevicwslhorne rezone.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 1, 2011 APPLICATION NO: LUA11-023, ECF, R DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 18, 2011 APPLICANT: Ed Horne PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Horne Rezone PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 320,910 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: Along the west side of Nile Ave NE, just south of May Valley Road PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a rezone for 12 single family lots from the R-1 to the R-4 zoning designation. The 12 parcels consists of 7.37 acres of area and is located along the eastern boundary of the city just south of SE May Valley Road adjacent/abutting Nile Ave NE. The project area is encumbered by steep slopes and wetlands. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Environment Minor Impacts Probable More Major Information Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li h Glare Recreation utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,0 Feet c5ce— rM e-✓ C-) �t_,(f� W1 C_w.—e3 C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS O l 1 UlhGk.� �e Cti ~ti L \ Cc l 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-' needed t properly assess this proposal, �— Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: a COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 1, 2011 0 APPLICATION NO: LUA11-023, ECF, R DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 18, 2011 rn APPLICANT: Ed Horne PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons zp r PROJECT TITLE: Horne Rezone PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick tnm �^ SITE AREA: 320,910 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A CO C= m LOCATION: Along the west side of Nile Ave NE, just south of PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A to May Valley Road SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a rezone for 12 single family lots from the R-1 to the R-4 zoning designation. The 12 parcels consists of 7.37 acres of area and is located along the eastern boundary of the city just south of SE May Valley Road adjacent/abutting Nile Ave NE. The project area is encumbered by steep slopes and wetlands. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable more Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy Natural Resources / r 1111i' / B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li h Glare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services HistoriclCultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14 000 Feet 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 infor ion is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative -/-, 5 7\/- d Date City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: APPLICATION NO: LUA11-023, ECF, R COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 1, 2011 DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 18, 2011 APPLICANT: Ed Horne PROJECT TITLE: Horne Rezone PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 320,910 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: Along the west side of Nile Ave NE, just south of May Valley Road PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a rezone for 12 single family lots from the R-1 to the R-4 zoning designation. The 12 parcels consists of 7.37 acres of area and is located along the eastern boundary of the city just south of SE May Valley Road adjacent/abutting Nile Ave NE. The project area is encumbered by steep slopes and wetlands. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land shoreline use Animals Environmental Health Energ y Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Probable More Minor Major Information impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics L! ht Giore Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historlacultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 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 jkneeded to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: F1 COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 1, 2011 APPLICATION NO: LUA11-023, ECF, R DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 18, 2011 APPLICANT: Ed Horne PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Horne Rezone PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 320,910 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: Along the west side of Nile Ave NE, just south of May Valley Road PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a rezone for 12 single family lots from the R-1 to the R-4 zoning designation. The 12 parcels consists of 7.37 acres of area and is located along the eastern boundary of the city just south of SE May Valley Road adjacent/abutting Nile Ave NE. The project area is encumbered by steep slopes and wetlands. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Probable More Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Wo ter Plants Land Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics ii ht Glare Recreation Utilities Trans ortation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14 000 Feet NO C a m No C 0 K - 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 proposal. & o Z Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ��� COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 1, 2011 APPLICATION NO: LUA11-023, ECF, R DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 18, 2011 APPLICANT: Ed Horne PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons DEVELOPMENT SERV11T* r PROJECT TITLE: Horne Rezone PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 320,910 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A ZE Z011 LOCATION: Along the west side of Nile Ave NE, Just south of May Valley Road PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A WECEIVEE SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a rezone for 12 single family lots from the R-1 to the R-4 zoning designation. The 12 parcels consists of 7.37 acres of area and is located along the eastern boundary of the city just south of SE May Valley Road adjacent/abutting Nile Ave NE. The project area is encumbered by steep slopes and wetlands. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Probable More Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet N ov-k B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS ,vev-0— CES Element of the Environment Probable Probable More Minor Major information Impacts impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li ht Glare Recreation utilities Trans ortation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 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 proposal. fi A 1. ft- A _IK 14�,v 1 & -7/,-V L00 Sign tuk of Director or Authorized Representative Da(e City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOP-MENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 4l COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 1, 2011 APPLICATION NO: LUA11-023, ECF, R DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 18, 2011 APPLICANT: Ed Horne PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons DEVELOPMENT SER PROJECT TITLE: Horne Rezone PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 320,910 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A JUL 9 2011 LOCATION: Along the west side of Nile Ave NE, just south of May Valley Road PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A RECEIVE RECEIVE SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a rezone for 12 single family lots from the R-1 to the R-4 zoning designation, The 12 parcels consists of 7.37 acres of area and is located along the eastern boundary of the city just south of SE May Valley Road adjacent/abutting Nile Ave NE, The project area is encumbered by steep slopes and wetlands, A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land Shorefine Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources jJO�V�>2� B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element 01 the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housin Aesthetics Li ht Glare Recreation Utilities Trons ortation Publ is Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14 000 Feet VICES 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 proposal. Director or Authorized Representative 1 Dat City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 1, 2011 APPLICATION NO: LUA11-023, ECF, R DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 18, 2011 APPLICANT: Ed Horne PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Tlmmons CITY OF RENTON PROJECT TITLE: Horne Rezone PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 320,910 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: Along the west side of Nile Ave NE, just south of May Valley Road PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A RECEIV EK SUMMARY of PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a rezone for 12 single family lots from the R-1 to the R-4 zoning designation. The 12 parcels consists of 7.37 acres of area and Is located along the eastern boundary of the city just south of SE May Valley Road adjacent/abutting Nile Ave NE. The project area is encumbered by steep slopes and wetlands. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plonts Land Shorellne Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Envlranment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics LI ht Giare Recreation utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet CES 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 w re additional information is eeded to properly assess this proposal. L_ 7 p �/ Si ture of Dire r or Autho 'zed Represent ive Date June 30th, 2011 5604 NE 24th St. Renton, WA 98059 Ms. Rocale Timmons Associate Planner Department of Community and Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Reference: Horne Rezone, LUA11-023, ECF, R Dear Ms. Rocale, c;t .v of entOn Div.sion pea I received your letter stating that the referenced rezone application was complete and that the tentative date for a Public Hearing was set for August 2, 2011. Unfortunately, I will be out of town during that time period. Could we possibly reschedule the hearing for late in August or early September? Thank you for your consideration, William E. Horne Applicant Q Denis Law Cl Of �. Mayor I t Y O Department of Community and Economic. Development June 23, 2011 Alex Pietsch,Administrator Tom Redding . Encompass Engineering and Surveying . 165 NE Juniper St, Ste 201 lssaquah, WA 98027 Subject:. Notice of Complete Application Horne Rezone; LUA11-023, ECF,.R Dear Mr. Redding: 'The Planning Division 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 (SEPA) Review Committee. on July'11, 2011. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. In addition, this matter is tentatively.scheduled for a Public Hearing on August 2, 2011. at 1:00 p.m., Council Chambers; Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, • Renton. The public hearing would b,e rescheduled in the event of a revision, by the Environmental Review Committee, to .the, threshold determination or a SEPA appeal. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to be present, at the public -hearing. A copy of the staff.report will be mailed to you prior to the scheduled hearing. Please contact me at (425) 430-7219 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Roc le Timmons As ociate Planner,. cc: Newfourth LLC/.Owner(s) Ed Horne / Applicant Parties of Record File No. LUA11-023 Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057• 9 rentonwa.gov Printed: 05-04-2011 Payment Made: CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA11-023 05/04/2011 08:52 AM Total Payment: 3,090.00 Current Payment Made to thefollowing Items: Receipt Number: R1101561 Payee: William & Mary Horne #8159 Trane Account Code Description Amount ------ 3080 ------------------ 503.000000.004.322 ------------------------------ Technology Fee ---------------- 90.00 5010 000.000000.007.345 Environmental Review 1,000.00 5017 000.000000.007.345 Rezone 2,000.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount ---------- -------- --------------------------- --------------- Payment Check #8159 3,090.00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000000.020.345 Park Mitigation Fee .00 3080 503.000000.004.322 Technology Fee .00 5006 000.000000.007.345 Annexation Fees .00 5007 000.000000.011.345 Appeals/waivers .00 5008 000.000000.007.345 Binding Site/Short Plat .00 5009 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Use Fees .00 5010 000.000000.007.345 Environmental Review .00 5011 000.000000.007.345 Prelim/Tentative Plat .00 5012 000.000000.007.345 Final Plat .00 5013 000.000000.007.345 PUD .00 5014 000.000000.007.345 Grading & Filling Fees .00 5015 000.000000.007.345 Lot Line Adjustment .00 5016 000.000000.007.345 Mobile Home Parks .00 5017 000.000000.007.345 Rezone .00 5018 000.000000.007.345 Routine Vegetation Mgmt .00 5019 000.000000.007.345 Shoreline Subst Dev .00 5020 000.000000.007.345 Site Plan Approval .00 5021 000.000000.007.345 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence .00 5022 000.000000.007.345 Variance Fees .00 5024 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Approval Fee .00 5036 000.000000.007.345 Comprehensive Plan Amend .00 5909 000.000000.002.341 Booklets/EIS/Copies .00 5941 000.000000.007.341 Maps (Taxable) .00 5954 650.237.00.00.0000 DO NOT USE - USE 3954, .00 5998 000.000000.000.231 Tax .00 Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: Newfourth LLC ADDRESS: 192 YI1 37 y-"' AVP tJ�9, CITY: � � ZIP: 9T! gg TELEPHONE NUMBER: yzj�- 41YY—OY6/ APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: Ed Home COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: 5604 NE 24" St. CiTY: Renton, WA ZIP: 98059 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 206-571-8524 CONTACT PERSON NAME: Tom Redding COMPANY (if applicable): Encompass Engineering and Surveying ADDRESS. 165 NE Juniper St, Suite 201 CITY: Issaquah, WA Zip: 98027 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL_ ADDRESS: 162,5 PCityof 13enton Hing Drvfsion OR 2`8 lUll PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Horne Rezone PROJECTIADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 23XX, 2351, 2357, 2405 & 2411 Nile Ave NE, 55XX, 5625 & 5604 NE 26th St. 147XX SE 102od St., 55XX, 5601 & 56XX NE 24th St., Renton WA 98059 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 032305-9233, 032305-9219, 032305-9106, 032305-9221, 032305-9322, 032305-9257, 032305-9224, 032305-9258, 032305.9193, 032305-9194, 032305-9004 & 032305-9199 EXISTING LAND USE(S): Single Family Residential PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Single Family Residential EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: RLD -- Residential Low Density PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable) NIA EXISTING ZONING: R-1 PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): R-4 SITE AREA (in square feet): 320,910 sq ft SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: NIA PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable) 4 NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) NIA https.,//webmait.johnlscott.com/exchange/dfaneschwartz/tnbox/FW: Horne Rezone.EML/12-Lot masterapp NEWFOURTH.doc/C58EA28C-18C0-4x97-9AF2- 036£93DDAF83/12-Lot masterapp NEW FOU RTH.doc?attach=l -1- 46109 425.392-0260, tredding@encompassad.net NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 12 existing lots w/7 existing dwelling unit SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NIA NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NIA NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): NIA NUMBER OF NEV,, .,,NELLING UNITS (if applicable): N/A PROJECT VALUE: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): ❑ AQUI FIER PROTECTION AREA ONE ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD 160,000 ± sq. ft. ZI HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. ❑ SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. ft. ❑ WETLANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Attach 1e1al description on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE NE QUARTER OF SECTION 3 TOWNSHIP 23 , RANGE 5 , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Rezone 2 Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ 3. 4. AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Namela) YtW R ; aee � � 'e declare under penalty of perjury pder the laws of the State of Washington that I am (please check one) -the current owner dT the property involved in this application or ✓ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the beat of my knowledge and belief.L d /� I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that A signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be hlslherltheir free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. (Cignaturle of Owner/Representative) ell W Notary Public i end for the State ashingt (Signature of Owner/Representative) Notary (Print) c�a�c it,Tal�c,�r https://webmaRjohnlscott.cam/exchange/dianeschwartz/lnbox/FW: Horne Rezone.EML/12-Lot masterapp ORANGE.doc/C58EA28G18Cf3-4a97-9AF2- 036E93DDAF63/12-Lot masterapp ORANGI:,doc?attach=1 - 2 - 06/09 My appointment expires: { — a f — 14 https://webmall.]ohnlscott.cam/exchange/dlaneschwaru/Indox/FW: Horne Rezone.EMl/12-Lot masterapp ORANGE.dot/CS8EA28C-18CO-4a97.9AF2- 036E9300AFB3/12-Lot masterapp ORANGE.doc?attach=l - 3 - 06/09 City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: Home Living Trust ADDRESS: 5604 NE 24th St. CITY: Renton, WA ZIP: 98059 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 206.571-8524 APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: Ed Home COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: 5604 NE 241h St. CITY: Renton, WA ZIP: 98059 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 206-571-8524 CONTACT PERSON NAME: Tom Redding COMPANY (if appllcable): Encompass Engineering and Surveying ADDRESS: 165 NE Juniper St, Suite 201 CIN: Issaquah, WA ZIP: 98027 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Horne Rezone PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 23XX, 2351, 2357, 2405 & 2411 Nile Ave NE, 55XX, 5825 & 5604 NE 26h' St. 147XX SE 102n' St., 55XX, 5601 & 56XX NE 24�h St., Renton WA 98059 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 032305-9233, 032305-9219, 032305-9106, 032305-9221, 032305-9322, 032305-9257, 032305-9224, 032305-9258, 032305-9193, 032305-9194, 032305-9004 & 032305-9199 EXISTING LAND USE(S): Single Family Residential PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Single Family Residential EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: RLD — Residential Low Density PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable) NIA EXISTING ZONING: R-1 PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): R-4 SITE AREA (in square feel): 320,910 sq ft SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: NIA PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable) 4 NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) NIA https://webmall.johnlscott.com/exchange/dianeschwartz/lnbox/FW: Horne Rezone. EML/12•Lot masterapp HORNE.doc/C58EA28C-18C0.4a97-9AF2- 036E93DDAF83/12-tot masterapp HORNE.doc?attach=l . 1 - 06/09 AIL 425-382-0250, tredding@encompass .net NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 12 existing lots w/7 existing dwelling unit SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if appllcable): N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): N/A NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): N/A NUMBER OF NEVv uWELLING UNITS (if applicable): N/A PROJECT VALUE: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq, ft. ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD 160,000 t sq. ft. ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. ❑ SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. ft. ❑ WETLANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Attach legal descri tion on separate sheet with the following information included SITUATE IN THE NE QUARTER OF SECTION 3 TOWNSHIP 23 , RANGE 5 , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Rezone 3. 2. 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am (please check one) _ the current owner of the property involved In this application or _the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are In all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. -'Mgnature of Owner/RepreWntative)J (Signature of Owner/Representative) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 6"&& signed this Instrument and acknowledge it to be his/herttheir free and voluntary act for etre uses and purposes mentioned In the instrument. NoTairy Public in and for the State of shin Notary (Print) https.-//webma [[Johnlscott.cam/exchange/dlaneschwartz/ln box/FW: Horne Rezone. EML/12-tot masterapp HORNE.doc/CSBEA28C-1800-4a97-9AF2- 036E93DDAFB3/12-Lot masterapp HORNE.doc?attach=1 - 2 - 06/09 My appointment expires: r 44 https://webmall.johniscott.com/exchange/dianeschwartz/lnbox/FW: Horne Rezone. EM L/12 -Lot masterapp NOiiNE.doc/C5BEA28C-18C"a97-9AF2- 036E93DDAF83/12-Lot masterapp MORN E.doc?attach= 1 - 3 - 06/09 PROJECT INFORMi4 NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable). SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT'(1f applicable): IUN (continued PROJECT VALUE: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. ❑ SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES sq. ft. ❑ WETLANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Attach legal description on se arate sheet with the following information included SITUATE IN THE QUARTER OF SECTION_, TOWNSHIP_, RANGE , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. 3. 2. 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Names) it LL7{� � � R AV 6 , declare that I am (please check one) __Z the current owner of the property involved in this application or the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are In all respects true and correct to the best /�offp�m�y99 knowPlledgre''and ''belief. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that !i''<°�"1 '+ • _N'�Y_�� W -- signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be hWher/their fr a and voluntary act for the L f _�uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. (Signature of Owner/Representative) (Signature of Owner/Representative) r Notary Public in and for the State of Notary (Print)_ My appointment expires: /! I I:�Fonns\Planninglmasterapp.doc - 2 - 06/07 City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNERS) NAME: j I ADDRESS: CITY: ,/�_ �- - _ , 9A ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER: Z% 1— Q APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER CONTACT PERSON NAME: COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: R-\FnrmclPlanninvlmngtrmnn.Mr. - f - PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): EXISTING LAND USE(S): PROPOSED LAND USE(S): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -MAP DESIGNATION: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): SITE AREA (in square feet): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): nR�n� City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: David T. Orange ADDRESS: ,j'5 7 j Je CITY: nfo n k1A ZIP:QQ/�j 1 TELEPHONE NUMBER: p APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: Ed Home COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: 5604 NE 240 St. CITY: Renton, WA ZIP: 98059 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 206-571-8524 CONTACT PERSON NAME: Tom Redding COMPANY (if applicable): Encompass Engineering and Surveying ADDRESS: 165 NE Juniper St, Suite 201 CITY: Issaquah, WA ZIP: 98027 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Home Rezone PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 23XX, 2351, 2357, 2405 & 2411 Nile Ave NE, 55XX, 5625 & 5604 NE 26th St. 147XX SE 102nd St., 55XX, 5601 & 56XX NE 24`h St,, Renton WA 98059 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S)! 032305-9233, 032305-9219, 032305-9106, 032305-9221, 032305-9322, 032305-9257, 032305-9224, 032305-9258, 032305-9193, 032305-9194, 032305-9004 & 032305-9199 EXISTING LAND USE(S): Single Family Residential PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Single Family Residential EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: RLD -- Residential Low Density PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable) N/A EXISTING ZONING: R-1 PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): R-4 SITE AREA (in square feet): 320,910 sq ft SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: N/A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable) 4 NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) N/A https://webmall johnlscott.com/exchange/dianeschwart:/inbox/FW: Horne Rezone.EML/12-Lot masterapp ORANGE.doc/C58EA28C-18C0-4a97-9AF2- 036E93DDAFB3/12-Lot masterapp ORANGE.doc?attach=1 - 1 - 06/09 Jalk 425-382-0250, tredding a@encompass s.net NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 12 existing lots w17 existing dwelling unit SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NIA NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NIA NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): NIA NUMBER OF NEVv DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): NIA PROJECT VALUE: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD 160,000 t sq. ft. ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. ❑ SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. ft. 0 WETLANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included SITUATE IN THE NE QUARTER OF SECTION 3 TOWNSHIP 23 , RANGE 5 , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Rezone 3• 2. 4, Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Namels) 0(1� YN `--0— , declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am (please chick one) the rrent owner of the property involved in this application or _ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. �/�� /n� j�/�� I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that �1 oT_ J& z signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be his/herltheir free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. (Signature of Owner/Representative) Notary Public in and for the Stat6bf Washi n (Signature of OwnerlRepresentative) DAc, - Std h4)m uo,4eua�- Notary (Print}W https://webmail.johnlscott.com/exchange/dlaneschwartz/lnbox/FW: Horne Rezone. EML/12-Lot masterapp MA-LUU.doc/C58EA28C-18Co-4a97.9AF2- 036E93DDAF63/12-Lot masterapp MA-LUU,doc?attach=1 - 2 - 06/09 My appointment expires: Imo" ` , https:/twebmaii.johnlscatt.com/exchange/dlaneschwartz/lnbox/FW: Horne Rezone.EML/12-Eat masterapp MA-LUU.doc/C58EA28C-18CD-4x97-4AF2- 036E93DDAFB3/12-lot masterapp MA-WU,doc?attach=l - 3 - 06/09 PkOJECT INFORMA NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): TIONcontinued PROJECT VALUE: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. to SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES sq. ft. ❑ WETLANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Attach legal description on se crate sheet with the following information included SITUATE IN THE QUARTER OF SECTION, TOWNSHIP _, RANGE_, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: I . 3. 2. 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) QIDt- r L— , declare that I am (please check one) _ the current owner of the property involved In this application or the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained an the Information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that RM4 A ? pe, I &K.,A– signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/thei ee and v luntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. (Sig)ture of er/Representadve) (Signature of Owner/Representative) Notary Public In and for the State of Was"ton ton r� Notary (Print) p 11 }il,� . cJ✓� ' y�`' My appointment expires: ` � i H AronnslP lanninglmastcmpp.doc - 2 - 081C7 City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP.- TELEPHONE IP:TELEPHONE NUMBER: APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER CONTACT PERSON NAME: COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP:• TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: 11-krnrmc\Plnn ninalmactnrnnn.dnn.. PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): EXISTING LAND USE(S): PROPOSED LAND USE(S): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): SITE AREA (in square feet): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): NIV City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: Tung Q MA S Huong Thi Luu ADDRESS: S [ kn �-C /ham O -E CITY: !Z EW 1 O A3 UFA ZIP: 'q 940Sc7 TELEPHONE NUMBER: a rO - 1 S r 3 APPLICANT (If other than owner) NAME: Ed Horne COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: 5604 NE 24th St. CITY: Renton, WA ZIP: 98056 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 206-571-8524 CONTACT PERSON NAME: Tom Redding COMPANY (if applicable): Encompass Engineering and Surveying ADDRESS: 166 NE Juniper St, Suite 201 CITY: Issaquah, WA ZIP: 98027 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Horne Rezone PROJECTIADDRESS(S)ILOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 23XX, 2351, 2357, 2405 & 2411 Nile Ave NE, 55XX, 5625 & 5804 NE 26s' St. 147XX SE 102nd St., 55XX, 5801 & 56XX NE 24"' St., Renton WA 98059 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 032305-9233, 032305-9219, 032305-9106, 032305-9221, 032305-9322, 032305-9257, 032305-9224, 032305-9258, 032305-9193, 032305-9194, 032305-9004 & 032305-9199 EXISTING LAND USE(S): Single Family Residential PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Single Family Residential EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: RLD — Residential Low Density PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable) NIA EXISTING ZONING: R-1 PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): R-4 SITE AREA (in square feet): 320,910 sq ft SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: N/A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable) 4 NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) NIA https://webmall.johnlsco".com/exchange/dianeschwartz/lnbox/FW: Horne Rezone. EM L/12-Lat masterapp MA-LUU.doc/CSBEA28C-1800-4a97-9AF2- 036E93DDAF83/11-Lot masterapp MA-LUU.do0attach=1 - 1 - 06/09 AL 425-392-0250, tredding a@encompass s.net NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 12 existing lots w17 existing dwelling unit SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NIA NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NIA NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): NIA NUMBER OF NEVv uWELLING UNITS (if applicable): NIA PROJECT VALUE: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. It. © GEOLOGIC HAZARD 160,000 1 sq. ft. ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. ❑ SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. ft. ❑ WETLANDS sq, ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Attach legal descrl tion on separate sheet with the following Information included SITUATE IN THE NE QUARTER OF SECTION 3 TOWNSHIP 23 , RANGE 5 , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Rezone 3. 2. 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) _,- l' I L' !2 [ G- 4"A , declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am (please check 6ne) _ th current owner of the property Involved In this application or _ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the Information herewith are In all respects true an act to the best of my knowledge and belief. a I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that �> signed this Instrument and acknowledge it to be his/her/thelr fr a and volu ry (Signatur er/Representative) �s (Signature of Owner/Representative) act for the uses and purposes mentioned In the instrument. Notary Public in and for the State of Ws gton Notary (Print) blftm L' `-'�T)-o]" ag�- https://webmalljohnlscott.com/exchange/dlaneschwartz/lnbox/FW: Horne Rezone.EML/12-lot masterapp NEWFOURTH.doc/C58EA28C-18C¢4a97-9AF2- 036E93DDAF83/12-Lot masterapp NEWF0URTH.doc?attach=1 - 2 - 06/09 My appointment expires: ` https://wehmallJohnlscott.com/exchangeYdianeschwartz/lnbox/FW: Horne Rezone. EMI/12-Lot masterapp NEWFOURTH.doc/C58EA28C-SBCO-4a97-9AF2- 036E93DDAF63112-Lot masterapp NEWFOURTH.doc?attach=l - 3 - 06109, City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: Jonathan N. Scofield ADDRESS: I L\ joI SL too-*\ S CITY: ' e -e -v _Ol/` ZIP: N �S 1 TELEPHONE NUMBER: y Z� - 30, - Lkcj�) ) APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: Ed Horne COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: 5604 NE 241h St. CITY: Renton, WA ZIP: 98059 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 206-571-8524 CONTACT PERSON NAME: Tom Redding COMPANY (if applicable): Encompass Engineering and Surveying ADDRESS: 165 NE Juniper St, Suite 201 CITY: Issaquah, WA Zip: 98027 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Horne Rezone PROJECTIADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 23XX, 2351, 2357, 2405 & 2411 Nile Ave NE, 55XX, 5625 & 5604 NE 26th St. 147XX SE 102nd St., 55XX, 5601 & 56XX NE 24th St., Renton WA 98059 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 032305-9233, 032305-9219, 032305-9106, 032305-9221, 032305-9322, 032305-9257, 032305-9224, 032305-9258, 032305-9193, 032305-9194, 032305-9004 & 032305-9199 EXISTING LAND USE(S): Single Family Residential PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Single Family Residential EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: RLD - Residential Low Density PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable) NIA EXISTING ZONING: R-1 PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): R-4 SITE AREA (in square feet): 320,910 sq ft SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: NIA PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable) 4 NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) NIA https'.Hwebmail.johniscon.com/exchange/dianeschwarWinbox/FW: Home Rezone.EML/12-Lot masterapp SCOFIELD.doc/C58EA28C-IBCA-4a97-9AF2- 036E93DDAF83/12-Lot masterapp SC0FIELD.doc?attach=1 - I - 06/09 425-382-0250, tredding@encompat; .net NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 12 existing lots w/7 existing dwelling unit SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NIA NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): N/A NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): N/A NUMBER OF NE NELLING UNITS (if applicable): N/A PROJECT VALUE: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD 160.000 1 sq. ft. ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. ❑ SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. ft. ❑ WETLANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included SITUATE IN THE NE QUARTER OF SECTION 3 TOWNSHIP 23 , RANGE 5 , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Rezone 3. 2. 4. Staff will Calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) J0N itk1 N. 5ezflia declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am (please check one)+— the current owner of the property involved in this application or the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowtedge and belief. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that�d�"'`"'"'t, f' signed this instrument and acknowledge It to be his/herttheir free and voluntary r%`t act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. (Signature of OwnerlRepre nta rve) ` r Notary Public in and for the State ashin on (Signature of Owner/Representative) DIM 4, Notary (Print) https://webmall.johniscott,com/exchange/dianeschwartz/lnbox]FW: Home Rezone.EML/12-Lot masterapp SCOFIELD.doc/C58EA28C-18CQ-4a97-9AF2- 036E931)DAF83/12-lot masterapp SC0FIE1D.doc?attach=1 - 2 - 06/09 My appointment expires: / —19�1 r I F'Y t ..t'L A16 tlpt�.P ll r.� r;..i%I'.,F AQ https.//webmail.johniscott.rom/exchange/dioneschwartzlinbox/FW: Home Rezone.EML/12-Lot masterapp SCOFIELD.doc/C58EA28C-1800-4a97-9AF2- 036E93DDAFB3/12-lot masterapp SCOFIELD.doc?attach=l - 3 - 06109 Order No30045843 2. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES AND SERVICE CHARGES, AS FOLLOWS, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, PENALTY AND STATUTORY FORECLOSURE COSTS, IF ANY, AFTER DELINQUENCY: (1ST HALF DELINQUENT ON MAY 1; 2ND HALF DELINQUENT ON NOVEMBER 1) TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 0323059106 YEAR BILLED PAID BALANCE 2010 $1,440.71 $1,440.71 $0.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE, NOT INCLUDING INTEREST AND PENALTY: $0.00. LEVY CODE: 2161 ASSESSED VALUE LAND: $121,000.00 ASSESSED VALUE IMPROVEMENTS: $0.00 AFFECTS PARCEL B 3. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES AND SERVICE CHARGES, AS FOLLOWS, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, PENALTY AND STATUTORY FORECLOSURE COSTS, IF ANY, AFTER DELINQUENCY: (1sT HALF DELINQUENT ON MAY 1; 2ND HALF DELINQUENT ON NOVEMBER 1) TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 0323059193 YEAR BILLED PAID BALANCE 2010 $3,168.65 $3,168.65 $0.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE, NOT INCLUDING INTEREST AND PENALTY: $0.00. LEVY CODE: 2161 ASSESSED VALUE LAND: $111,000.00 ASSESSED VALUE IMPROVEMENTS: $141,000.00 AFFECTS PARCEL C 4. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES AND SERVICE CHARGES, AS FOLLOWS, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, PENALTY AND STATUTORY FORECLOSURE COSTS, IF ANY, AFTER DELINQUENCY: (1ST HALF DELINQUENT ON MAY 1; 2ND HALF DELINQUENT ON NOVEMBER 1) TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 0323059194 YEAR BILLED PAID BALANCE 2010 $ 246.44 $246.44 $0.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE, NOT INCLUDING INTEREST AND PENALTY: $0.00. LEVY CODE: 2161 ASSESSED VALUE LAND: $20,000.00 ASSESSED VALUE IMPROVEMENTS: $0.00 AFFECTS PARCEL D 5. LIABILITY FOR SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES FOR IMPROVEMENTS WHICH HAVE RECENTLY BEEN CONSTRUCTED ON THE LAND, LAND IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT PRESENTLY ASSESSED, BUT MAY APPEAR ON FUTURE ROLLS. AFFECTS: PARCEL D Subdivision Guarantee Page 3 of 18 GNT004 OrderNo30045843 6. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES AND SERVICE CHARGES, AS FOLLOWS, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, PENALTY AND STATUTORY FORECLOSURE COSTS, IF ANY, AFTER DELINQUENCY: (1ST HALF DELINQUENT ON MAY 1; 2ND HALF DELINQUENT ON NOVEMBER 1) TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 0323059199 YEAR BILLED PAID BALANCE 2010 $3,164.32 $3,184.32 $0.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE, NOT INCLUDING INTEREST AND PENALTY: $0.00. LEVY CODE: 2161 ASSESSED VALUE LAND: $116,000.00 ASSESSED VALUE IMPROVEMENTS: $146,000.00 AFFECTS PARCEL E 7, GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES AND SERVICE CHARGES, AS FOLLOWS, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, PENALTY AND STATUTORY FORECLOSURE COSTS, IF ANY, AFTER DELINQUENCY: (1ST HALF DELINQUENT ON MAY 1; 2 N HALF DELINQUENT ON NOVEMBER 1) TAX ACCOUNT NO.. 0323059219 YEAR BILLED PAID BALANCE 2010 $5,530.60 $5,530.60 $0.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE, NOT INCLUDING INTEREST AND PENALTY: $0.00. LEVY CODE: 2161 ASSESSED VALUE LAND: $159,000.00 ASSESSED VALUE IMPROVEMENTS: $292,000.00 AFFECTS PARCEL 8. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES AND SERVICE CHARGES, AS FOLLOWS, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, PENALTY AND STATUTORY FORECLOSURE COSTS, IF ANY, AFTER DELINQUENCY: (1ST HALF DELINQUENT ON MAY 1; 2ND HALF DELINQUENT ON NOVEMBER 1) TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 0323059221 YEAR BILLED PAID BALANCE 2010 $1,886.01 $1,886.01 $0.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE, NOT INCLUDING INTEREST AND PENALTY: $0.00. LEVY CODE: 2161 ASSESSED VALUE LAND: $159,000.00 ASSESSED VALUE IMPROVEMENTS: $0.00 AFFECTS PARCEL G 9. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES AND SERVICE CHARGES, AS FOLLOWS, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, PENALTY AND STATUTORY FORECLOSURE COSTS, IF ANY, AFTER DELINQUENCY: (1sT HALF DELINQUENT ON MAY 1; 2ND HALF DELINQUENT ON NOVEMBER 1) TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 0323059224 YEAR BILLED PAID BALANCE 2010 $3,650.42 $3,650,42 $0.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE, NOT INCLUDING INTEREST AND PENALTY: $0.00. LEVY CODE: 2161 ASSESSED VALUE LAND: $104,000.00 ASSESSED VALUE IMPROVEMENTS: $191,000.00 AFFECTS PARCEL H Subdivision Guarantee Page 4 of 18 GNT004 City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: Matthew Fellabaum & Betsy Fellabaum ADDRESS: X41 j NICE kVE NE CITY: PimN ZIP: qom TELEPHONE NUMBER: v57s- Z I � - P rj 4 APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: Ed Home COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: 5604 NE 2e St. CITY: Renton, WA ZIP: 98059 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 206-571-8524 CONTACT PERSON NAME: Tom Redding COMPANY (if applicable): Encompass Engineering and Surveying ADDRESS: 165 NE Juniper St, Suite 201 CITY: Issaquah, WA ZIP: 98027 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Home Rezone PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 23XX, 2351, 2357, 2405 & 2411 Nile Ave NE, 55XX, 5625 & 5604 NE 26th St. 147XX SE 102nd St., 55XX, 5601 & 56XX NE 24th St., Renton WA 98059 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 032305-9233, 032305-9219, 032305-9106, 032305-9221, 032305-9322, 032305-9257, 032305-9224, 032305-9258, 032305-9193, 032305-9194, 032305-9004 & 032305-9199 EXISTING LAND USE(S): Single Family Residential PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Single Family Residential EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: RLD - Residential Low Density PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION. (if applicable) N/A EXISTING ZONING: R-1 PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): R-4 SITE AREA (in square feet): 320,910 sq ft SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: N/A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable) 4 NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) N/A https://webmall.johnlscott.com/exchange/dianeschwartz/lnbox/FW: Horne Rezone. EM L/12 -Lot masterapp FELLABAUM.doc/C58EA28C-18C0-4a97-9AF2- 036E93ccAFB3/12-Lot masterapp FELLABAUM.dochttach=1 -1 - 06/09 425-392-0260, tredding ta@encompasses.net NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 12 existing lots w/7 existing dwelling unit SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): N/A NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): NIA NUMBER OF NEb. SWELLING UNITS (if applicable): N/A PROJECT VALUE: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD 160,000 sq. ft. Cl HABITAT CONSERVATION sq, ft. ❑ SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. ft. ❑ WETLANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Attach legal description on se arate sheet with the following information included SITUATE IN THE NE QUARTER OF SECTION 3 TOWNSHIP 23 , RANGE 5 , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Rezone 3. 2, a. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Namels) , declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that 1 am (please check one} the current owner of the property involved in this application or _ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of a orization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ��,J I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that &orkw signed this instrument and acknowledge ft to be hislherltheir free'�d voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. YW4bd�''r'^ gnature of n !Representative) ignature of epresentative) Notary Public in and for the State of Washi to Notary (Print) 2f" t https://webmall.johnlscott.com/exchange/dianeschwartz/lnbox/FW: Horne Rezone. EML/12-Lot masterapp FELLABAUM.doc/C58EA28C-18COAa97-9AF2- 036E93DDAF83/12-Lot masterapp FELLABAUM.do0attach=l - 2 - 06/09 My appointment expires: 7- + - I https://webmalljohntscott.com/exchange/dianeschwartz/lnbo)VFW: Horne Rezone.EML/12-lot masterapp FELLASAUM.doc/C58EA28C-18Co-4x97-9AF2- 036E93ppAF83/12-Lot masterapp FELLABAUM.dochttach=1 - 3 - 06109 City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: Paul F. Mackay Jr. & Tammy Lynn Mackay ADDRESS: ') GZS Vik 4& 7- S% CITY: R 5i'-Qn>Q ZIP: q&0 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 006 dq 210 41>;Q47 APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: Ed Horne COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: 5604 NE 20 St. CITY. Renton, WA Zip. 98059 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 206-571-8524 CONTACT PERSON NAME: Tom Redding COMPANY (if applicable): Encompass Engineering and Surveying ADDRESS: 165 NE Juniper St, Suite 201 CITY: Issaquah, WA Zip: 98027 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Home Rezone PROJECTIADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 23XX, 2351, 2357, 2405 & 2411 Nile Ave NE, 55XX, 5625 & 5604 NE 26th St. 147XX SE 102' St., 55XX, 5601 & 56XX NE 24th St., Renton WA 98059 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 032305-9233, 032305-9219, 032305-9106, 032305-9221, 032305-9322, 032305-9257, 032305-9224, 032305-9258, 032305-9193, 032305-9194, 032305-9004 & 032305-9199 EXISTING LAND USE(S): Single Family Residential PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Single Family Residential EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: RLD — Residential Low Density PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable) NIA EXISTING ZONING: R-1 PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): R-4 SITE AREA (in square feet): 320,910 sq ft SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: NIA PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable) 4 NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) NIA https://webmall.johnlscort.com/exchange/dianeschwartz/lnbox/FW: Horne Rezone.EML/12-Lot masterapp MACKAY.doc/C58EA28C-18C4.4a97-9AF2- 036E93DDAFBM/12-Lot masterapp MACKAY.do0attach=l - 1 - 46/09 425-392-0260, tredding@encompasses.net NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 12 existing lots w17 existing dwelling unit SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NIA NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NIA NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): NIA NUMBER OF NEVv DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): NIA PROJECT VALUE: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD 160,000 t sq. ft. ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. ❑ SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. ft. ❑ WETLANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following Information Included) SITUATE IN THE NE QUARTER OF SECTION 3 TOWNSHIP 23 , RANGE 5 , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES I List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Rezone 2. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ 3. 4. AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) VA VL- M �"' r 4,'- declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am (please check one) __..� the current owner of the property involved In this application or _ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the Information herewith are In all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this Instrument and acknowledge tt to be hislherttheir free and volurd act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. (S€ nature of Owner/Representative) Notary Public in and for the State of W66ington (Signature of OwnerlRepresentative) bft j�,Notary (Print) _ h Kc�f uifLtJV15i"" https://webmall,johnlscott.com/exchange/dianeschwartz/lnbox/FW; Horne Rezone.EMU12-Lot masterapp MACKAY.doc/C58EA28C-1800-4a97.9AF2- 036E9300AFB3/12-Lot masterapp MACKAY. do0attach =1 - 2 - 06/09 My appointment expires: `7-6)1— I https.//webmafl.johniscott.com/exchange/dlaneschwartz/tnbox/FW: Horne Rezone.EML/12-tat masterapp MACKAY.doc/C58EA28C-18CO-4a97-9AF2- 036E93DDAF83/12-tot masterapp MACKAY.doc?attach=l - 3 - 06/49 Pr%0JECT INFORMATION (continue NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applidable): NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. ❑ SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES sq. ft. ❑ WETLANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included SITUATE IN THE QUARTER OF SECTION, TOWNSHIP _, RANGE , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. 3. 2. 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Namels) declare that I am (please check one) Zthe current owner of the property involved in this application or the authorized representhtive to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing sta men's and answers her contained and the Information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 11140e signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be hislheritheir free a d voluntary act f r the " .' MA 1 ^ ,uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. (Signature (Signature of Owner/Representative) Notary Public in and for the Stale of Was ington0 17 ti Notary (Print) cl My appointment exp€res: H:1Fonns%Planninglmasterapp.doc - 2 - Ga/07 City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION I PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: 41,d C: AWA,4 Jy' �,- —1i ADDRESS: I Vl CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER: �(l ') o 3y S APPLICANT (if other than owner) i NAME: COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER CONTACT PERSON NAME COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: - TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: HAFn mc%P1Pnninalmastr-mnn_dnr. - I - PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): EXISTING LAND USE(S): PROPOSED LAND USE(S): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): EXISTING ZONING, PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable):' SITE AREA (In square feet): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 09/07 City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY'OWNER(S) Leesa �. ,�eh NAME: Gene R. Haagen. & L-fsev.-Coutte ADDRESS: 2 `f 0 5 rl i L e— y4t/-e— el E CITY: R.o—ei+on W M zip: SO J `� TELEPHONE NUMBER: g Z:5 - Z 2 8- "T $ S APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: Ed Horne COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: 5604 NE 24t" St. CITY: Renton, WA zip: 98059 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 206-571-8524 CONTACT PERSON NAME: Tom Redding COMPANY (if applicable): Encompass Engineering and Surveying ADDRESS: 165 NE Juniper St, Suite 201 CITY: Issaquah, WA ZIP: 98027 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Horne Rezone PROJECTIADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 23XX, 2351, 2357, 2405 & 2411 Nile Ave NE, 55XX, 5625 & 5604 NE 26th St. 147XX SE 102n, St., 55XX, 5601 & 56XX NE 24th St., Renton WA 98059 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 032305-9233, 032305-9219, 032305-9106, 032305-9221, 032305-9322, 032305-9257, 032305.9224, 032305-9258, 032305-9193, 032305-9194, 032305-90041 032305-9199 EXISTING LAND USE(S): Single Family Residential PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Single Family Residential EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: RILD — Residential Low Density PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable) NIA EXISTING ZONING: R-1 PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): R-4 SITE AREA (in square feet): 320,910 sq ft SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: NIA PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable) 4 NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) NIA https://webmail.johnlscott.com/exchange/dlaneschwartz/lnbox/FW: Horne Rezone.EML/12-Lot masterapp HAUGEN-COUTTS.doc/CSBEA28C-18C0-4a97-9AF2- 036E93DDAFB3/12-Lot masterapp HAUGEN-C0UTTS.doc7attach=1 - 1- 06/09 425-392-0250, tredding@encompasseb.net NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 12 existing lots w17 existing dwelling unit SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NIA NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): N/A NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): N/A NUMBER OF NEIN—rVELLING UNITS (if applicable): NIA PROJECT VALUE: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): Cl AQUI FIER PROTECTION AREA ONE ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD 160,000 t sq. ft. ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. ❑ SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. ft. ❑ WETLANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Attach legal description on se crate sheet with the following information included SITUATE IN THE NE QUARTER OF SECTION 3 TOWNSHIP 23 , RANGE 5 , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Rezone 3. 2. 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Namels) _G'e i e_ Le -e stL H a-" en , declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am (please check one) the current owner of the property involved in this application or the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects tr e and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. )) 11/' .. 43�'_ — I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that YL� AA signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be hislherltheir free and volun ry act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. (Signatu of OwnerlRepresent e) Y /_ 64�1� (Signature of Own erlRepresentative) Notary Public in and for the State o ashi t n Notary (Print) JIML. kybmk�w https://webmall.johniscott.com/exchange/dianeschwartz/lnbox/FW: Horne Rezone.EML/12-Lat masterapp HAUGEN-COUTTS.doc/CSSEA28C-1800-4a97-9AF2- 036E93DDAFB3/12-Lot masterapp HAUGEN-C0UTTS.doc?attach=1 - 2 - D6/09 Ar ��' dirAS�aa� My appointment expires: https://webmall.johnlscott.com/exchange/dianeschwartz/lnbox/FW: Horne Rezone.EML/12-Lot masterapp HAUGEN-000Ti'S.doc/C58EA28C-18C0-4a97-9AF2- 036E930DAFB3/12-Loi masterapp HAUGEN-COUTTS.doc7attach=l - 3 - 06/09 PLANNING DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS C. p�ann fo ent ry,S�on n ,4AP This requirement may be waived by: _ 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME:^-�� 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section DATE: 4. Planning Section 0:1WEB1PW\DEVSERVIFormslPlanninglwaiverofsubmittalregs.xls 02108 PLANNING DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIkEMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Planning Section PROJECT NAME. I� � DATE: Q:IWEBIPMOEVSERV1FormslPlanninglwaiverofsubmittalregs.xis 02108 PREAPPLICATION MEETING FOR HORNE REZONE -- �J Pe� 5604 NE 24TH ST CITY OF RENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Current Planning Division . PREIO-056 , JL(d j- iiJ)mre December 30,2010'-"7-4&'6­!�'f °,-' Ur �e-kitY of Renton Planning Division Contact Information: Planner Rocale Timmons Phone: 425-430-7219 APR 2 8 ' oil Public Works Reviewer: Kayren Kittrick Phone: 425.430.7299 Fire Prevention Reviewer: Dave Pargas Phone: 425.430.7023 REMOVED Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell Phone: 425.430.7290 II V Please retain this packet throughout the course of your project as a reference. Consider giving copies of it to any engineers, architects, and contractors who work on the project. You will need to submit a copy of this packet when you apply for land use and/or environmental permits. Pre-screening: When you have the project application ready for submittal, call and schedule an appointment with the project manager to have it pre-screened before making all of the required copies. The pre -application meeting is informal and non-binding. The .comments provided on the proposal are based on the codes and policies in effect at the time of review. The applicant is cautioned that the development regulations are regularly amended and the proposal will be formally reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time of project submittal. The information contained in this summary is subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision -makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Planning Director, Development Services Director,, Department of Community and Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator and City Council). 1 N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITYp � i ftO� :ti, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT I M E M O R A N D U M DATE: December 30, 2010 T0: Pre -Application File No. 10-056 FROM: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Horne Rezone General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre -application for the above- -. -,referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes In effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained In this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision -makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Community & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator, Planning Director, Development Services Director, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $50.00 plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall or online at www.rentonwa.gov Project Proposal: The subject property is located south of May Valley Road just west of Nile Ave NE. The project site contains four parcels, which are not ail contiguous, for a total'of 4.20 acres. All four parcels are zoned Residential -1 dwelling units per net acre (R-1). The applicant is proposing the rezone of the property from R-1 to Residential -4 dwelling units per net acre (R-4). All parcels are either vacant or contain single family residences which are proposed to remain following the proposed rezone. The subject site is surrounded by either the Urban Growth Boundary or R-1 zoning. Critical Areas: There is potential that wetlands may exist on the subject site. The applicant will be required to provide a preliminary reconnaissance, and if wetlands are present, delineation and a report will be required. The City's approved consultant list is enclosed in an information packet. If there is any other indication of critical areas on the site, this must be disclosed to the City prior to development and appropriate studies must be undertaken. Environmental Review: Non -Project Environmental (SEPA) Review would be required for the project. Permit Requirements: The proposal would require an application for Rezone without Associated Development along with Non -Project Environmental (SEPA) Review. A public hearing would be required for the Rezone. The Hearing Examiner would review the Rezone application issue a recommendation to the City Council. The Council would issue a final decision. i:\rtimmons\preapps\10-056 horne rezone (rl to r4).doc f .�� Horne Rezone, PRE10-056 Page 2 of 2 December 30, 2010 The proposed Rezone and Non -Project SEPA would be processed within an estimated time frame of 12 weeks for approval. The Rezone application fee is $2,000. The application fee for SEPA Review (Environmental Checklist) is $1,000. Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal is provided in the attached handouts. Criteria for Rezones Not Requiring Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The burden is placed on the proponent to demonstrate the following: a) The rezone is in the public interest: and b) The rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner; and c) The rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof; and d) Is consistent with the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan; and e) At least one of the following circumstances applies: 1. The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; or ii. Since the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the sub'ect property, authorized public improvements, germitted pirlyke development or other circumstances affecting the subiect propertV, have undergone significant and material change. Expiration: A petition for a change of zoning classification, seeking the same or substantially same relief as a prior petition, cannot be re -filed or resubmitted within a period of twelve (12) months from the date of final disapproval or rejection of such prior petition. c ' I:\rtimmons\preapps\10-056 home rezone (rl to r4).doc City of Renton HORN REZONE Planning Division PROJECT NARRATIVE APR 2 TQ11 Project name, size and location of site: Horne Rezone (12 lots) is located between NE 26th St. & SPACQvIED west of 148th Ave SE, Tax Parcels 032305-9233, 032305-9219, 032305- 9106, 032305-9221, 032305-9322, 032305-9257, 032305-9224, 032305- 9258, 032305-9193, 032305-9194, 032305-9004, and 032305-9199. The total area of the site is approximately 320,910 sq. ft. (gross) • Land use permits required for proposed project: City of Renton rezone from R-1 to R-4. • Zoning description of the site and adjacent properties: The current zoning of the property is R-1. Property to the north and west (and partial east) is zoned R-1 (Renton). Property to the south is zoned R-4 (King County). Part of the property to the east and south is zoned RA -5 and RA -10 (King County). Property in all directions is single family residential. • Current use of the site and any existing improvements: There are existing single family residences on Tax Parcels 032305- 9219, 032305-9257, 032305-9224, 032305-9258, 032305-9193, 032305- 9199 and 032305-9194 that will