No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA80-039 • BEGINNING OF FILE FILE Tot (553?&z,zj 0,59 80 FILMED C-4 /17 : a41-2,1- (472- -ch-j Renton ALlir'City Council G/ 4/6/81 Page 5 Corresponsence and Current Business - Continued Tiffany Park off from public access to eliminate hazards to the children. School Walkway Mayor Shinpoch report Acting Public Works Director Houghton and Continued Administrative Assistant Parness viewed area. City Attorney Warren advised need to determine ownership. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND CLYMER, refer the matter to the Park Department and Street Department for report back. SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY ROCKHILL, SECOND CLYMER, REFER MATTER TO THE ADMINISTRATION TO REPORT BACK DETAILS AND RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. Orillia Letter from Burlington Northern, N.C. Kretzer, Asst. Mgr. Property Industrial Park Management, requested amendment to the City's ordinance to provide Divisions I & II additional extension to allow Glacier Park Company permission to continue its construction of Burlington Northern Orillia Indus- trial Park beyond the June 11 , 1981 deadline. The letter explained the Board of Public Works has allowed the second extension and has . informed Burlington Northern that the existing ordinance limits authority of the Board ,to two extensions. Upon inquiry, Acting Public Works Director Houghton advised the company cannot complete the work in Division II without the extension. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND SHANE, REFER THE REQUEST TO THE PLAN- NING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FOR RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS Transportation Transportation Committee Chairman Trimm submitted committee Committee report recommending amendment of the ordinance relating to park- Loading Ordinance ing of commercial vehicles for loading and unloading within the Commercial Central Business District to allow double parking for the purpose Vehicles in CBD of loading and unloading merchandise in those areas that do not have off-street facilities. Double parking would be permitted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. for 15 minute inter- vals only. The report recommended referral to the Ways and Means Committee for amending ordinance. MOVED BY TRIMM, SECOND SHANE, CONCUR IN COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Traffic Signal Transportation Committee report presented by Chairman Trimm Operations recommended that all traffic lights currently on flash, commence flashing at 7:00 p.m. rather than 9:00 p.m. , except on Friday when 2nd and 3rd Streets will remain operational until 1 :00 a.m. On Saturdays 2nd and 3rd Streets will remain operational until 1 :00 a.m. Sunday and will then commence flash operation and remain so until 6:00 a.m. Monday. All others will go on flash at 7:00 p.m. Sunday and remain on flash until 6:00 a.m. Monday. MOVED BY TRIMM, SECOND SHANE, CONCUR IN RECOMMENDATION. Upon inquiry Traffic Engineer Norris noted he had met with committee and will continue with traffic count. MOTION CARRIED. Ways and Means Ways and Means Committee Chairman Clymer presented committee Committee report recommending Council concurrence in the Mayor's appointment Appointment of Gene Ledbury to the Planning Commission; term effective through 6/30/83. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND SHANE, CONCUR IN RECOMMENDA- TION. CARRIED. Public Safety Public Safety Committee Chairman Hughes advised a fire rating Committee survey meeting is being arranged in approximately four weeks and recommendation will be forthcoming. Planning and Planning and Development Committee Chairman Rockhill presented Development committee report which recommended that Council concur that it Committee is in the best interest of the City and is the desire of its Adult citizens to provide regulation for the so-called adult motion Entertainment picture theater location. Also recommended: that the ordinance Land Use be written to reflect the following desired conditions: (a) No adult motion picture theater be allowed in any 'area used or zoned residential or P-1 public use area; (b) A buffer strip - of 1000 feet from any residential. or P-1 area also be a banned area; (c) The area enclosed in a one mile radius of any school also be banned area (minimum student walking area) . The report recommended Council concurrence and referral to the Ways and ,Means Committee for ordinance. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND ROCKHILL, CONCUR IN REPORT. CARRIED. Renton City Council 4/6/81 rage 6 ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ways and Means Ways and Means Committee Chairman Clymer presented committee Committee report which recommended first reading of an ordinance appropri- First Reading ating $70,200 reimbursement from the Boeing Company unto Traffic Traffic Signal Engineering Div. for N 6th St./Logan Ave. N signal , sidewalks, Logan N. etc. Following reading it was MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND ROCKHILL, REFER ORDINANCE BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Adult Motion The committee recommended first reading of an ordinance relating Picture to Adult Motion Picture Theater, setting standards and establish- Land Use ing location (See earlier Planning and Development Committee report) . Following reading, it was MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND ROCKHILL, REFER THE ORDINANCE BACK TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE FOR ONE WEEK. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Council President Stredicke inquired re status of NE 4th St. Intersections I and Union Ave NE intersection. Acting Public Works Director in NE Section Houghton reported approval received and work is progressing. Stredicke further inquired regarding the intersection at NE 4th Street and Monroe Ave. NE and was advised that the widening of Monroe Ave.NE near new apartment complex should be completed soon, that occupancy will not be allowed until roadway is completed. Councilman Stredicke objected to letting developer rip up the street and leave it to the detriment of the citizens and their cars. Arrows Councilman Shane noted street marking arrows at Houser and Street Markings Williams should be pointing to the left as it is the only way to turn and asked they be investigated. ADMINISTRATIVE - Report from Mayor Shinpoch advised that a notice of change in REPORT garbage rates will be sent out with the utility billings in Garbage Rates April and will be printed on pink paper. The Community Food Bank Board has agreed to participate with the Salvation Army Food Bank to assist Renton's needy; located at 65 Williams Ave. S; hours are 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The Mayor reported receipt of a CBD Lighting lengthy statistical communique from Acting Public Works Director • Houghton asking re-evaluation of the decorative lighting in Renton's CBD due to need to conserve both energy and manpower. Referral to Council Committee for study and recommendation was urged. Senior Stage Reminder from the Mayor: Senior Citizen Stage Review Friday Review 4/17 and Saturday 4/18/81 at Carco 7:30 p.m. Council invited. Personnel Director John McFarland is in Japan this week, full- McFarland/Japan filling prior commitment to Tukwila's Sister City. Metro Mayor Shinpoch noted the Metro Council , composed of 38 elected and appointed officials, gets just as confused in parliamentary procedure as Renton; though not comforting, she knew we were not alone. Metro update: Approval given to 1990 Plan, which is a document to set goals - more hope than blueprint because of funding. The public should know that the fare box generates 1/3 of the revenue in all transit programs in the country, other monies come from tax sources. Metro's water quality program will apprarently suffer from recent federal cutbacks - a team just returned from Washington advised funding only for emergencies and not ongoing programs or future planning. Metro has a new New Metro Member member: Donald W. Custer, representing the'7th Councilmanic District. Burnett S MOVED BY TR'IMM, SECOND SHANE, COUNCIL APPROVE THE REPLACEMENT OF Street Program CONCRETE FOR MARY BROWN, BURNETT AVE. S. STREET PROJECT. CARRIED. AUDIENCE Robert Tjossem, 1313 Market St. , Kirkland, representing the COMMENT Central Highlands Plaza called attention to Consent Agenda item Building (See Page 4., Item 4) and requested Council give approval due to Moratorium construction commitment timing. Tjossem explained approval had NE Section been received for construction and when the resolution was adopted Burger King was inadvertently omitted. C4 L ( 4 CJ/ BURLINGTON NORTHERN 800 Central Building {. ���^� '��` Seattle, WA 98104 fok. , sue { Renton City Council F.). � April 3 1981 Municipal Building ®`.n i-• 200 Mill Avenue South VP.‘ Renton, WA 98055 (29, ) 111R4=f` Gentlemen: Glacier Park Company, a subsidiary of the Burlington Northern Inc. , owns and has platted Divisions I and II of the Burlington Northern Orillia Industrial Park of Renton for the purpose of locating industrial users to provide rail revenue to the Burlington Northern and create additional jobs for the citizens of Renton. Due to the size and complexity of this development, the park was divided into Divisions I and II and in each division the Renton City Public Works Board provided us with deferral of improvements, due in part to the tremendous amount of street and utility construction involved and, partially, I assume, because portions of the improvements were covered by L.I .D. 302 and 314. Division I has been completed all but for a portion of one-half of Southwest 27th Street and one-half of the East Valley Highway, which is to be completed under L.I .D. 314. Improvements to Division II were instigated in 1979 and due to the many permits required from various agencies, review of plans, etc. , we have used up one extension granted by the Public Works Board and the second extension will expire June 11, 1981. I have been advised by Mr. Houghton, chairman of the Board of Public Works, that the Board cannot grant any further extensions of time to complete these improve- ments, as the existing ordinance limits the Board's authority to two extensions only. We have received the bids from various contractors which are being reviewed for continuation of our improvements in Division II of our park and, in view of this, I am requesting the City Council to-amend the existing ordinance to allow Glacier Park Company permission to continue its construction of improvements beyond the June 11, 1981, deadline. Your consideration and cooperation in amending the ordinance and, hopefully, extending our time limit will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, 17: C. Kretz Asst. Mgr. roperty Management NCK/afd,6 File: RE-1400 II Orillia cc: Mr. H. D. Shane e / 0v 66 L a y OY .c 611A V . • OF R4, ;• o THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUI LDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 ;61-r BARBARA' Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 09gT�o P May 20, 1980 Mr. J. J. Gordon Manager, Property Management Division Glacier Park Company Lobby 2, Central Building Seattle, WA 98104 RE: File No. Short Plat 039-80; Glacier Park Company. Dear Mr. Gordon: It has come to our attention that representatives of the Glacier Park Company will be unable to attend the continued public hearing regarding the referenced application scheduled for June 10, 1980. Because the Examiner is allowed to continue a public hearing only to a time and date certain, it will be necessary to dismiss this application without prejudice. Upon submission of the revised preliminary plat application, the Planning Department will reschedule and readvertise the public hearing date. