No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA77-078 3L7/1 c9' 49'77 I d g-5// , y1404)-si - vcnOJ'Ca j bl 1/Vk 153 \ittl° \"\S ft vc-1oXcLo1-, LC- 2;$ G 0 4F PBJ¼)O(D 7X / 7of LoAr)-) p 7 / 0,2/ --?ff d V-- - /'e 446 410101.1.11. • 110/u----fir- _ • RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER SEP 2 71977 AM PM 71819110,11112111213,415,6 I E IBIT NO. ITEM NO. ,7 97 ,(,(/-� F-C 77 CITY OF RENTON No. 6223 FINANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON, WASHIN 98055 (Li 19 75 RECEIVED OF 4/6'17 1- a e2 ar,t_o_ 47Etple) 9 ef1/40 0 V ).#1e OAP 0 \lewd:10611'r. • TOTAL • GWEN E. MARS FINANCE DIRECTOR CITY CLERK ' S OFFICE INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM • TO: FINANCE DEPARTMENT DATE : 8/31/78 • r116?., FROM: CITY CLERK' S OFFICE SUBJECT : RECORDING FEES 1411,, • PLEASE REFUND $8. 00 TO BROWN-STRAND HOMES. THIS MONEY WAS PAID TO THE CITY FOR RECORDING FEES & RECEIPTED ON NO. 6223 ON AUGUST 30, 197r', BROWN-STRAND WILL BE TAKING THE SHORT PLAT TO KING COUvITY RECORDS AND ELECTIONS FOR • P7GORDTNG. .* h 017--7-7 ShPLO1 — T1 Ddfc � Serial No. Receiving Numb !ClassificotioLAmou o�rl KING COUNT/. RECORDS . :4 ELECIIONE U i i 7 UUi Jl iLJ0 ;i iJ dJ BEGINNING OF FILE FILE TITL\:461lit )&z2i 07 ; MICROFILMED • RENTON CITY CLERK'S OFFICE INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: DATE : Mr. Torohoff FROM: Dee SUBJECT : Check $10.00 - Enclosed please find a check for $10.00 made out to King Co. Recorder for the recording of the Coleman Short Plat. Thanks, i(4) ~ LAW OFFICES •; Currdn, Kieweno, Johnson 6 Cumin JAMES P. CURRAN 213 4TH AVENUE SOUTH " TELEPHONES CHARLES PETER CURRAN • (206) 852-2345 MELVIN L.KLEWENO,JR. POST OFFICE BOX 26 (206) 852-2346 STEPHEN L.JOHNSON Kenl,Washing1on 95031 THOMAS O. McELM EEL ' • • • • February 13, 1978 • • • • • • TO: City Council, City of Renton Charles J.. Delaurenti, Mayor, City of Renton • L. Rich Beeler, Hearing Examiner • Del Mead, City Clerk • • RE: - E. R. COLEMAN Approved Short Plat #078-77 Ladies and Gentlemen: We are .attorneys assisting Mr. Coleman in regard to the above .referenced plat. We have concluded that the steps now being taken by the City with reference to the plat are contrary to your City Ordinances. We believe that Mr. Coleman is fully entitled to have building permits issued pursuant to that approved short plat at this time. " We are prepared to initiate a .Superior Court action to enforce that right.if necessary. • In the hopes .of avoiding the expense to all parties of such an action, we are submitting this writing to you to persuade the City Council to pro1Jtly discharge any further action so that building permits can be issued. The following is the history of this short plat request: • September 27., 1977 Public hearing held • .October 5, 1977 Decision by hearing examiner to approve • . • the short plat 'per exhibit #3 (see exhibit • #3 attached to this letter) • October 20, 1977 • Hearing examiner states in letter to • E. R. Coleman: • • "Dear.Mr. Coleman: This is to nofity you that the RECEIVED above'referenced requests, which were approved CITY OF RENTON subject to conditions as noted on the Examiner's HEARING EXAMINER report of October 5, 1977, have not been appealed s within the time period set by ordinance, and there- FEB `� 1978 AM PM' fore, this application- is considered final and is "F��$��iIQ�I;eLs :`��vr��5t ' being submitted to the City Clerk effective this date for permanent filing. ! • Signed: L. Rich Beeler, Hearing Examiner" F / / • • / 4 • ' • • • • • • • • • • • Page Tvvo • February 13, 1978 • • • • Renton City Ordinances, Seca 4.3015 and 3016 limit rights to • request reconsideration or to appeal to 14 days with regard. • to final action of .the hearing examiner on short plats. • (Copy of ordinance attached) . . December 12, 1977 • ' Hearing examiner states in letter that Exhibit 3 depicts 3 lots.and that "my intention was to approve 3 lots on the• subject property as requested". (Emphasis • added.) . He then goes on to say that he is reopening the,matter because 'there is • confusion. (One might inquire as to who is confused - Mr. Coleman's application requested 3 lots, the exhibit #3 is taken • from the short plat application and clearly depicts 3 lots, A., B, and C and the examiner states that he. intended to approve 3 lots) . (Copy of letter attached) . December 27, 1977 Notice is sent by the City of Renton to Mr. Coleman that the City Council will .consider an appeal filed December 27, • 1977 and that the appeal will be heard • on January 16, 1978. • • January 9, 1978 At the Council Meeting of January 9, 1978,. the Council acts on a recommendation. of the Planning and Development Committee. • Mr.. Coleman had no notice or chance to be heard at either any committee meeting or at this counsel meeting. He first •heard of these various actions when he came to the council meeting of January • 16, 1978. (Notice of City attached) . January 6, 1978 • The Examiner advises the appellants by letter that he is going to reconsider the application based upon adequacy of • the 30 foot street by requesting the • Traffic Engineer to re-examine the approved plat. • • • • • • Page Three • • . February 13, 1978 • • • • January 19, 1978 The .Traffic Department sends a written , Memo saying the 30 foot street is entirely • • adequate. (See memo attached) . January 25, 1978 Hearing Examiner cbncludes that Mr. Coleman's approved plat shall be reduced to 2 lots. . February 7,. 1978 Mr. Coleman filed notice of appeal of-the Examiner's action of January 25, 1978.. • Your actions to date'are contrary to -the requirements of Sec. 4 -3001, et seq. , which does not permit review of approved plats after the expiration of 14 days and Section 9-1101 et seq. , which does not provide for any City Council intervention into previously approved short plats once the 14 day period has expired. We will look' to the City to pay the damages and legal expenses suffered by Mr. Coleman by reason.of the City interfering wi-th.a short plat already declared final. Will you kindly give this office notice any further committee meetings or public hearings on this matter. We would particularly appreciate the chance to review this entire matter with the City Council. . • • Yours very truly, S • CURRAN, KLEWENO, JOIINSON & CURRAN • By • • Charles Peter Curran • • CPC:mb • • Attachments cc: Sherwood Martin • ., . • ' ,.5 .0 •••.i. f"... .' • . . . , . . ... . . , . . ., I.. • ./Y .3;7/I i',•';"/ /14( /k•(/' - .L.II ('.,,• • . .'. N.,,) • • • :, , .. sv,• so/ ____ _ . " 'N; . ciQ -.,. ,- ,' . / ..5:•./., . . • . .., i -.i,' . . I • • • -4_ N .', I--.• . • , • . . . . • ,k_su y . t.su • . . • -Z Cs', • . • - • '-. ...., . • , • Z r\-N • . , • . ...,. . .. ., Q . • , . . • ' o\,, • . . • • .,....;,. . . . . . . . e'. . . . _ . • . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . • ., . • • . . . . . . , • , .. . . . . • • . • . . . . .. . . . . • . . . • . . . . •. , . . . . • . . . ..,_ . • I\ 4"1-, • . ••- , - . . • . . • . • . . . . . ,_ • • . 1 ' . 'I's•••. . . . : . . 1 1 •. . • • • .. •.:-•:. 1--'s ...; . •,.: . • • . '-' • , • . ,..- _____________„..... __. ... .... , . . . , 1 -• . . . .i.„. . •C) , - . . (• . I:(-) *t-V . ' - . ck) (\1 . . . • . •. .. • • N . _kr) • . ' . •••., . • • . . . . . ' . • . 4 . - . - • . .2, • . , . . • ..,4• - • . <....I_ :, •••.„ -,... . • .. ., . ....4Q . „..; • . . . ... • . ,. , .,-..... •-', . -,,y . . . • • .. . • • •t ' 1- • (•..,‘ • U . • • •‘k)' . • . 0\ .1.) . . kN. - (1‘ IL ,.‘4-) • • . . . • . A l's• ' •- • • . ) -;.:1 't• • . .• . - • • '‘ ..C",:77 • /"f.; ,I. . . • ,' , . • • • ‘-.. • . ..• . • • - . • • • . • • . • (A.1 • '.*) v13 - . „5"zi 0 -, I. • • , c'4,- 11) ,. . • \II ".- NZ. , . . . , • . ' . • . , . . . 1 )-','• kU ' . . • . . • . • i•-• ' ,. I- ' • • . - . . • . • . • LQ '.:' "'"' • -3,. . . • • • • • i i i 1.11 . -- _TT> N./ •\''' • y '- • ----. . .,---- ----,__ ,N ..1. • li ,,) qi ' . • . . . • . . • . • . . 3 :-.7) •. . 7----a i -7)-7 - .... • . . . . . , . • . . • . . . . . • . - . ' . 7y' ". - r. / 2/ • • • �► • . O THIE CITY OF 11 T\ TON U O0 '., 4'- 7 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 9130,55 z � o I 1 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR 0 LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER' • 1 �Q- L. RICK BEELER • 235 - 2593 O4teD SE PI • ' l- . ( <j 77 • • Mr. Ernest Coleman RE: File No. Short Plat 078-77 222 Williams Avenue S. • E-079-77 Renton, WA 98055 • W-080-77 • Dear Mr. Coleman: • This is to notify you that the above referenced requests, which were approved subject to. conditions as noted on the Examiner's report of ' October. 5, 1977, have not been appealed within the• time period set by • ordinance, and therefore, this application is considered final and is being submitted to the City Clerk effective this date for permanent • filing. • • Sincerely,• 4/(4,- ., L. Rick Beeler • Hearing Examiner LRB:mp cc.: Del Mead, City Clerk . Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director • • (A) That substantial evidence was presented demonstrating the subject reclrtssifica- tion appears not to have been specifically considered at .the time of the last ,, area land use analysis and area zoning; or ",14 - (B) That the property is potentially zoned for the reclassification being requested • ikt pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and conditions, ; .� have been met which would indicate the change is appropriate; or f'i••• • '.+��• l' (C) That since the last previous land use analysis of the area and area zoning of the {j subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private develop- Ir r '.I; ment or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone !,. II significant and material change.• ,:. ;; Within fourteen (14) calendar days of the conclusion of a hearing, the Examiner shall p " I • • render a written decision, including findings and conclusions, and shall transmit a copy .1.• , 1 of such decision by regular mail, postage prepaid, to the applicant and other parties of record in the case requesting same. The person mailing such decision, together with . i the supporting documents; shall prepare an affidavit of. mailing, in standard form, and .,"I I ! such affidavit shall become a part of the record of such proceedings. , In the .case of applications requiring Council -approval as set forth in Section • 1 I 4-3010(B)2, the Examiner shall file a decision with the City Council at the expiration • • .•1 of the fourteen (14) day period provided for a rehearing, or within five (5) days of the I conclusion of a rehearing, if one is conducted. Thereupon the City Council shall cause to be prepared the appropriate legislation. I , I 4 ' l 1'C 4-3015, as amended: RECONSIDERATION: Any aggrieved party feeling 'that the :;. III • .decision of the Examiner is based on an erroneous procedure,'-errors (i I' • of law or fact,,error in judgment, or the•discovery of new evidence which could Rot be, illr �� i reasonably available at the prior hearing, may make a written request for.review by • the Examiner within fourteen (14) days after th.e written decision of the Examiner has !i been rendered. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such ap- a4 'i i - pellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he I ' deems proper. . 4-3016, as amended: APPEAL OF EXAMINER'S D•ECISI•ON: Any party to the proceedings and aggrieved by the Examiner's decision may submit an { appeal in writing to the City Council, by filing same with the City Clerk, within four- teen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written decision, requesting a review of same. Such appeal shall be accompanied by a fee of twenty five dollars i • • ($25.00) paid to the City Clerk. • . . Thereupon the Examiner shall cause to be forwarded to the members of the City Coun- i cil all.of the pertinent documents; including his written decision, findings, conclusions • and, notice of appeal. If, after the examination of such'record, the Council determines I . 1176;577 • ov Its, 4, A% -.-_ ... . .►' . 'o THE CIT CITY OF' RENT() .N _ • MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.-SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 n oyi • o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR 0 LAND USE HEARING' EXAMINER .43 O,Q �Q L. RICK BEELER , 235 -2593 �TFD SEP����• � • . December 12, 1977 ' . . Mr. Ernest R. Coleman RE: File No. Short Plat 078-77 • • ' 1100 North .36th Ernest R. Coleman Renton, WA 98055 • Parties of 'Record ' • • Dear Mr. Coleman & Parties. of Record: . It recently was brought to my attention that the decision. of October 5, . 1977 regarding this application was confusing as to whether two or three lots were approved in the report. The. decision on page six was to 'approve . . - • the. short plat per Exhibit #3. " However, what constituted Exhibit #3 • • was unclear. . Upon review of the record it should be clarified that Exhibit #3 depicted the 3-lot short plat request originally submitted by the applicant and that' this exhibit was not revised to a' 2-lot configuration. My intention ' was t• o approve three lots on, the. subject property 'as requested. . 'Since this clarification .may have affected your response to the October 5; 1977 written decision and upon advice of the .City Attorney, the period . • for requesting reconsideration by the Examiner or appeal to the :City Council is opened as of the' date of -this letter, and will expire on December 27, .1977. If you require additional information regarding procedures. for requesting reconsideration or notice, of appeal• to the .City Council, please refer to- Section 4-30.15 and 4-30'l , Code. of General. • Ordinances, available in the City Clerk's office. '\• . I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused in t}I.is• matter. • Respectfully yours, . . . . • ,i -L. Rick Beeler • ' Hearing Examiner . • cc: ' Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti • Gordon Y. Ericksen; Planning Director • • `4% rrvz'n i . � T A L�J ' C I Y O A� �J 1 '7 T(.) \� MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE SO. RENTON, WASH. 98051:. o wIL'C w \; ' • CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR DELORES A. MEAD 0 ' • �� CITY CLERK • qlf� 9 December 27 , 1977 • •• APPEAL FILED BY James C. Aiken, Charmaine C. Baker, Robert L. Moffatt • and •Joan L. Moffatt • Re: Appeal of Land Use Examiner' s• Decision, dtd. 10/5/77 • Short Plat 078-77 , Ernest Coleman • • To Parties of Record: ' • • . Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's decision has been filed with the City Clerk' s Office this date, along with the proper fee of '$25.00, pursuant .to Title 4, Ch. 30, City Code, as amended . • The City Code requires the appeal must be 'set forth in writing . • The •.written appeal and all other .pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council ' s Planning and Development Committee. Please contact . the Council Secretary; 235-2586, for date and time of the committee - meetings if so desired. • • NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above-referenced appeal will be 'considered by the Renton City Council at its regular meeting of . January 16, 1978 at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers , Second Floor, • Renton Municipal Building, 200. Mill Ave. S. • . Yours very. truly, • • CITY OF RENTON • • • • Maxine E. Motor • Deputy City Clerk • MEM:j t. • • • • tli;MoR.1r;UPM • • January 19 , 1078 • TO : • RICK BEELER • Hearing Examiner • • FROM: DEL BENNETT • Deputy Director of Public Works • RE : SHORT PLAT 078-77 Ernest R . Coleman • • In response to your memo dated January. 6 , 1978 , we, have again • reviewed the proposed Short Plat 1/078- 77 submitted by Ernest R . • Coleman . The response to the questions raised in .your memo arc as follows : • 1) According to the 1976 Trip Generation Manual prepared by the Institute of Traffic Engineers for residential areas:, there .would be 10 trips •per day per lot . If the proposed short plat were two lots ; then there would b'e 20 trips per day , or three lots would produce the average of 30 trips per day . . The additional traffic that • would occur as a result of the three additional single family lots • would not be significant . It would appear that • the existing easements . could accommodate the additional traffic without any difficulty . 2) The existing traffic utilizing the 17 . 6- foot easement for. through vehicular traffic, between Meadow Avenue North and Park Avenue North has not resulted in any unusual traffic problems. We have no recorded accidents or complaints regarding the use • -of this easement . The width of the proposed easement, which is . 30 feet , would be adequate for single family development , and . in our opinion the easement road would not endanger the public welfare or other affected properties . • • 3) The City ' s Arterial Street Plan does not •concOr.n itself with easements , private roads , etc . Much of the development in the older ne.ighborhoods . has occurred many , many years ago and a number • of nonconforming access roads were developed which have not • caused any serious difficulties . . When possible , we .would like the development to adhere to our ordinances , but many times it is 'not a very practical or feasible solution . • I hope the response to your . questions will help in making your decision. • • • RECEIVED �- • • CITY OF RENTON 4 • • HEARING EXAMINER — - `•-•`^La 1,>, �,,,,n- -- D• JA(v 2 01978 AM frl • 7rilr9rd$,1111Zi I r213►415,G • • /0 of Et,A ►, , o THE CITY OF RENTON V ®® CO T MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER '0 e- L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 4t fD SEPj-�O February 8, 1978 Mr. Ernest R. Coleman 222 Williams Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Notice of Appeal dated February 7, 1978, to L. Rick Beeler from E. R. Coleman, regarding Short Plat #078-77. Dear Mr. Coleman: Your letter of February 7, 1978, is not clear as to whether you are appealing my decision regarding the above to the City Council (per Section 4-3016) or whether you are requesting my reconsideration of my decision (per Section 4-3015) . References were made to both processes. It seems that you may be requesting reconsideration. If so, your letter does not ". . .set forth the specific errors relied upon. . . " (Section 4-3015) in making your request. This information is necessary for me to respond to your letter if, in fact, you seek reconsideration. Otherwise, an appeal must be directed to the City Clerk. Re tfu , L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Del Mead, City Clerk ef • • 1� COLEIVIAN & MATTAINI Ernest R. Coleman 222 Williams Ave. South Renton, Washington 98055. (206) 226-6462 • February 7 , 1978 Land Use Hearing Examiner L Rick Beeler, • Municipal Building 200 Mill Ave . So . , Renton , WA. 98055 Mr. Beeler: ' . This letter is in protest , AND NOTICE OF APPEAL ' o - your right-about-face decision re : Ernest Coleman Short Plat # 078-77 . These, changes of your original decision were spelled out in your letter to a Mr. & Mrs . •Sherwwod B . Martin under date of J.a,n . 