remain. A barn and concrete pad on Tax Parcel 032305-9322 will also remain. Tax Parcels 032305-9106, 032305-9233, 032305-9004 and 032305-9221 are vacant. • Special site features (i.e., wetlands, water bodies, steep slopes): From delineations on the adjacent Stonegate plat and the Critical Areas Study prepared for this rezone, there is a sensitive area stream channel and associated wetlands within about 12' northwest of the northwest corners of both tax parcels 032305-9106 and 032305-9221. • Statement addressing soil type and drainage conditions: According to the 1973 King County Soils Map, the site is underlain with Alderwood, Gravelly Sandy Loam (AgC). City maps show that there is a "Low to Moderate Liquefaction Susceptibility" at the north and west portion of the proposed rezone area. • Proposed use of the property and scope of the proposed development: Not at this time, but possible future platting of the parcels into single- family lots. • For plats indicate the proposed number, net density, and range of sizes of the new lots: NIA • Access: The �roperty is currently served by public streets NE 26th Street, SE 102" Street, 1481h Avenue SE, and a private access tract, NE 24th Street. • Proposed off-site improvements (i.e., installation of sidewalks, fire hydrants, sewer main, etc.): None. • Total estimated construction cost and estimated fair market value of the proposed project: NIA • Estimated quantities and type of materials involved if any fill or excavation is proposed: None at this time. • Number, type and size of any trees to be removed: None at this time. • Explanation of any land to be dedicated to the City: None at this time. • Any proposed job shacks, sales trailers, and/or model homes: NIA • Any proposed modifications being requested: City of Renton rezone from R-1 to R-4. • Distance in feet from the wetland or stream to the nearest area of work: There is no work being proposed at this time. "HORNE REZONE" JUSTIFICATION: FROM R-1 TO R-4 Note: Renton Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan language is in 941 Of italics, while the proponent's justification language is underlined. p1aRn 79 D L 01) The lV�SIO'? roposed zone area has nation of Residential Density (RLD)ewhich may beimplemented sthr ugh Planone o the following zoning AFl12 8 7011 classifications: • Resource Conservation(RC),Residential —1 DU/acre R-1 • Residential —4 DU/acre-(R-4) • Residential Manufactured Home Park (RMH) The proposed rezone area is currently zoned R-1, a zoning classification which is: "established to provide and protect suitable environments for residential development of lands characterized by pervasive critical areas where limited residential development will not compromise critical areas " (RMC 4-2-020.C). This proposed rezone is to change the zoning from R-1 to R-4, while maintaining the Comprehensive Plan Designation of Residential Low Density — RFD. The proposed zoning classification is: ... established to promote urban single family residential neighborhoods serviceable by urban utilities and containing amenity open spaces. It is intended to implement the Residential Low Density Comprehensive Plan designation. The Residential -4 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre Zone (R-4) will allow a maximum density of four (4) dwelling units per net acre. The R-4 designation serves as a transition between rural designation zones and higher density residential zones. It is intended as an intermediate lower density residential zone. Larger lot subdivisions are preferred; however, "small lot clusters " are allowed on sites where open space amenities are created. Resulting development is intended to be superior in design and siting than that which would normally otherwise occur. Small lot clusters may also meet objectives such as the provision of efficient sewer services. (RMC 4-2-020.D). Pursuant to the Renton Municipal Code (RMC — 4 -9 -180) -the following criteria must be met during the rezone process: F. DECISION CRITERIA FOR CHANGE OF ZONE CLASSIFICATION: 2. Criteria for Rezones Not Requiring Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The Reviewing Official shall make the following findings: a. The rezone is in the public interest, This proposed rezone is in the public interest insomuch as it is an effort to establish the R-4 zoning as articulated in Objective LU -II of the Comprehensive Plan, a plan written with explicit public interest intent, as follows: Designate Residential 4 DU/acre zoning in those portions of the RLD designation appropriate for urban levels of development by providing suitable environments for suburban and/or estate style, single-family residential dwellings. This proposed rezone area is a suitable environments for suburban and/or estate style, single-family residential dwelling. The adiacent surrounding, and nearby areas both in the urban Renton city limits and the urban King County areas have existing densities primarily consisting of 2.6 to 5.0 DU/acre, within the first 1,000 feet from the site and from 5.0 to 12.0 Macre beyond that. The proposed density of rezone area would clearly pport furtheringdevelopment: ... at densities sufficient to support public transportation and make efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. This 12rinciRal is outlined in the Residential Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The public interest would be further served by increased zoning densities which would increase the tax base of the area and thus better support the funding of municipal and other publicly_ provided services. b. The rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner. The ability of the owners to develop the rezone_ area to increased densities is clearly in their interest., The owners of all of the property in the rezone area unanimously support the rezone. c. The rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof, and d. The rezone meets the review criteria in subsection Fl of this Section. F. DECISION CRITERIA FOR CHANGE OF ZONE CLASSIFICATION: 1. Criteria for Rezones Requiring a Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The following findings shall be made: The proposed amendment meets the review criteria in RMC 4-9-020; and a. Is consistent with the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan; and b. At least one of the following circumstances applies: i. The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; or ii. Since the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. E The proposed rezone is not a proposal that would trigger a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Therefore, the criteria cited above_, namely a, b, i and ii, do not apply to this proposed zoning change from R-1 to R-4. The R-1 zone is established to provide and protect suitable environments for residential development of lands characterized by pervasive critical areas where limited residential development will not compromise critical areas. Two of the subiect properties,, tax parcels 032305-9221 and 032305-9219 were zoned R-1 in King County -prior to annexation. The remaining properties were zoned R-4 in King County prior to annexation. Properties to the south of the proposed rezone area are currently in King, Coun and are zoned R-4 for urban develol2ment. A portion of the Stonegate development which abuts the property on the west and north is zoned R-1. A seasonal stream runs through a portion of the Stonegate development from south to north. This stream was the critical area requiring_ protection which justified the R-1 zoning for that particular development. Nonetheless, while a few lots adjacent to sensitive areas in Stonegate are developed at densities of 1.4 to 2.5 DU/acre the majority of Stonegate lots have densities of 2.5 to 5.0 DU/acre. The same is true for R-4 properties to the south of the proposed rezone. With regard to the subject property, surveys and studies of the subiect properties have verified that the seasonal stream does not flow across any of the requesting the rezone. The buffer from the stream will impact tax parcels 032305-9221 and 032305-9106 only slightly, and the stream itself is not on the subiect properties. There are no sensitive areas on the subject ]2ropeLty, thus the R-1 zone is not a suitable zone classification given the urban and undeveloped nature of these properties. Furthermore, the surrounding areas are developed at densities which support a R-4 zone for the subject areas. Since there are no critical areas on the properties which warrant the protection afforded by a R-1 zone, the R-1 zone is not appropriate for the properties.The R-4 zoning requested will allow residential develol2ment consistent with the neighboring ro erties and compliant with Growth Management Act requirements and ruling which support develol2ed densities of 4 DU/acre when neither existing development pattems nor sensitive areas preclude such densities. Because the buffers which will be established from the offsite seasonal stream, provide sufficient protection of that stream, and because the proposed rezone area is suitable for R-4 zoning the proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and should be approved. . F I s t DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST!tkof City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 4PR Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 2B 1011 i PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: 141% The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to�� consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant 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: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental 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 questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations, Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental 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 different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its 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 involving decisions on policies, 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. Y:Uobs (J)110110526 Steve BeekIDOMSEPAIRENTON $EPA CHECKLISTA=04114l11 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Horne Rezone 2. Name of applicant: Steve Beck — Newfourth LLC 19244 39'" Ave. S SeaTac, WA 98188 425-444-0461 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Contact Tom Redding — Encompass Engineering and Surveying 165 NE Juniper St --Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-392-0250 4. Date checklist prepared: 1217110 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 2011 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Possible future platting of the property. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None known. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Not known. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Not known. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. This is a proposal to rezone 12 single-family lots from R-1 to R-4. The site totals about 7.4 acres. Y:Uobs (J)11 011 0 5 2 6 Steve Beck%DOCSISEPAIRENTON SEPA CHECKLIST.doe 2 r, 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand 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 available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The site is located between NE 26th St. & SE 102nd St., just west of 148th Ave SE. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, roE^ ling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) 12%t C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. According to the 1973 King County Soils Map, the site is underlain with Alderwood, Gravelly Sandy Loam (AgC). City maps show that there is a "Low to Moderate Liquefaction Susceptibility" at the north and west portion of the proposed rezone area. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe, None known, e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. None. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. N/A g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? NIA h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: None. Y:Uobs (J)k10\10526 Steve BecMDOMSEPAIRENTON SEPA CHECKLIST.doc 3 :+ 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: NIA 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There is a stream approximately 12' to 25' west of the site. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. 3) Estimate the amount of fill 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 fill material. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Y:Uobs (J)110\10526 Steve Beck%DOCSISEPAIRENTON SEPA CHECKLIST. doc 4 r C Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size 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. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. C. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1 } Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) 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. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: —X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other TX_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X_ shrubs grass _X_ pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other _X_ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Y:Wobs (J)11 011 0 5 2 6 Steve BeckOOCSISEPAIRENTON SEPA CHECKLIST.doc P� A Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not known. C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain Not known. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. Y:Uobs (J)110110526 Steve BeckIDOCSISEPXRENTON SEPA CHECKLIST.doc t, 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. 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. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? There are existing single family residences on Tax Parcels 032305-9219, 032305-9257, 032305-9224, 032305-9258, 032305-9193, 032305-9199 and 032305-9194 that will remain. A barn and concrete pad on Tax Parcel 032305-9322 will also remain. Tax Parcels 032305-9106, 032305-9233, 032305-9004 and 032305-9221 are vacant. Adjacent properties in general are occupied with single-family residences. The current zoning of the property is R-1. Property to the north and west (and partial east) is zoned R-1 (Renton). Property to the south is zoned R-4 (King County). Part of the property to the east and south is zoned RA -5 and RA -10 (King County). Property in all directions is single family residential. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Y:Uobs (J)110110626 Steve BeckO0051SEPAIRENTON SEPA CHECKLIST.doc 7 A The KC IMAP 1938 online aerial photo shows agricultural activities on the site. A portion of the site is currently used for pasturing horses. C. Describe any structures on the site. There are existing single family residences on Tax Parcels 032305-9219, 032305-9257, 032305-9224, 032305-9258, 032305-9193, 032305-9199 and 032305-9194, and a barn and concrete pad on Tax Parcel 032305-9322. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R-1 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? RLD — Residential Low Density g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Unknown. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Apparently not, but there is a stream about 12' to 25' to the west of the site. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? NIA j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? none k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: NIA I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: None at this time, just the proposed rezone. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. NIA Y:1Jobs (J)110110526 Steve Beck=C&SEMRENTON SEPA CHECKLIST.doc 8 b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. NIA C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None at this time. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. NIA b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? NIA C, Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: NIA 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? NIA b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? NIA C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? NIA d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: NIA 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? r There are no formal parks in the immediate area, but the Cougar Mountain Regional Wildlife Park (King County) is located about a half a mile to the northeast and the May Valley Park (King County) is located about a half a mile to the south. There is a private park located about 300' west of the site on NE 26th Street—owned by the adjacent plat's HOA. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. N/A Y:Uobs (J)110110526 Steve Beck1D0CS%SEPAIRENT0N SEPA CHECKLIST.doc E A C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None at this time. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Unknown. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Unknown. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The property is currently served by public streets NE 26th Street, SE 102nd Street, 148th Avenue SE, and a private access tract, NE 24th Street. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No, the nearest stop is on Duvall Ave NE, about % of a mile to the west. C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? NIA d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public of private? Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The site will continue to access the local streets. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Y:Uobs (J)11 011 0526 Steve BeckOOMSEPA1RENTON SEPA CHECKLIST.doc 10 Not known, but because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land, or the trips. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None at this time. 1s. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None at this time. 116. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service. telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non -significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: Tom Redding Date: 1217110 (Updated 1/18/11) YAJobs (J)110110526 Steve Beck1DOCSISEPA%RENTON SEPA CHECKLIST.doc 11 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (These sheets should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs. You do not need to fill out these sheets for project actions.) , . ,. f. 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 likely 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 briefly and in general terms. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Because this is a proposed rezone on, there wouldn't be any effects. But a future residential plat made possible by the rezone could increase some of the discharge to water/etc because there would be an increased in driving surfaces, house construction and other activities that a local population increase might bring. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Presumably any future development would have environmental regulations that would be followed in design and construction. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Because this is a proposed rezone on, there wouldn't be any effects. But a future residential plat made possible by the rezone could increase some of the discharge to plants and animals because there would be an increased in driving surfaces, house construction and other activities that a local population increase might bring. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Presumably any future development would have environmental regulations that would be followed in design and construction, thus resulting in the protection and/or conservation plants, animals, fish, or marine life I How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Probably not. 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 eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, flood plains, or prime farmlands? Probably not. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Y:Uobs (J)110110526 Steve BecMDOMSEPAIRENTON SEPA CHECKLIST.doc 12 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? There would likely be little impact. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Because this is a proposed rezone on, there wouldn't be any effects. But a future residential plat made possible by the rezone would increase demands on transportation, public services and utilities because of an increase in density. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: It would be expected that additional roads would be constructed, mitigation fees paid and taxes paid that would reduce and/or respond to such demands, 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. It is not anticipated that the proposed rezone would conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non -significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: M.�., MOP/ Name Printed: Tom Redding Date: 1/18/2011 ENVCHLST.DOC REViSED 8198 YAJobs (J)11 411 052 6 Steve BecMDOCSISEPA1RENTON SEPA CHECKLIST.doc 13 Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC AOA N) Box 578 Can nation, WA 98014 January 21, 2011 Offive (425) 3513 1535 Fax (425) 33."509 Renton City Of ptivislon plana+n9 WP % a 1011 Fnviron mental Planning & Landscape Arch i t=Ll re AOA -4004 Horne Living Trust o Ed Horne, Manager 5604 NE 24th Street Renton, WA 98059 SUBJECT: Critical Areas Study for Horne Rezone, Renton, WA Parcels 032305-9221 and -9106 Dear Mr. Horne: On January 11, 2011 1 conducted a wetland and stream reconnaissance and delineation on and adjacent to the subject property utilizing the methodology outlined in the 1997 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Although no wetlands or streams were identified on the subject property, a tributary to May Creek and an associated wetland (Wetland A) were identified off- site to the west within the Open Space Tract F of the Stonegate development. Each of these critical areas is further described below. May Creek Tributary A tributary to May Creek flows from south to north within the open space tract off-site to the west of the subject property (Figure 1). This stream was previously identified and described by ESA Adolfson in their Stonegate II Lift Station and Pipeline Project Critical Areas Report dated August 2008. At the time of the January 2011 field investigation, the riparian corridor of the stream consisted of a strip of trees and brush that included black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), willow (Salix sp.), red alder (Alnus rubra), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). The average stream width in the vicinity of the site appeared to be approximately five feet with a depth of less than six inches. Sediments within the channel consisted primarily of fine sandy silts. The portion of the stream where it flows through Wetland A is highly braided and not well-defined in places. The braided part of the channel appears to have been created through sediment deposition along a relatively flat portion of the riparian corridor. Sediment deposition following heavy precipitation events has likely caused the channel to sheet flow within a meandering system of small channels within the wetland prior to rejoining the main channel further to the north. Horne Living Trust January 21, 2011 Page 2 The tributary stream was previously determined to be a Class 4 stream according to the approved 2008 ESA Adolfson Stonegate Il Lift Station and Pipeline Project Critical Areas Report. Class 4 streams in the City of Renton currently require a 35 - foot buffer from the ordinary high water of the channel (RMC IV-3-050.L.5.a.i(c)). Wetland A Wetland A is located within the riparian corridor of the tributary stream off-site to the west of Parcel 032305-9221. The wetland is located within a broad shallow topographic swale and at the time of the field investigation nearly the entire wetland contained a shallow sheet flow that was draining from south to north. The wetland is likely increasing in size over time as a result of sediment deposition that has caused the defined channel to spread throughout the swale. Vegetation within the wetland was dominated by black cottonwood, red -osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Soils within the wetland generally consisted of dark (10YR 211) silty loam to a depth of at least 12 inches. Wetland A appears to meet the criteria for a Category 3 wetland per RMC 4-3- 050M.1.a since it does not meet the criteria for Category I or 2 wetlands. Category 3 wetlands require a standard 25 -foot buffer per RMC 4-3-050M.6.c. Attachment A contains data sheets prepared for a representative location in both the wetland and upland. These data sheets document the vegetation, soils, and hydrology information that aided in the wetland boundary determination. Uplands Parcel 032305-9221 consists entirely of a horse pasture that generally slopes gently down from south to north. Borings taken throughout the parcel revealed high chroma non -hydric soils and there was no evidence of ponding or prolonged soil saturation. Parcel 032305-9106 is also undeveloped and consists of horse pasture mixed with tree clumps and patches of Himalayan blackberry. Topography on the parcel generally slopes gently to moderately down from south to north. A berm near the north property line associated with the NE 24th Street right-of-way appears to block surface water and route it to the west into the northwest corner of the lot. Borings taken throughout the parcel revealed high chroma non -hydric soils. Although approximately one inch of ponding was observed in the far northwestern corner of the lot, a test plot (TP #3) within the shallow ponding revealed dark yellow brown (10YR 314) non -hydric soils. The observed ponding was therefore attributed to the recent heavy winter precipitation and soil compaction from the horses. Home Living Trust January 21, 2011 Page 3 If you have any questions regarding the stream and wetland delineation, please give me a call. Sincerely, ALTMANN OLIVER ASSOCIATES, LLC . L lajrto��� John Altmann Ecologist Attachments 14, ATTACHMENT A DATA SHEETS TP ai� _ DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHODI Field InvestigalQr(� A L tEDale: I-] Project/She: �zp state: W A County: K 14 L er. k& 14 Applicanuown" k! Plant Community #Mame: Note: N a more detailed alta description Is necessary, use the back of data form or a field noleboak. Do normal environmental condillons exist at the plant community?. Yes _IC_ No (( no, explain on back) Has the vegelation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? ��S �, �5��'t �� Yes No (If yes, explain on back) $ �q 1M E.nr T .0i_ 0, I Tt o ---------------------------Lri--3LL- r°Luji L' �A aCA Dominant Plant Soecies 1.� 'A %j y .id- o n 2. 3. 4. 7. 8. 1 D. VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Status StratumPe Slalus INC- r•ACLA 'd{[w 14 Dominant Plant Species 12. 13. ' 14. is. .1.8. 17. 18, 19. 2D. Percent of dominant spades that are OBL, FACW, and/or•FAc /1-) 0 is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes,_ No Rationale: SOILS Sodas/phase: Subgroup:2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undelarminad Is the soil a Hislosol? Yes No „moi _ Histic epoclon present? Yes No _ Is the soil: Ma led? Yes No X - Gleyed? Yes No )_ Matrix Color: Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil Indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: "-,,j Flftar� HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface Inundalad? Yes Nom_ Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes _�(_ No Depth to free-standing waler In ph/soil probe hole: SJ-40kGF— List other field evidence of sudaca inundation or soil saturation. Is the welland hydrology crllerbn met? Yes X No Rationale: 0QSt RVATt 6 Qtr 561t— JURISDICTIONAL 41t4 JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND. FtATTONAL>E Is the plant community a welland? Yes _X_ No Rationale forlurlsdicli� al dac sio ` rr 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community j Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to *&If Taxonomy.' B-2 Stratum 4 SOILS Sedes/phase: Subgroup:2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes Na Undaterminad Is the soil a Hlslosol? Yes No _X_ Mile apipadon present? Yes No ->C Is the soil: Mottled? � Yes No _ k Gleyed? Yes No OIC Matrix Color: 3 Mottle'Colors: Other hydric soft Indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No X Rationale: HYDROLOGYIs the ground surface Inundaled? Yes No Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No Depth to free-slanding water In plUsoil probe hole: List other (laid evidence of surfaca inundation or soil saturation. Is the walland hydrology criterion mel? Yes No_ 2 O(S5Q+ATkar4 02 c.,,r1DI=,ICL Cif {�C3e.urJf�eaScstL. SATyprlTlo,J 4e-1f+,1e1146 JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND. RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No A Rail ale far urlsdicifonal decision: - G ' fi k A PA 1✓T 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classlilcatlon according to "Soil Taxonomy.' 8-2 DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHODt Field Investigaior(s)• AUTM 44 (� . -- • • -- Data:_ 1 ` I t - j Projewshe: -LE r:acr State: County' tX-r 0 .. -- ApplicantJOwnar: E Plant Community N/Nama: Note: If a more detailed site description Is necessary, use the back of data form or a fiald notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? . Yes• No(if no, explain on bark) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No JK (If yes, axplain on back) VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant S las Status Stratum Dominant Plant Speclas Slalus Stratum I tus f-Fr-koc-ar3a4 �- T Ii. 2. "`"js Xr5itlI ar C 5 12. 3 lZoLus✓5 to r s 13. 4. 14. S. 15. 7. 17. 8. 19. 7 0. 20. • p -Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or -FAC Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No - �- Halionala: . 5.0 -C- - 0 L W IL r -T GX SOILS Sedes/phase: Subgroup:2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes Na Undaterminad Is the soil a Hlslosol? Yes No _X_ Mile apipadon present? Yes No ->C Is the soil: Mottled? � Yes No _ k Gleyed? Yes No OIC Matrix Color: 3 Mottle'Colors: Other hydric soft Indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No X Rationale: HYDROLOGYIs the ground surface Inundaled? Yes No Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No Depth to free-slanding water In plUsoil probe hole: List other (laid evidence of surfaca inundation or soil saturation. Is the walland hydrology criterion mel? Yes No_ 2 O(S5Q+ATkar4 02 c.,,r1DI=,ICL Cif {�C3e.urJf�eaScstL. SATyprlTlo,J 4e-1f+,1e1146 JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND. RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No A Rail ale far urlsdicifonal decision: - G ' fi k A PA 1✓T 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classlilcatlon according to "Soil Taxonomy.' 