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Neil C. Kretzer, Burlington Northern Albert J. Hebrank, Gardner Engineers, Inc. Planning Department City Clerk + G 4 !// PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMIINER PUBLIC HEARING MAY 13 , 1980 APPLICANT : GLACIER PARK CO. FILE NUMBER : Short Plan 039-80 A . SUMMARY & PURPOSE OF REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a proposed 2-lot short plat for future industrial development . B . GENERAL INFORMIATION: 1 . Owner of Record : J . J. GORDON 2 . Applicant : GLACIER PARK CO. 3 . Location : (Vicinity Map Attached ) SE Corner of Lind Avenue S.W. between S.W. 29th Street and S .W. 34th Street 4. Legal Description : A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning Department 5 . Size of Property : *8. 4 acres 6. Access : Via S .W. 29th Street , and Lind Avenue S.W. 7 . Existing Zoning: M-P , Manufacturing Park 8 . Existing Zoning in the Area : M-P, Manufacturing Park 9 . Comprehensive Land Use Plan : Manufacturing Park 10 . Notification : The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date . Notice was properly published in the Seattle Times on April 30, 1980 and posted in three places on or near the site as required by City Ordinance ,on April 25 , 1980 . C . I ISTOR' /O,UGROUND: The subject site was annexed into the City of Renton by Ordinance #1745 of April 1 4, 1959. It was rezoned from "G" to M-P by Ordinance #2533 on December 24, 1969 , and platted per final plat approved July 17 , 1978 . A lot line adjustment was approved between Lots 6 and 7 on November 1 , 1979 under LLA-020-79 which created the present configuration of Lot 7 . • PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING _ EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : GLACIER PARK CO . , Short Plat 039-80 MAY 13, 1980 PAGE TWO D. PHIYSICAAL 1:ACf rGROUND: 1 . Topography : The site is essentially level . 2 . Soils : Snohomish silt loam (So ) . Permeability is moderate in the upper part of the profile and moderately rapid in the lower part . Runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is slight . This soil is used for row crops , pasture , and hay. Much of the site has been filled as part of the Glacier Park Plat . • 3 . Vegetation : Scrub grass and weeds are the only significant vegetation 4. Wildlife : The existing vegetation is not suitable for wildlife habitat . 5. Water : No surface water was observed on the subject site (April 25, 1980) . 6. Land Use : The subject site is undeveloped . Properties to the north and west remain undeveloped. To the east is the Superior Fast Freight storage and distribution center . Mercury Marine is beginning construction to the south. E . IMt£IGW,OIRifOOD CHARACTERISTICS : The properties in the vicinity are experiencing transition from undeveloped land to commercial/industrial uses of light industrial nature . F . PW LIC SERVICES : 1 . Water and Sewer : An existing 12" water main runs north-south along the E. Valley Road within 1 mile to the east of the subject site and a 12" main extends east-west within a mile to the north and a 24" main runs north-south along Lind Avenue . Along the E . Valley Road within a mile to the east of the site exists an 8" sanitary sewer which eventually become a 24" pipe . 2 . Fire Protection : Provided by the Renton Fire Dept. per ordinance requirements . 3 . Transit : Metro Transit Route #150 operates along SR-167 within ; mile to the east of the subject site . 4. Schools : Not applicable . 5 . Recreation : Not applicable . G . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1 . Section 4-730, Manufacturing 'Park . H . APIPLICAME SECTIONS OF THE COIMIPREI4IENISIIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: 1 . Subdivision Ordinance , Section 9-1105 ; Short Subdivisions . 2 . Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan, June 1976 . I . IMPACT OF THE NATURAL OR HUMAN ENVIRONMENT : 1 . Natural Systems : Minor . !// • 1011, PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : GLACIER PARK CO. , Short Plat 039-80 MAY 13 , 1980 PAGE THREE 2 . Population/Employment : Minor . 3 . Schools : Not applicable. 4 . Social : Not applicable . 5 . Traffic : No specific use has been proposed at this time , therefore specific impacts of traffic can be better addressed at a later date. J . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the City of Renton ' s Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , as amended , RCW 43-21C , the subject proposal is exempt from the determination of environmental significance . K . AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED : 1 . City of Renton Building Division. 2 . City of Renton Engineering Division . 3 . City of Renton Traffic Envineering Division . 4. City of Renton Utilities Division . 5 . City of Renton Fire Department . . L . PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS : • 1 . The proposed short plat is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designation of manufacturing park for the site and surrounding areas . 2 . The proposal is compatible with the existing industrial warehouse development developing adjacent to the subject site . 3 . All public improvements were installed with the construction of the Burlington-Northern 0rillia Industrial Park except for the sidewalk and the necessary curb cuts for the individual projects . The specific location of fire hydrants will have to be modified as a result of the modification • of the plat . 4 . On January 24 , 1980 the State Attorney General issued an opinion which concluded that a plat could not be short platted . That it must be replatted. A copy •of that opinion is attached. This Attorney General ' s opinion is solely an opinion and does not appear to have been tested in a court of law . The question of whether this application should be reviewed as a short plat or a preliminary plat should be based on the common sense of applying the law . In a case where an old plat was filed and the improvements do not meet present standards , it would appear that replatting of the property would be most applicable to assure that all improvements are brought up to present public develop- ment standards . However , in this case , the improvements are in and the City is guaranteed of necessary services for the health and welfare of the public . Therefore it does not appear that processing the application as a preliminary plat would fulfill any additional interests in either protecting the public or the property owner . 410 S PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : GLACIER PARK CO. , Short Plat 039-80 MAY 13 , 1980 PAGE FOUR 5 . The State Environmental Policy Act prescribes different approaches for reviewing a short plat and a preliminary plat . The short plat application is exempt from an environmental determination while a preliminary plat would require that a determination be made and a declaration of non-significance be made or that an environmental impact statement prepared . In this specific case , the entire development of Burlington-Northern was analyzed in a detailed environmental impact statement . That impact statement would be applicable in this case since the total possible development was evaluated at the time of the long subdivision . The street pattern and location of utilities have not varied from that original proposal . The end result of this application would be the placement of two buildings in the location where one building would have normally been constructed . Both of the lots would have sufficient area to allow adequate means of construction and compliance with city codes . M. DEPARTMENTAL REE®NMIENDWTI®NS: Based on the 'above analysis , the Planning Department recommends that the short plat application request , as submitted in File No. Short Plat 039-80, be approved. r } • M X IN 11 E.S T //2 Section 30, T23/V, P 5E, W/14 • REVTON, K/NG COUNTY, WASH/NGTON • • I i I i W ?_nth St. — — S 88°24 4 „E' i ./4 • `•R=55.00 1 i I 90°r,'U�v� L=%.39 • • l - • I /88,66' sq ft V O j �\ _ 1 `j `: � I , , S 88°09.58•E 1 ' 1'1 '' ----•- - — • O • 1 .....1 e m E CO Parcel S Z a /77,065 sq. ft. i 1 • i y • - - - 377.2/• -- t -- <••-L '. N 88c0958"W 4 i - - i i i • 1 S. & 34th St. i / ® c ? • -1 . . .Wzi19 979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET App1 i cati on : ZEWAT ?'.4'4 T ® -S (e2 4#3) 1 •Location: '� ;�C.� , ����� eA'� . , �' , _ . ./�'' . o App1 i cant: e4 r/ IrIC 4gerdtifSy___. TO: p � SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : �®��/� Parks Department ® Police Department A,R.C. MEETING DATE : 4 //90_ Public Works Department Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Bui .ding Division //t , L tilities Engineering 4 Fire Department (Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITI 0 TE APPLICATION R V EW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON ,'' AT :UO A.M, IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF YOUR D FARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TR ATTEND THE ARC, PLEAS RO I;'E THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:OU P.M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : jpf Approved ,/ Approved with Conditions Not Approved ` ice- /V/J/7794 J7 S ctti%9 C-f•65 S S a 4-0 Gc.,/Y s S/V// G.. i G /'.(,,'J//7LL t Rio ,_9Liev/ /3-/3LC Pt (/2 Cy,,j r /?;v'% sLl,e_0/4.' -c;,,,,' 7/ ? ica'. G'/6- coil.) S7.' -'C- 7'd,L) c,),vFcIZ7t- U fq., +vl//e2 o GCiii.' Y 7x!e: /=--//zt'�'S/-06, (- -L /- ,7-):----4-7-6,--,----- ll' ? 4g/80 Signature o Director or Au horized Representative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : iAf i-r4 ✓ Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved , ; , 011 ,$)i N 4/zt/ Q Signature of Director or Authorized Representative ' Date Vfzr'illAs160® Planning 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET App1i cation: .SW T P‘Ailr 43:47'Seg ( 2 `,#s) Location: e � e , rr- Appl i cant: 6/a 'rl Ark 4fflgyearly TO: • Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : S713f ® Police Department A.R.C. MEETING DATE : A' , i Public Works Department Engribeering Division raffic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department (Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITI 0 T�{E .APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON ® AT 9:UO A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF YOUR D ARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE T A TEND THE ARC, PLEAS RO I E THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:OU P .M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : X Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved / 9'-2' ®8o Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : )( Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved Signature of Director or Authoriz d Represqative Date --.,�•,�eadkS+tss:lG..af'S;A7F9i'aat�°s••._"' Vaj19 dp Planning 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application: 6 AT P M -"*" (.2 h#s) Location: K ��� C— .. .. .a4 1. " ,: a•' Applicant: 614, L 44 _ TO: arks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : s 3/8O Police Department A.R.C. MEETING DATE : 46030 Public Works Department Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department (Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITI TlE APPLICATION RFV�EW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON AT V: O A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF YOUR D �ARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TQ AITEND THE ARC, PLEAS PRO I E THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY QS:Ob P.M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : ii-� --Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved 3 Signa ure of D rector or Authorized epresentative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : i)st (- , • Approved Approved with Conditions - Not Approved 1,4 Sign.atur,e" of Director or Authorized Representative Date y/ rRTlf ✓ . `/�/,9. • �.3U1"C i A., '=-....... ....7 ...r.C�b ij) { - , frlll�J/ • a (f d • f-- • I A '1), IN Coy...,.A;:0:.4 tiEll Si A. O ASSGCIATiC:; G: WAL:!i::�l::-:1 C;iIES Cj 4a°1 " Z OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY o RENTON.WASHINGTON = ` OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL px POlT 0/riCe OCR s7c 100 2,..1 AveMle Bu�tDi,eo • REMTOn.ww9,MGrpY sCJs! ]ss-•f>e ‘ 1� � .t\ o lam i a LAWRENCE I.WARREN,c, ATTORNEY DANIEL KELI Y'�, asssTtnr cir.ATTORNEY 4 I��hti1 }` SLADE GORTON ATTORNEY GENERAL 'oy �Pe April 2k, 1980 '`r TEMPLE OP JUSTICE OLYMPIA,WASHINGTON DBSO{ o • O- AGo TO: Gordon Ericksen, Planning Director _ •i y ✓ �(dSJbcr'oa'o.. wJy:.