25', 1978. I received a copy of this letter on Jan . 27., 1978 . My appeal., issbased on the right of an applicant , covered under Title .IV, S'ec . . 4-3015 , City Code of Renton . . I would ask that you notify me immediately as to your plans in handling this appeal . E . R. Coleman cc : Honorable Mayor Dela.urenti RECEiV _b CITY OF RENTOI` HEARING EXAMINER • FEB 31978 AM PM 7e819ttgab125142,3s4d5l6 • Real Estate - Commercial - Industrial - Vacant Land • .� OF R. A o THE CITY OF RENTON tr. 'GPz MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o � CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 0� 0*1 L. RICK BEELER , 235-2593 4tED SEPSS` January 25, 1978 Mr. and Mrs. Sherwood B. Martin 3728 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 RE: Request for Reconsideration on File No. Short Plat No. 078-77, E-079-77, & W-080-77; Ernest R. Coleman. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Martin: Pursuant to your letter, received December 27, 1977, and my letter of January 6, 1978, the decision regarding this application was reconsidered. The established record and the attached memoranda of January 6 and 19, 1978 were reviewed in reaching the subsequent decision. Two issues were contested in the reconsideration as well as in the public hearing. Is the proposed three-lot density appropriate? And is the proposed 30-foot easement adequate? Part of the second issue was the dust problem associated with the existing north 17.6-foot portion of the 30-foot easement; however, this specific problem was outside the purview of the Examiner as was stated in Finding No. 8. But the problem was orally relayed to the Public Works Department for further investigation. The issue of density is a function of minimum lot size which is affected in this case by the amount of property dedicated for vehicular access. The issue of adequacy of the 30-foot easement was found to be more complex than considered in the original, previous decision; therefore, this issue was reviewed in total again. The Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives are essentially silent relative to these two issues except for Objective No. 6, Land Use Report, page 18, which states: 6. Encourage the development and utilization of land to its highest and best use in such a way as to promote the best interest of the community and contribute to its overall attractiveness and desirability as a place in which to work, shop, live and play. This objective provides only very general guidance in this application; however, assistance is provided in the Purpose (Section 9-1101.2) of the Subdivision Ordinance: 2. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Ordinance that subdivisions be conceived, designed and developed in accordance with sound rules and standards in the interest of the public and property owners. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be held to be the minimum requirements for the protection of the public health, safety, welfare and esthetics, and such provisions are intended to provide for wholesome environmental conditions in the community, adequate public services, and safe and functional streets and thoroughfares. • Mr. and Mrs. Martin Page Two January 25, 1978 Although unstated in any pertinent documents in effect at this time, a principle is implied in these two general guidelines and in normal ordinance interpretation. This principle, taken in the context of the Subdivision Ordinance's provision for Exceptions (Section 9-1109) , is that the inherent burden rests with the applicant to meet the minimum requirements of applicable ordinances, goals and objectives as much as possible without self-inflicting grounds for an Exception (Section 9-1109) . The Exception provision implicitly was created to resolve situations either beyond the applicant's control of which, if ordinance requirements were met, would produce the necessary cause for the Exception. EASEMENT Relative to the issue of the adequacy of the proposed 30-foot easement, two discoveries were made. First, the Public Works Department in the attached memorandum of January 19, 1978, stated the opinion that the cumulative easement of 30 feet, although nonconforming with the Subdivision Ordinance, presented no foreseeable traffic problems or danger to the public safety and welfare. Second, existing ordinances (e.g. Subdivision Ordinance) and the Comprehensive Plan do not address or permit private streets. Herein a contradiction occurs which complicates the issue since the grounds for an Exception (Section 9-1109) contain no provision for the conclusion of the aforesaid Public Works Department. This may have been intentional, for the question then follows of why a requirement for a 50-foot right-of-way for streets is necessary if 30 feet is adequate for public safety and welfare. The Examiner is constrained from addressing this policy question but confined to the existing ordinances. Clearly the south 12.5-foot portion (owned by Mr. Coleman) and the north 17.5-foot portion (controlled by the northerly property owners) of the proposed 30-foot pan-handle shaped easement strip does not meet the Subdivision Ordinance requirement of access via a 50-foot dedicated public street (Sections 9-1108.23.A. (5) and 9-1108.23.F. (2) ) . The cumulative 30-foot easement does not meet this standard without additional dedication of property north and/or south of this easement. Such dedication is beyond the control of Mr. Coleman east of the subject site since he does not own the pertinent property. Due to this fact an Exception should be granted for this portion of the easement. This would best serve the "interests of the community," the "public health, safety and welfare," and "safe and functional streets." (Lana Use Report, page 18, Section No. 6, and Section 9-1101.2) . On the other hand, sufficient property exists in the remainder of the site for a 25-foot easement which would be the normal dedication required of a property owner for one-half of the 50-foot right-of-way. The depth of the property is 107.6 feet (Exhibit No. 3) and the minimum lot depth is 80 feet (Section 9-1108.23.F. (3) . (b) , leaving 27.6 feet for the necessary dedication of 25 feet. In the record, testimony was not given as to why this could not be done; however, it is assumed that the reason is that the remaining property area would compute to two lots instead of three lots. It is very evident that some hardship is created for Mr. Coleman as a result of .the loss of one lot, but the question becomes whether or not the hardship is "undue" (Section 9-1109.1) . Within the process for computing density is the requirement that from the gross amount of property is subtracted the required area for street right-of-way. The net property area then becomes the basis for calculating density. Utilizing this Mr. arid Mrs. Martin Page Three • January 25, 1978 process, the loss of one lot (figured on the net property area) does not constitute undue hardship since the normal process was used. Otherwise, hardship could be claimed by any applicant who lost density by calculation based on net versus gross property area. Mr. Coleman is not deprived of ". . .the reasonable use or development• of his land. . . " (Section 9-1109.1.A) , as he still will have two building sites. No ". . .rights or privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity... ." (Section 9-1109.1.B) have been infringed upon since other subdivisions in the vicinity (under the existing Subdivision Ordinance) have faced the same requirements. ' But relative to the "public welfare" or "injury" (Section 9-1109.1.C) no such detriment or injury could be found; however, this is insufficient in itself to justify an Exception without regard to the previous other findings of Section 9-1109. Therefore, it was concluded that sufficient grounds. do not exist for an Exception for a dedication of less than 25 feet for public right-of-way. The resulting 42.5-foot cumulative easement more nearly meets the aforementioned criteria' of the Subdivision Ordinance, the conclusions of the Public Works Department in the attached memorandum of January 19, 1978, the "best interest of the community," and the "public health, safety, welfare and aesthetics," "the wholesome environmental conditions in the community," and the safety and functionality ,of streets, (Land Use Report; page 18, Objective No. 6, and Section 9-1101.2) . However, since it is less than the required 50 feet of right-of-way, an Exception is required. Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions under these specific circumstances, it is clear that the applicant would be meeting reasonable requirements. There exist "special; physical circumstances" which impact Mr. Coleman's property such that dedication Of the additional necessary 3.5 feet would render the depth of the lot less than 80 feet, thereby nonconforming, and consequently deprive him of subdivision of his property into two lots (Section 9-1109.1.A) . The Exception -will provide the applicant with reasonable privileges while meeting reasonable requirements (Section 9-1109.1.B) . The Exception will not be "detrimental" or ". . .injurious to other property in the vicinity" (Section 9-1109.1.C) . DENSITY • In view of the above conclusion regarding the easement access, the issue of density is moot. The 25-foot easement automatically reduces the density from three to two lots due to the reduction of net property area. DECISION The decision of the Examiner is to: 1. Approve a Short Plat of two single family lots meeting all applicable zoning and subdivision requirements. Exhibit No. 3 should be accordingly revised. 2. Approve an Exception' to allow a 12.5-foot dedication for public access for the easterly 80 feet which abuts .the easterly parcel adjoining the subject site, extending to Meadow Avenue North. 3. Approve an Exception to allow access via a 42.5-foot access easement of the subject site. The northerly 25 feet of the westerly 234 feet shall be dedicated for public access. ' 4. Disapprove the Waiver of the off-site improvement of paving. A half-street shall be paved as deemed appropriate by the Public Works Department. All utility poles and obstructions between the 17.5-foot easement and the hereinabove required Mr. and Mrs. Martin Page Four January 25, 1978 easements shall be removed. All exposed banks shall be stabilized to prevent erosion and sluffing. 5. Final approval of the Short Plat by the Planning and Public Works Departments for compliance with the aforesaid decisions. 6. Pertinent portions of this decision shall be contained in Restrictive Covenants. Expiration of the appeal period on this request for reconsideration will be February 8, 1978. Res tf,y yours, 464 L. Rick Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner cc: Ernest R. Coleman Parties of Record Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Councilman George J. Perry, Chairman, Planning & Development Committee Councilwoman Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Member Councilwoman Patricia M. Seymour-Thorpe, Member Larry Warren, City Attorney Gordon Y. Ericksen', Planning Director Del Mead, City Clerk Attachments • 0 R4 � 92. THE CITY OF RENTO.N ., MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 ea p • ° CHARLES J. DELAURENTI ' MAYOR ® LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 04,41. 0�' JAMES L. MAGSTADT , 235 - 2593 ED SEPIA January 6, 1978 TO: Del Bennett, Deputy Public Works Director FROM: L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner SUBJECT: Short Plat No. 078-77, Ernest R. Coleman A request for reconsideration and an appeal of my decision on this application has been filed with the City Clerk. The City Attorney has • advised that per Chapter 30 (Hearing Examiner Ordinance) the issue of. reconsideration must be considered first, thereby temporarily suspending the appeal until the reconsideration decision is made. Per• the attached letter to Mr. and Mrs. Martin (petitioners, for reconsideration) I have elected to reconsider my original decision, specifically in the areas of density and of adequacy of a 30-foot easement/road. To assist me in making my decision, please provide written information that has not already been entered .into the record on the following: 1. What traffic impact or implications would occur as a result of three additional single family lots using the existing 17.6-foot easement and Mr. Coleman's 12.5-foot easement? 2. What traffic implications exist regarding the 17.6-foot easement for through vehicular access, between Meadow Avenue North and Park Avenue North? Will this size of easement/road be adequate for single family development of 7200 square foot lots? Will this easement/road endanger the public welfare or other affected properties? 3. What "master plan" would you envision for access in this area? Are there other alternative access considerations from the traffic safety and control standpoints that would be more appropriate and more conforming with applicable city ordinances? Please respond as soon as possible in order to facilitate an expeditious decision.._") • ( \-r<kit L Tick Beeler cc: Planning Department MEMORANDUM January 19 , 1978 TO : RICK BEELER Hearing Examiner FROM: DEL BENNETT Deputy Director of Public Works • RE: SHORT PLAT 078-77 Ernest R. Coleman In response to your memo dated January 6, 1978 , we have again reviewed the proposed Short -Plat #078-77 submitted by Ernest R. Coleman. The response to the questions raised in your memo are as follows : 1) According to the 1976 Trip Generation Manual prepared by the Institute ' of Traffic Engineers for residential areas , there would be 10 trips per day per lot. If the proposed short plat were two lots ; then there would be 20 trips per day , or three lots would produce the average of 30 trips per day. . The additional traffic that would occur as a result of the three additional single family lots would not be significant . It would appear that the existing easements could accommodate the additional traffic without any difficulty. 2) The existing traffic utilizing the 17 . 6-foot easement for through vehicular traffic between Meadow Avenue North and Park Avenue North has not resulted in any unusual traffic problems . We have no recorded accidents or complaints regarding the use of this easement. The width of the proposed easement, which is 30 feet , would be adequate for single family development , and in our opinion the easement road would not endanger the public ' welfare or other .affected properties . • 3) The City ' s Arterial Street Plan does not concern itself with easements , private roads , etc. Much of the development in the older neighborhoods has occurred many , many years ago and a number of nonconforming access roads were developed which have not caused any serious difficulties . ' When possible, we would like the development to adhere to our ordinances , but many times it is not a very practical or feasible solution. , I hope the response to your questions will help in making your decision. • RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON • • HEARING EXAMINER DCB :cah JAN 2 01978 AM • Pm 7iiii0 {D,II,I2ali2e3i4i5,6 .;*. .. 44 . • QQLEM,AN & MATTAINI' REC IVEB Ernest R. Coleman CITY OF RENT . HEARING EX/.MINEn . . • 222 Williams Ave. South �A ! ` . ' • Renton, Washington 98055. A� F�.., • (206) 226-6462 Z e • it • • . January 13 ,. 1978 Mr. L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner• . City of Renton ' ' 200 Mill Ave . So . , . Renton , WA. . 98055 ' . Dear Mr. Beeler: Re short Plat' 078-77 . E 079-77 . W 080-77 I have ,discussed at length with both y.ou and City Attorney, Larry Warren , the handling of the above referred . • ' to Short Plat. • . Your letter to me on Oct. 20 , 197.7 stating your decision had not been appealed during the alloted time for such an appeal and the application was .considered final and was being submitted to the City Clerk as of that date • for permanent filing. • . . . I' appreciated the manner in which this was hand- ' ' led. Contacts were made with different contractors ,re : .grading the road ,, staking . the three sites , moving the. two power poles , etc . • Then on Dec. 9 , ' 1977 I • received a dall from you . stating the original objectors had raised a question as to • the ciarity . of your summarization of the hearing. This was seven weeks after you had written your letter of Oct. 20, . ' stating the approval of the plat was final . ' I asked for a letter giving your reasons -for a . . • pos ,ible further delay. You stated you would discuss it with Attorney- Warren then write me . I received this 'Fetter on Dec . 12 whic'h is over a month ago . . ' During this time. I was called by one of the dissent neighbors , "Bob Moffitt" . He only seemed to be concerned there ' . were 3 sites instead of 2. I told him I felt there had been a fair hearing and was going ahead on the basis of. your find-, • ings . ' He immediately threatened. me with a suit etc . . ' Your letter of Dec . 12 , Stated your intent was to ' approve the 3 lot plan . Then , I could not understand why the appeal period was reopened as this • was the main concern of the objectors . I can find nothing under 4-3015p and 4-3016 which i n anyRaqstatteat�ommeacialth ndustrialn- VacantLanci eni ng of the 2--cont. 4110 2--cont. Coleman to Beeler appeal period . I have a letter dated Dec . 2 , stating the reopening and , or appeal would be dealt with at the Renton City council regular meeting of Jan . 16 , 1978. I had made it a point to be sure and attend this meeting . Now, I am told this was acted on by the Council at their meeting of Jan . 