8-2 DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHODI Field Investigators)' I Tm ^i Date:. I Proect/Sha: d. ' c (L E z u,-1 C - ► IJL7 } R -- State; County: I ApplicanUowner: �b Plant Community #Mame: Note: ff a mora detailed site description Is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exisl at the plant community?. Yea 'VC No (I(no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been signli'icanily disturbed? Ye: �- No(li yes, explain on back) g C(yy� i w U Ik-- u rj4 9-0. tj - N e RS's CuK&TACIl wi -- - - - - --.- ----------------�C�Q__--- VEGETATION HYDROLOGY r, `....-- fs the ground surface Inundated? Yes X No Surface wale depth: l Is the soil saturated? Yes No Depth to free-standing water In pit/soll probe hole: List other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation. is the wellend hydrology criterlan met? Yea Nom_ Rationale: 6AlrJ6 A55oMi:b i� SEE k 'Ttm?6W,A VL"U:.T et•- CUVATAaC'iju. jj� ►iu = '►.AC(- JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND. RATIONAL9 P¢EC ►� , Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No X Rallo le for'furisdicilonal decision: L ► ! f L a it o l- 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community j Assessment Procedure. 2 Ciassi€icallon according to 'WI Taxonomy.' B-2 Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status stratum Dominant Plant Species Slatus Stratum I. o J1,Jfir6%uc,!� _V4� T i1. 2. - EAC- _Z 12. 3. 4. rFAG j S 13. ' 14, 7. 17. a. i B. 9. 19. 10. 20. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, andlor•FAC Is the hydrophylic vegetation criterion mat? Yes X No pallonala: ., - y ui;a . C� L: -ii'ti' t.-r�c't re,fL • SOILS Sodas/phase: Subgroup:2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined Is the Boll a Histosol? Yea No _ Histic epipedon present? Yes No -)%_ Is the Boli: Mntiled? Ye No Gleyed? Yes No X Matrix Color: _!. Y 3N -- _ Mania Colors: Other hydric soil Indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No ?� Rallonalp� 11 '' ,, HYDROLOGY r, `....-- fs the ground surface Inundated? Yes X No Surface wale depth: l Is the soil saturated? Yes No Depth to free-standing water In pit/soll probe hole: List other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation. is the wellend hydrology criterlan met? Yea Nom_ Rationale: 6AlrJ6 A55oMi:b i� SEE k 'Ttm?6W,A VL"U:.T et•- CUVATAaC'iju. jj� ►iu = '►.AC(- JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND. RATIONAL9 P¢EC ►� , Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No X Rallo le for'furisdicilonal decision: L ► ! f L a it o l- 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community j Assessment Procedure. 2 Ciassi€icallon according to 'WI Taxonomy.' B-2 Printed: 04-28-2011 :ITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA11-023 Payment Made: 04/2812011 12:50 PM Total Payment: 3,090.00 Current Payment Made to the Following Items: City o pl!nnrn9 D'ent�n �V'Sron APR 2,8 1011 �EC�I V �D Receipt Number: R1101501 Payee: WILLIAM E& MARY A HORNE Trans Account Code Description Amount 3080 503 000000 004.322 - Technology Fee 90.00 5010 000.000000.007.345 Environmental Review 1,000.00 5017 000.000000.007.345 Rezone 2,000.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount ---------- -------- Payment Check 8154 -- 3,090.00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description 3021 303.000000.020.345 Park Mitigation Fee 3060 503.000000.004.322 Technology Fee 5006 000.000000.007.345 Annexation Fees 5007 000.000000.011.345 Appeals/Waivers 5006 000.000000.007.345 Binding Site/Short Plat 5009 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Use Fees 5010 000.000000.007.345 Environmental Review 5011 000.000000.007.345 Prelim/Tentative-Plat 5012 000.000000.007.345 Final Plat 5013 000.000000.007.345 PUD 5014 000.000000.007.345 Grading & Filling Fees 5015 000.000000.007.345 Lot Line Adjustment 5016 000.000000.007.345 Mobile Home Parks 5017 000.000000.007.345 Rezone 5018 000.000000.007.345 Routine Vegetation Mgmt 5019 000.000000.007.345 Shoreline Subst Dev 5020 000.000000.007.345 Site Plan Approval 5021 000.000000.007.345 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence 5022 000.000000.007.345 Variance Fees 5024 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Approval Fee 5036 000.000000.007.345 Comprehensive Plan Amend 5909 000.000000.002.341 Booklets/EIS/Copies 5941 000.000000.007.341 Maps (Taxable) 5954 650.237.00.00.0000 DO NOT USE - USE 3954 5998 000.000000.000.231 Tax Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 Balance Due .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 CD oo I 1/l :N3 NOI9NIHGVM'NO-LN�I9OIb-SOp-ZQO v IZZb-SOGzl2O# 519'�'dd 3NOZ98 9N60H dyw Gv3Nv 'I 2N09I=1 I I-rL-Io-lIW-400b zLLiL�rya+a Amp" v Rudd lOm"rtl3 iflFr'L fL ILU1n3LtLFfi[ILUI9ILA rIOm YM m'n�!1 l:Lrll tiL V0V:)"I'I Lsajei3Ossd JDAIJO UURWjld 101 z m i � V v Q Z O 3 tjl � N N N CL XX X QQ�iQ I f j I # 1� � I � Z R in 2 MQF nsequential damages Including, but not limited to, lost revenues lost profits resulting from th6 use or misuse of the information ntained on this map. Any sale of this map or Information on this ip Is prohibited except by written permission of King County. Do )t use for survey purposes. 39953 S F T-4 z- sf - - I i - 2046re" (p j rl .3 40017 S F AID 9 342405 11 S .82 3424Q%. 40016 SF' E 1.01 AC 3424'05: -Z -XIC qwiw 6. 110 CALC 1784/ 615 8 3 �ij 9. T!� 28+80 0 j46768# 27.86 73 9 7.96 AC 9052 P H S E.- MAY VALLE 65 0 2 8 RD. :',EY RIDGE AT MAY CREEK C. 3 0 -+31 .0 > (SUR11. 26/267) VOL 246 1.47-56 71 I HP. I RACT D N OPEN SPACE lt� r ?,3,9 3524 J� AS24CS M 3419469 91310 r4 1.85 AC %Iwo: 83811# 1261 0 UND INT 548860 21.38800 14 J?(9 4.91 AC 1,26 A . 0 69 �f 0 tt5l tn 6' 994 29843#. Z 3902.75 z 172933H 21. 96 3. 97 ACI - U, 4 116. '36-56- W VIM .2563 W .992.03 SURV. 1322 7 Q Ch N BB -37-17 W -7 4 Mar 1322.69 .21 8� -7� 03 I'Am '4 69 -V1 .­:. L!. . `59 !;W L S' 604 90 240 U88 -37-27.W 240 698' E 74 23 ORION 795 . I -.Q 7.. 4 4 136.28 S tn 5 108,67 f 9 9 4 P.6 30 IF N, ZIA 0) /0 022" 0 00 r/ 4 33 J, 0 SURVEY 160/248 tn Q 105851# 01 2.43 AC E 9022. �0 1 C-4 0 Lj S 88-10-38 E CV z 5 36. 3 C/) r 7 W 8. V) z 19 T.R-A T A OtIc S 89-15E U. 235.83 119570# TRAC 030 (Rd. No 368, Est. 1894). sC.02-2-05019-lKNT 20031009000032 CO tn 330.68 CV W CO: i &n to U� 7 , 67 AC 4?,p 00, AC 2.50 AC 90IC-1 6 9317 I tn t 9L139 �9. orl 165 N88 37-�27W 165 LOT I 4:4", r 218 3 AN .0 ,3 CIO 4 208.71 98 69 OF M co b 'I RACT 0 H G '45.92 ) EN SPACE 3 4 40 4 P r 35.97 AC 110.00. 100100 150.00 Ln co 30.1 32 AC 00 CID 41 W 20 . .... . C14 C14 oilo N 415710 3 Ln LO 2 LO Ln 2199.4 0 17140# 31079# LO OPEN 4 OOJ540 H r-4 SPACE ee 0310 TRACT 04 Or() Oc 0 C 5 1 A ................... * ...................... ......... ................................. ... 26 C 2 LO NE 26TH ST 00no - �i . 50.11 60. 17 50.00 cri 100100. 8 5 100.00 99.6 154775R 92. 2 UND I NT 0W 480.26 i'7 - - - - - - - 7 - - - - - - - - N.E. 26TH ST. 6.30 AC .43.18 84 10 9076 TRACT G Ln 5 q U-. 3-Z- 13 330.68 167 00 TRAQT D 0 AREA -01-27 W 20803# 138.20 30 00 0 co 0 ACCESS fi IS .............................. go KC SP 1276047 Eli IV 13323 S C14 51 4 55 C.) rA -� ................ . III co A�, k (n 01 88-01-27 EL 150 qO -7 ri -2 14- 15 C3 10 Cal 0 C LO'l . . .. . 1, . 4 1.01 AC 4N V, 141, CID 1.01 A to TRACT F 0 1 V 4.81 AC E4 60 . I . . I Ln . 15253 SF co CD 165310 W.D r% Cal r4 I lip - 4.79 AC 425 QA. 65 88.3 W1,4 Q1 C. Lh 50-21 RENT 'Ho 00 6� 00 ;7iWF S A fl 1�-2 7 1 e03W Z N r4 8 5 69 9 0 ---otw*� I U 0�'P- - 04 .27 49 Ct) :21 (V �n IV 2 20 Cb co fn In rq "440 aoe CP 7 %D co 6 00 KC L06M0043 1-4 13LW40 Z Z. e4 0 Dtd 6-29-2006 z -Z r� 0 55 0 S 89-57 W IN r4 tn R-50 48 919'. 19 16150 SF C13 Oica QD 307589 R 90.00 04N) 1. . . (-,:0 - . - I rV '106 LOT B 10 (;c 4 M14U 7� 3 0\ 0 P-7 oleo z Co .21-5 -10 4 0 00 0530 325 ,14 N.E. 2 46 47' 750521 537 43.21 103. C 10 4s CO 0.5 SP175024 r 7. KC L06MOO43 -17 - L OT A ep (0 66 C �4 '17 0.37 AC I CP Did 6-2972006 4.9 -t) C\1 5 AC ono ? 0 2 1 7o, 6o 12 SP -7 Q �-�L- ry 0130. CO 40 9 64,80 .,rjjJV.9 5, r> 8§ jp" 3.78 7 -2 W3540 13 0110 40 20 CID %C) oin 0470 A+4 6 1.5 AC 29750 .032305 W33 -43 - lot 1 -0 CMOs 1606, 65 71 "V CA '129 J1 19800 SF r -I .. IL IL 9093 -24 24 24 14 TRACT 'W' cn 30 G74n 0 IDO -55 2 C9 P� 0) N ST 2 120 7930# 15 0 %V U� M IQ ro 6 .00 '3 S.E. 102ND. ST. =W lot:2. 18792# '14 30 tn 00 .5s.56 Ln . 324 0 R-55 V -j 0 r4 040 46. 022305 120.90 15 '1751 16 1.68 AC M1 W ILP . .3 TRACTJ �y 9094 30 780 KC SP 177044 Ln 440 13 5967 SFI 5 0 14D ---- 0472# 0 15 00 a13r.000 co Ln 14 0130 31 0 1 flo r- - -- ---, ...... UND INT , - _7 4 0 W 440 T 7 RC o3 .17 4 ir C4 . 11 1 . - N.88-34-38 w 0j j lot 3 q450 U� i75 ,02.5 4 qW 45 N 87 -59-25 W 132 '12 0 A 50 132 t:t ;Z. CP 8962# 270 (P 0 0[20 0 21 TRCT '16. CID B389# 4 0 159 00 e. r.A3 ro 0 W3$40 VM05 -13 Q 2 8066# F oli� 10 4 411 0100 in 18 63 0 U-) to CS! 20 0 04 f 0 t 17 22 15575 SF 1.00 AC 904 6# 9089 0170. 43 aim r-1 % 2 12 270 .25-89 12. 8 T 3 25 25 - . M .28 73719 -12 05 LU to co U048 SF 'Ti Cj 24. L G420 W 80 -4 CID Y, zr Ln It -42 32400 S F rA 7 Olin 078. <72000 R. tn z 0 cc 15 102 4 co Ln 163.96 z 26 19> Y, 215 N79-09' 15048 S Lr-�- 6 8M 40 19 -5oW CD 001,� 72 472000> 99. 4 1P 1-10, W 25 > 25 200.00 5 20. co Uj <72000> 2 Z :33 7,5. oo r , r. . ... . 1 -4 'r- rV r W 27 . . ,;v / - -A 10 5 126 W3540 32 W-�S 40 15048 SF Ld 1.06 AC CO - - - - - - - - - - - - - O -M 40 to ry .9 . . 4 1 Of 1 9021 0 W < W79901 49 0 132 111/ <12 -OOH> J I 0050 CID .v j 39 0. a0-V4I)' 0 CIO 270 9 1 - - 4 31150# 7,3 cc 31 CP - 00 17cp 3 '01 10' DRAJH'. ESMT. r- to co........................................ 031 (1 �§, . . I . - . . - N F14 , - .............. 00 ........... 9 in ---------- r-4 02TSO 0030 28, rn W CD 11-4 1 to V1 0 Wri It 1 34-. - 21 31050 SF 100 .9 .120 2 1 S Tt,,C T. .0 15048 SF 1172 -57 am 22 30 �O (114 5 5ry Ln 2 z VP 127.59 <72000 38 7,9 4 0 .270 74 38 40. 00' z 12 0 ry 3 eV,13 40 30 5 160 25 2 5 .36 CIO <8365#> MW Ln (0 8 .7 35, 37, C1q Ln 23 r-4 95 Ir 4 U N 15840 SF cn in to ,D. B� FLAT c) F1`)20 30 q0 175 0230 Ln 24 24 132 132 1.08 AC aa-; Ag 9rof 0.0 02 W C> &M.. 00 00. 47250 SF . 4,Lq;�.i 66 7 0 .2 2 Q.,Q 9, .52 205 . 0.4 1322' 6 324 6A 9020 C3 LU i5o 261 55 89.31 0) cm 271. 06 10 .3 5' 178.62 c, VAC. ORD; 22�3 , 4 5 142 96 2 _9 P%�. 1 88-34-38 cn 1c)t B 2 C14 -1 4;-" - - ---------------------- 13 0 9 S 32 Cn Vc CL 30 30 IT764r) 121, 18 E. 9 E LQT 4 t-o,r 2 171 - . 1300..' §§ r. 9 I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T RAC LO Cl 032 0 023M LOT 3 W to ....................... PM Ic 0 . . . . 1 63.85, 517 3 LO 0 1776,40 It A Ln 33" 1 .122.10. 97' 1209002 40 S Er MCI. J1 9! KC. SP. �911 S0034 r 7 103 98 -4 r- q -In 3 1 30 z 032395 OM05 5803 SE UND 46' 00 3 (1) -26-08 - -N 87 30 9Q '10 INT . - 0 121.2 C'4 L � 1� I 5M, 130 16 1 N 8 8 LOT 1 30 -4 . .. . :� QJ co, z V4 1. 7 25- 0Ito >-f t. - .. . . N 97-2 ro tr (14 . , '0005 z 05 , M H I W 8.0. '16 T 2 0050 3.5. 71 H C 43747# 0 LO J011 Ln 90 06-96 19196 SF z 0) 389. co 91M 168.76 89 . 31' 30 t466.7 S Q 178.62 30 . Qjj rl 11999 SE F, 1 . z 9086 SF GVEVI 1.) 166.45 - - 0 07 9190 21, 0 7a 2 121.2 2.86 100 296. 71 -- -:�� 2 125 25 10t A Ln 29 10272 SF 0010 39 5b co 10758 SF on so CID r�2 3 04 en co P173 126. 63- 8 CID r4 ? 14 -04-2305 MOI 02-n05 . . . . . . . . . . . 5 904,23013 OW03-Zi-05. IsE 0-3-23 *5 NW WOL23-M HIE 10-2306 39953 S F T-4 z- sf - - I i - 2046re" (p j rl .3 40017 S F AID 9 342405 11 S .82 3424Q%. 40016 SF' E 1.01 AC 3424'05: -Z -XIC qwiw 6. 110 CALC 1784/ 615 8 3 �ij 9. T!� 28+80 0 j46768# 27.86 73 9 7.96 AC 9052 P H S E.- MAY VALLE 65 0 2 8 RD. :',EY RIDGE AT MAY CREEK C. 3 0 -+31 .0 > (SUR11. 26/267) VOL 246 1.47-56 71 I HP. I RACT D N OPEN SPACE lt� r ?,3,9 3524 J� AS24CS M 3419469 91310 r4 1.85 AC %Iwo: 83811# 1261 0 UND INT 548860 21.38800 14 J?(9 4.91 AC 1,26 A . 0 69 �f 0 tt5l tn 6' 994 29843#. Z 3902.75 z 172933H 21. 96 3. 97 ACI - U, 4 116. '36-56- W VIM .2563 W .992.03 SURV. 1322 7 Q Ch N BB -37-17 W -7 4 Mar 1322.69 .21 8� -7� 03 I'Am '4 69 -V1 .­:. L!. . `59 !;W L S' 604 90 240 U88 -37-27.W 240 698' E 74 23 ORION 795 . I -.Q 7.. 4 4 136.28 S tn 5 108,67 f 9 9 4 P.6 30 IF N, ZIA 0) /0 022" 0 00 r/ 4 33 J, 0 SURVEY 160/248 tn Q 105851# 01 2.43 AC E 9022. �0 1 C-4 0 Lj S 88-10-38 E CV z 5 36. 3 C/) r 7 W 8. V) z 19 T.R-A T A OtIc S 89-15E U. 235.83 119570# TRAC 030 (Rd. No 368, Est. 1894). sC.02-2-05019-lKNT 20031009000032 CO tn 330.68 CV W CO: i &n to U� 7 , 67 AC 4?,p 00, AC 2.50 AC 90IC-1 6 9317 I tn t 9L139 �9. orl 165 N88 37-�27W 165 LOT I 4:4", r 218 3 AN .0 ,3 CIO 4 208.71 98 69 OF M co b 'I RACT 0 H G '45.92 ) EN SPACE 3 4 40 4 P r 35.97 AC 110.00. 100100 150.00 Ln co 30.1 32 AC 00 CID 41 W 20 . .... . C14 C14 oilo N 415710 3 Ln LO 2 LO Ln 2199.4 0 17140# 31079# LO OPEN 4 OOJ540 H r-4 SPACE ee 0310 TRACT 04 Or() Oc 0 C 5 1 A ................... * ...................... ......... ................................. ... 26 C 2 LO NE 26TH ST 00no - �i . 50.11 60. 17 50.00 cri 100100. 8 5 100.00 99.6 154775R 92. 2 UND I NT 0W 480.26 i'7 - - - - - - - 7 - - - - - - - - N.E. 26TH ST. 6.30 AC .43.18 84 10 9076 TRACT G Ln 5 q U-. 3-Z- 13 330.68 167 00 TRAQT D 0 AREA -01-27 W 20803# 138.20 30 00 0 co 0 ACCESS fi IS .............................. go KC SP 1276047 Eli IV 13323 S C14 51 4 55 C.) rA -� ................ . III co A�, k (n 01 88-01-27 EL 150 qO -7 ri -2 14- 15 C3 10 Cal 0 C LO'l . . .. . 1, . 4 1.01 AC 4N V, 141, CID 1.01 A to TRACT F 0 1 V 4.81 AC E4 60 . I . . I Ln . 15253 SF co CD 165310 W.D r% Cal r4 I lip - 4.79 AC 425 QA. 65 88.3 W1,4 Q1 C. Lh 50-21 RENT 'Ho 00 6� 00 ;7iWF S A fl 1�-2 7 1 e03W Z N r4 8 5 69 9 0 ---otw*� I U 0�'P- - 04 .27 49 Ct) :21 (V �n IV 2 20 Cb co fn In rq "440 aoe CP 7 %D co 6 00 KC L06M0043 1-4 13LW40 Z Z. e4 0 Dtd 6-29-2006 z -Z r� 0 55 0 S 89-57 W IN r4 tn R-50 48 919'. 19 16150 SF C13 Oica QD 307589 R 90.00 04N) 1. . . (-,:0 - . - I rV '106 LOT B 10 (;c 4 M14U 7� 3 0\ 0 P-7 oleo z Co .21-5 -10 4 0 00 0530 325 ,14 N.E. 2 46 47' 750521 537 43.21 103. C 10 4s CO 0.5 SP175024 r 7. KC L06MOO43 -17 - L OT A ep (0 66 C �4 '17 0.37 AC I CP Did 6-2972006 4.9 -t) C\1 5 AC ono ? 0 2 1 7o, 6o 12 SP -7 Q �-�L- ry 0130. CO 40 9 64,80 .,rjjJV.9 5, r> 8§ jp" 3.78 7 -2 W3540 13 0110 40 20 CID %C) oin 0470 A+4 6 1.5 AC 29750 .032305 W33 -43 - lot 1 -0 CMOs 1606, 65 71 "V CA '129 J1 19800 SF r -I .. IL IL 9093 -24 24 24 14 TRACT 'W' cn 30 G74n 0 IDO -55 2 C9 P� 0) N ST 2 120 7930# 15 0 %V U� M IQ ro 6 .00 '3 S.E. 102ND. ST. =W lot:2. 18792# '14 30 tn 00 .5s.56 Ln . 324 0 R-55 V -j 0 r4 040 46. 022305 120.90 15 '1751 16 1.68 AC M1 W ILP . .3 TRACTJ �y 9094 30 780 KC SP 177044 Ln 440 13 5967 SFI 5 0 14D ---- 0472# 0 15 00 a13r.000 co Ln 14 0130 31 0 1 flo r- - -- ---, ...... UND INT , - _7 4 0 W 440 T 7 RC o3 .17 4 ir C4 . 11 1 . - N.88-34-38 w 0j j lot 3 q450 U� i75 ,02.5 4 qW 45 N 87 -59-25 W 132 '12 0 A 50 132 t:t ;Z. CP 8962# 270 (P 0 0[20 0 21 TRCT '16. CID B389# 4 0 159 00 e. r.A3 ro 0 W3$40 VM05 -13 Q 2 8066# F oli� 10 4 411 0100 in 18 63 0 U-) to CS! 20 0 04 f 0 t 17 22 15575 SF 1.00 AC 904 6# 9089 0170. 43 aim r-1 % 2 12 270 .25-89 12. 8 T 3 25 25 - . M .28 73719 -12 05 LU to co U048 SF 'Ti Cj 24. L G420 W 80 -4 CID Y, zr Ln It -42 32400 S F rA 7 Olin 078. <72000 R. tn z 0 cc 15 102 4 co Ln 163.96 z 26 19> Y, 215 N79-09' 15048 S Lr-�- 6 8M 40 19 -5oW CD 001,� 72 472000> 99. 