�,°, Sv_b u!0,s,ow • • FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney ;\, •'.� — RE: Re-subdivision of Property previously long platted ���j f? , ' -_ - / _ -- :: "' 4�� t Dear Gordon: _f • ( .-- You will find attached hereto an Attorney General's Opinion % . • r_ '4- / dealing with the above topic. There is also a discussion in / _ b� / the Opinion of various other methods of re-subdivision with / r `'' . �,r.> Tj� L discussions of the legal methods for doing each of the ways ' 9 �. of subdividing. I am not sure whether you have had this . �„- �_r--. information previously and pass it along for your erusal. 1 -"`1= -' _-..- _ q:•:--IT : . i _ i ir- 1 , - - i ' -:. :, r . , 5ff„, , . . : , ..., , i, Lawrence J. arren r'k'�r•- -`.�i /a . LJW:nd +t `�. -- ��' "1 Encl. � �y �"`,� ' s• e • r`14- "`i/"3. . y,r 7. cc: Mayor c,4 -I'"!`'G" ' • 't'_3j? . -• Council President. . Lr F#✓ � i, � --ate • . . ..„. • _. ....„, • Sketch of the Temple of Justice UJ g['-Ell n/7i by Carolyn Feasey of Cathlame: • Unt][ LI D APR 1 A 1o8O lNggaEN&KECI OGG By OPINIONS FOR JANUARY thru MARCH 1980• • . 1 • oF•I':(:Y(* Ti(E Al-I'UIWEY GENERAL • - -%-ti; I OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Honorable Henry R. Dunn -2- AGO 1980 No. 5 v,I*1''' ''.i ', SLADE GORTON ATTORNEY GENERAL r . �- 1 is in TF:MI'I.F:OF TICI.: OLYMI'IA, WASHINGTO 985114 � �y w (2) If the answer to Question No. the negative, would such action constitute TOWNS—PLATTING instead, a "resu division" and thus be sub-RESUBDIVISIONIOF LOT WITHIN EXISTING SUBDIVISIONSION-- ject to the_ eral rovisions o cf h rjt—er 58.17 RCW as a subdivision Where, within an existing land subdivision established We answer,your first pursuant to either chapter 58.16 or 58.17 RCW, the owner your second question in Etcegafrmativerhe negative and of an individual lot proposes to divide that lot`i to o four-or-fewer smalle>: lots for the purpose of sale or —i + lease, such action will not constitute the establishment ANALYSIS ' of a "short subdivision" as defined in RCW 58.17establishment 020(6) and, thereby, be subject to the city or county's short Chapter 58.17 RCW codifies the provisions of chapter subdivision ordinance as enacted pursuant to RCW short 060; 271, Laws of 1969, 1st Ex. Sess., as amended, and relates instead, such action will constitute a "resubdivisio58.1" .and to platting and the formation eofd subdivisions. Chapter 58.16 4:- thus be subject to thegeneral RCW, in turn, contained the predecessor to this 1969 state provisions of chanter 58 7 platting law. • • RCW relating o su ivisions, ---�_ - Your questions assume the existence of a land subdivi- sion earlier established pursuant to one or the other of those two chapters. And, as we view it, it makes no differ- ence which law was initially utilized. The issue, in either event, involves the proper legal characterization to be ap- January 24, 1980 plied to the subsequent action by individual lot wi in the subdivision who rnow proposes ent owner of an to divide that lot into four or less smaller lots for the Honorable Henry R. Dunn • pose of sale or lease, . Prosecuting Attorney pur- Prosecz County Clearly, any „312 South First Avenue West such action now taken by the owner of a Kelso, Washington 98626 Cite as: parcel of real property will be governed by AGO 1980 No. 5 chapter 58.17 RCW simply because that is he wpnowiinoeffect Dear Sir: with regard to plats and subdivisions. Accord, AGLO 1974 No. • a copy of which is enclosed. The precise issue to be deter • mined will readily be seen upon examination of the following By letter previously acknowledged you requested the two definitions from RCW 58.17.020: opinion of this office on two questions which we have Para- • phrased as follows: " (1) Where, within an existing land subdivision established pursuant to either chapter 58.16 subdivision `(ll 'Subdivision' is the division of land or 58.17 RCW, the owner of an individual lot into five or more lots, tracts, parcels, proposes to divide that lot into four or fewer sites leaseor divisions for the purpose of sale • \;. or and shall include all resubdivision smaller lots for the purpose of sale or lease, of land, will such action constitute the establishment of a "short subdivision" as defined in RCW OP 58.17.020(6) and, thereby, be subject to the city or county's short subdivision ordinance as enacted pursuant to RCW 0607 land intorfourb or subdivision' lots the tracts Purpose ision of sites or'subdivisions for the parcels,, of sale or lease. . • ." (Emphasis supplied) ! 1 Honorable Henry R. Dunn _ OFFICE OF TOS M flfltNI:Y MINIMAL -3 AGO 1980 No. 5 . Also to be noted is RCW 58.17.030 which provides that: / Honorable Henry R. Dunn -4-r// AGO 1980 No. 5 ` / Every subdivision shall comply with the ' �l • provisions of this chapter. Every short • Such regulations shall be adopted by s /I\ subdivision as defined in this chapter /ordinance and may contain wholly differ- shall comply with the provisions of any ( tenthe requirements than those governing local'regulation adopted pursuant to RCW the approval of preliminary and final 58.17.060." plats of subdivisions and may surveys and monumentations and shall• Therefore, the proposed action described in your require filing of a short plat for re- • letter will be covered either by chapter 58.17 RCW itself-- cordt : in OVe office Th of uch regulaty ioni- • if that action is deemed to be a "resubdivision of land" mustus: PROVIDED, That eMent regulations within the meaning of RCW 58.17.020(1), supra--or, alterna- • contain .a ons ma eiAnot that land in tively, it will be covered by .short subdivisions manner not further short . subdivision ordinance if it is deemed, instead, toyamount to • divided in the establishment of a new "short subdivision" as defined in any within a period of five years without heeding of a RCW 58.17.020(6), supra.2/ In this latter regard, RCW 58.17- final plat:' PROVIDED FURTHER, That .060 provides as follows: such regulations are not required to • contain a penalty clause as provided in "The legislative body of a city, town, or - .RCW nctiv 120 and may provide for wholly • county shall adopt regulations and injunctive relief." roce- administrative• dares, and appointeistrative personnel for the summary approval of short plats and short subdivisions, or revision thereof. • • • • The issue thus crystalized is one which has never been addressed directly by any appellate court in this state " or in any official opinion of this office; i.e., which "law," chapter 58.17 RCW or the applicable local s ort subdivision 1/ In order to be certain that we understood your questions, ordinance, governs the further division of an individual lot we wrote, following receipt of your initial request, and asked situated within an existing subdivision or short subdivision? you: • In the following three instances, the answer seems "Is your true concern only with the proposed clear: • further division of a particular lot within a previously established subdivision • fied by (as exempla Cl)(1) Where the further division of an individual lot the attached rough drawing of a hypo- occurs within an existing short subdivision (as defined in thetical subdivision) or, instead, are you in- RCW 58.17.020(6), supra) within five years of the creation thereof: quiring about the procedures to be followed in amending the existing lot boundaries within the entire subdivision?" RCW 58.17.060, supra, in dealing with the content of 0 a county or city's short subdivision regulations, contains • In response, by return letter, you advised us as fol- the following stipulation: lows: '° ". . PROVIDED, That such regulations must • - our concern at this point is only with contain a requirement that land in short the resubdivision of lots within previously subdivisions may not be further divided in established subdivisions and does not include any manner within a amending lot boundaries so long as no addi- period of five years tional lots are created by the amendment." without the filing of a final plat: ," w..a • - -- -•---- ^-- - -----. UF'F'ICF;OF"fllt AlJiJRNF:Y(:KNF:HAL • . • • r • • Honorable Henry R. Dunn _5_ Honorable Henry R. Dunn -6- AGO 1980 No. 5 AGO 1980 No. 5 Thus, any urther ion of subdiv sion willfnecessitatesthe filingdoflahfull in a "final But what if, instead (as stipulated in your questions), plat"2 if it occurs within five years of creation of we have the following situation: / the subdivision. earegardless of the ilum- bee of particularcl lots shortoused (a) The lot being furtherion dividedbls is situated within an existing full subdivision established pursuant to either r • /' chapter 58.16 or 58.17 RCW; and 1 (2) Where the further division of an individul .lot occurs within either a subdivision or a short subdivision ���� at any time and it is proposed (b) The Proposal is to divide that lot into four.or or more "new" lots; to divide that lot into five less lots for the purpose 'of sale or resale? • But for the last seven words in the definition of "sub- Likewise, even after this five-year period has run, division" in RCW 58:17:020(l),.