9 . ( last Monday) . I am quite upset over the way I have been treated and the way This SMALL SHORT PLAT request has been handled. There are many platted lots in this area much smaller than the ones I am re- questing . It is very unfortunate conditions have deteriorated so badly in our City Administration where , after something has gone through the necessary steps and has been approved , that ' a dissident person can come in and cause such a delay , problem, and much more work by several people , by having the appeal period reopened . I am very bitter and feel this is a CHEAP shot. No wonder so many of the smaller builders I have known and worked with over the past 30 years have quit trying to over come the obstacles they are faced with in Renton and have gone elsewhere . sincerely :vx.// /7 E . R. Co em-an 222 Williams Ave . So . , Renton , 226-6462 cc : Mayor Delaurenti Chairman Council Examining Comm . 0 Ft •1 tab 010 o THE CITY OF RENTON t MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o:55 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER o,Q ®�Q' JAMES L. MAGSTADT , 235 -2 593 4"ED SEP1 January 6, 1978 Mr. and Mrs. Sherwood B. Martin 3728 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 RE: Short Plat No. 078-77, Ernest R. Coleman; Request for " Reconsideration. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Martin: Pursuant to your letter of December 27, 1977, I have reviewed the record of this application. Section 4-3015 (the rules governing reconsideration) specifies that ". . .errors of law or fact, error in judgment. . . " may constitute grounds for reconsideration. My review of the record indicated that my decision of October 5, 1977, should be reconsidered. Specifically, I am going to take, a second look at the number of lots that were approved and request further analysis by the Traffic Engineering Division of the adequacy of a 30-foot easement/ road. Another public hearing will not be held, but you and the other parties of record will be mailed copies of all correspondence and/or evidence that is utilized in my forthcoming decision. May I also mention that an appeal of the original decision was also filed. The reconsideration decision will temporarily suspend the appeal until after my decision is rendered. Re speo)t f ul ly-)yours, Ili L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Chairman, City Council Planning & Development Committee Larry Warren, City Attorney Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Del Mead, City Clerk Del Bennett, Deputy Public Works Director Ernest R. Coleman Parties of Record ' f• . . .4 . . . . - • • .. • _ . . .. . • • - . . , • • . . • '. . . .' . ... . ., , . • • • . , . .;, • . , . . . . . . . . . . . . - • . . . .., • . • .. .. • . . 3748 ,Park Avenue North . „ . . ., Renton . . . . • „ - Washington 98055 • • December 27, 1977 . • . . . '• • ,. il2V030,7/*- • . . . . . . . . ., . . ' •„• . , • 1!,:i,„ti,1.-,. 7c-1 Mr. L Rick Beeler . . „. . ,. . , ., , •At-.3 t., y? Land Use Hearing Examiner .. ' .-",. ,. . .i - - ,- - - -,. .,.--: .,.. ,.,. ., -0Z, .- • . ., . -,.1c\J .() The city. of Renton . • . . Muni cip al Building . . , ' . .. . . 0S44 .. : ... . Renton, Washington . . . .. . , c:;) • '.c\k' Ok- .(4,. cr., - ... . • • -.,c,) '- it , .• ic v . . . . - . .. , • Cl;, ..V,I ,. pLkk '.C.Ak. . '- . 1.)\'‘... 4-'? . . Dear Mr, Beeler: • . ' ' - . .. . , - 91; s' ‘ . . . . . . . I wish. to request a reconsideration of- :the hearing. regarding Short Flat 078-77 ,applied for by Ernest R. Coleman... .(3 ) The tipee lots approved by your office would .have an adverse affect on local property values. ' I question the value of holding a hearing . . providing for residents to present their points' and then categorically denying all requests, even though the applicant. himself was agreeable • to our major request which was to reduce the number .of lots to two, The roadway. is also a serious issue to which no consideration • was given in spite of the fact that Kr. Coleman knowingly cut himself , off from his own property, forcing biMself to either .abandon.its use or to make an impact on the other property owners by use of the roadway • • which we must now maintain for the benefit of his proffit. .The. decision handed down- by your office was the first statemnet by a public agency establishing the roadWayon which we pay property taxes as a public though- • rof aree S . . . . . • . . . , . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . • - , • . • '. • . . . , .. . . , . . . . • . . •. • Yours t uly, . . • . . . • . . ' • .-7-17Z: 7%, Z;L. - ... • ,,, • . • . . . . . . . . Sherwood B. Martin and Luanna ,T. Martin . - . . . • • - . 3728 Park Avenue ,North • , ' . oc RE7v.i, • , - . . . ' . • • . . . . .• . • • • . ... . • . .. . - • . . , a .. . \_.ux- • . 47 , . . . . . 23 Br , - • . , • . . . • \\ • DEcc,f, ..... f- • . . . ..4 ...... ..."4402.-. , . . : • . • .e wi- •,s.' . . . • . . -57A. <it. • , . . .IVED.. . . . . ' . . • . . .. ssilyG p._.e% . RECECITY -OF RENTON • ... , • • HEARING-EX19,MINER . . • . • . . ,. - JAN 31978' . . . , . . . - AM ' PM • . • , •.. S . ,, . .• . '''•R-''''Z' 9 11,'il",-17 q.::9 0 4 it5g6 . . . . . . . • . 1 . .. . . .. . , . . . • . . ;_ _ (01 .December 252 1977 Rent- C/71/ c eD co Mr. L. Rick Beeler `— off Land Use HearingEcamin`e e�FRfrs uv704 �+ OFFS 1 U' Municipal Building ��:fL, Cf $!. 200 Mill Ave. So. 1,e1itk)1,6 Renton, Washington 98055 References (a) File No. Short Plat 078.77, Ernest R. Coleman (b) Public Hearing minutes dated October 5, 1977 (Public Hearing conducted September 27, 1977 at 10s45 A.M. in the council chambers of Renton Municipal Building). (c) Letter dated December 12, 1977,. L. Rick Beeler to Mr. Ernest R. Coleman and Parties of Record, subject File No. Short Plat 078-77 Ernest R. Coleman. Dear firs As outlined in your letter dated December 12, 1977 (Reference c) this is a formal request to reopen the public hearing on File No. Short Plat 078-77, Ernest R. Coleman and is in compliance with City Codes Title IV, Sections 3015 and 3016. The parties of record feel that your decision to allow the Short Plat 078-77 three (3) lot configuration is not in the best interest of the aggreived adjacent property owners. The concerns expressed in the Public Hearing conducted on September 14, 1977 (reference b) have not changed. In our opinion the conduct of your office in this matter has been anything but straight forward. Any person who reviews your minutes of the September 14, 1977 Public Hearing would conclude that Mr. Coleman gave his concurrence with subdividing the property into a two (2) lot configuration. By granting the time extension to December 27, 1977 to respond to your decision the Renton City Attorney obviously agrees wi th us. To preclude any further misunderstanding by the tax paying property owners involved it is our intention to be represented by legal council in any further matters involving File No. Short Plat 078-77. Your early response in the matter will be appreciated. Yours truly, RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON �i ru=- , : . ( BAR6k) HEARING EXAMINER AM P6 �� / #11 41 0�e o THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON.WASH. 98055 2 © '' CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR G LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER co- L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 04)4Tfo SEP1°1\O December 12, 1977 Mr. Ernest R. Coleman RE: File No. Short Plat 078-77 1100 North 36th Ernest R. Coleman Renton, WA 98055 Parties of Record Dear Mr. Coleman & Parties of Record: It recently was brought to my attention that the decision of October 5; 1977 regarding this application was confusing as to whether two or three lots were approved in the report. The decision on page six was to "approve the short plat per Exhibit #3." However, what constituted Exhibit #3 was unclear. Upon review of the record it should be clarified that Exhibit #3 depicted the 3-lot short plat request originally submitted by the applicant and that this exhibit was not revised to a 2-lot configuration. My intention was to approve three lots on the subject property as requested. Since this clarification may have affected your response to the October 5, 1977 written decision and upon advice of the City Attorney, the period for requesting reconsideration by the Examiner or appeal to the City Council is opened as of the date of this letter, and will expire on December 27, 1977. If you require additional information regarding procedures for requesting reconsideration or notice of appeal to the City, Council, please refer to Section 4-3015 and 4-3016, Code of General Ordinances, available in the City Clerk's office. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused in this matter. Respectfully yours, L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner ,pF f� ��� ✓ cc: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti //N,' if H\j+`� ` \ Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director /�� K`�` l �CJ � D K 12 1977 ,• *1-*/ DE?4j, G DE too OIF •► • o THE CITY OF RENTON tv _ MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o . L CHARLES J. DELAURENTI r MAYOR to LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER O,� October 20, 1977 L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 • arc p SEP1 • - Mr. Ernest Coleman RE: File No. Short Plat 078-77 222 Williams Avenue S. E-079-77 Renton, 'WA 98055 W-080-77 I Dear Mr. Coleman': • • This is to notify you that the above referenced requests, which were approved subject to conditions as noted on the Examiner's report of October 5, 1977, have not been appealed within the time period set by ordinance, and therefore, this application is considered final and is being submitted to the City Clerk effective this date for permanent filing. • Sincesjely,) • L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner LRB:mp cc: t Del, Mead, City Clerk Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director • A' d October 5, 1977 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION , • APPLICANT: Ernest Coleman FILE NO. Sh. Pl. 078-77 E-079-77 W-080-77 • • LOCATION: Property located west of Meadow Avenue North midway between North 36th Street and North 38th Street and east of Park Avenue North. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests approval of a proposed three (3) lot short plat, with approval of an exception to allow access to the short plat via a private easement road 12.5 feet in width, together with a waiver of the off-site improvement requirements to allow gravelled surfacing of the proposed access easement. • SUMMARY OF Planning Department Recommendation: Approval with conditions. ACTION: Hearing Examiner Decision: Approval of Short Plat and Exception; Denial of Waiver. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on September 21, 1977. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining available information on file with the .application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on September 27, 1977 at 10:40 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were sworn. • It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received, and reviewed the Planning Department report, and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. Michael Smith, Planning Department, reviewed Exhibit #1, and entered the following additional exhibits into the record: Exhibit #2: King County Assessor's Map Exhibit #3: Plat Map • Exhibit #4: Planning Department Plat Configuration Mr. Smith reported the inadequacy of an existing water main and indicated that installation of a 6 to 8-inch main had been recommended adjacent to the subject site. The Examiner noted that the 17.5-foot easement and the 12.5-foot easement served only two lots according to the King County Assessor's map; however, Exhibit #3 indicated • that the easement extension was longer. Mr. Smith advised that because the assessor's map may not always designate recorded easements, a title search would be required. The Examiner asked a representative from the Traffic Engineering Division to comment regarding the easement roadway. Responding was: • Paul Lumbert Traffic Engineering Division In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the establishment of a 32-foot easement as recommended in a memorandum from the Traffic Engineering Division, dated September 21, 1977, attached to Exhibit #1, Mr. Lumbert indicated that a joint project comprised of property owners on the northern 17.5-foot existing easement as well as the southern 12.5-foot existing easement could provide a 30-foot roadway. The Examiner asked Mr. Lumbert if joint development of this nature would set a precedent for future proposals and inquired about the possibility of installation of a fence to border the 12.5-foot . easement. Mr. Lumbert stated that under normal circumstances, an equal amount of property would be designated on both sides of the easement and indicated that although such fencelines had not been allowed on city property, King County had allowed the procedure. The Examiner referred to a letter attached to Exhibit #1 from Don Monaghan, Engineering Sh. P1. 078-77 Page' Two E-079-77 W-080-77 Design Division, which recommended denial of the request for exception to the Subdivision Ordinance because of inadequacy of the proposed 12.5-foot roadway for proper ingress and egress and suitable turnaround area. Mr. Lumbert reported that the easement originally was a temporary construction easement which has not been converted into a permanent easement possibly at the request of the property owner. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the desirability of the proposed 30-foot wide easement from Meadow Avenue North to Park Avenue North, Mr. Lumbert reported that the roadway would provide improved access through the area. The Examiner asked the applicant if he concurred in Exhibit #1. Responding was: Ernest Coleman 1100 North 36th Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Coleman indicated that he did not concur with the report with regard to access and limited number of lots. He objected to Item #P.1. of Exhibit #1 regarding proposed access and suggested an alternative of adding the 17.5-foot easement to allow a 30-foot roadway access to serve the proposed three-lot subdivision. Mr. Coleman advised that because of the location of existing power poles in the access roadway, paving should be delayed until the improvements were completed and the poles removed or relocated. He indicated that three sewer stubs had been installed on the property at considerable expense when subdivision into three lots had been anticipated. He reported that the size of the proposed lots was compatible with existing residential lots in the area and felt that low maintenance and taxes were factors to consider in subdividing the ' plat into three parcels. The Examiner asked for testimony in favor of the application. There was no response. The Examiner entered a letter signed by four residents on Park Avenue North in opposition to ,construction of three houses on the subject property and granting permission to build a substandard width easement with substandard paving. The letter was labeled Exhibit #5 by the Examiner. The Examiner asked for testimony in opposition to the application. Responding was: Charmaine Baker 3713 Meadow Avenue North . Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Baker submitted a letter containing 12 signatures from residents on Meadow Avenue North which she read into the record. The letter was labeled Exhibit #6. The residents opposed. the application because of nonconformance with size and standards of surrounding developed property, degradation of appearance of neighborhood as a result of previous short-platting in the area, and inadequacy of the existing easement. She inquired about Item #0.6. of Exhibit #1 relating to extension of a 6-inch water main from Park Avenue North to accommodate fire flow and service requirements and asked if the existing easement would be restored to its original condition following the project. Mr. Smith advised that the applicant would maintain the responsibility for restoration of the roadway. She questioned previous testimony relating to installation of a fence between the 12.5-foot easement and the 17.5-foot easement separating the paved portion from the existing roadway. Mr. Smith advised that a fence would not be installed. In response to Mrs. Baker's inquiry regarding width of the improved right-of-way in relation to a 3-lot short plat, Mr. Smith indicated that the easement would not meet city minimum requirements. She also inquired about material proposed for the easement and reported that crushed rock minimized dust and was preferable to gravel. Mrs. Baker further objected to the applicant's statement that lots of lesser size require less maintenance and advised that homes in the area are well-maintained by residents who desired comparable maintenance by new residents. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the possibility of formation of an L.I.D. for improvement of the existing easement, Mrs. Baker reported that the potential expense had precluded the project in the past. Responding was: Sherwood Martin 3728 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Martin objected to a three-lot plat configuration because of incompatibility with existing standards and size of surrounding property and reported favorable real estate appraisal of his own property due to large lots and country-like setting in the surrounding area. He also objected to increased traffic on the existing inadequate easement which he felt would produce an increase in dust, noise and deterioration of • 1 I` 41111 r A f y • Sh. P1. 