4 1P 1-10, W 25 > 25 200.00 5 20. co Uj <72000> 2 Z :33 7,5. oo r , r. . ... . 1 -4 'r- rV r W 27 . . ,;v / - -A 10 5 126 W3540 32 W-�S 40 15048 SF Ld 1.06 AC CO - - - - - - - - - - - - - O -M 40 to ry .9 . . 4 1 Of 1 9021 0 W < W79901 49 0 132 111/ <12 -OOH> J I 0050 CID .v j 39 0. a0-V4I)' 0 CIO 270 9 1 - - 4 31150# 7,3 cc 31 CP - 00 17cp 3 '01 10' DRAJH'. ESMT. r- to co........................................ 031 (1 �§, . . I . - . . - N F14 , - .............. 00 ........... 9 in ---------- r-4 02TSO 0030 28, rn W CD 11-4 1 to V1 0 Wri It 1 34-. - 21 31050 SF 100 .9 .120 2 1 S Tt,,C T. .0 15048 SF 1172 -57 am 22 30 �O (114 5 5ry Ln 2 z VP 127.59 <72000 38 7,9 4 0 .270 74 38 40. 00' z 12 0 ry 3 eV,13 40 30 5 160 25 2 5 .36 CIO <8365#> MW Ln (0 8 .7 35, 37, C1q Ln 23 r-4 95 Ir 4 U N 15840 SF cn in to ,D. B� FLAT c) F1`)20 30 q0 175 0230 Ln 24 24 132 132 1.08 AC aa-; Ag 9rof 0.0 02 W C> &M.. 00 00. 47250 SF . 4,Lq;�.i 66 7 0 .2 2 Q.,Q 9, .52 205 . 0.4 1322' 6 324 6A 9020 C3 LU i5o 261 55 89.31 0) cm 271. 06 10 .3 5' 178.62 c, VAC. ORD; 22�3 , 4 5 142 96 2 _9 P%�. 1 88-34-38 cn 1c)t B 2 C14 -1 4;-" - - ---------------------- 13 0 9 S 32 Cn Vc CL 30 30 IT764r) 121, 18 E. 9 E LQT 4 t-o,r 2 171 - . 1300..' §§ r. 9 I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T RAC LO Cl 032 0 023M LOT 3 W to ....................... PM Ic 0 . . . . 1 63.85, 517 3 LO 0 1776,40 It A Ln 33" 1 .122.10. 97' 1209002 40 S Er MCI. J1 9! KC. SP. �911 S0034 r 7 103 98 -4 r- q -In 3 1 30 z 032395 OM05 5803 SE UND 46' 00 3 (1) -26-08 - -N 87 30 9Q '10 INT . - 0 121.2 C'4 L � 1� I 5M, 130 16 1 N 8 8 LOT 1 30 -4 . .. . :� QJ co, z V4 1. 7 25- 0Ito >-f t. - .. . . N 97-2 ro tr (14 . , '0005 z 05 , M H I W 8.0. '16 T 2 0050 3.5. 71 H C 43747# 0 LO J011 Ln 90 06-96 19196 SF z 0) 389. co 91M 168.76 89 . 31' 30 t466.7 S Q 178.62 30 . Qjj rl 11999 SE F, 1 . z 9086 SF GVEVI 1.) 166.45 - - 0 07 9190 21, 0 7a 2 121.2 2.86 100 296. 71 -- -:�� 2 125 25 10t A Ln 29 10272 SF 0010 39 5b co 10758 SF on so CID r�2 3 04 en co P173 126. 63- 8 CID r4 ? 14 AND CAP BASIS OF BEARING S# 26252 LS# 26252- A 0.o4'S SO7 °2522 "w 0.02'8 0.03'W .756..84' _" . .�_ _.. ! o A PHA L T, - -.-- ! 10' UTILITIES EASEMENT 148TH AVENUE S.E. REC. NO. 20040812000876 S01 025'20 "WN01 °2522 "E 109.00 f _ ! so 1 °25 22 "w ! 96.00 ` 108-97 ` 30. NO 1 *2522 "E 100.00 170-2Y 1 90.00` 15 WATER EASEMENT FOR 1 KING COUNTY WATER DIST. ! PARCEL H , 90 REC. No. 1 APPROX. WOOD 95 060574 7' ELECTRICAL EASEMENT TAX LOT 032305-9224 WALL REC, No,' .8611140440 .W Ex. HOUSE PARCE ! O ,W W LOCATION4 I NORTH N o o TAX LOT 0 2305 9194 ! o PARCEL J �' CN 0 f T X .LOT 032305 9257. 0 10 20 40 APPROX. 1 PY NCI! P -'r ,h oAPPROX. - ! oN Ex. HOUSE: i 0 5 WIRE LOCATION �s APPROX. PARCEL K FENCE ' ! N Ex. HousE W PARCEL L TAX LOT 032305-925 PARCEL C '1 p LOCATION �. TAX LOT 032305-9322 0 0 z� �w W� �z W 00 W z� az w� ku cc LocaTioNT T X LOT 032305-- 9193 .. . ; .. » � � � _ f _ 10 FIRE HYDRANT EASEMENT . _ :_ trj VICINITY MAP SCALE 1 40 �' F REBAR FOR KING COUNTY WATEK ST. Qo .-.. -- _ ( c 6' WOOD, NO. 90 - REC. NO. '95072544 { 4 N. T. S. 4 CYCLONE . ! .26 FENCE . 0.16' FENCE 3' CIED, EXCEPTIONS ON TITLE HEDGE ,. \F- .1. UNLOCATABLE ELECTRICAL AND COMMUNICATION 1 96.001 , EASEMENTS UNDER RECORDING NUMBERS 2586933,, j SU ° 108.97 _ F- 2586934, 2586935, 2067789 AND 2611302. 04'15 + °i :. �. ! Q os FOUND REBAR Q ! � � AND 16213 OUND R AR - ! SPNp,Li Imo' � 0.03r S BARN ,4. 5' WOO pH o 0.01 84. oo ` = I 9 .cy � _ _ ,, FS 105.98 FENCE � _T _ ul W W SDS °2522 "W 189 1 °25'2 f. ¢ 0 40 N 1I EX. HOUSEilk p .98 0 2 ! 30' LEC ICAL EASEMENT 9� .4 4" .. co �-- cn FOR S.E..I . 1. ) N 0 REC. 0. 7907050905 ! o O _ ! ! o o GARAGE c X171 � Q �; co FF= �� V PARCEL A z N 330.34 N TAX L T 03 305 9004 0 I .....' 30 INGRESS, EGRESS 4 -) WIRE N & TILIT!ES E EMENT \ FEN � ¢ � z 570 8 &1 7fi 0 � 0096 . �s�' ; a I 2 z P RCEL F FRENC DRAT 30' WATER EASEMENT F ! x Q ! TAX LOT 32305---9219 sc�1°2 f 2,fw DISTRICT N0. 90 TER o W :, ): SHAD 189.9 ' C. NOS. 5186222 & 186223 o . W� \ �n 1 sal 25 2a w ! FOUND IRAN WIRE 313.98, PIPE NCE ----• RA �E ! 33'S HE TA L 2 5--9- ��-- 147TH AVENUE S.E. DATUM 0. E _, � .p / N I� " '-' Lb O APPROX. 10' WATER E` SEMEN FOR o, r; �p KING CO TY W TER -`� NAVD88 W • _ N DISTRI T NO. 90 ° , d: W FOUN REBAR Uy J . 46'. EX. HOUSE/ RAGE LEGEND � z AND C P LOCATION o75 22 E v ►� REC. 0. 9507 504 / E--- 11 S# �2fi2 2 O .., p 04 SHE 950 2504 6 66. - WATER VALVE o > 0.04 S ,, 1,14 ENCHA�ARK- g Z 0.06'w PARCEL G ��- 189. ;.r FERE IJYDRA!�+T \\ o J o _1 " SCRIBED "X" IN ROCK SET 1.4 FEET BELOW TAX LOT 032305 9221 'x: od ; ' y 1: GRADE IN A STANDARD MONUMENT CASE LOCK E :�� =�Ort�lp aTED AT THE INTERSECTION OF S.E. ❑ CATCH BASIN 5" 11 E �" LOC: FEN LL FENCE 1.6 S MAY VALLEY ROAD AND 148TH AVENUE SEWER MANHOLE J S :,. 5' WIRE 0.0:?'W S.E. IT IS SET ON THE CENTERLINE OF W . 1 0 148TH AVENUE S.E. AND IS ON THE �, ,> FENCE 5 O Z TELEPHONE RISER �' �' AT GATE1�j VALLEY ROAD. J,r: EXTENDED SOUTH .EDGE OF S.E. MAY o ELEVATION= 327,801 FEET Z , G -o- UTILITY PALE GUY ANCHOR EXISTING ZONING R-1' Lo • GUARD POST o r, PROPOSED ZONING R-4 I \ 3 .00' PARC B N 5' WIRE SIGNPOST ! 14;:, _ p r ): T X LOT 0 2305 106 .� o TAX LOT 032305- 92 'FENCE N \ 233` o�, - 4:} o TOPOGRAPHIC NOTE ® JUNCTION. BOX ,). ; ,. _ t . , (�� i o � \ �� N01 °25 `22 "F 25' NGPE \ � ;_� � � 1 cD �� FOUf�D REBAR TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN ON PARCELS B F, , ©MAILBOX 33 > � - + � G I L AND. M ARE ,BASED z -`FOUND REBAR A D CAP WIRE i" '� ® ---AND' CAP LS#6252 FENCE ' } i :" ON FIELD SURVEY BY ENCOMPASS HEATPUMP I+:;, ?>: ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION, INCLUDING � -�.S# 26252 0•N N r r �" .i • ,� ; HOUSE LOCATIONS ON -0- YARD LIGHT 0.06'5 `� 0.05VY " 1 1 0.07' W� APPROXIMATE E A IK R PARCELS A, C, D, E, H, J, AND WERE ..�. \ , APPROXIMATED FROM AERIAL INFORMATION , FROM KING COUNTY ]MAP. 4 FLAG POLE � _ 5 WIRE - \S:) FENCE TREE LEGEND _ OUND -R3AR AN&t CAP 189.94 1 ___- ----� LS# 26252 _ NO1 °25'22 "E 231.66' ,. r -� - -- -- - - �„ MAPLE TREE --�--�- ° 1 0.04 S '9.0 \ N 6 WOOD 1 _ � 01 25 22 E 1 / / - 0.09' w 'Ao / FIR TREE/ � �- � FENCE � �-: 1 (Az -r .. ., r, 1 -- _ �- j AR TR \ O / CED EE \ ��• L� \ - \. \• . • L_ , . 4_ /\l. _ war- . - / n r -r r ,' r , i \ i . r , • - r • i ♦ 1 \ ^ / _ .ffC ni •fes C ALDER TREE / �. , ., _ r, ., V \ r , Ell PINE TREE PARCEL K: � \ ! / COTTONWOOD TREE / � THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 IN THE NORTHEAST \ I l I QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP Z c PARCEL G: .. 23 NORTH RANGE 5 EAST W.M. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: . 3, PARCEL I: ., , j1 r, '� WILLOW TREE PARCEL C: THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT .1 IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL E: THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 `IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE' BEGINNING AT A POINT NORTH 88'01'27" WEST 30 FEET AND W ' THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., NORTH 01 25 22 EAST 30 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER z ,NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP . 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., THE WEST .85 FEET OF THE NORTH 190 FEET OF THE EAST W.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1; APPLE TREE 'DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; 370 - FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST*25'22" , BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GOVERNMENT LOT BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SUBG!VISIQN• THENCE NORTH 01EAST 109.00 .FEET• z PARCEL A: BEGINNING 30 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF• QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, 1; THENCE NORTH 01 '25'22" EAST 30 FEET; UNSPECIFIED TREE THE WEST 85 FEET OF THE EAST 285 FEET OF THE NORTH 190 FEET,OF ' W.M.; THENCE SOUTH 190 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION; THENCE NORTH 88'01'27" WEST 139.67 FEET; W THENCE SOUTH 01 '25'22" WEST 100 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88'01'27" WEST 307.49 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF THENCE NORTH 87'26'08" WEST 204 FEET TO THE TRETE POINT OF THENCE SOUTH 02'04'15" WEST 109.00 FEET; THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOGETHER WITH ANON -EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 88'01 27" WEST 147.51 FEET; " " THENCE SOUTH 89'57 14 WEST 170.05 FEET; / BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 87'26 OS WEST 325 FEET; TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M.; EGRESS AND UTILITIES OVER AND ACROSS THE NORTH -15 FEET THENCE SOUTH. 88'01 27 EAST 140.52 FEET TO THE POINT OF THENCE NORTH 01 '25'22" EAST 106 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID OF THE EAST 285 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE THENCE NORTH 01 '25'22" EAST 262.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01 '2522 WEST 231.66 FEET; BEGINNING; EXCEPT ALL COAL AND MINERAL RIGHTS; " " SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 88 01 27 EAST 170 FEET TO THE TRUE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, THENCE NORTH 65 00 00 EAST 113.89 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87'2fi'08" EAST 175.035 FEET; SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. POINT OF BEGINNING; RANGE 5 EAST, W,M,; 1 " , THENCE SOUTH 88 01 27 EAST 45.51 FEET• (ALSO KNOWN AS PARCEL C OF KING COUNTY LOT LINE' THENCE NORTH 01 25 22 EAST 66.56 FEET; canning Oivisi PARCEL B: EXCEPT ALL COAL AND MINERAL RIGHTS; THENCE SOUTH 01 '25'22" EAST 314 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; ADJUSTMENT N0. 881101 2 RECORDED UNDER AUDITORS FILE N0. n 010, EXCEPT ALL. COAL AND MINERAL RIGHTS; THENCE SOUTH 87'2fi'08" EAST 150 FEET; ' SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. 8901270305.) THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OPMASHINGTON. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING/ STATE OF WASHINGTON. THENCE NORTH TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING• SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE PARCEL D: PARCEL F: PARCEL H: SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHING TON. APR. 81oi1 5 EAST, ' W.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 IN THE NORTHEAST PARCEL L: -- BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE PARCEL J: NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 IN THE SOUTHEAST C THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3; TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., DESCRIBED AS NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3/y TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3 TOWNSHIP DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: W.M., DESCRIBE AS FOLLOWS:VED THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF 370 FEET TO THE FOLLOWS: NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: j p TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE WEST 159.07 FEET; BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION; BEGINNING AT A POINT NORTH "8'01 27 WEST 3d FEET AND NORTH 01 25 22 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BEGINNING. AT the NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID wA•• •'••� THENCE' SOUTH 01 '25'22" WEST 190 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88'01'27" WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF 30.00 FEET; GOVERNMENT LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 01 EAST 30 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST. OF SAID. LOT 1; " • SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST pF BEGINNING AT A POINT NORTH 88 01 27 WEST 30 FEET AND NORTH 01 25 22 EAST 1 JCB NO. 10526 THENCE EASTERLY TO A POINT 370 FEET WESTERLY OF THE EASTERLY THENCE SOUTH 01 25 22 WEST, ALONG THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF 148TH AVENUE '25'22" EAST 30 FEET; THENCE NORTH 01 '25/22" EAST 109 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF 30 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1; LINE OF SAID SECTION :190 FEET; THENCE DUE I ��,a� OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER SOUTHEAST AND PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION, 100.00 " " „ DATE 4/21/11 '-I: MARGIN OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER Q THENCE NORTH 88 01 27 WEST 170.52 FEET TO BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 01 25/22 EAST 96 FEET; WEST 30 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF � OF SAID SECTION 3; FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89'57'14» WEST 170.05 THENCE NORTH 01 25 22 EAST 205.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE BEGINNING• THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 01 `25'22" EAST 109.00 FEET• BEGINNING; SCALE 1 "-40' THENCE NORTH 01 •25'22' EAST 190 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF FEET; ' CONTINUING NORTH 88'01'27" WEST 136.97 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88'01 `27" WEST 138.20 FEET; / THENCE CONTINUING WEST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF r o BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 01 825'22» WEST 84.00 FEET;'25'22" THENCE SOUTH 02'04'15" WEST 96 FEET; THENCE NORTH 8801 27WEST 136.97 FEET; SAID SUBDIVISION 174 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01 '25'22" WEST DESIGiID TJR THENCE NORTH 01EAST 314 FEET; " THENCE SOUTH -02004'15"WEST 109.00 FEET; �iAWN JEF 11332 ALSO KNOWN AS KING COUNTY LEGAL LOT STATUS NO. L06MOO43 THENCE SOUTH 88'01 27 EAST 170.00 FEET TO SAID WESTERLY MARGIN OF 148TH THENCE SOUTH 88 01 27 EAST TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; " 171.56 FEET; ''' y ( AVENUE SOUTHEAST; THENCE SOUTH 88401'27"EAST 140.52 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88 01 27 EAST 138.20 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; " S`' DATED JUNE 29, 2006,} THENCE SOUTH 02'04'15" EAST 313.99 FEET TO THE TRUE (ALSO KNOWN AS PARCEL B OF KING COUNTY LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. THENCE SOUTH 87 26 08 EAST 174 FEET; CC�CED ]'LIQ a AL LAS8901270305.)ALSO KNOWN AS PARCEL A OF UNRECORDED KING COUNTY SHORT PLAT NO. 07992 AS THENCE NORTH 171.56 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; APPiiOM TiR SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. ►� POINT OF BEGINNING; 8811012 RECORDED UNDER AUDITORS FILE NO. { THENCE NORTH 01 25 22 EAST ALONG SAID MARGIN 90.00 FEET TO THE TRUE APPROVED JULY 20, 1970.) SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING STATE OF WASHINGTON, POINT OF BEGINNING; SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING/ STATE OF WASHINGTON. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. ' SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHiNf_�TON. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. SWET '� OF '� 0 vila pre, Ego ti;EJ OW sail, ie Z II— A --T IIM4 Ti4 A Wit k icT S7 69 INE 23W'S Flj� IINE 2i8T ST IiN E. 2 M I D GT.'-' LU 1c Sao woro n lit, is! 2"00 *0 lowal 1 i C wbf V, ; in 441 % -Owl lag; IToo Ilow, lot lays M. VMS a! M= IWWII Ilow Not d" S"Of iom is hk , 11 1 , F , ., :11 4. UA Fq .......... .... ................ ... .. ...... ...... ... ..... ... . . . .......... ..... ...... ........ ..... ....... ... .. ......... .. . . ................. .......... ...... ...... ...... ........ ............................. ..... . . . te