�su ra 3 • the further land division will still be governed by the this question would seem,to have been fairly answer to even general provisions of chapter 58.17 RCW, and not byth the cause the "action" in short subdivision regulations, if it is designed to question would; yasset apparent. Be_ within the definition of a "short subdivision"at cases forth in "sub- five or more new lots within the confines of-the existingCe iv'bor g divided. with, the Confines f- "euexistingn}' • RCW sion":in0(u s ction and) not the definition of the ia in RCP, 58.17,ide 1 division" in subsection (1) of the same statute, the applicable and AGO 57-58 No. 88 supra, and seeed)sto the ffectNthat "law" would have been that contained in the short subdivision regulations-of the-county or city ihvolved.rather than the the term "land" must be deemed to include previously platted general land or single lots as well as undeveloped, unplatted lands. • Provisions of chapter 58.17 RCW.land Moreover, this will be so, by definition, regardless of • -It• would, of course, have been helpful if the legislature, • whether the lot being divided is within a full subdivision itself, having thus instead added the reference to divi- or a short subdivision. gislatuze, sion" to its division of a "subdivision," had then later ex- pressly defined that term as well. -(3) Where the further division occurs within a short opinion of Au Cf.: our earlier letter subdivision more than five gust 28, 1973, to then State Representative --is proposed years after its creation and it Leonard A. Sawyer, copy enclosed. But the legislature did P posed to divide the individual lot in question into and thus-our four or less "new" lots: present task is to glean its intent from what, in fact, it said. Graffell v. Honeysuckle In this instance the apparent191 P.2d 858 (1948) and cases ci a r----" 30 Wn.2d.390, . from RCW 58.17.060, supra, is inference to be drawn ��therein. division regulation of the or that citye incquesable short sub- - • govern--because the five-year county 4uestioh will E -will have ended. Otherwise, that period covered by the proviso meaningless. proviso will be virtually • - . i • 3/ Here repeated for ease of reference as follows: 2/ Defined in RCW. 58.17.020 as, " the final drawing of the subdivision• and dedication "(1) 'Subdivision' is the division ce land prepared for filing for re- ,` .into five or'more lots, ofcord with the county auditor and containing tracts, parcels, sites all elements and rset r or divisions for the purpose of sale or lease h in •,(' this chapter and in localeregulationstadopted i and shall include all resubdivision of land."pursuant to this chapter." �P asis supp ie lsy'};ICE OP.THE ATTORNEY GENERAL i - Uh'NX:}:OF THE ATTORNEY(SENI:IiAL • Honorable Henry R. Dunn _8 AGO 1980 No, Honorable Henry R. Dunn • _7_ 5 AGO 1980 No. 5,- ,,instant question of or ( less Iots how the division of a lot into four within an existing full subdivision would berrequ_ In so doing we must also bear in mind the principle fated. The answer, in turn that all parts of a statute must be construed together le quotedd by the proviso to RCWt58that other question was eata- an organic whole, and no part should be read out of con- 4eason at page 4 of this ° 17.060 which we earlier text or ignored. State V. Houck, 32 Wn.2d 681, 203 P.2d 693 reasonable to assume that at th, But it seems' to us at ° (1949). Thus, no clause, sentence or word should be consid- the No. I69 rim 1 drafters fe Substitute Senateast as ered superfluous, void or insignificant. Groves v. Meyers, the instant probpem belt that they had already taken care of 35 Wn.2d,403, 213 P.2d 483 (1950). Moreover sion" in the definition their further reference to "sesubdivi- hot a narrow, literal or technical construction on only in what iso020(1) constitutes a subdivision, nowa RCW 58.17.020(1), supra. i.e., • part of place and ignore other parts. In Re Cress, 13 statuteWn.2d 7, 123 P.2d 767 (1942).rrelevantAnd finally, to the It is also.intnotapn extent that the language of an act is ambiguous or uncertain, %"resubdivision" did not a g to note. that while the term resort is to be made to certain ✓ chapter8.16 RCW it (tear in our "old" platting law, statutory construction including,Judicially approved aids to chapter 58.17 RCW�was drafted ear, at the time what is now act inthat egg•. the history of the the word "subdivision." in the New Jerre questionConst and the evils that It was designed to remedy. Y definition of State ex rel. Bugge _ pealed) which then read, ine'material A.part, s1.2 (since re_ (1951}• v. Martin, 38 Wn.2d 834, 232 P.2d 833 - :. material • part, as follows: ' "'Subdivision' means the division of a lot, Unquestionably, the framers of our new (1969) state plat- tract, or • ting law were quite concerned with what were felt to be weak- lots, sitesao he ther1divisionsand tor landwo or °for' Herres in the prior law as it related (or, more properly, did the.Pue or whether i not relate) either to the initial division of land into four or of sale oz balsoin immediate or future, re- less lots or to the further division of an individual lot in an Subdivision also iate to sites context, sion, existing subdivision into four or less smaller lots.?/ ' and where e g,, the discussion relating to Substitute Senate Bill See, fates `PP appropriate to the context,°-the process-of subdividing or to between Representatives Chapin and Moon which is reported on the lands or territory " page 1643 of the 1969 Journal of the House of Representatives divided. • and, also, the later discussion between the same two legislators �►d, Lake.Intervale Homes v. on the free conference version of the bill at47 H.J. Super. A.2 Parsippany-Troy Hill, - . House Journal. In fact, the page 1777 of the the only case reported in the Ze al w >c aPPens to cussed on both occasions was,Pspecificallyco,tcthatern wofctheh afurther Phrases" for the meanin of g Publication e ' division of land within a "short subdivision" rather than the New Jerseyg the word "resubdivision7ords and Court had earlier observed as follows: the "'Subdivision' is defined by N.J,S.A. ' • • 40:55-1.2 as 'the division of a lot, • 1212!!!!!!!!!!!!'- parcel of land into two or , sites or other divisions of the purpose, whether immediate 41111 , of sale or building develop- 4/ Chapter 58.16 RCW simply did not deal at all with the • d includes 'resubdivision,' creation of what we now refer to as a "short subdivision;" ord is division.' Resubdivi- i.e., the division of land into four or less lots for the onl mean a further diva-'—sion ofpurpose of sale or lease. Instead, that prior law onlyn Previously ma e governed the division of land into five or more lots and Enp asis supp ze was silent on the omitted area of activity, leaving the ?regulation thereof entirely up to the various counties and cities under the general authority, as set forth in RCW 35.63.080, to regulate and restrict . things] the subdivision and development of land•• [among other g AGO 57-58 No. 86, supra. See, C r ' • -:: ;'---:: • --- •- - - - T;Vi:it-.Ua14;.;(F•NRRAL r•1••ti:L'UF''YII L•'AI'IY/1tNiiY(:I:I,I7:77/.7. • "• -___.__. ---.---- . U Honorable Henr Honorable Henry R. Dunn _ Y R. Dunn -10 AGO 1980 -9- AGO 1980 No, 5 No. 5 We trust that the foregoing will be of assistance to It thus seems to us quite you. between RCW 50.ee,s2t qu re possible that.the similarity between in 8.17.02 140c55--lra, and the definition of "sub- dental. . su ra, is more than coinci- Very truly yours, (1. �if9/ SLAD ORTON line of Fiourldefinition,the further word "all" in the last tia At r e Under RCH 58.17.020(1), Y General • `subdivision" includes all resubdivisionof the term O. . 41° exception, appinclud ( land. The onlyZa further division into;fouror the lesseasons lots oabf ave explaineda. ` • short subdivision more than five ,ir.--- PHILIP H. IN But unless, in ever Years after its creation, .'^ Deputy •ttorney General y other instance, that last line of our .� .- • definition means that any further division of '''P7'y 7��'a�P divided is also to be deemed a subdivision, thatndpreviously the definition will be seen, portion of -- i without any in the final analysis, to be 'OBERT F. TH meaning at all. And that, obviously, contrary to the appli ableY. would be Senior Assistant Attorney Lion as_above sta principles of statutory construe- mg General — d. i �onc_ ius;one Enc. 3 o7tsequentl f it is our opinionythat theect furtherer divisionrofwa lot within an existingquestions, • . plat or subdivision • ! ant to chapter 58.16cwhether established pursu- j "resubdivision" withinrtheameaningpter �of R17 CW 58.17.020(1), sil ra. / Such action therefore must thus ' constitutes a • • • { chapter 58.17 ere oremrelatingcomply with ;RCWthe provisions o the number of new lots whchoresultlfromon�„ regardless uof e • -- We therefore answer your firston the the negativein question. • your second question in tE affirmative:5/n- • and 5/ In so concluding we recognize that, some 'ten years after 41111 the law in question was first enacted, there is a -lack -of uniformity among the various local jurisdictions in actual practice throughout the state. lack of uniformity which In fact, it is that apparent in the first prompted your instant opinion request again in session andremainse te freegtolclarif however, is nw if we have not sufficiently done so, doing its own intent, in our letter opinion of August 28 by what we . tative Sawyer, supra: 1973, to then StateeReended subdivision." p namely, expressly definingPsesen- the word . I • !**::::;;....-.in s %'_COUNTIES--CITIES AND TOWNS--BUILDING--FIRE=-PLATTING AND DISTRICTS--PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT • :;-SUBDIVISIONS--COMPLIANCE WITH ACCESS REQUIREMENTS OF PROCEDURE-FOR'DISSOLUTION RREA--ELECTIONS-- UL7IFORai FIRE CODE i, a'• • - rat 7' _ The provisions ofRCW CW 36.57A.160 constitute the exclusive. Explanation of the interrelationship between 5 13:208 of -- means by which"a.publictransportation benefit area esta- • the Uniform Fire Code, 1976 Edition; and the platting of blished.pursuant to-chapter 36.57A RCW-may be dissolved.' •s subdivisions or short subdivisions under chapter 58.17 `':RCW and/or-a local'short subdivision ordinance; considers • 4' .• '; AGLO 1980 No. _4 • rryi Vrooman -• •.ation of the respective roles of the original subdivider .:. -:, .. = - Je and subsequent urchasers of buildin lots i ,,,•, - ' _;`_, : January Representative - ' f''.i ( P g n achieving .. .;:!_: ::..:i->;:f,;.:;_.:�:`... _z - • . compliance with the access requireme •nts: .-' .21;',1980 ', P q nts:of�§'13.208 of - •4:� - _ :.ir-: - 'the Uniform ?ire Code - - S 1 t - ?4h D. t AGLO 9B N 1 1 0. Caro 1_Monoh n - - OF o F ICJ _ ES•V - AND:OF - FZ CERS - - STATE-' - - -DEPAR- THE NT OF.LABOR O - LAB OR AND ;ls% `S t'- to e•�Re•res� - �:2_ enCa� ND ti U - - - ve STRI P ES -E NE R Y FACILITY . • :.. -• _ - .-�- - -..-:;Januar' ,.9':1980�,:`:•.'^-;:::`.:::;•' :; -:,;::,::•'.:+,...`: °'INSP'•<. .4;i'.._- ,•; ,' ECTION OF CERTIFI V ;:;::; �- GATED Y SITEEVALUATION COUNCIL- - .f• :�., _ ti,.•,,, ENERGY_FACILITIES Ne i• - the- r R ,80.5 .12 0- - no r an y - - o th'- e- r�se i 'Of 5 f . . ... - _.. ::;=- - a ter 80' P_ .50 •R •9- - CL reclud- P es'the Sta te ate De artmer P .t'ur -uantr nd- -- =�`OFFZCES'AND OFFICERS--COUNTY--CLERK--BONDS--E1;ECTIONS-- '.�:/;:_Industries:-Prom conducting' ins• -' ;`FAILURE'OF ELECTED' COUNTY,CLERK'TO EXECUTE OFFICIAL BOND " •*.•:,.;>-/ .tens,19•28 RCW;: ofoan;:'nergyafa to chap: ,• 70:79 and RCW;"of an ever facilit covered�b 'executed Y : ' y a certification_ rt agreement -'`.The'failure of newlyy elected co t -- duly• :executed in.ac un y.clerk to execute and ...,,i•}};cordancewith`that:chapter:-:: .-' furnish an,•official bond pursuant-to RCW 36.16.050 does not - -. ';-w"•;` s :; :: •• • e. _.-cause a-vacancy- in the office,.to exist pursuant to RCW AGLO.1980 No. `5•':'` " Kin 1 L 42.12.010; instead, such.omission.merely bars the newly- ? ... 9 Senn ' :.', " =`` . y y- =••.;'- 2 • _ State Senator � -- elected clerk from qualifying and,- thus, continues the term - ;_ ?' January 21, 1980 •• - .vf his or her predecessor who, however, may, by resigning or - � � - - •—refusing. to serve, cause a vacancy to come into existence. :r its• =" AGLO 1980;No. 2_ James .E. Carty,''Prosecuting Attorney• OFFICES :AND:OFFICERS--STATE--COUNCIL FOR POSTSECONDARY . •.. I • • r4' Clark County ===a CATION--HIGHER EDUCATION--REGISTRATION OF SECTARIAN January 11, 1960 :=INSTITUTIONS ' - • .. • The. Council.for Postsecondary Education, in the exercise FERRIES--INSURANCE--EMPLOYEES--STATE-FUNDED INSURANCE :.ofits authority to:suspend or modify the requirements of • :COVERAGE FOR STATE FERRY SYSTEM.EMPLOYEES':_,: : • . _, :'the Educational Services Registration Act of 1979 on the r. • basis o ardship pursuant to RCW 288.05.130, may not . • '••`(1) Employees of the Washington State Ferry"System are ' . exempt.:an. "educational institution" from otherwise required .