078-77 Page Three E-079-77 W-080-77 the roadway. He stated that reduction in the size or quality of the 12.5-foot easement would encourage traffic to utilize the 17.5-foot easement causing an increase in noise, dust and traffic hazards. He stated that dust levels are intolerable at the present time due to heavy traffic on the unimproved easement and maintenance responsibilities would be imposed on existing property owners with the construction of three new homes. He also suggested that a speed deterrent be imposed in the area. The Examiner asked Mr. Martin if consideration had been given to oiling the roadway to reduce dust levels. Mr. Martin indicated that cooperation had not been successful in the past to ease the problem. The Examiner noted that the easement had been utilized as a public right-of- way for 18 years and expressed a concern that it currently would be considered a public street. Mr. Martin reported that the width of the roadway prevented it from being utilized as a public right-of-way. Responding was: Luanna Martin 3728 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Martin indicated a desire to close the easement as a solution to the existing access problems. In response to previous discussion regarding oiling of the easement. she noted that extreme expense of oil prices in prior years had precluded the procedure and residents had installed crushed rock to curtail the problem. She indicated that a problem presently exists with ownership of 110 feet of the access roadway east of Park Avenue North. Responding was: Jim Baker 3713 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Baker indicated that access had been assured to homeowners on the easement and had been utilized since his residency in 1961. He reported the problem of dust and indicated that fencing separating the proposed• easement from Mr. Coleman's property would cause an increase of traffic from Park Avenue. Responding was: Joan Moffatt 3709 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Moffatt expressed concerns regarding fire protection if the access were closed noting that her residence exists 1,000 feet from the nearest fire hydrant. She also expressed objection to a three-lot plat. Mr. Coleman indicated his concurrence with subdividing the property into a two-lot - configuration. He reported his intent to pave the street and remove the poles when improvements were installed but now is also required to extend a 6-inch main from Park Avenue, and he indicated his cooperation in contributing to the improvements. Mr. Martin expressed the desire to coordinate a mutually satisfactory agreement with the applicant prior to revisions in the access easement. The Examiner asked Mr. Smith for additions, corrections or modifications to Exhibit #1. Mr. Smith indicated his preference for a continuation of the hearing to allow the applicant and residents utilizing the easement to discuss alternatives for solution of access problems. He also advised that questions relating to the proposed water main should be directed to the Utilities Division of the Public Works Department. The Examiner asked the applicant if he favored a continuation of the hearing for the purpose of resolving problems relating to the easement and improved circulation to reduce future impact. Mr. Coleman objected to possible delay and potential expense in retaining an attorney during negotiations with property owners and restated his intent to improve the roadway. He objected. to continuation of the hearing for those reasons. The Examiner stated that sufficient justification did not *exist to require the applicant to negotiate a mutual agreement regarding access and for that reason he would not grant a continuance of the hearing. Mr. Coleman reported contacting the King County tax department regarding ownership of the easement east of Park Avenue North and the department had been unable to supply records to dispute that the portion of the 17.5-foot easement was not included. Mr. Martin subsequently withdrew his request to continue the hearing. di° di) v 1. Sh. P1. 078-77 Page Four E-079-77 W-080-77 Mr. Smith advised that if the hearing were not continued, the Planning Department wished to submit several comments at this time including protection of the slope by rockery on the 12.5-foot easement on the southern portion abutting the property facing Meadow Avenue North and removal or relocation of the existing power poles between the two easements. He indicated concurrence with Traffic Engineering recommendations to develop the 12.5-foot easement at this time with development and improvement of the 17.5-foot easement the responsibility of the abutting property owners. He corrected the width of the easement stated in Exhibit #1 to 30 feet. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding requirements for paving rather than crushed rock, Mr. Smith reported that a 10-foot paved driveway is required on a pipestem lot by city ordinance. The Examiner asked for further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on Item # Short Plat 078-77, E-079-77 and W-080-77 was closed by the Examiner at 12:15 p.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The request is for approval of a three-lot short plat, an Exception from Chapter 11 to allow access via a 12.5-foot easement, and a Waiver of off-site improvements. 2. The Planning Department report accurately sets forth the issues, applicable policies and provisions, findings of fact, and departmental recommendations in this matter, and is hereby attached as Exhibit #1 and incorporated in this report by reference as set forth in full therein. 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended by R.C.W. 43.21.C. , Gordon Y. Ericksen, responsible official, determined that the proposal is exempt from the threshold determination and EIS requirements. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. All existing utilities are available and in close proximity. 6. The proposal is compatible with the required setbacks, lot coverage and height requirements of Section 4-706 (R-1) , Title IV, Code of General Ordinances. 7. A 17.5-foot access easement abuts the north boundary of the proposed 12.5-foot easement. This 17.5-foot easement was created approximately 18 years ago, has never been closed to use by the general public, and was specified for use by properties along the north boundary of the easement. Residents of the area generally were not opposed to the applicant using the easement, but were concerned about the existing nuisance of dust that would be increased by additional traffic on the easement. 8. The dust problem in the existing 17.5-foot easement was not a matter for consideration by the Examiner, except in evaluation of the requested waiver of off-site improvements. 9. Upon consideration of the testimony, the applicant revised the request to a short plat of two lots. 10. The Traffic Engineering Division testified that approval of the proposed 12.5-foot easement would be unprecedented since the city has not allowed such small easements in the past. Some small easements had been approved under the King County administration. Joining of the 17.5-foot and 12.5-foot easements was considered most desirable, acceptable and precedented. No other points of access appear available to the property. Evidence was not submitted to indicate that the applicant attempted to join the easements. 11. The Utilities Division found that the existing 3-inch water line in Meadow Avenue North was of insufficient capacity and recommended that a 6-inch water line be brought from Park Avenue North to the site. The applicant protested the recommendation because of the costs involved. 12. Two utility poles, exist between the two easements which may require relocation due to access interference. 13. The grading of the 12.5-foot easement will probably produce a bank along the south portion of the easement and abutting the property facing Meadow Avenue North. This e. alp 0 Sh. P1. 078-77 Page Five E-079-77 W-080-77 bank may require stabilization. CONCLUSIONS: 1. . The short plat conforms to the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning requirements. 2. Since the 17.5-foot easement abutting the site has existed unrestricted for many years, it is a reasonable conclusion that public use of the easement can continue uninterrupted. The applicant can use the easement which was not contested but agreed to by parties at the hearing. Therefore, access exists between Meadow Avenue North and Park Avenue North. Similar to existing properties adjoining the 17.5-foot easement, individual driveways can extend to the easement. A turnaround facility is not needed. The dust problem resulting from use of the graveled 17.5-foot easement apparently has become significant. The application before the Examiner does not include solution of this problem. However, the impacted residents were appraised of possible alternatives to solving this mutual concern. The applicant expressed a willingness to participate in and contribute to the solution. 4. Joining of the two easements is a reasonable solution to the access needs of the properties along both easements. Based upon available testimony it appears that the applicant may unrestrictedly use the 17.5-foot easement which does not provide sufficient width for adequate improvements. Adding the proposed 12.5-foot easement will provide a total of 30 feet of easement for improvements, thereby becoming more acceptable for access and circulation while retaining the status of primarily a private easement/street. This will require relocation of the two existing utility poles. 5. Improvement (paving) of the 17.5-foot easement remains to be resolved by the parties abutting the easement since improvements were not required under King County jurisdiction. On the other hand, the applicant is seeking division of his land under city jurisdiction which requires pavement of the proposed 12.5-foot easement unless a waiver is granted. In the Examiner's review of the waiver application, the most applicable criteria for evaluation of the request are: a. ". . .absence of such improvements located within a reasonable distance. " (Section 9-1105.6.B. b. "That there are special physical circumstances or conditions affecting said property such that the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use or development of his land." (Section 9-1109.1.A) c. "That the exception is necessary to insure such property the rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under similar circumstances. " (Section 9-1109.1.B) d. "That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. " (Section 9-1109.1.C.) It is clear that the existing abutting 17.5-foot easement is only graveled and that the applicant has requested to be able to improve his proposed 12.5-foot easement in the same manner. The easement will be slightly more than 300 feet in length which constitutes a large sum of money for pavement and may prevent development of his land. Putting gravel or crushed rock on the 12.5-foot easement will probably contribute to the dust problem that exists, consequently adversely impacting people and properties in the area. Paving this easement will not produce this impact but would be the applicant's contribution to improvement of the total of 30-foot easement. It would then be up to the remaining property owners to follow suit in eliminating the dust problem. Sh. P1. 078-77 Page Six :► E-079-77 W-080-77 6. The capacity of the water line in Meadow Avenue North appears to be inadequate to serve the needs of the neighborhood as well as the applicant's proposal. Since it has not been shown that the applicant is significantly adding to the existing overload situation, it is unreasonable to require the applicant to . install at his expense a new 6-inch water line from Park Avenue North to serve only his proposed three lots. It is reasonable to assume that such a new line will serve other properties as well or to reduce the overload on the undersized line in Meadow Avenue North. Therefore, it is apparent that others will benefit from such an installation. In fact this improvement may be extremely difficult to construct since.the applicant does not possess a utility easement from his property to Park Avenue North. The L.I.D. process is the logical and reasonable solution to providing this recommended water line. DECISION: Based upon the record, testimony, findings and conclusions, it is the Examiner's decision to: 1. Approve the short plat per Exhibit #3. 2. Approve the Exception to allow a 12.5-foot access easement provided such easement includes all parties having access to or abutting the adjacent 17.5-foot easement. 3. Disapproval of the Waiver of the off-site improvement of paving. All utility poles and obstructions between the 12.5-foot and 17.5-foot easements shall be removed. Any exposed banks shall be stabilized to prevent erosion and sluffing. This decision is further conditioned upon review by the Planning Department for compliance with these conditions. ORDERED THIS 5th day of October, 1977. L. Rick Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of October, 1977 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Paul Lumbert Ernest Coleman Charmaine Baker Sherwood Martin Luanna Martin Jim Baker Joan Moffatt TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of October, 1977 to the following: Charles J. Delaurenti Council President George J. Perry Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Ron Nelson, Building Division Gerard M. Shellan, City Attorney Pursuant to' Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before October 19, 1977. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or. fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request. for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV. Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with.the City Clerk accompanying a filing fee of $25.00 and meeting • other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection in the City Clerk's office, first floor of City Hall, or same may be purchased at cost in said office. Li-b1O- s LL-ogo-PA LL-QLO JY I -wogs N1 'ro9 'Y 150M11 as7 `1115 .frn1r®n5 s oar;,i ;'V,s 6 I i I i 0c , 0 D d Q OO oo 0 0 0 q k /O 00 a Js iil%' 0Q ❑ 4® ® 0...k. IC 1. R -o I � C ..--- is vs, r ' U zz k *oar Oar Ilk MIAMI op Lip gir De B a 15 f'l Of N . GOON Ski OOZL9 ° . c30 0 110I ❑L 1 p 4 i .� yyyp//`� t 'Y S Y w .. � 4 * x s .4. r,.7 R� M. .. ., .t . ... . �'"-�` i�S��K d'?r.Vi:!fi }'.'Sri. .••`l,-- :-; .;a• '. .:,Ls !:!kfYF, :1 .T , .` N 1 'fir. • [r AY c 'A3'. fC ,v.,4,, LL'7 :r Y' _ �J �'F�IN�A�N RTMEN i..y �tJlr.'.{�n'.1:`rI r,:T,:.' ,,,-�•,.f: �✓�.�M1� i S. + RE iit'l 'r5.... .:J� - . ; ��_ d - 1 fi ,• Jr� -a�`, = NON, wA NGTON' ''�L. t�,q, hRE C 1..,y .n. i ai„r - < - V.. '�:,✓',a'�.•,:�:',Y:, r„j, 'V �� .. .tea S' . 'fif ,,,1.':: .i',: _ yr' ((( �''� lei • 'TOTAL , d f • E MARSHAL .„. . ANCE DIRECTOR BY ^,3L'r;, 3c L is 4E r' , a ' �rh.: t r`I^`1' Deo emb er 23, 1977 Mr. George Perry, President Renton City Council Municipal Building 200 Mill Ave. So. Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Mr. Perry* Enclosed is a copy of a letter sent to Mr. L. Rick Beeler, Land Use Hearing Examiner as a result of a Public Hearing conducted on September 27th and the resulting minutes and findings which were sent to us. We are formally appealing the Examiner's decision (City Codes Title IV, Section 3016). A check for $25.00 accompanies this letter to be paid to the City Clerk. Our strongest objection to Mr. Coleman 's request had to do with building three houses in an area designed for two. During the process of the hearing Mr. Coleman revised his request and concurred with subdividing the property into a two-lot configuration. .(See Page Three of Public Hearing minutes dated October 5, 1977, Paragraph 5.) His concurrence was reiterated on page four of the minutes under Findings, Item number 9. since we had no objections to Mr. Coleman developing the property into a two-lot configuration, there was no appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision. By accident we discovered Mr. Coleman was proceeding with plans to develop a three-lot configuration and that the Hearing Examiner con- curred in this development. The minutes were not clear on this decision and it was only because of a phone call to the Hearing Examiner by Mrs. Baker that the Examiner realized the discrepancy that appeared in the minutes. He consulted the City Attorney and the enclosed letter, dated December 12, 1977 to Mr. Ernest R. Coleman and Parties of Record, subject File No. Short Plat 078-77, Ernest R. Coleman was the result of that conversation. As we said in our letter to Mr. Beeler, we feel that he'has been less than straight foreward in this matter and we feel that it has been handled in a very underhanded manner. We therefore request- that the City Council examine all pertinent documents on record as a result of this public hearing, plus the written decision, findings and conclusions. We feel there is substantial error in fact or law exi sting in the record and we ask that the property continue to be zoned as a two-lot configuration. Sincerely, 0 Al./ cc Charles J. Delaurenti , Mayor AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING • State of Washington) County of King Marilyn J. Petersen , being, first duly sworn, upon oath disposes and states: That on the 5th day of October , 19. 77 , affiant deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below-entitled application or petition. Subscribed and sworn this day of CA(XNe< 19 -(`( . ' 03(‘).0S. -1!)(\ \-\ULY '‘" Notary Public in and for the 'State of Washington, residing at Renton Application, Petition or Case: Ernest Coleman, Sh. P1. 078-77, E-079=77, W-080-77 (The m-i.nute4 contain a £Ls.t of the paAti.e's necond) • 0 4111 October 5, 1977 _ OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON • • REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION , APPLICANT: Ernest Coleman FILE NO. Sh. P1. 078-77 E-079-77 W-080-77 LOCATION: Property located west of Meadow Avenue North midway between North 36th Street and North 38th Street and east of Park Avenue North. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests approval of a proposed three (3) lot short plat, with approval of an exception to allow access to the short plat via a private easement road 12.5 feet in • width, together with a waiver of the off-site improvement requirements to allow gravelled surfacing of the proposed access easement. SUMMARY OF Planning Department Recommendation: Approval with conditions. ACTION: • ' Hearing Examiner Decision: Approval of Short Plat and Exception; Denial of Waiver. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on September 21, 1977. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining . available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on September 27, 1977 at 10:40 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were sworn. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the Planning Department report, and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. Michael Smith, Planning Department, reviewed Exhibit #1, and entered the following additional exhibits into the record: ' Exhibit #2: King County Assessor's Map Exhibit #3: Plat Map ' Exhibit #4: Planning Department Plat Configuration Mr. Smith reported the inadequacy of an existing water main and indicated that installation of a 6 to 8-inch main had been recommended adjacent to the subject site. The Examiner noted that the 17.5-foot easement and the 12.5-foot easement' served only two lots according to the King County Assessor's map; however, Exhibit •#3 indicated that the easement extension was longer. Mr. Smith advised that because the assessor's map may not always designate recorded easements, a title search would be required. The Examiner asked a representative from the Traffic Engineering Division to comment regarding the easement roadway. Responding was: ., f Paul Lumbert Traffic Engineering Division ' In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the establishment of a 32-foot easement as recommended in a memorandum from the Traffic Engineering Division, dated September 21, 1977, attached to Exhibit #1, Mr. Lumbert indicated that a joint project comprised of property owners on the northern 17.5-foot existing easement as well as the southern 12.5-foot existing easement could provide a 30-foot roadway. The Examiner asked Mr. Lumbert if joint development of this nature would set a precedent for future proposals and inquired about the possibility of installation of a fence to border the 12.5-foot easement. Mr. Lumbert stated that under normal. circumstances, an equal amount of property • would be designated on both sides of the easement and indicated that although such fencelines had not been allowed on city property, King County had allowed the procedure. The Examiner referred to a letter attached to Exhibit #1 from Don Monaghan, Engineering 4111• Sh. P1. 078-77 Page Two E-079-77 W-080-77 . , Design Division, which recommended denial of the request for exception to the Subdivision Ordinance because of inadequacy of the proposed 12.5-foot roadway for proper ingress and egress and suitable turnaround area. Mr. Lumbert reported that the easement originally was a temporary construction easement which has 'not been converted into a permanent easement possibly at the request of the property owner. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the desirability of the proposed 30-foot wide easement from Meadow Avenue North to Park Avenue North, Mr. Lumbert reported that the roadway would provide improved access through the area. • The Examiner asked the applicant if he concurred in Exhibit #1. Responding was: Ernest Coleman 1100 North 36th Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Coleman indicated that he did not concur with the report with regard to access and limited number of lots. He objected to Item #P.1. of Exhibit #1 regarding proposed access and suggested an alternative of adding the 17.5-foot easement to allow a 30-foot roadway access to serve the proposed three-lot subdivision. Mr. Coleman advised that because of the location of existing power poles in the access roadway, paving should be delayed until the 'improvements were completed and the poles removed or relocated. He indicated that three sewer stubs had been installed on the property at considerable expense when subdivision into three lots had been anticipated. He reported that the size 'of the proposed lots was compatible with existing residential lots in the area and felt that low maintenance and taxes were factors to consider in subdividing the plat into three parcels. The Examiner asked for testimony in favor of the application. There was no response. The Examiner entered a letter signed by four residents on Park Avenue North in opposition to construction of three houses on the subject property and granting permission to build a substandard width easement with substandard paving. The letter was labeled Exhibit #5 by the Examiner. The Examiner asked for testimony in opposition to the application. Responding was: Charmaine Baker 3713 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Baker submitted a letter containing 12 signatures from residents on Meadow Avenue North which she read into the record. The letter was labeled Exhibit #6. The residents opposed the application, because of nonconformance with size and standards of surrounding developed property, degradation of appearance of neighborhood as a result of previous short-platting in the area, and inadequacy of the existing easement. She. inquired about Item #0.6. of Exhibit #1 relating to extension of a 6-inch water main from Park Avenue North to accommodate fire flow and service requirements and asked if the existing easement would be restored to its original condition following •the project. . Mr. Smith advised that the applicant would maintain the responsibility for restoration of the roadway. She questioned previous testimony relating to installation of a fence between the 12.5-foot easement and the 17.5-foot easement separating the paved portion from the existing roadway. Mr. Smith advised that a fence would not be installed. In response to Mrs. Baker's inquiry regarding width of the improved right-of-way in relation to a 3-lot short plat, Mr. Smith indicated that the easement would not meet city minimum requirements. She also inquired about material proposed for the easement and reported that crushed rock 'minimized dust and was preferable to gravel. Mrs. Baker further objected to the applicant's statement that lots of lesser size require less maintenance and advised that homes in the area are well-maintained by residents who desired comparable maintenance by new residents. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the possibility of formation of an L.I.D. for improvement of the existing easement, Mrs. Baker reported that the potential expense had precluded the project in • the past. Responding was: • Sherwood Martin 3728 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 • Mr. Martin objected to a three-lot plat configuration because of incompatibility with existing standards and size of surrounding property and reported favorable real estate appraisal of his own property due to large lots and country-like setting in the surrounding area. He also objected to increased traffic on the existing inadequate easement which he felt would produce an increase in dust, noise and deterioration of i Sh. P1. 078-77 Page Three E-079-77 W-080-77 the roadway. He stated that reduction in the size or quality of the 12.5-foot easement would encourage traffic to utilize the 17.5-foot easement causing an increase in noise, dust and traffic hazards. He stated that dust levels are intolerable at the present time due to heavy traffic on the unimproved easement and maintenance responsibilities would be imposed on existing property owners with the construction of three new homes. He also suggested that a speed deterrent be imposed in the area. The Examiner asked Mr. Martin if consideration had been given to oiling the roadway to reduce dust levels. Mr. Martin indicated that cooperation had not been successful in the past to ease the problem. The Examiner noted that the easement had been utilized as a public right-of- way for 18 years and expressed a concern that it currently would be considered a public street. Mr. Martin reported that the width of the roadway prevented it from being utilized as a public right-of-way. Responding was: Luanna Martin 3728 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Martin indicated a desire to close the easement as a solution to the existing access problems. In response to previous discussion regarding oiling of the easement she noted that extreme expense of oil prices in prior years had precluded the procedure and residents had installed crushed rock to curtail the problem. She indicated that a problem presently exists with ownership of 110 feet of the access roadway east of Park Avenue North. Responding was: Jim Baker 3713 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Baker indicated that access had been assured to homeowners on the easement and had been utilized since his residency in 1961. He reported the problem of dust and indicated that fencing separating the proposed easement from Mr. Coleman's property would cause an increase of traffic from Park Avenue. Responding was: • Joan Moffatt 3709 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Moffatt expressed concerns regarding fire protection if the access were closed noting that her residence exists 1,000 feet from the nearest fire hydrant. She also expressed objection to a three-lot plat. Mr. Coleman indicated his concurrence with subdividing the property into a two-lot configuration. He reported his intent to pave the street and remove the poles when improvements were installed but now is also required to extend a 6-inch main from Park Avenue, and he indicated his cooperation in contributing to the improvements. Mr. Martin expressed the desire to coordinate a mutually satisfactory agreement with the applicant prior to revisions in the access easement. The Examiner asked Mr. Smith for additions, corrections or modifications to Exhibit #1. Mr. Smith indicated his preference for a continuation of the hearing to allow the applicant and residents utilizing the easement to discuss alternatives for solution of access problems. He also advised that questions relating to the proposed water main should be directed to the Utilities Division of the Public Works Department. The Examiner asked the applicant if he favored a continuation of the hearing for the purpose of resolving problems relating to the easement and improved circulation to reduce future impact. Mr. Coleman objected to possible delay and potential expense in retaining an • attorney during negotiations with property owners and restated his intent to improve the roadway. He objected to continuation of the hearing for those reasons. The Examiner stated that sufficient justification did not exist to require the applicant to negotiate a mutual agreement regarding access and for that reason he would not grant a continuance of the hearing. Mr. Coleman reported contacting the King County tax department regarding ownership of the easement east of Park Avenue North and the department had been unable to supply records to dispute that the portion of the 17.5-foot easement was not included. Mr. Martin subsequently withdrew his request to continue the hearing. I . py • Sh. P1. 078-77 Page Four E-079-77 W-080-77 Mr. Smith advised that if the hearing were not continued, the Planning Department wished to submit several comments at this time including protection of the slope by rockery on'the 12.5-foot easement on the southern portion abutting the property facing Meadow Avenue North and removal or relocation of the existing power poles between the two easements. He indicated concurrence with Traffic Engineering recommendations to develop the 12.5-foot easement at this time with development and improvement of the 17.5-foot easement the responsibility of the abutting property owners. He corrected the width of the easement stated in Exhibit #1 to 30 feet. In response to the Examiner's inquiry . regarding requirements for paving rather than crushed rock, Mr. Smith reported that a 10-foot paved driveway is required on a pipestem lot by city ordinance. The Examiner asked for further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on Item # Short Plat. 078-77, E-079-77 and W-080-77 was closed by the Examiner at 12:15 p.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The request is for approval of a •three-lot short plat, an Exception from Chapter 11 • to allow access via a 12.5-foot easement, and a Waiver of off-site improvements. 2. The Planning Department report accurately sets forth the issues, applicable policies and provisions, findings of fact, and departmental recommendations in this matter, and is hereby attached as Exhibit #1 and incorporated in this report by reference as set forth in full therein. 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended by R.C.W. 43.21.C. , Gordon Y. Ericksen, responsible official, determined that the proposal is exempt from the threshold determination and EIS requirements. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. All existing utilities are available and in close proximity. 6. The proposal is compatible with the required setbacks, lot coverage and height requirements of Section 4-706 (R-1) , Title IV, Code of General Ordinances. 7. A 17.5-foot access easement abuts the north boundary of the proposed 12.5-foot • easement. This 17.5-foot easement was created approximately 18' years ago, has never been closed to use by the general public, and was specified for use by properties along the north boundary of the easement. Residents of the area generally were not opposed to the applicant using the easement, but were concerned about the existing nuisance of dust that would be increased by additional traffic on the easement. 8. The dust problem in the existing 17.5-foot easement was not a matter for consideration by the Examiner, except in evaluation of the requested waiver of off-site improvements. • 9. Upon consideration of the testimony, the applicant revised the request to a., . short plat of two lots. 10. The Traffic Engineering Division testified that approval of the proposed 12.5-foot easement would be unprecedented since the city has not allowed such small easements in the past. Some small' easements had been approved under the King County administration. Joining of the 17.5-foot and 12.5-foot easements was considered _ most desirable, .acceptable and precedented. No other points of access appear available to the property. Evidence was not submitted to indicate that the applicant attempted to join the easements. 11. The Utilities Division found that the existing 3-inch water line in Meadow Avenue North was of insufficient capacity and recommended that a 6-inch water line be brought from Park Avenue North to the site. The applicant protested the recommendation because of the costs involved. • 12. Two utility poles. exist between the two easements which may require relocation due to access interference. • 13. The grading of the 12.5-foot easement will probably produce a bank along the south portion of the easement and abutting the property facing Meadow Avenue North. This Sh. Pl. 078-77 Page Six E-079-77 W-080.-77 6. The capacity of the water line in Meadow Avenue North appears to be inadequate to serve the needs of the neighborhood as well as the applicant's proposal. Since it has not been shown that the applicant is significantly adding to the existing overload situation, it is unreasonable to require the applicant to install at his expense a new 6-inch water line from Park Avenue North to serve only his proposed three lots. It is reasonable to assume that such a new line will serve other properties as well or to reduce the overload on the undersized line in Meadow Avenue North. Therefore, it is apparent that others will benefit from such an installation. In fact this improvement may be extremely difficult to construct since the applicant does not possess a utility easement from his property to Park Avenue North. The L.I.D. process is the logical and reasonable solution to providing• this recommended water line. DECISION: Based upon the record, testimony, findings and conclusions, it is the Examiner's decision to: 1. Approve the short plat per Exhibit #3. 2. Approve the Exception. to allow a 12.5-foot access easement provided such easement includes all parties having access to or abutting the adjacent 17.5-foot easement. 3. Disapproval of the Waiver of the off-site improvement of paving. All utility poles and obstructions between the 12.5-foot and 17.5-foot easements shall be removed. Any exposed banks shall be stabilized to prevent erosion and sluffing. This decision is further conditioned upon review by the Planning Department for compliance with these conditions. ORDERED THIS 5th day of October, 1977. /. L. Rick Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of October, 1977 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Paul Lumbert Ernest Coleman Charmaine Baker Sherwood Martin Luanna Martin Jim Baker Joan Moffatt TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of October, 1977 to the following: -Charles J. Delaurenti Council President George J. Perry Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Ron Nelson, Building Division. Gerard M. Shellan, City Attorney Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015. of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before October 19, 1977. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's ,decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV. Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying a filing fee of $25.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection in the City Clerk's office, first floor of City Hall, or same may be purchased at cost in said office. Sh. P1. . 078-77 Page Five E-079-77 W-080-77 bank may require stabilization. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The short plat conforms to the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning requirements. 2. Since the 17.5-foot easement abutting the site has existed unrestricted for many years, it is a reasonable conclusion that public use of the easement can continue uninterrupted. The applicant can use the easement which was not contested but agreed to by parties at the hearing. Therefore, access exists between Meadow Avenue North and Park Avenue North. Similar to existing properties adjoining the 17.5-foot easement, individual driveways can extend to the easement. A turnaround facility is not needed. The dust problem resulting from use of the graveled 17.5-foot easement apparently has become significant. The application before the Examiner does not include solution of this problem. However, the impacted residents were appraised of possible alternatives to solving this mutual concern. The applicant expressed a willingness to participate in and contribute to the solution. 4. Joining of the two easements is a reasonable solution to the access needs of the , properties along both easements. Based upon available testimony it appears that the applicant may unrestrictedly use the 17.5-foot easement which does not provide sufficient width for adequate improvements. Adding the proposed 12.5-foot easement will provide a total of 30 feet of easement for improvements, thereby becoming more acceptable for access and circulation while retaining the status of primarily a private easement/street. This will require relocation of the two existing utility poles. 5. Improvement (paving) of the 17.5-foot easement remains to be resolved by the parties abutting the easement since improvements were not required under King County jurisdiction. On the other hand, the applicant is seeking division of his land under city jurisdiction which requires pavement of the proposed 12.5-foot easement unless a waiver is granted. In the Examiner's review of the waiver application, the most applicable criteria for evaluation of the request are: a. ". . .absence of such improvements located within a reasonable distance. " (Section 9-1105.6.B. b. "That there are special physical circumstances or conditions affecting said property such that the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use or development of his land." (Section 9-1109.1.A) c. "That the exception is necessary to insure such property the rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under similar circumstances. " (Section 9-1109.1.B) d. "That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity." (Section 9-1109.1.C.) It is clear that the existing abutting 17.5-foot easement is only graveled and that the applicant has requested to be able to improve his proposed 12.5-foot easement in the same manner. The easement will be slightly more than 300 feet in length which constitutes a large sum of money for pavement and may prevent development of his land. Putting gravel or crushed rock on the 12.5-foot easement will probably contribute to the dust problem that exists, consequently adversely impacting people and properties in the area. Paving this easement will not produce this impact but would be the applicant's contribution to improvement of the total of 30-foot easement. It would then be up to the remaining property owners to follow suit in eliminating the dust problem. RECEIVE : . CITY. OF RENTON : . :1:_J HIBIT . .r� `;;SHEARING'EXAMINER ,,SEP_,2 ;?1977 :;.'T EM . No •l=P a7/ �7 _ • j 0 . 77 Cv 6 o yi September 26, 1977:.. Subject: Application for:-3-lot short plat approval,. exception to .subdi- 'vision, ordinance regarding access, and waiver of off-site improve- ments, "_Files, gek.078-77, E-079.77, and W-080-77. - We ,the'Undersigned : 1; Are opposed to the construction of., three houses on the ,Coleman -property. . because:. . . a. It:would degrade `the appearance of the neigborhood;. b.' , Lt would not :conform to the size and standards" of' the surrounding ::':.• •;.:developed property. C. It. would increase: traffic on the existing easements which are not intended•,for:access to the Coleman 'property,:.bu_t: which can- not: now be controlled in such a way as to prevent 'their use for - that purpose. Any: increase ;in traffic would .produce' unacceptable,- levels of dust, noise, hazard, and deterioration on the narrow, graveled' existing 'easePents. : 2.'. Are 'opposed to the'granting. ,of .permission .to build .a substandard-width easement' with substandard..paving because: a. Substandard`paving a?so would contribute:'.to an i-ncr:ease: in, the ' - dust level in the air. This penetrates our hOmes and creates signif " " icant problems in housekeeping, cleanliness, and health. ' - b. Any reduction in the size or quality of, the easement makes it " less .desireable to use, the Coleman-property easement and more desire- _ _able to use the ' .easement off Park'Avenue, again leading to the; traffic, , noise, health, and hazard, -problems cited above.. It should be noted that the, existing easement's are not only inadequate to higher traffic demands in terms ,of their present quality, but they are also very close - to our. homes. : . In the event that Mr'.: Coleman -would be willing to work out an arrangement whereby he would do something to alleviate the problems - Mentioned,,,:and.help.,us :With -the-:maintenance . .cost which will be, imposed on us, we migbit 'then;. be,':willing"••tp'-agree ;to the construction of !a less ' than standard-width :easement to his property, l •... 1 . 7 2 ,;r1/7&M I e•. - - 3.7 RECEIVED -;. ._. .._ _. _,_ _, _. CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER ITEM NO, P F, 77,, 7 9-77,41-0 SEP 2 71977 September 26, 1977 AM PM 7,8,9,10,11,12,1,213,4,5,6 We the undersigned have reviewed Mr. H. Coleman 's application for a three-lot short plat approval Files No. 078-77, E-079-77 and W-080-77. (See attachment) We strongly object to the application, for development of three lots in an area now zoned for two for the following reasons, t. to In other areas where short platting has been permitted the resulting buildings have degraded the appearance of the neighborhood. 2. Three-lot development does not conform to the size and standards of the surrounding developed property. 3. The existing easement even with the addition of the proposed widening would not be adequate for the amount of traffic that would be generated by three additional houses. We understand Mr. Coleman 's desire to develop the property, but we feel it should be done properly and conform to the standards of the neighborhood. We do not object to the variance allowing the widened road to be an additional 12.5 feet rather than 17.5 as ordinarily required since further widening would jeopardize the existing steps on a developed lot. We do not feel that Mr. Coleman should be required to pave the 12.5 addition, but since improving the two lots will require heavy equip- ment on the existing road, we feel Mr. Coleman should be required to restore the entire easement with crushed rock mince the easement road is narrow, the property should be developed to provide a turn around and adequate parking for each of the two lots so that there is no encroachment on the neighbor' s private drives and parking areas. If this was done we do, not feel that the turn around suggested by the planning department on the western end of the property would be required. Very Sincerely Yours, g az-i 3 7/3 WerA4w€1.,' /1v11 37/3 a aJ/rt. Di reGrO' xI of iii/c �'cch�'e%Fj 4 cross ',Yf a7v9 Men 06Li At/t. /V. 1/177:, 37 0, AZ-1-4 /1 . (7)/e e-r o- ,. .= Pgo Pee r flee bss �ASrry,6N7) a&D? .9MZl//l./1Zl 8 9 / 7 /�z 3 '7/ 7 ) 9 CutFs .• F l �� i/ /,%i � .r�l. , ./ / 4 4 I a•d j/ '174 ( aP'24Z " riA2* - No9 /ce 4 OF 41 z THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON. WASH. 98055 '.:-.11T V'n ,ti O1 o . S CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 04)4ep SEP� -N-‘'�� September 12 , 1977 Mr. Ernest R. Coleman 222 Williams Ave . So . Renton , WA 98055 RE : NOTICE OF APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR APPLICATION FOR 3-LOT SHORT PLAT APPROVAL, EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REGARDING ACCESS, AND WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, Files No. 078-77, E-079-77, and W-080-77; property located along tile west side of Meadow Ave. No. between No. 38th St. and No. 36th St. Dear Mr. Coleman : The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on September 6 , 1977 . A public • hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for September 27 , 1977 , 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 B y : / ,./ ! c ae . SmJh ✓' ssociate Planner } MLS : wr cc : Kenneth J . Oyler Y 1 O 4 R 'l' A. 0 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT r 11.` :: r.)...- „r o BUILDING DIVISION 235 -2540 WI y MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 .45 o94TFD SEP-CC0 September 12, 1977 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR TO: Planning Department - • FROM: Jim Hanson, Building Division SUBJECT: Coleman Short Plat Following are our comments concerning the Short Plat and Waiver: 1. It appears that five lots are created by this Short Plat' l • 2. A precedent would be established if the Iprivate road is allowed. 3. If the private road is allowed, minimum standards should be set for improvements } and maintenance. ---( \...- 4 JCH/mp V 1 \ • ., •\ . ii ci, -1:-.1./,iL,) 0 ,,,, f ii,G lh ilk . Oil y! jn r� r/ r /2.. - PL,./://bl/,/el DE-PT (4/Ze ,z.-/ /144- - --- - Prx,- ti• gi\/ei/a .-----crti./a) per.,5.Av/%J era/61v-e-71 ; E', G',04,,-;•z.lz_:-.--z. 50tmt-T p/4,4 • .5(..t - ru-t Imo- 3 r. Z. IL'arc,"-L.) A 4'/_71-e— / —p r44 iu 4.4 prp...4_I do S.4 my?" 7471 /s• de$epecai-L.41 l 1-.0a'd nt-e.t.5,71- 17- . /pi+-p YIP e..t..e t m//9, ,r _-tea .aj 1.C . p_o--LA, i fryI) G rz /v€4,-t-s 4- el 7.ire„,,,a-k/ el 1--7/ i p/9 , die, a/71e� .514I-r GvC*¢•�.14 . de-t�.r_ i� �c 1 LUctl-r-c f�- /-",•9 e.i1 r-e.'-X� pI ?I / 2- p rr va h.- re,ea'Ct i.,/r .�. r',ter L.".r„-7- u)/71;4.. a- Si.,-1_-1 -lay 'e'-ac...)t.l_l -P - C x e...4 I 149 /i/e 6/ a'72 ?(, .pts, ?-e-i"'e',-, Aid GL.- /?. j�.ervc fell,-e1A- Crlr r; 57 Hc.(...-A 4-12.s e- S 1.44-�3--- �i-141-1-^ 7l-e. /n..t'S�.1'7 -, r,.�i d'4_ a ,1 e. -4.P,/f e,.e.,..( 10r-orA-t 17 / L.t,Jdi / e.,4, Az, 5 St.t Se -. Pjf: r^ V ,4 e' ..71//0 . 1/ ec-I, , /5 deoAA hm.e-r - ra e /A Te 74,4e "..)rdrea ec' / .6. , r; r g,IICL'e..,412.1 /,5 /r7 el oleo j1'.4t. .ale- 741./ r n_9,-4''tee,ee G-u.re ! iyre., 1,/ e-45..3, ,r',/e'4 / e" 4. PLO %`i-1 -11- e2.4.-eck.z.w,...) /3 ,t,'a r"�1 A id ed i ?/a.--,I4,.:c... r= C.c:.= /.c-O--` `t;') e..._-,al.v-''-.,i.n..,, c)i..erii.,...,a..,..,..:r,.. ,.a-t._.!,-.0 Q • ,,t,.,1. te--- q ". A .'- Ste._/:'.-_ 6 0 ) may`f.�.... f)✓'"-7z f..•'• , t %?'!•',t-L.di' ' A',-. c&C‘ WV °I- i) v zap o . St •9��( • PC/ lb lb MEMORANDUM • • DATE: September 21, 1977 • • • TO: Planning Department _ Mike Smith FROM: Traffic Engineering Division SUBJECT: E. Coleman Short Plat • To bring the proposed plat into acceptable limits from the standard, keeping public safety and general welfare of the city upmost in our mind, we would recommend the proposed area be divided into two lots and the proposed roadway and adjacent roadway to the north be developed jointly to a minimum 32 foot width with a sidewalk on the south side. A division into two lots would be consistent with other property divisions in the vicinity. 1 �J CEM:ad C 7l-- s �........e--... .. • S MEMORANDUM :..> ly,' FROM THE DESK OF: FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU ,\\ 9/22/77 RENTON FIRE DEPARTMENT �— ;; Gg01 *MIX I at AMEK X TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: E. COLEMAN SHORT PLAT D`p �%/ yr a. AN APPROVED WATER SUPPLY CAPABLE OF SUPPLYING REQUIRED FIRE FLOW FOR FIRE PROTECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED TO ALL PREMISES UPON WHICH BUILD NGS OR PORTIONS OF BUILDINGS ARE HEREAFTER CONSTRUCTED. WHEN ANY PORTION OF THE BUILDING PROTECTED IS IN EXCESS OF 150' FROM A WATER SUPPLY ON A UBLIC STREET, THERE SHALL BE PRO— VIDED ON SITE FIRE HYDRANTS AND MAINS CAPABLE OF SUPPLYING THE REQUIRED FIRE FLOW. 2. EVERY BUILDING HEREAFTER CONSTRUCTED SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE TO FIRE DEPARTMENT APPARATUS BY WAY OF ACCESS ROADWAY WITH ALL WEATHER DRIVING SURFACE OF NOT LESS THAN 20' OF UNOBSTRUCTED WIDTH WITH ADEQUATE ROADWAY TURNING RADIUS CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING THE IMPOSED LOADS OF FIRE APPARATUS AND HAVING A MINIMUM OF 131 6. OF VERTICLE CLEARANCE. / ( E.V. WOOTON, JR., FIRE I SPECTOR 4110 INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW REQUEST TO : UBLIC WORKS DIRECTO BUILDING DIVISIO ENGINEERING DIVISION" r. 1k1 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION 4 UTILITIES DIVISION co01>wy"«'S FIRE DEPARTMENT HEALTH DEPARTMENT FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT P`4.6411(, 5-(rrt4 Contact Person R E : . ftL—Ei+.A A&_.) / 1-4oi T �I�j T r,7 y -- 77 Please review the attached information regarding the subject proposal and return it to the Planning Department by 9 /G,/7'7 with your written recommendatio . Your response will be included as part of the staff report to the Hearing Examiner. Thank you , PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' Date W71 r fir _ -. . I7 5 .. '2 :J f1f F . Lam)' _ e Loy, Ge-ed G,�,� a;t ' ��f 2:�. _ _ :,1 — f f ,� 3/4 pr► va �e ) 1.r— r _ , 2 D/-2O 5[_/7 • A20e ni 7B' • 75' 7c9'' '_ �" -‹ I . I Q • i v ' C R /4 -•*1 - • - . I ; I 7g' 78' 7 fl '` • j -,-- • RECE- lED o -' - D�s�/2rvT'ip� SEA 2 �977 . 7i•-� EA5 T 3/2 ' o.� 7724 c r 99 aF c. /!ZA/44 s • • � �, .. . Z 4 . 1/45-//Mjrav &4 � Acl of Ep,,v Di✓. Na .2,v � /f E^ o P7' T,'i 6I9 ST So' i�?i'E SUuTiY 9�/ ' /NG p %/ . f 4 1 SQ Fr rot �a°rea- • 4/ 54 FT sc - - - /<Eti//-/E TN ,J OYLER CZ S`L. .S 2.C,5-605'U j P0. 5c.< 2258 R J rnki 6•z/r' 98055 . �.✓Rtrz „�alN 8 iN O�p. ,Aw Hp�� 'Pb ea- ►r./S�na.�� �,2o r1 _ PAeLK A�/G- NI T -I1 To Lor A- Oa- A. �'r Frw— P,o4'C / L.//i°f:A�,�• '/� '` J < .�-/ '!�"' 1, y=C; ,C'-,, . , , /2 COL:. =-/ 1 . r:.z ��.':-G.+: '/i:i /1/ . S, ie,E+Ai P 7'!./, LC14J F:a 0 • A•1,-1JZ 23. /5'77 105 A.lo 5c,47,..E • /"=40' ; 77C7/ 7 lb 11111/ INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW REOUEST TO : PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR BUILDING DIVISION ENGINEERING DIVIS_ION� • Cz!r?� TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISIONd . - UTILITIES DIVISION 'No co,.„.•cW-r FIRE DEPARTMENT HEALTH DEPARTMENT FROM : . PLANNING DEPARTMENT //Lt - �c._ GcT7- Contact Person RE : ( t t .it-/ArJ J G -T"i(74,-) 1—o UG171 V I St car. (`) PoJAiLG5 0 %rz.(\J 4-r 5'TIYzk-11 i t s S T/a,,-) QuI(ZL.D SD P11121 Il) tti►DTA . )1L--" E-07..-77 Please review the attached information regarding the subject proposal and return it to the Planning' Department by 91 /6/7 7 with your written recommendatio . Your response will be included as part of the staff report to the Hearing Examiner. f Thank you , PLANNING DEPARTMENT ..--i—"--r-'_---: -' ,--,,. q//s . / �/C:: R t 'k\ /7/4k p(rcl\\k q-,A, 2. 1�,1 � Date y �L?, L� fP�,l 9 �'��/AIG Ds Ppe 1 INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW REQUEST TO : PUBLIC WORKS DIREC BUILDING DIVISION • ✓ — ✓ E NF_E R I N RAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVIS N UTIL DIVIS . ✓ No co~saise' FIRE DEPARTMENT • HEALTH DEPARTMENT FROM : PLANNING DEPARTMENT /L4 c 4 - SIB 1 —j ..ontact Person R E : it. Ce Lev-16 --) - l,J A WM IZ 6 F OAF-Si 111 1 � 1,-(c^,c; , ► w— 646-77 Please review the attached information regarding the subject proposal and return it to the Planning Department by /C 7 7 with your written recommendati n . Your response will be included as part of the staff report to the Hearing Examiner. Thank you , PLANNING DEPARTMENT ..--- -,., c.:: r..). ,,‘,.„, ' .----e,"-L-V r` `` � 1' }En 22 19?? Date /5Y77 . ,-...-------0111---------06----- " - - • 17 H— I /� J L, y i\ !� //� / • . ' Y ea i �a] \ ebb ib9 ,J ISO II N th5Ject- i /,, . . wi/.... ! [ I 2 I 2 I SITE // / I 3 4 z 3 4 B• t . _ / 5 , 6 1i 5 I / /TT4L l0 I 9 / 89 2 I me1 / 87 IC* I — 4—_ ___- __ _ __ 2 I I • x :: 83 N L ... o — 8 r 6 - 5\N H ----- I • � 80 .le -_—_ 98 sae 2 .....__ a __ - Q 79 q —_ —__ 97 Ili m o 3 4 1 tI .4 ef•f1 + ;�e .in+na:�r nlxi� I 3L„�57 —__ 4 fT•T 69 - •S.reaionnnMr, •,lnrou tr a�, I -- 70 71 i \ o / , �iisimiiii1 !WNW ba _.._ ? ../ / m i11111 111111111II11 _ PP 6b » ,� e i 1 20 29 +I R.,.:.- .... .I 74 _ 6 33 �,. nl IIIII�;l�jllllllllll'i33 32 � �'jr.‘, AU I I 1 1ii1111 I i I' I I I62 •1 _ ]64W 'E -,.m,. i�1111111111111 111111111i' .. _?-4 ,b R/ . ' Will 11111111111411111111E1111 \ • • ) II.nMP1111111PM1 1 • i. --- — — — { aFF a.; , 1111111 1 1 r11s .i �--r C'•iC R-,... 1 EM Mil i 1 I IllET I 1 \ �+� 57 _._ �7 el.I , ,L,. v v_r"P"1.11111 1 11111111n\ ■ It: IN I/ . I _:,, S5 54 '6] \\ �eme�e,:l� I Tr�r T 4• �fiIi11 • 2Jl'iI :rr= �F1C. COAT-_• � I ! I I I I� 11111111111�d :1,71—�}� ° ' R -;1. abel•, �l1_llII [1 [1 I� 3G2 \ � i.I7hq l[i.l I l l l l I I Gl 21 1 ��. 50 52 I 53 • SHORT PLAT : EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE : WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVE . E . COLEMAN ; Appl . No . 078-77 , Short Plat ; E-079-77 , Exception to sub- division ordinance ; W-080-77 , Waiver of off-site improvements ; property located west of Meadow Avenue North midway between North 36th Street and North 38th Street and east of Park Avenue North . APPLICANT ERNEST R. COLEMAN TOTAL AREA ± . 6 Acres . PRINCIPAL ACCESS Park Avenue North • EXISTING ZONING G-7200 - EXISTING USE • Undeveloped . PROPOSED USE Single Family Residential • • COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Single Family Residential COMMENTS • _ , Ilk 41°4 0 Cr- 1 ZOO .0. ...,,,,, N 38 rM° 5 - U 2 . 3 syi) t ciii ,si m - so 3 37!0 'Uhal rd.-: 371 s 5e3 VI 37-1w_f 4 '-- ----z -6..- 1-- --%:"\\ TEA= 0 0ZDJZJI 3143j C: 1 a ULI N 36 rN• sr Z ..rH sr 0 Cam' a ❑ a® a 0 En1-, ® o o � D D 55-(k [21 0 0 0 ao D (0, DI Q 0 DO 0 setiti i"- too s aNgsr g. coLepoN ►offer far 018-77 W -o so-71 E - 079 -77 / r - RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PLANNING DEPARTMENT AM SEP 271977 PM PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER `1819110,1111211,2,3,q.,5o6 PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 27 , 1977EX IBIT NO. / APPLICANT : E . COLEMAN ITEM NO0 4•,a�. Die 7Z E-o7q-; W- 0 Fo -77 FILE NUMBER : 078-77 , SHORT PLAT ; E-079-77 , EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ; W-080-77 , WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS A . SUMMARY OF REQUEST : Applicant requests approval of a proposed three (3 ) lot short plat , with approval of an exception to allow access to the short plat via a private easement road 12 . 5 feet in width , together with a waiver of the off-site improvement requirements to allow gravelled surfacing of the proposed access easement . B . GENERAL INFORMATION : 1 . Owner of Record : E . COLEMAN 2 . Applicant : E . COLEMAN 3 . Location : Property located west of Meadow Avenue North midway between North 36th Street and North 38th Street and east of Park Avenue North . 4 . Legal Description : A detailed legal description is avail - able on file in the Renton Planning Department . 5 . Size of Property : Approximately . 