• subject to the jurisdiction of the State Employees Insur- . : registration solely because of its sectarian religious ' ance Board under chapter 41.05 RCW with respect to the de- %ownership, management or curricula. sign of such employer-funded insurance coverage as they . receive from the state. AGLO 1980 No. 6 C. Gail Norris •- " Executive Coordinator (2) The employer's contribution of the Washington Depart- :. Council for Postsecondary Education ' ment of Transportation under RCW 41.05.050(2) is not, in January 22, 1980 ' the case of ferry system employees, limited to that which • ; - ,. - • - the State Employees Insurance Board sets as the employer's • contribution for state agencies generally. • :, AGLO 1960 No. 3 Leonard Nord, Director Department of Personnel January 14, 1980 . • • . . • • • • •- •••••,•'-r-•••,•'•••• ; •• ' ••=e:V-•••!:;14. :. • . • •re. • • .1 • • 1,: • • .••• ‘;•"•. " • "• • •••'• ••••• • • • DISTRICTS--SCHOOLS-41EALTH-.-IMMUNIZATION--CHURCHES--• • •: • • ••• RELIGION--FUNDING CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS OF . • • CHURCH-RELATED PRIVATE SCHOOLS ' • • , ,•• . ...• -:• 'FUnds appropriated by SS 14 and .15 of chapter 118, Laws .' , ," • . •of 19791lst Ex. Sess., .for administration of the manda- ••-• ',tory school 'immunization program-thereby established may ,' •. not be disbursed to private, ,church-related schools (a)- because of a lack•of'statutori, authority and (b) be- ..'•:•Y••••`:- . ..eause of:the constitutional prohibitions in Article •IX, S"4 and Article VIII, S.7 of the Washington Constitutions .• .• I :• ::the legislature'''„however,'Could.make certain suggested • ••amendments to the law which,l•if:enacted, would establish - • a;•:constitntionally. permissible contractual basis for suchpayments - t, • 4 - .; • •:•'''...:!•;•:-.1f%',,;;•Y.': 'AGLO. 1980 No 7 Rod 'Chandler • •-" 't. i".• • ' ••"---•••• . -,_-;••!ti;•••••, State Representative ::-January.',28,-•198.0 : • :::••••• ••,•:‘,•:: •, • *; . . • .. OFFICES AND OFFICERS--STATE--DEPARTMENT OF dAmE--APPRO- PRIATIONS-'-EFFECT OF APPROPRIATIONS TO PAY LEGAL COSTS • ASSOCIATED WITH CERTAIN FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT LITIGATION • • Analysis and discussion of the effect of so much of S 90, . chapter.270; Laws of 1979, 1st Ex. Sess.; as appropriated • .• • : -$42,000 from the State Game Fund to defray legal costs 'aesociated'with the construction and operation of a •• regulating structure'Stabilizing the level of water in • • . . AGLO 1980'No. 8 .1' • Ralph W. Larson, Director ; .• • • ' ; " Department of Game - •• .• •• • January 29, 1980 • • .• _ . . , . • . • " . • • • •• • • • • • • • I PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIIMIiNARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING MAY 13 , 1980 APPLICANT : GLACIER PARK CO. FILE NUMBER : Short Plait 039-80 A . SUMMARY & PURPOSE OF REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a proposed 2-lot short plat for future industrial development . B . GENERAL L INFORMATION: 1 . Owner of Record : J . J. GORDON 2 . Applicant : GLACIER PARK CO. 3 . Location : (Vicinity Map Attached) SE Corner of Lind Avenue S.W. between S .W. 29th Street and S .W. 34th Street 4 . Legal Description : A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning Department 5 . Size of Property : *8. 4 acres 6 . Access : Via S .W. 29th Street, and Lind Avenue S .W. 7 . Existing Zoning : M-P , Manufacturing Park 8 . Existing Zoning in the Area : M-P , Manufacturing Park 9 . Comprehensive Land Use Plan : Manufacturing Park 10 . Notification : The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date . Notice was properly published in the Seattle Times on April 30, 1980 aqd posted in three places on or near the site as required by City Ordinance on April 25 , 1980 . C . IfISTORY/i:AEIE.tG[ES®QD JD: The subject site was annexed into the City of Renton by Ordinance #1745 of April 1 4, 1959. It was rezoned from "G" to M-P by Ordinance #2533 on December 24, 1969 , and platted per final plat approved July 17 , 1978 . A lot line adjustment was approved between Lots 6 and 7 on November 1 , 1979 under LLA-020-79 which created the present configuration of Lot 7 . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING . EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : GLACIER PARK CO . , Short Plat 039-80 MAY 13 , 1980 PAGE TWO D. PHIYSICACL wACGSEIpQd®llnlJD: 1. Topography : The site is essentially level . 2 . Soils : Snohomish silt loam (So ) . Permeability is moderate in the upper part of the profile and moderately rapid in the lower part . Runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is slight . This soil is used for row crops , pasture , and hay. Much of the site has been filled as part of the Glacier Park Plat . 3 . Vegetation : Scrub grass and weeds are the only significant vegetation 4. Wildlife : The existing vegetation is not suitable for wildlife habitat . 5 . Water : No surface water was observed on the subject site (April 25, 1980) . 6 . Land Use : The subject site is undeveloped . Properties to the north and west remain undeveloped . To the east is the Superior Fast Freight storage and distribution center. Mercury Marine is beginning construction to the south . E . NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS : The properties in the vicinity are experiencing transition from undeveloped land to commercial/industrial uses of light industrial nature . F . 4110LIC SERVICES : 1 . Water and Sewer : An existing 12" water main runs north-south along the E . Valley Road within % mile to the east of the subject site and a 12" main extends east-west within 4 mile to the north and a 24" main runs north-south along Lind Avenue. Along the E . Valley Road within ; mile to the east of the site exists an 8" sanitary sewer which eventually become a 24" pipe . 2 . Fire Protection : Provided by the Renton Fire Dept. per ordinance requirements . 3 . Transit : Metro Transit Route #150 operates along SR-167 within 4 mile to the east of the subject site . 4 . Schools : Not applicable. 5 . Recreation : Not applicable. G. AAPPLIICAAA.E SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1 . Section 4-730, Manufacturing 'Park . H . AAPIPLItCA ..E SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: 1 . Subdivision Ordinance , Section 9-1105 ; Short Subdivisions . 2 . Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan, June 1976 . I . IMPACT OF THE NATURAL OR HUMAN ENVIRONMENT : : 1 . Natural Systems : Minor . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : GLACIER PARK CO . , Short Plat 039-80 MAY 13 , 1980 PAGE THREE 2 . Population/Employment : Minor . 3 . Schools : Not applicable. 4. Social : Not applicable . 5 . Traffic : No specific use has been proposed at this time , therefore specific impacts of traffic can be better addressed at a later date . J . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSES EINT/Tit9RESH®L4'> ®ETERrII IATI®IN: Pursuant to the City of Renton ' s Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , as amended , _ RCW 43-21C , the subject proposal is exempt from the determination of environmental significance . K . AGEIN(CIES/®EPART 1DJT5 CONTACTED : 1 . City of Renton Building Division . 2 . City of Renton Engineering Division . 3 . City of Renton Traffic Envineering Division. 4. City of Renton Utilities Division . 5 . City of Renton Fire Department . L . PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS : 1 . The proposed short plat is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designation of manufacturing park for the site and surrounding areas . 2 . The proposal is compatible with the existing industrial warehouse development developing adjacent to the subject site. 3 . All public improvements were installed with the construction of the Burlington-Northern Orillia Industrial Park except for the sidewalk and the necessary curb cuts for the individual projects . The specific location of fire hydrants will have to be modified as a result of the modification • of the plat . 4 . On January 24 , 1980 the State Attorney General issued an opinion which concluded that a plat could not be short platted . That it must be replatted. A copy of that opinion is attached. This Attorney General ' s opinion is solely an opinion and does not appear to have been tested in a court of law. The question of whether this application should be reviewed as a short plat or, a preliminary plat should be based on the common sense of applying the law . In a case where an old plat was filed and the improvements do not meet present standards , it would appear that replatting of the property would be most applicable to assure that all improvements are brought up to present public develop- ment standards . However , in this case , the improvements are in and the City is guaranteed of necessary services for the health and welfare of the public . Therefore it does not appear that processing the application as a preliminary plat would fulfill any additional interests in either protecting the public or the property owner . • PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : GLACIER PARK CO. , Short Plat 039-80 MAY 13, 1980 PAGE FOUR 5 . The State Environmental Policy Act prescribes different approaches for reviewing a short plat and a preliminary plat . The short plat application is exempt from an environmental determination while a preliminary plat would require that a determination be made and a declaration of non-significance be made or that an environmental impact statement prepared . In this specific case, the entire development of Burlington-Northern was analyzed in a detailed environmental impact statement . That impact statement would be applicable in this case since the total possible development was evaluated at the time of the long subdivision . The street pattern and location of utilities have not varied from that original proposal . The end result of this application would be the placement of two buildings in the location where one building would have normally been constructed . Both of the lots would have sufficient area to allow . adequate means of construction and compliance with city codes . M. DEPARTMENTAL R ECQ➢RWENDATI®I S: Based on the 'above analysis , the Planning Department recommends that the short plat application request, as submitted in File No . Short Plat 039-80 , be approved . 1 . . 1 I , .. ..._..7 :1 /A' 11/EST //''.' Section 30, 7-23A/ R5E WM ' • RENTON, I<I NG COUNTY', WASHING TON 1 1 • 1 ! 1 I 1 . 1 . I '. I . 1 . i, . 1 .. . — . . , • . , _._ W.s88:;4:-.4,)4/;,h,,,E St_ I1 -, . , • • L L ...39 i 1 I I , • . 1 1 1 • • -- - • - • . , 1 I . ...:-1 .t: • • ,..-., N,Q /88,6"F.? sq ft - [?. 1• 1 . . ---. ,' z . ... .` ....,, 1 .,‘ .'_. • I •`-i - 0 j • ' \) .. ''. S 8809.58"E 1. I I ! I • - - . ... I , 0 ,\J Co fri , . . I . . I ---J , . . . , . I 0 Farce/ 8 t. , 1 a In i . /77,065 sq. ft . . . I . 1 i- i . . . ...: I i -': i I 377 2/• -- ? - --L.-1_1_ N 88'0958"tti 1 . i , t2 % ci • . . . . 