6 acres 6. Access : Proposed access is via 12 . 5 foot private easement road from Meadow Avenue North . 7 . Existing Zoning : G-7200 ; General Classification District Single Family Residence , minimum lot size 7200 square feet. 8 . Existing Zoning in the Area : G-7200 9. Comprehensive Land Use Plan : Single Family Residential 10. Notification : The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date . Notice was properly published in the Record- Chronicle and posted in three places on or near the site as required by City Ordinance . C . PURPOSE OF REQUEST : • To allow subdivision of the subject site into three (3 ) single family residence lots for future development of single family residences . In order to allow such subdivision , the applicant also requests an exception from the minimum requirements for street design , together with a waiver of the off-site improvement requirements . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF SEPTEMBER 27 , 1977 PAGE TWO RE : 078-77 , SHORT PLAT; E-079-77 , EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ; W-080-77 , WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS D . HISTORY/BACKGROUND : The subject site was annexed into the City by Ordinance 2531 dated December 24, 1969. An existing 80 x 95 foot lot located directly east of the site fronting on Meadow Avenue North and containing a single family residence , was subdivided from the subject site in July 1970. There are single family residences located directly north of the subject site on lots of approx- imately 10, 000 to 12 ,000 square feet in area , which gain access via an existing 17 . 5 foot gravel easement road . This subdivision was approved prior to annexation into the City of Renton . E . PHYSICAL BACKGROUND : 1 . Topography : The site gently slopes upward from east to west . 2 . Soils : Indianola Loamy Fine Sand ( InC ) Permeability is rapid , runoff is slow to medium , and erosion hazard is slight to moderate . This soil is used for timber and urban development. 3 . Vegetation : The site consists of various scrub brush and blackberries . 4. Wildlife : The existing vegetation on the site provides suitable habitat for birds and small mammals . 5. Water : No surface water or streams are apparent on the subject site. 6. Land Use : There is an existing single family residence located directly west of the subject site fronting on Meadow Avenue North. There is an existing single family residence located east of the subject site which gains access via an easement from Park Avenue North . There are existing single family residences located north of the subject site which gain access from Meadow Avenue North to Park Avenue North via an existing 17 . 5 foot gravel easement road . Access to the subject site is quite limited due to these existing subdivision and development patterns . F. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS : The area is primarily single family residential in . nature . G . PUBLIC SERVICES : 1 . Water and Sewer : An existing substandard three (3 ) inch water main is located along Meadow Avenue North . There is an existing six ( 6 ) inch water main located along Park Avenue North west of the subject site . There is an existing eight (8 ) inch sewer along the north property line . Storm drainage mains are not available in the area . 2 . Fire Protection : Provided by the Renton Fire Department as per Ordinance requirements . 3 . Transit : Metro transit route 240 operates along Lake Washington Boulevard approximately one-half mile west of subject site . 110 PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF SEPTEMBER 27 , 1977 PAGE THREE RE : 078-77 , SHORT PLAT; E-079-77 , EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ; W-080-77 , WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS 4. Schools : The subject site is located approximately one ( 1 ) mile north of Kennydale, Elementary School , within two and one-half (22) miles of McKnight Middle School , and within five ( 5 ) miles of Hazen High School . 5 . Parks : Kennydale Beach Park is located approximately one- half (2) mile west of subject site and Lake Washington Beach Park is located approximately two (2 ) miles south of subject site . King County May Creek Park is located just east of the freeway approximately one-quarter (4) mile east of the subject site . H . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE : 1 . Section 4-729; G , General Classification District 2 . Section 4-706 ; R-1 , Residential Single Family I . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENTS : 1 . Subdivision Regulations , Section 9-1105 , Plat Requirements for Short Subdivision. 2. Subdivision Regulations , Section 9-1109 , Exceptions . 3 . Land Use Report , 1965 ; pages 17 and 18 , Objectives ; and page 11 , Residential . 4. Policy Statement , Comprehensive Plan , Renton Urban Area , 1965 , page 5 , D , Subdivision of Land and page 6 , E , Traffic- ways . J . IMPACTS ON THE NATURAL SYSTEMS : Development of the subject site will disturb soil and vegetation and increase water runoff . However , these impacts will be minor and can be mitigated through proper development controls . K. SOCIAL IMPACTS : Transition of the subject site from its undeveloped state to single family residential will create additional social interactions within the neighborhood . L . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION : Pursuant to the City of Renton Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , as amended , RCW 43. 21C , the subject proposal is exempt from the threshold determination and EIS requirements of SEPA . M. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION : A vicinity map and site map are attached . N . AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED : 1 . City of Renton Building Division 2. City of Renton Engineering Division 3 . City of Renton Utilities Division 4. City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division 5. City of Renton Fire Department L` PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF SEPTEMBER 27 , 1977 PAGE FOUR RE : 078-77 , SHORT PLAT; E-079-77 , EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE W-080-77 , WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS 0 . PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS : 1 . The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance indicate single family residential land use for the subject site . 2 . The existing zoning for the site and area is G-7200 , Single Family Residential with a 7200 square foot minimum lot size requirement. The three (3 ) proposed lots consist of approx- imately 7400 square feet each. The applicant proposes to provide a 12 . 5 foot private access road to the proposed lots , in lieu of the stnadard ordinance requirement of a fifty ( 50) foot public right-of-way. The applicant also proposes waiver of improvements along the 12 . 5 foot access road , providing gravel surface only , as opposed to permanent street surfacing , together with curb , gutter , and sidewalk. 3. Other lots north and west of the site , developed prior to the City ' s Subdivision Ordinance , are larger in size (average 10, 000 to 12 , 000 square feet in area ) , and attain access via an existing 17 . 5 foot gravel easement road directly adjacent to the north property line of the proposed site. Said easement does not appear to pertain to or permit useage for access to the subject site. 4. A better alternative for access to the subject site does not appear to exist at the present time , because of the existing subdivision and development pattern in the area . Therefore , the subject site circumstances appear to be consistent with the requirements for exceptions outlined in--section 9-1109 . 5 . An existing telephone pole is located in the area of the proposed access road along Meadow Avenue North . 6. An existing three ( 3 ) inch water main is located along Meadow Avenue North . The Utilities Division has indicated that this is not adequate for proper fire flow and service requirements . Extension of the six (6 ) inch main from Park Avenue North will be necessary. An existing eight (8 ) inch sewer main is located in an easement along the north property line. 7 . Given the circumstances listed above , the proposed plat should be limited to two (2 ) lots , each approximately 10, 000 square feet in area exclusive of the 12 . 5 foot access road , with requirements for paving of the access road , turn-around provision for fire , emergency, and service vehicles , and extension of suitable size water main and fire hydrants . P . PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION : Recommend approval of a two (2 ) lot short plat for the subject site with granting of the exception to allow a private easement road and the waiver of certain improvements subject to : 1 . The proposed 12 . 5 foot access road shall be permanently surfaced with asphalt pavement , abutting both lots . 2 . Provision of a minimum thirty (30) foot by forty (40) foot paved turn-around at the westerly boundary of the subject site to allow for turn-around and maneuvering fire , emergency , service , and other vehicles . A reasonable alternative to the above recommendation would be approval of three lots with a minimum 40 foot improved street that would serve the approximately six lots (three existing ; three pro- posed) that would ultimately be served by such a street . • 11/ PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF SEPTEMBER 27 , 1977 PAGE FIVE RE : 078-77 , SHORT PLAT; E-079-77 , EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ' W-080-77 , WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS 3 . Provision of adequate sized water main to meet I . S . O . fire flow and Utility Division requirements . 4. Provision of proper storm drainage facilities subject to Public Works Department requirements . 5 . The approval of the waiver of the standard street improvements shall be subject to the filing of restrictive covenants runt ning with the land which state that the property owner shall participate in any future L . I . D . for such street dedication and improvements . The granting of such exception and waiver is considered reason- able given the existing circumstances and is consistant with the requirements of Section 9-1109 of the subdivision regulations . The two (2 ) lot alternative subdivision layout is also consid- ered reasonable given the less than standard access situation and the existing lot sizes in the area . 101- C I Ty OF RENTTQPI PLAT A RLtlC` ,TIQN' f // 7c7- ; 1 - D 7 2' 7 7 /J I SHORT PLAT i(-n FILE NO Ii/ .,p J/a_ 7/J MAJOR PLAT ...... %' DATE REC 'D '�% • • TENTATIVE %, ,`\, . i. FEE $ oZ�C2J PRELIMINARY RECEIPT NO . 49/./6 �y�, FINAL GPI� - � T J '7�.c SM NO. -1 l E%'.9. PUD NO. 64A it/( Z. - APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 7 : 1 . Plat Name & Location � ' (j/ 52-' z l 3761C) �C-CC-/ bU. S//jf /"�f' /�()�J 2 . No. Lots 3 Total Acreage Zoning 6-7290 3 . Owner Phone _ 5'68E Address / / 7o !t/ , 771 2t JJ ro,✓ 4 . Engineer Phone Address 5 . Underground Utilities : Yes . No Not Installed Telephone ►- Electric ✓ Street Lights ✓ Natural Gas TV Cable 6 . Sanitation & Water: /V City Water L Sanitary Sewers /7 Water District No. /7 Dry Sewers L-7 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 : SHORT PLAT APPROVED DENIED TENTATIVE PLAT APPEALED EXPIRED 0 . PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION : PRELIMINARY PLAT , APPROVED DENIED FINAL PLAT APPEALED EXPIRED 1 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION : PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED DENIED FINAL PLAT APPEALED EXPIRED 2 . DEFERRED IMPROVEMENTS : DATE DATE BOND NO . & TYPE GRANTED EXPIRES AMOUNT Planning Dept . Rev . 12/71 11111 • AFFIDAVIT I , E . R. Coleman , 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. • Subscribed and sworn before me this �j-`� day of au-cep, , 19 77 Notary Public in and f r the State of Washington, residing at -f- • '14 et.; 11 (Name of Nq/tary Public) / Signature -of Owner (Address) (Address) City) / State) (Telephone) (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify: thd-L-;tie foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been found o- be? h. rough and complete in every particular and to conform to the 4;.ti1es.!znld�i' gt3`.7ations of the Renton Planning Department governing the /fclinQ[c f• ic1Y1a'Tplication . Date Received;', 19 By : Renton Planning Dept . • di COLEMAN & MATTAINI Ernest R. Coleman 222 Williams Ave. South Renton, Washington 98055 (206) 226-6462 i • August 30 , 1977 7 j '` To Renton Planning Department, "'�-- City Hall , 224, Renton , Wa . 98055 Gentlemen : In reference to the short plat application I am submitting to you I wish to bring the following to your attention : Many years ago at the time C . D. Hillman had this area platted his reason for laying out these 600 foot narrow strips of land was to impress potential buyers with the 1 -1 /2 acre size as well as cutting way down on his expenses for streets . Since that time conditions have changed and it would be questionable whether such platting would be encouraged or allowed today. Present day regulations as set up in your department do not make exceptions to these conditions in older plats thus allowing for a reasonable approach to breaking them up into more reas- onable residential sites . It is difficult to find good building lots close in which have sanitary sewers and other necessary util - ities available . Also , the price of land and taxes has inc- reased to a point one cannot afford to continue ownership for more than the area necessary for a residence . The pre- sent day families prefer to spend most of their free time at recreation rather than on yard upkeep etc . The sewer easement was granted to the city over the north 12 feet of this property. There were three outlets installed and my assessment was $4 , 300 . 00 . The lots are larger than that required for the area . Access to these lots will be over 30 feet of semi - private drive thus eliminating vehicular speed which would endanger the lives of growing children . There are homes on the north side of this access . They have been occupied for several years by the same people and they have ;;o Hy k,;_;w- ledge voiced no objection . Real Estate - Commercial - Industrial - Vacant Land • • 2 --cont . Coleman to Planning Dept. , August 30 , 1977 Because of the conditions stated I therefore,,sk for exceptions to the platting ordinance requiring twehhty feet access to a public street , not to exceed 150 feet for each lot . I am also asking for a waiver of off-site improvements • since there is no similar improvements in the area . I hope your department will grant the above request. I will be available for taking representatives of your group to the site if you wish . Sincerely 7-a/Z , i ''--E. R. Coleman 222 Williams Ave . So . , Renton , Wa . 226 -6462 • a NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING -RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER • Affidavit of Publication RENTON,WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE STATE OF WASHINGTON HEARING EXAMINER AT COUNTY OF KING ss' HIS REGULAR MEETING' IN THE COUNCIL CHAM- BERS, CITY HALL, REN- TON, WASHINGTON. ON SEPTEMBER 27, 1977,AT Marg.ax:e.t lia,rba.ugki being first duly sworn on 9:00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETI- oath,deposes and says that..S.h.e is the Cr h.j e.f Clerk of TIONS: 1.S.C.S. AND STIR- THE RENTON RECORD-CHRONICLE, a newspaper published four(4) • SKEY HOLDINGS, times a week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and . • REZONE FROM SIR- has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred 1 TO R-2, File No. to, printed and published in the English language continually as a news- - R-077-77;property lo- paper published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington, - cated on south side of and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained ' Puget Drive south of at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the Renton • Rolling Hills Dr. bet- Record-Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the ween the powertine Superior Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit,King County, • . right-of-way and the Parkwood single fami- Washington.That the annexed is a..Q.tr.i C @....44....1,),b.1 i G ly residence subdivi= sion. 2. ERNEST' R. COL- ....Lie.ari.ng. EMAN, APPLICA- TIONS FOR THREE- LOT SHORT PLAT as it was published in regular issues(and APPROVAL, EX- not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period CEPTION TO SUB- DIVISION ORDI- NANCE .REGARD of 4, consecutive issues,commencing on the ING ACCESS, AND WAIVER OF. OFF- SITE IMPROVE- a.6 day of S ep.t.e 1ub e x 19..7 7...,and ending the • MERITS; Files No.0 78-77, E-079-77, 'and W-080-77; prop- '•erty.located along the day of ,19 ,both dates west side of Meadow inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- Ave.No.between No. scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee . 38th St.and No.36th St. I 3. HILL-ROWE ' IN- charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $.3)4.s.?7which VESTMENT CO., has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the REZONE FROM G first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent ' . TO M-P, File No. R- insertion. 081-77; property lo- 1�1. sated onfeast side of � -W.�•Valley Rd. and Q Cl i . �... __ -north-Of-S.W.43rd St. `J dfite-4tfy south of ...Q.hie.