1 SW 34th St. • .:;:. .Yfzr/a ® Planning 012-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET APpli cation: $H *T pox ® W ( 2 t,# s) Location:_ SEACa5eo $ J Swst: S414247M9t Appl i cant• eafar. A' ,, k,v y&`, 44 1L TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : SA3/80 Police Department A.R.C. MEETING DATE : `{ ; " A Public Works Department Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division //Utilities Engineering //t Fire Department (Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITI 0 T E APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON AT 9:UU A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF YOUR D ARTMENT DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE T9 AITEND THE ARC, PLEAS RO I E THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY :DU P.M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 1 -- Approved ,/ Approved with Conditions Not Approved �r -�- if y/ ,,u i S / /U/3 //CCG S S -2/f O zc,/3 y S S4lc/ �-- •13G "�� IP�(//c «s' 7�+ /�t,'�i /3��r/� ��� mac,�� � /�-c-/L�3�" / �� /ta�L.y S4-(/-e--0i,-cry' o f,,/ ' 779_,'G 7,6(), G�/' - Cc),u ,S i 4<< 72 dam) C'c.)/vF -2�Lc (—(E );_,T{:-..-- I / 0 Signature o Director or Au' horized Representative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : i.{fic./7-4 / Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved 0 39,4_____--- 4/zt//Q Signature of Director or Authorized Representative ' Date W&i7' ' ® Planning 4110 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application: •45 Ar (W M ® -4re2 a1ettO Location: € AR m . . 441 F • App1 i cant: Ai. TO: • Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING, DATE: S113/8® Police Department A.R.C. MEETING DATE: #0192- Public Works Department Engineering Division Vraffic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department (Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN !RIT_IffalploT6E APPLICATION REV EW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON AT 9:�U A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IA IF YOUR D RTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TQ A TEND THE AR PLEAS RO I !E THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:UU P.M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : criftwic AW444165e41,4. Ois1 X Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : . X . Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved • Signature of Director or Authoriz d Representative Date ® Planning IIP . YfzJ7l9 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET • Application: o5 T &AT .- (42 MI) Location :__ � u W 411'S4J Applicant: 6/4, eir - 108,41C ,>.,: -4,fl7 TO: Sparks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : 03Pd) V"" Police Department A.R.C. MEETING DATE : :' A Public Works Department Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department (Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN OTUE T E APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON AT 9; U A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF YOUR D •ARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE T A TEND THE ARC, PLEAS PRO Ii!E,THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:OU P.M. ON � 81 : REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : pp . —Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved 1,g a Si na ure of Director or Authorized Representative Date 9 P REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : C • Xi Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved ter? Signatur,e"'of Director or Authorized Representative Date OF RE�� (./Li: ' IN co :,�ara ,:;:ss S U Ito A. Z OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY o RENTON,WASHINGTON 1SSOCld?it^:i G:1�' '"`:: l:=.J CiilfS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL _ -i-- `� •05T 09,42 00.{2f 100 the AVENUE•UrLO.NG • rRNTON.wwSNwGTO.N 5.059 Z5541479 - .yam, '1 Z ���kkk j LAWRENCE LWARREN•c.+.Troe n DANIEL KELIAGG,�sssr .t cT..nGne. .. L '`. SLADE GORTON ATTORNEY GENERAL 0 �• - ✓ �aT'+T `' TEMPLE OF JUSTICE OLYMPIA,WASHINGTON 98504 09 ��P April 24, 1980 4.EC) SEPZ-°A - -:;IC) ,} RGa TO: Gordon Ericksen, Planning Director �` 5+ 'J�StOn wty:v,�, Sv_�uc�soy, f"S FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorneys — RE: Re-subdivision of Property previously long platted \,.. - '�'�% )a� � -•- `��►. � ;� 111110 Dear Gordon: .� ' -''f <' : You will find attached hereto an Attorney General's Opinion • • /" 1.•- ' dealing with the above topic. There is also a discussion in ' r the Opinion of various other methods of re-subdivision with • A • ,�,� ecs''' discussions of the legal methods for doing each of the ways �' ;: -- ',t of subdividing. I am not sure whether you have had this - information previously and pass it along for your perusal. !-.- _.. - . r . 11 U rr. i • Lawrence J. arrenc.• At` t• .):-^t } F ` - • ii 'i l,+;s3 �jst�. LJW•nd . - .0 ;#� �r�i fir *{ 4� 3"' Encl. 'ay .�� '" F,Rcc: Mayor ,.„^� ,r• �``�a � �A _�. r'L.�.• Council President - el ab Sketch of the Temple of Justice D �OE U by Carolyn Feasey ofCathlemet UUU APR 1 4 1980 D • By tVA4F1YEcKEi!OGG . OPO IONS FAR JANUARY thru. MARCH • 1980 • • • • • • (�F'1'It:1•:(IF TilE ATI'ORINIEN al:MPHAL I • 0I OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Honorable Henry R. Dunn _• zf 1 SLADE GORTON ATTORNEY GENERAL -2 AGO 1980 No. 5 ti t _ ' `.�."'' - TEMPLE uY JUSTICE OLYMPIA.WASIIIN( 98504 • " (2) If the answer to Question No. 1 is in • • *the negative, would such action constitute, n COUNTIES--CITIES AND TOWNS--PLATTING AND SUBDIVISION-- jetinsteto,thP"�A,.eb,1v�1S1onTan��hus be sub- ..RESUBDIVISIOPI OF LOT WITHIN EXISTING SUBDIVISION 1 rovisions o efipter • 58.17RC�7 as a "subdivision • Where, within an existing land subdivision establishes pursuant to either chapter 58.16 or 58.17 RCW, We answer.your first question in the of • • an individual lot proposesthe owner your second question�lt ePz__ap negative and to divide that kale_o - - - ---- - firma____ four-or-fewer smaller lots for the purpose of sale or lease, such action will not constitute the establishment ANALYSIS ' of a "short subdivision" as defined in RCW establishment 58.17.020(6) and, thereby, be subject to the city or county's shortChapter 58.17 RCW codifies the provisions of chi subdivision ordinance as enacted pursuant to RCW short 271, Laws of 1969, 1st Ex. Sess., as amended, and Chapter sr instead, such action will constitute a "resubRCW 58.17.060;on" and to platting and the formation of subdivisions. 58.16 thus be sub'ect to theRCW, in turn, contained the predecessor to this 1969 state general provisions of chapter 58 7 platting law. • RCW relit ng sub3lvlsions, —� ' Your questions assume the existence of a land subdivi- sion earlier established pursuant to one or the other of • • those two chapters. And, as we view it, it makes no differ- • ence which law was initially utilized. The issue, in either event, involves the proper legal characterization to be a - . January 24, 1980 plied to the subsequent action by + individual lot wi in the subdivision who rnow ownerent eofs anP Honorable HenryR. to divide that lot into four or less smaller lots forProsecuting Attorney • pose of sale or lease, . " pur- Prosecz County Clearly, .312 South First Avenue West any such action now' taken by the owner of a Kelso, Washington 98626 Cite as: parcel of real property will be governed b AGO 1980 No. 5 chapter 58.17 RCW simply because that is by the provisions of Dear Sir: with regard to plats and subdivisions, the law now in effect 7, a copy of which is enclosed. Accord, ue t 1 974 No. mined will readily be seen upon examination eofsthe following letter previously acknowledged you requested the two definitions from RCW 58.17.020: opinion of this office on two questions which we have pars • - phrased as follows: ". - . (1) Where, within an existing land subdivision • "(to 'Subdivision' is the division land establishedorse of sale 58.17 pursuant, the toer either of ern ichapter 5l8.16 1ot into five or more lots, tracts, of sites or divisions for theparcels, proposes to divide that lot into four or fewer /or lease and shall include allpresubdivision -smaller lots for the purpose of sale or lease, of land. '"1\ will such action constitute the establishment of a "short subdivision" as defined in RCW • " • 58.17.020(6) and, thereby, be subject to the city or county's short subdivision ordinance j as enacted pursuant to RCW 5visio 6o "(6) 'Short subdivision' is the division of land into four or less lots, tracts, parcels, sites or•subdivisions for the 1 or lease. Purpose of sale • "• • •" (Emphasis supplied) i a!! . C ' Honorable • Henry R. Dunn OFFICE OF flIH ATTORNEY GENERAL • ' -3- AGO 1980 No. 5 • Also to be noted is RCW 58.17.030 which provides • \• that: / Honorable Henry R. Dunn -4- r// AGO 1980 No. 5 `Every subdivision shall comply Everwith short Such regulations shall be adopted by a �� subdivision as defined into this chapter ordinance and shall comply with the provisions of any • ( ent requirementsYthantain thosehgoverninger • - local'regulation adopted pursuant to RCW • the approval of local 060." •• plats of subdivisionsmandrmay and final surveys and monumentations and shall58.17 Therefore, the proposed action described in your require filing of a short plat for re-411111 cord in the office of the.county audi- • if that action is deemed to be a tor: PROVIDED, That such regulations within the meaningof "resubdivision of land" • tithi RCW58.17.020(1), supra--or, must contain .a requirement that land in . Y, it will be covered by . alterna- tively, short subdivisions manner not be further subdivision ordinance if it is deemedlicable county short instead, • divided in any within a period ' the establishment of a new "shortto amount to of five 3'ears without the 'filing of a RCW 58,17.020(6), su ra.•1/ subdivision" as defined in final plat:` • PROVIDED FURTHER, That P In this latter regard, RCN 58.17-.060 provides as follows: such regulations are not required to "The legislative body of a cit contain a penalty clause as provided in - • county shall adopt re 5'• town, or - RCW 36.32.120 and may provide for wholly regulations and proce- injunctive relief." P duxes, and appoint administrative personnel for the summary approval of short plats and short subdivisions, or revision thereof. • • • The issue thus crystalized is one which has never been addressed directly by any appellate court in this state or in any official opinion of this office; .i.e., which "law," 1/ In order to be certain that we understoodchapter 58.17 RCW or the applicable local sl�Ort subdivision I we wrote, following receipt ofyour questions, ordinance, governs the further division of an individual lot you: P your initial request, and asked situated within an existing subdivision or short subdivision? "Is your true concern only with the • In the following three instances, the answer seems further division of a particular lotpwitthhinda,• clear: Oa previously established subdivision (as exempli (1) Where the further division of an individual lot fied by the attached rough drawing of a hypo- -occurs within an existing short subdivision thetical subdivision) or, instead, are you in- • (as defined in quiring about theto RCW 58.17:020(6), supra) within five years of the creation llowed in amending the existingclot-boundariese owithin the thereof: entire subdivision?" • RCW 58.17.060, supra, in dealing with the content of 0 a county or city's short subdivision regulations, contains In response, by• return letter, you advised us as fol- lows: the following stipulation: " our concern at this ". . . PROVIDED, That such regulations must • the resubdivision of lots is only with contain a requirement that land in short / established subdivisions and withindoe previ not ously subdivisions may not be further divided in amending lot boundaries so long as no addi- any manner within a period of five years tional lots are created by the amendment." without the filing of a final plat: " • • • • 0 - -- -- ------- - (ih'}•IGk U}'•PJIH A'19Y1}{N k:Y GENERAL,a - • • Honorable Henry R. Dunn -5_ Honorable Henry R. Dunn AGO 1980 No. 5 -6- AGO 1980 No. 5 Thus, any further division of land within a short \ subdiv�'sion will necessitate the filingofBut what if, instead (as stipulated in plat"f/ if it occurs within five years ofcreation"final we have the following situation: Your questiogs), the particular short subdivision, regardless of the hum- (a) The lot being further divided is situated ber•of new lots proposed, an existing full subdivision establishedtuated within _ ° (2) Where the further division of an individual .lot chapter 58.16 or 58.17 RCW; and pursuant to either occurs within either a subdivision or a short subdivision (9. (b) The at any time and it isProposal is to divide that lot into four.or , or more "new" lots: proposed to divide that lot into five less lots for the purpose 'of sale or resale?i But for the last seven words in the definition of "sub- Likewise, even after this five-year period has run, - division" in RCW 58:17.020(l) / N4/ the further land division will still be . supra,3 the answer to even41110 / general governed by the this question would seem.to have been fairly apparent. Be_ short subdivision regulations,chapter 5iflitRis�designo the -local cause the "action" in question would; in that within 5n 17: definition), supra, a and nottthe initas ofsf"s"sub- fiveinn or more new the confines of-the existingCe • wit in the 0 6 lov'bor m mdore new lots withinith, the definition f- "subdivision" ( )' cton, not thehe definition of the lo RCW ng58.17.020(1), division"- subsectione (t) of same statute, the applicablesubdivision supra, and see also, AGLO 1974 No. 7 "law" would have e-countyt contained in the shortr hanthe!. and AGO 57-58 No. 88 copies enclosed) to the effect that generalipro• is the ofuchy or c58. 7nvolved.rather than the the term "land" must be deemed to include previously platted :general • - land or single lots as well as undeveloped, unplatted lands, • provisions of chapter 58.17 RCW. Moreover, orro• erthehis ill bed so, bd definition, fullregardless subdivision • It would, of course, have been helpful if the legislature, itself, having thus instead added the reference to divi or. a short subdivision. sion" to its division of a "subdivision," (3) Where the further division occurs within a short Pressly defined that term as well. Cf. .. had then later ex- opinion of Au our earlier letter subdivision more than five years after itsLeonard A. Sagest 28, 1973, to then State Representative .-is proposed to divide the individual lot inuest creation and it Sawyer, copy enclosed. But the legislature did not four or less new" question into do so and thus-our present task is to glean its intent from { lots: what, in fact, it said. Graffell v. Honeysuckle, 30 Wn.2d•390, . 191 P.2d 858 (1948) and cases cite therein, In this instance the apparent inference to be drawn from RCW 58.17.060, supra, is that the applicable short sub- division regulation of the county or cityin •govern--because the five-year question will /�*aill have ended. Otherwise, that covered by the proviso • - , meaningless. proviso will be virtually • 11/1111 2/ Defined .in RCW. 58.17.020 as, • _ 3/ Here repeated for ease of reference as follows: " , the final drawing of the subdivision• and dedication "(1) 'Subdivision' is the division of land prepared for filing for re- N .into five or more lots, tracts, cord with the county auditor and containing parcels, sites • /' all elements and r or divisions for the purpose of sale or lease requirements set forth in ' and shall include all resubdivision of land." • ,( this chapter and in local regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter." P asis supplie • . • c ... - -.,--- -^ c}FYtCL+°F Z•p}F XIJHNF:Y OF:NF:}:AL • • OFFICE of"PNF:ArrOHNL+Y ULNY:HAL Honorable Henry R. Dunn -8 AGO 1980 No. 5 Honorable Henry R. Dunn _7_ " AGO 1980 No. 5 /instant question of how the. ( less lots within an existingdfulllsubdiv of ision would lot into fberr or egu- In so doing we must also bear in mind the Principle lated. The answer, in turn, to that other that all parts of a statute must be construed together as quotedblished by the proviso to RCW 58.17.060 was east an organic whole, and no part should be out of con- quoted at page 4 of this o 17.060 which we earlier text or ignored. State v. •Housh 32 be read 681, 2of cP.2don- 693 reasonable to assume that hat fters t of t Substitute Senate Bill No. to us at least (1949). Thus, no clause, sentence or word should be consid- 169 simply felt that ered superfluous, void or insignificant. Groves V. Meyers, the Instant problem bythey had already taken care of • 35 Wn.2d.403, 213 P.2d 483 (1950). Moreover, a court will lion" in the definitiontoflwhatrther constitutesnae to resubdivi- not a narrow, literal or technical construction on only in what is now RCW 58.17.020(1), s❑ ra. subdivision;part of placea statute and ignore other relevant parts. In Re —� i.e. Cress, 13 Wn.2d 7, 123 P.2d 767 (1942), It is also"intnot n extent that the language of an act isambiguousnorluncertain,the "r vision" did not g tO note that while the term resort is to be made to certain 58.16 RCW it d appear in our "old" platting law, sesortjudicially approved aids to chapterappear, at the time what is now . zY construction including, chapter"58.27 RCW was drafted, in the New Jersey definition of fill/ act in .ems_, the historygd of eme the word 'subdivision,' See, question and the evils that it was designed to remedy. materialA.part,40:55,-1.2 State ex rel. Bugge V. Martin, 38 Wn.2d 834, 232 P.2d 833 Pealed) which then read, in (since re- statutory. as follows: • Unquestionably, the framers of our new (1969) state plat- "Subdivision' means the"division of a lot, .tract, or parcel of land into two or more ! ting law were quite concerned with what were felt to be weak- • lot sr sites or other'divisions of land for nesses in the prior law as it related (or, more properly, did purpose, whether immediate or future, not relate) either to the initial division of land into four or of sale or building developments; less lots or to the further division of an individual lot in an Subdivision also Includes zesContext, r existing subdivision into four or less smaller lots.1/ and where appropriate to See, lates-tod the the context, re- e the discussion relating to Substitute Senate Bill No. 169 the lands processof subdividing or to between Representatives Chapin and Moon which is reported onorpage 1643 of the 1969 Journal of the House of Representativesterritory divided. and, also, the later discussion between the same two legislators And,Super.LakeIntervale Homes v. Parsi on the free conference version of the bill at47 N.J. A.2a Parsippany- hill, House Journal. In fact, the page 1777 of the the only case in the legal �, ic d appens to e particular concern which was further Phrases" for the reportedof g publication cussed on both occasions was, specifically, that of the further meaning the word "Words and division of land within a "short subdivision" rather than the New Jersey Court had earlier observed assfollowsion, . the • • "'Subdivision' is defined by N.J.S.A. ' 40:55-1.2 as 'the division of a lot, • tract, or parcel of land into two or more lots, sites or other divisions of land• for the purpose, whether immediate .. or future, of sale or building develop- m4/ Chapter 58.16 RCW simply did not deal at all with the The ke and includes 'resubdivision, ' creation of what we now refer to as a "short subdivision;" Y word is 'division.' Resubdivi- i.e. the division of land into four or lesssion can onl mean a further diva of ' lots for the a lv' ' reviousl purpose of sale or lease. Instead, that Emp asis su Y ma e governed the division of land into five orr more llots nand PP Zed was silent on the omitted area of activity, leaving the regulation thereof entirely up to the various counties and cities under the general authority, as set forth in RCW • 35.63.080, to regulate and restrict ' things] the subdivision and development of land•.(am other • AGO 57-58 No. 88, supra. .° See, r 1 . y r • • �..r_ UI•'F'll:J;UP'1'1tH AI'IY)1LNh•Y(:EtN lSlJ,i. ---."""'`T:i :Ali".Uigiba t ENERAL • • Honorable Henry R. Dunn Honorable Henry R. Dunn -9- -10- AGO 19p0 No. 5 AGO 1980 No, 5 • We trust that the foregoing will be of assistance to • It thus seems to us quite you. between RCW 58.17.020(1),ets supra Possible that,the similarity division" in N.J.S.A. 40:53 1- and the definition of "sub- • dental. 2. supra, is more than coinci- Very truly yours, • ° 1 Finally, we note the further word "all" in the last �� w ��ti SLAD ORTOtJ line of our definition. r • ,�` t;� At r ey General "subdivision" includes allnresubdivisionRCW �ofOland, The the term • exception, apparently, al(for the reasons above explained), • / dill a further division into four or less lots of a lot within a short subdivision more than five years �cn>prjs PHILZP H. IN But unless, in every other instance, thattlaster tlines eoflour • Deputy 'ttorney General definition means that any -,l, ��`�� divided is also to be demedrther subdivisidivision on, that land Previously THEY�'�� • the definition will be seen, in the final portion of without any meaning at all, analysis, to be senior F. TH contrary to the applicable inc that,e obviously, would rbe u Senior Assistant Attorney General lion as above st Principles of statutorymg lion d. construe- �onc_ 1` usi_n: Enc. 3 • 6ue1y, in direct answer to • it is our opinion that the further division ofour wa lot,within • pan existingo questions, plat or subdivision, whether established pursu • - • /ant to chapter 58.16 or chapter 58.17 RCW, • ; "resubdivisi_n° within the meaning constitutes a / 'Such action therefore must thus comply RCW 58 the provisions 0(1), sti ra, - chapter 58.17 RCW relating Ply with provisions o • the numbed new lots whchoresult lfrom the action n- of - Weettherefore answer your firston question. , your second question in tFie affi • rmativ;Sf the negative and • 5/ In so concluding we recognize that, some411111 • ten the law in question was first enacted, Years after • • • uniformity among the various local there is a •lack of • practice throughout the state. Jurisdictions in actual lacy, of uniformity which In fact, it is that apparent in the first place. The state d your instant opinion re again in session and remains freegtolclari however, is now if we have not sufficientlyclarify its own intent, in our letter done so, by doing what we recommended intour Sawyer,tt opsinion ofAugust 28, 1973, to namely,• expressly gn State R 're-en- subdivision." defining the word re- } • . . t r.% -�'tii • ::'_COUNTIES--CITIES AND TOWNS--BUILDING-•-FIRE=-PLATTING AND t DISTRICTS-_PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT AREA--ELECTIONS-SUBDIVISIONS--COMPLIANCE WITH ACCESS REQUIREMENTS OF PROCEDURE FOR DISSOLUTION UNIFORM FIRE CODE "'' t� The revisions P of RCN 36.57A.160 constitute the exclusive ' .Explanation of the interrelationship between 5 13:208 of means•by'-which'a. public transportation benefit area esta- ;the Uniform Fire Code, 1976 Edition; and the platting of '? . . blished.pursuant to-chapter 36,57A.RCW_may be dissolved. :• ••/subdivisions or short subdivisions,.under chapter 58.17 : �: ° `"RCW and/or a local•short subdivision ordinance; consider-� AGLO 1980 No. 4 --- Jerry ,- •ation of"the respective roles of the original subdivider Stat .'-'and subsequent urchase s f �'' ary 21esentative (^ - q p r o building lots in achieving 't'-'°~'`_ '•'' '<� January 2I;',.1980 compliance with the access requirements. -•�+�"~ .i. _ Pof�§'13.208 of �t• I the Uniform Fire Code,' • _ . r� � ell .-:.... • ' AGLO 1980-No. 1 .. _.. Caro 1.Monohon s:..::.;:,.:' OFFICES,-AND - . ,,.,. , ... ..,.,.- ._._..;- . .. : •.::::1, - TI1ENT OF.LA 'OFFICERS STATE DEPAR •`BORAND ;',1 ?.:,. = _ :,_State..Representative •INDUSTRIES--ENER Y FA CILITY AGILITY SIT E E- -- - EVALUATION- L A _-- ION CO UNCIL-- NCZL - -. - -- :Janu -r� 9 a 'I:'1980���:'�•"';�'�,'.:-;';:_.�':��;:.�..c::','.' - NSPECTIO._. ..... , , .....tip,-,. �-;' Y. i N OF'CERTIF r ICATE-• ENERGY,:FACILI_: TI- �/- ES rr�i.tiL - Ne i the r R CF7'80 5 U• ,�:»L no• - pan o th• er Y c do n o cha;S t' -�8 P e r :::: :.;:,.: 0' ;;, .5 0 .R .a C6 r g ecl�:�'�• udes`t e' P h S to teDea ,p rtment'o f tabor and • =`=OFFICES:AND OFFICERS--COUNTY--CLERK--BONDS--ELECTIONS--• .: : - ,.�•:ir?iZrdustries:-from"conductin :'-;'FAILURE-OF ELECTED' COUNTY, CLERK,•TO EXECUTE;OFFICIAL BOND ;;>-ters,19 28 .:'70 79 8 inspections;:'pufsuant to chap ., and RCW,',of an` energ facility t;- 'covered:b Y a certification�;•: Y tificat 7 ion'a agreem ent nt dulyexecuted' ;,The failure of,a newly elected county clerk to execute and /:_,..,:::ji;7:cordancewith,that:chapter;__: /-• :-"L=: .:'; ..; in ac-� ' ^furnish •an`.•official bond pursuant to: RCW 36.16.050 does not - '• ' t:` '� _ =� ��i _ r:r- ;, ' --.cause a-vacancy in the office to exist pursuant to RCW ,.. AGLO.1980,No. .'S ` ";;:`. Kin L sen' ;..,. `�92.12.010; instead, such.omission merely bars the newly- ''"` •.f :`': "f!! StateY 4<:_,.i. ;...;s ':'S:::°;,.; ::�. Senator elected clerk from qualifying and, thus; continues the term ' • of his or her predecessor who, however, resigning _ "'� January'21, 1980 . 0 may, by or Y 'refusingto serve, cause a vacancyto come "' ah...;' .• : into existence. _ • -' AGLO 1980:No. 2_::' :`:' James .E. Carty,.Prosecuting AttorneyFFICES'AND:OFFICERS--STATE e:•.;._ =.3}: O TE COUNCIL FOR POSTSECONDARY _t Clark County EDUCATION--HIGHER EDUCATION--REGISTRATION OF SECTARIAN " January 11, 1980 INSTITUTIONS • ;• •. • ".The Council.-for Postsecondary Education, in the exercise ' FERRIES--INSURANCE--EMPLOYEES--STATE-FUNDED INSURANCE' .of_its authority to:suspend or modify the requirements of COVERAGE FOR STATE FERRY SYSTEM EMPLOYEES' ;_.- " " ' ':'.'tithe Educational Services Registration Act of 1979 on the - asis of, hardship pursuant- " p pu uant to RCW 28B.05,130, may not es (1) Employees of the Washington State Ferry'System are exempt:an , educational institution" from otherwise required . • subject to the jurisdiction of the State Employees Insur- registration solely because of its sectarian religious ance Board under chapter 41,05 RCW with respect to the de < ownership, management or curricula. g sign of such employer-funded .insurance coverage as they - receive from the state. AGLO 1980 No. 6 C: Gail Norris 3 Executive Coordinator (2) The employer's contribution of the Washington Depart- Council for Postsecondar Education ' ment of Transportation under RCW 41.05.050(2) is not, in " - January 22, 1980 ? Y the case of ferry system employees, limited to that which the State Employees Insurance Board sets as the employer's contribution for state agencies generally. AGLO 1980 No. 3 Leonard Nord, Director • Department of Personnel • January 14, 1980 • -- i .. li II • • • • . 't:7 .'.; •? _r,., .fir:::: ,1.:. • 's.. ..,,;,.,... •,,i.a` ::,,:,-,,t ,- ,..,',..:::• : •DISTRICTS--SCH OOLS--BEALTH-IMMUNIZATION--CHURCHES- . 'RELIGION--FUNDING CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS OF.. ' • • CHURCH-RELATED PRIVATE SCHOOLS 'Funds appropriated by SS 14 and 15tof chapter 118;1 Laws .` - .•of. 1979,'..:1st Ex: Sess., for administration of the manda- :tory school:immunization program thereby established may . not be disbursed' to private, ,church-related schools (a)':because'of a.lack of.•statutory authority and (b) be- ..- cause of:the constitutional.prohibitions, in Article IX, - S`4• and Article VIIi,,S,7,of the Washington. Constitution; I : the;'legislature,';,however,''could.make certain suggested • :•amendments'to'the:law which;: if''enacted;:would establish, ;'.'_- ::':' • •••,'a,-- :Constitutionally- permissible:;contractual basis for such payments. - 'r• ,,;i AGLO •1980•YNo. " T �7 �:r'' ,Rod'Chandler _ �}:•. ,,,:.. _ '.:State'Re ;'.•;..-, ' �'` �yti4``• presentative � - -'' _ : , 5;;;` ;` January`:28 '1980 •::%OFFICES AND OFFICERS--STATE--DEPARTMENT OF GAME--APPRO-' •.; PRIATIONS--EFFECT OF APPROPRIATIONS TO PAY LEGAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CERTAIN FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT LITIGATION ' Analysis and discussion of the effect of so much of S 90, , •, chapter.270; Laws of 1979, 1st Ex. Sess.., as appropriated • -"$42,000 from the'State Game Fund to defray legal costs 'associated•with the construction and operation of a -regulating structure"stabilizing the level' of water in I Silver Lake.:' . • AGLO 1980'No: 8 • Ralph W. Larson,. Director 1 Department of Game • ry 9,' 980 Janua 2 1 - • • • • • • i2' • ;L,A .. •ki'7X OF R4,'ll ft o THE CITY OF RENTON q* © Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 0 MINIM BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 235- 2550 091t 0 SEr0-4'O April 25, 1980 Glacier Park Company Lobby 2 Central Building Seattle , Washington 98104 Re : APPLICATION FOR TWO-LOT SHORT PLAT APPROVAL , File No . 039-80 ; property located in Lot 7, Block 1 , Burlington Northern Orillia Industrial Park of Renton, Division I , generally located on Lind Avenue S.W. between S. W. 29th Street and S .W. 34th Street. Gentlemen : The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on April 8, 1980. A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for May 13, 1980, at 9 :00 a .m. Representatives of the applicant are asked to be present. All interested persons are invited to attend the hearing. If you have any further questions , please call the Renton Planning Department , 235-2550. Very truly yours , Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director (Ak 104_ By : Rog r . Blay ock Associate Planner RJB:wr cc : Gardner Engineers Illo • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER • RENTON , WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL , RENTON , WASHINGTON , ON MAY 13, 1980, AT 9 :00 A.M. TO CONSICER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS : 1 . GLACIER PARK COMPANY, APPLICATION FOR TWO-LOT SHORT PLAT APPROVAL , File 039-80; property located in Lot 7 , Block 1 , Burlington Northern Orillia Industrial Park of Renton, Division I , generally located on Lind Avenue S.W. between S.W. 29th Street and S .W. 34th Street . 2 . APPEAL BY THRIFT VILLAGE OF A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS DENYING A DEFERRAL FOR CERTAIN PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS, Lots 4-6 , Block 5, Sartorisville Tract , located generally at the northwesterly corner of Garden Avenue North and Bronson Way North. Legal descriptions of files noted above are on file in the Renton Planning Department . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 13, 1980 , AT 9 :00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. PUBLISHED : April 30, 1980 GORDON Y. ERICKSEN, RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION I , STEVE MUNSON, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. ATTEST : Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing in King County , on the 24th day of April , 1980 . SIGNED : . fF I ,y. GENERAL LOCATION: AND, OR ADDRESS: PROPERTY LOCATED IN LOT 7, BLOCK 1, BURLINGTON NORTHERN ORILLIA INDUSTRIAL PARK OF RENTON, DIVISION 1, GENERALLY LOCATED ON LIND AVENUE S .W. BETWEEN 29TH AND 34TH STREETS LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON FILE IN THE RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT I S POSTED TO NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS OF PP 5 •.r " 'M' a ai, ,tir oi rx x , TO BE HELD IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, MUNICIPAL BUILDING ON MAY 13, 1980 BEGINNING AT 9 : 00 A.M.A.M. P.M. CONCERNING ITEM [Z1 • REZONE N SPECIAL PERMIT • S IT E ,,.j.. pp R f• VAL • WAIVE's SHILFE ? NAGEI E� .T PER1T .� Y APPLICATION FOR TWO-LOT SHORT PLAT APPROVAL, FILE NO. 039-80 ma FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL 235 2550 T1-IIS NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION BURLINGTON NORTHERN Lobby 2 Central Building INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND Seattle,Washington 98104 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Telephone (206) 625-6682 Mr. Gordon Ericksen April 8, 1980 ^ y� Planning Director e -r -93 City of Renton 200 Mill Ave. South � r�.Renton, Wa. (3,G ��� Dear Mr. Ericksen: ��EPVT The Glacier Park Company is requesting short plat of Lot 7, Block 1, BN Orillia Industrial Park of Renton, Division I, recorded in Volume 108 of Plats, Pages 12 and 13, records of King County, Wa. Attached hereto for your further handling is application form, affidavit, mylars, and copies of proposed short plat and our check No. 3074 in the amount of $391.00 covering filing fee. Anything you can do to expedite this request will be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, rr" C`C. etz , Asst. Manager Property nagement NCK:k j CITY OF RENTON c>15/a•ye /4 7L. X SHORT PLAT PLAT APPLICATION FILE NO. 6)0 9 10 MAJOR PLAT �,�� O DATE REC' D. �� 0TENTATIVE APPLICATION FEE $ 39/ PRELIMINARY r:c? 1'0 ��� 12., ENVIRONMENTAL s. °p 4 z , REVIEW FEE $ `�.FINAL f RECEIPT NO. /3t 9 Y 64 r ._. SM NO. 0 �AM'EN� puD No. r APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 7: 1. Plat Name & Location_LOT 7, BLOCK 1, BURLINGTON NORTHERN ORILLIA INDUSTRIAL PARK 0I RENTON, DIVISION I . LIND AVENUE BETWEEN S.W. 29TH ST. AND SW 34TH ST. 2,. No. Lots 2 Total Acreage R.11 Zoning M-P 3. Owner GLACIER PARK COMPANY Phone 625-6422 Address LOBBY 2 , CENTRAL BUILDING, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON . 98104 5 . Underground Utilities : Yes No Not Installed Telephone ( X ) ( ) ( ) Electric , (" X ) ( ) ( ) Street Lights ( X ) ( ) ( ) Natural Gas ( X ) ( ) ( ) TV Cable ( ) ( X) ( ) 6 . Sanitation & Water: ( X ) City Water ( x ) Sanitary Sewers ( ) Water District No. ( ) Dry Sewers ( ) Septic Tanks 7. Vicinity and plat maps as required by Subdivision Ordinance. 8. DATE REFERRED TO: ENGINEERING PARKS BUILDING HEALTH TRAFFIC ENG. STATE HIGHWAY FIRE COUNTY PLANNING BD. PUBLIC WORKS OTHER 9 . STAFF ACTION: TENTATIVE PLAT APPROVED DENIED APPEALED EXPIRED 10. LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER'S ACTION: SHORT PLAT APPROVED DENIED PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED DENIED FINAL PLAT APPEALED ' EXPIRED 11 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED DENIED FINAL PLAT APPEALED EXPIRED 12. DEFERRED IMPROVEMENTS : DATE DATE BOND NO. AND TYPE GRANTED EXPIRES AMOUNT Planning Dept . Rev. 1/77 AFFIDAVIT • I, J.J. Gordon , being duly sworn, declare that I am the Owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. tom' ITE: Subscribed and sworn before me /b . ®,^ \ this 7th day of April , 19 80 c5) Notary Public in and for the State of -T O o Washington, residing at Redmond, Washington . o / (N e o Notary P lic) ( ature of •wner) M er of Property Management 16c7i N.B. 46th St. Redmond, Washington 98052 Lobby 2 Central Building (Address) (Address) Seattle, Washington 98104 (City) (State) 625=6422 (Telephone) (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been found to be thorough and complete in every particular and to conform to the rules and regulations of the Renton Planning Department governing the filing of such application. Date Received , 19 By: Renton Planning Dept . 2-73 END1NGs OF FILE Fig nn.e