� Cl rk ..fit ' ttgt iWitfet Hobby and ;ile fiptiotts of ap- Subscribed and sworn to before me this a.6 day of f�IQasi "toted above ,;'4trden•=fikr in the Renton ':;;a tarfnr �.Depattment ....September_ 19..7.7. i - L:tILRESTED PER- IONS'Matto PETITIONS /7 Age.mom iti°ERRE- Notary'Public n and for the S ate of Wash" ton, -: Vic► residing at Kent, King until. f t AT 9 A.M. —Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June AtY'EGORMICKSEfU 9th, 1955. " i' Nl1IPtI3Rd{3 —Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, '.,, ;; iinTlearAcimii '• AA . adopted by the newspapers of the State. ;., %KIWI 4 ;Vic 53 V.P.C.Form No.87 14 Of o THE CITY OF RENTON U 0 Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON. WASH. 98055 �1 O 0 ea :�.. CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT • co- 0 42- 235-2550 4TED SEPIty September 12 , 1977 Mr. Ernest R. Coleman 222 Williams Ave . So . Renton , WA 98055 RE : NOTICE OF APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR APPLICATION FOR 3-LOT SHORT PLAT APPROVAL, EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REGARDING ACCESS, AND WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, Files No. 078-77, E-079-77, .and W-080-77; property located along the west side of Meadow Ave. No. between No. 38th St. and No. 36th St. Dear Mr. Coleman : The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on September 6 , 1977 . A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for September 27 , 1977 , 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 ---) BY : /6/// -/./a —17 Psoa � Sm�ceiate Planner MLS : wr • cc : Kenneth J . Oyler 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 SEPTEMBER 27 , 19 77 , AT 9 : 00 A. M. TO, CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS : 1 . S. C. S. AND STIRSKEY HOLDINGS , REZONE FROM SR-1 TO R-2 , File No . R-077-77 ; property located on south side of Puget Drive south of Rolling Hills Dr. between the powerline right-of-way and the Parkwood single family residence subdivision . 2. ERNEST R. COLEMAN , APPLICATIONS FOR THREE-LOT SHORT PLAT APPROVAL, EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REGARDING ACCESS , AND WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVE- MENTS ; Files No'. 078-77, E-079-77., and W-080-77'; property located along the west side of Meadow Ave. No . between No. 38th St.. and No. 36th ' St. 3. HILL-ROWE INVESTMENT CO. , REZONE FROM G TO .M-P , File No . R-081-77 ; property located on east side of W. Valley Rd. and north of S .W. 43rd St. directly south of Northwest Hobby and Toy Co. . Legal descriptions of applications 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 SEPTEMBER 27 , 1977 AT 9 : 00 A. M. T0; EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS . GORDON Y . ERI.CKSEN PUBLISHED September 16 , 1977 RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION I , Michael L. Smith , 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 Ame, a Notary P,ubl ic , on the \kkl. day of .c `tZvAoii 19 `(-( SIGNED ite �,t 41, 41110 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 21, 1977 TO: Planning Department - Mike Smith FROM: Traffic Engineering Division SUBJECT: E. Coleman Short Plat • To bring the proposed plat into acceptable limits from the standard, keeping public safety and general welfare of the city upmost in our mind, we would recommend the proposed area be divided into two lots and the proposed roadway and adjacent roadway to the north be developed jointly to a minimum 32 foot width with a sidewalk on the south side. A division into two lots would be consistent with other property divisions in the vicinity. CEM:ad ( ,'l i` r �n 41110 MEMORANDUM R ' r. FROM THE DESK OF: PREVENTION • FIRE P EVENTI ON BUREAU '% ' .p\\ 9/22/77 RENTON FIRE DEPARTMENT WOVE RX*Mtii)A4WfxX j ff TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT • �j " �/41?� RE: E. COLEMAN SHORT PLAT DEPrkg` r. Q. AN APPROVED WATER SUPPLY CAPABLE OF SUPPLYING REQUIRED FIRE FLOW FOR FIRE PROTECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED TO ALL PREMISES UPON WHICH BUILD NGS OR PORTIONS OF BUILDINGS ARE HEREAFTER CONSTRUCTED. WHEN ANY PORTION OF THE BUILDING PROTECTED IS IN EXCESS OF 150f FROM A WATER SUPPLY ON A UBLIC STREET, THERE SHALL BE PRO- VIDED ON SITE FIRE HYDRANTS AND MAINS CAPABLE OF SUPPLYING THE REQUIRED FIRE FLOW. 2. EVERY BUILDING HEREAFTER CONSTRUCTED SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE TO FIRE DEPARTMENT APPARATUS BY WAY OF ACCESS ROADWAY WITH ALL WEATHER DRIVING SURFACE OF NOT LESS THAN 20' OF UNOBSTRUCTED WIDTH WITH ADEQUATE ROADWAY TURNING RADIUS CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING THE IMPOSED LOADS OF FIRE APPARATUS AND HAVING A MINIMUM OF 131 6" OF VERTICLE CLEARANCE. /• r E.V. WOOTON, JR., FIRE I SPECTOR b 411, • INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW REQUEST TO : UBLIC WORKS DIRECTO BUILDING DIVISI ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION 66 UTILITIES DIVISION 6.1, .,�'t4 Q.--I—RTDEPA;TMEN1 HEALTH DEPARTMENT FROM : PLANNING DEPARTMENT �-{� G ,��s( SMIT(4 Contact Person RE : . ftt-E,kii-40,-) / S 1-i T. (977 -- 77 Please review the attached information regarding the subject proposal and return it to the Planning Department by f /6,/71. with your written recommendatio . Your response will be included as part of the staff report to the Hearing Examiner. Thank you , PLANNING DEPARTMENT Date W7/ 41 . .. . ...,_ I.:, ..• ' qi • .. 1 . . . . • . . 1 7 • - J_! . . . . . . . . /^ /Ne am�y /^� % ; :'� i • i . - I . a f f r .b, .t:. '- Lr}e.. Q ylr, C 64,,1(�Oj� i eJ e. 4}, _ <�: - - _ ..00� - ,, — j '• t 3/4 Pry va � ) `'; �� I�2Of 05ED E.0,40 y . _ _ �' . 7B' 75' 78'' �" 't T • a C' -/ ` - - N eN fit` 1.,i 1 `'�. .: 1 Q. \' ' � 73 78• 76)' ,/ 234' of R•`/i, PiCFI\IED o / r ` SEP 2 1977 )) I Ogsc,e/1-?i/Oti/ // , T 3/a ' oTcr 99 C YC. /-f/! / /4//'S \S z / . L4�''K .1.4,./4S,77/i6ra/ 41eo AI OF£OAJ Gi✓, /\/o S, ,4/,J, -S.'', •exce,"r 7/ '6 6,9ST 80' Co? T/E Sou,' 9. / •,- � DE/n ,.!SQ Fr Foy. wJat6e ^ f 4/ 54 Fs sc - 1 /Eti1//1 TH J. OYLE . C f E`L. S. 25,5-,5050 PO. 8v,‹ 2258 RGv Tr/? /•1If4S 98055 .. Q- v✓,�t6R- elAiki $" M! i01A. ,nitw HA�6 ID QG ►Ntriu�0 raa , PAilK AJG NI Titan To Lor A- 02 A. '; -% P152K 27 2..!/-'r'f�J, / ;' r?"E'"! C/`F ,/$ , ' T G,O • -ro caQ4,,,1 Sl"�a/:: i '.' . •C-'7 ' / COL /�%441 �e26,-6.s4,;, b Z..Z %:.L.AF/..;:s ,V/c:. 5, c.,��.iJfl;/J, 441,J ei a t'-' r- All%e 23, /577 JO,' /Vo 5 ,q • i"=¢O' ; _ 77U17 1110 lb INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW REQUEST TO : PU6LIC WORKS DIRECTOR' BUILDING DIVISION ENGINEERING DIVI.S-I-O-_— N77‘) (ri1-) TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION -U; UTILITIES DIVISION 'i,io co„01,1 �` FIRE DEPARTMENT . HEALTH DEPARTMENT FROM : PLANNING DEPARTMENT // jc44 -C— 3M14 Contact Person R E : , aZL &L 4 ) G TI bi-) -1—c.) _-_-,UG17.l\I l S1 O� (c)(Z-lei l..V G 1---e-I?_ 2tZ c\)4-n S7 'Z -- i I x 5 S am Q-[.?ui(ZisD SD p—�E`) c� us..AIDTA . fic-C44 C-O7 -77 • Please review the attached information regarding the subject proposal and return it to the Planning Department by cl /�f7 7 with your written recommendatio . Your response will be included as part of the staff report to the Hearing Examiner. Thank you , PLANNING DEPARTMENT r- ...., t, r,,,-\\ - . 11/1/ cq5\\I t-16 °171 ill C Date y/5y/77 sEp fa 2 Tth( ! 1_ i . �r l9/L n<-F N. /1,1ATG Dye 4110 II/ INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW REQUEST TO : PUBLIC WORKS DIRE A0Or --- _ - BUILD _NG DIVISION ./ / E E_E R I N G—D-1-V-I li - • ����7\77 RAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVIS N C_,'tp.,,, UTIL DIVIS . ✓ No cov-u^tiGv4!( nl FIRE DEPARTMENT HEALTH DEPARTMENT FROM : PLANNING DEPARTMENT pi ,Rl_ SM iT-i..- .,ontact Person RE : G . C.)0Leaw-(A,--) • UJAl\*'(2 bF OFF- Si IV 1?'1 a47r/-&T - Please review the' attached information regarding the subject proposal and return it to the Planning Department by y /V77 with your written • recommendati n . Your response will be included as part of the staff report to the Hearing Examiner. s Thank you , PLANNING DEPARTMENT • '—' /17\-\ -z---;4?'_?, _z,f.41..... jjrp / ,c:; SEP 22 1977 Date /V/-77 \\ ----------------471 � � 1 ,, 723 "‘ 17z- /N/6:7 D E P 7- ,44 Fei\r /Li • 6-71 ; E 4:0e/1.7_4174 • I .5 A p / a:Pp et-4 ie.- .1 • 2. M..)atu eo- 74Li de-'0/ S 0244 7 411 IS , ef ljapeA4) r -/ 5..),11' s• • y L.A. / /. . pet L.,. 7 4,4°4.4' e-,/ e e„,,, G5.4-e, /71e. 574 _7/.e4 Cie // L.) le-J.0-1-4.-11 417e • /.0 p 471 t/e, a. ets-zt P. (2,/747 ev, &9 L /2? A 1457:C7141 -te'- et et" a te--- 4 (1,2;, A . 5 / ot er 14 74 -1 -4(--14, /A / 71/4e. AF.).. eicLA..)ai /:5 AP,el e ert 74e-- -471.-1 r".4tA jc-le • f - „,-- C ct 4 111%c.IN 4* •401 • 111 .... -- ----- 1 < 411 iv tc1‘ • • ! ,‘Z;i4. e. Sp 621- 77 //. 4, I . ; ' IP —� g 03 7 February 28, 1978 lb : Members of the Renton City Council c < `\-., Re: Appeal of Land Use Examiner's Decision, dtd. 10/5/77 ��; ,S- o`‹ v Short Plat 078-77, .Ernest Coleman ';` c�,J �-' .\' Dear Council Members.. _:� On December 27, 1977, we the undersigned submitted a letter to the council with the required 425.00 fee to appeal the Land Use.Hearing aminer' s decision listed above. However, since we are in concurrence with the Hearing examiner' s reconsideration decision (dtd. 1/25/78 and sent to Mr. & Mrs. Sherwood Martin and Parties of Record) approving a Short Plat of two single family lots, there is no reason to pursue the appeal. Therefore, if the reconsideration is upheld by the council we withdraw our appeal. - cerely, di L_,..._ 3715 Meadowe Ave. N. Janes C. Baker / Ren ton / e),„ ,,., _ / /ill 3713 Meadow Ave. N: �Char. . ee.., 0: C. B Renton fir/ L. r 3709 Meadow. Ave. N. er . Mo fati� Renton ti • 3709 Meadow Ave. N. Joan L. Moffatt Ron ton i. Renton City Council 3/6/78 Page 5 Correspondence and Current Business - Continued Open Space to King County. The letter explained the application request for Application current use taxation status for certain greenbelt/open space areas Continued within the existing Victoria Park Subdivision, being owned by the (OSC-108-7-7) Victoria Park Homeowner's Association. Ericksen's letter explained state law requires the application be reviewed and acted upon by a joint committee of three City Council persons and three County Council persons. The letter further stated the Planning Department concurred in the City Attorney's opinion that the subject application is not an appropriate open space request and should be denied. Dennis Stremick, 2532 Smithers Ave. S. , Renton, used a wall map and explained areas for which open space status was requested: Children's Park and greenbelt, both classed as recreational ; three path areas providing access to Talbot Hill Elementary School , the greenbelt and City park. Mr. Stremick explained no fences or restrictions and area open; explaining City Park Comprehensive Plan description of private open spaces in the Talbot area. Stremick asked that the Council grant the open space classification. MOVED BY PERRY, SECONDED BY SHANE, COUNCIL REFER THE REQUEST TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMIT- TEE FOR REVIEW AND REPORT BACK. CARRIED. Appeal Withdrawn Letter from James C. and Charmaine C. Baker, 3713 Meadow Ave. N. , re SP 078-77 and Robert L. and Joan L. Moffatt, 3709 Meadow Ave. N. , withdrew Examiner' s appeal of Hear Examiner's decision of 10/5/77 regarding the Ernest Reconsideration Coleman Short Plat 078-77, on the condition that the reconsideration decision by the Hearing Examiner (1/25/78) be upheld by the City Council . MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE REQUEST AND GRANT REFUND OF THE $25 FILING FEE. CARRIED. Public Use Areas Letter from Kenneth and Helga Karinen, 2705 NE 6th Place, requested Renton Highlands clean up of the Public Use Area located in Block 19, Lot 2, Renton Highlands, suggesting either clean up by the City or adjacent prop- erty owners. The letter noted hazardous conditions to small children warrant immediate action. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHANE, REFER THE MATTER TO THE ADMINISTRATION. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Councilman Stredicke called attention to State Highway Department State Hwy. Dept. meeting (see schedule) , requesting the State be advised to reverse Re I-405 priorities and give first consideration to I-405 from No. 30th to Tukwila. Mayor Delaurenti advised he plans attendance at meeting. Meeting Extended The scheduled closing time of 11 :00 p.m. having arrived, it was MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED THORPE, COUNCIL CONTINUE MEETING. CARRIED. S. 7th Street Upon inquiry by Councilman Stredicke re S. 7th St. at Grady Way, Pub- at Grady Way lic Works Director Gonnason advised street closure due to building Opened project by Milmanco, that only 30 ft. right-of-way exists, that with the opening of the Talbot Road Extension that portion of S. 7th needed for local access only. MOVED BY SHANE, SECOND STREDICKE, STREET BE OPENED. CARRIED. Board of MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND THORPE, THE ORDINANCE CREATING THE BOARD OF Public Works PUBLIC WORKS BE REFERRED TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW AND REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL. CARRIED. Executive Session MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL HOLD EXECUTIVE SESSION RE LAND ACQUISITION. CARRIED. Council went into Executive Session at 11 :20 p.m. and ended the session at 11 :30. Roll Call : All Council Members present as previously shown. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND PERRY, MEETING ADJOURN. CARRIED. 11 :30 p.m. Q. Delores A. Mead, City Clerk OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK March 6, 1978 BID OPENING DEMOLITION OF OLD EARLINGTON SCHOOL March 1 , 1978 Contractor BB AA Base Bid Alternate Bid EEO W/O ST W/O ST Time Center Dozing, Inc. X X $7,500.00 $6,500.00- 10 days 2117 S.W. 114th X Seattle, WA 98146 Iconco X X $6,000.00 $8,380.00 30 days 800 S. Kenyon St. X Seattle, WA 98108 Meridian Excavating & Wrecking X X $6,800.00 $11 ,800.00 15 days 911 North 141st CC X Seattle, WA 98133 R. W. Rhine, Inc. X X $7,800.00 No Bid 10 days 1124 E. 112th St. X Tacoma, WA 98445 Base Bid: Demolish the Old Earlington School retaining all salvageable material for disposal at the contractor's discretion. Alternate Bid: Demolish the Old Earlington School disposing of all salvageable materials with the exception of the brick which will be piled in a uniform pile on the site for the future use of the owner. OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK March • 6, 1978 BID TABULATION S -(EE T P RO J E.CT Lind Ave. - LID #302, Grading & Earthwork DATE • February 28. 1978 Eng. Estimate $810, 000. 00 BIDDER $B E AA o BID Scarsella Bros. , Inc. X ,X Sched. I $661, 123. 00 P.O. Box 683-8B Seattle, Wa, 98188 Sched. II $545, 443.00 II i X _M. A. Segale, Inc. ice_ Sched I $770 998 20 P.O. Box 88050 Tukwila. Wa_ 9R1RR j Sched. II $607 , 813.20 , ®� R.� THE CITY OF RENTON Lin MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 p CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR ® DELORES A. MEAD .53A CITY CLERK O,Q4T fO SE Ptt' March 7, 1978 Mr. Robert L. Moffatt 3709 Meadow Ave. N. Renton, WA 98055 • Re: Rebate of Appeal Fee, Hearing Examiner's Decision, 10/5/77, Coleman Short Plat 078-77 Dear Mr. Moffatt: The Renton City Council , at its regular meeting of March 6, 1978, concurred in your request to withdraw appeal , and authorized rebate of the appeal fee as above-referenced. City of Renton Treasurer's Check No. 1204 in sUm of $25.00 is enclosed. • Please sign acknowledgement of receipt on second copy of this letter and return in the enclosed self-addressed envelope. Thanks for your transmittal courtesies. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON Delores A. Mead • City Clerk DAM:jt Enclosure I hereby acknowledge receipt of City of Renton Treasurer's Check in Sum of Twenty-Five Dollars ($25.00) -2 7../7;4-44 bert Moffatt > r _ INTER-OFFICE MEMO '} To: Finance Department - � II. � March 7, 1978 FROM: Del Mead, City Clerk Re: Rebate of Appeal Fee, Hearing Examiner's Decision, 10/5/77, Coleman',Short Plat The Renton City Council , at its regular meeting of March 6, 1978, authorized rebate of the fee for the above-captioned appeal . Please make out check to Robert Moffatt for $25.00 and give to the City Clerk's Office for., transmittal . S Et • 43, r THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON.WASH. 98055 p "� °' CHARLES J. DELAURENTI ➢ MAYOR ® DELORES A. MEAD po co* CITY CLERK Oar fD SEPlt • • �O� March 7, 1978 • Mr. Robert L. Moffatt 3709 Meadow Ave. N. Renton, WA 98055 • Re: Rebate of Appeal Fee, Hearing Examiner's Decision, 10/5/77, Coleman Short Plat 078-77 Dear Mr. Moffatt: • • The Renton City 'Council , at its regular meeting. of March 6, 1978, concurred in your request to withdraw appeal , and authorized rebate • of the appeal fee as. above-referenced. City of Renton Treasurer's Check No. 1204 in sum of $25.00 is enclosed. Please sign acknowledgement of receipt on second copy of this letter and return in the enclosed self-addressed envelope. Thanks for your transmittal courtesies. Yours very truly, • CITY OF RENTON : • coadote - ..)e-e-4-.06 Delores A. Mead City Clerk • • DAM:jt Enclosure • c,C : B I hereby acknowledge receipt of City Cep of Renton Treasurer's Check in Sum of Twenty-Five Dollars ($25.00) Robert Moffatt • INTER-OFFICE MEMO TO: Finance Department DAT March 7, 1978 FROM: Del Mead, City Clerk Re: Rebate of Appeal Fee, Hearing Examiner's Decision, 10/5/77, Coleman Short Plat The Renton City Council , at its regular meeting of March 6, 1978, authorized rebate of the fee for the above-captioned appeal . Please make out check to Robert Moffatt for $25.00 and give to the City Clerk's Office for transmittal .. 400 //. 4-, : . ., . . . . , . February 28, 1978 . . , , • ,1,11 I 234 ,„ ,r)°•)-' 5 , . . - . ..,, • . . , ‘• . . N ..,. .,, io : Members of the Aer4-41n:City poigoil. „ ,, , . , • .0,.-si ,:. •z-_, Re: - Appeal of Land Paelixaminer'a Decision, Utd. l.C/5/77 '‘Y.Z.---'.', 4,4;;;) \ .'"/ Short Plat 078 -77, Striest Coleman oc....c:„..,„ w f'•.,;" , (,-,, ,, ,.. ,,, •,,fr'-' , . . . , • , , • • , ce: ,..• c,...,, • • Dear Council Members; : , ----..._ • , On December 27, .97-7, we the undersigned submitted a letter to the council i'lri.th the required. 4 2 .00 fee to appeal the Land Use 'nearing amin er' s deci siori listed abOva. 'However, since we pre in concurrence Wi ..s-? the He!,.10-P4-•:. : 1444,!:)re;,r-eqop,4.4.ere4.9.11 Cittc:,',L 494 (414. 1/25176 and sent to i0,:''6:,")4is:',!'040A.ioacf-iviiiit,:iii' ail4 PertieS of Record) approving a Short Plat Of r two single family iota; tllere i sno reason to pursue the appeal. ,/ . • • Tnereiprep if the recons.tdera,tion is upheld by the council we withdraw u r aticleal. , , , * --.. . . . , . •, . , N carelys , • - • „. . . , . . 3715 MeadoWe- 4Aye..14. . 00006.,.5j9s Q. Baker ton Ren : • :• • : . ' : "1' 4.,/(171-.--- z& e , -/,‘,, . .... , . . , 5715 Meadow Ave. N. • Chap.:sin C. B Ren top , . 57(49 Meal* Ave. N,. ',I. -' ' ' ' •er . Mo fat( / Renton '-. '-r." ' ,,,, • ; , _ . ).709 Meadow Ave. N. • Joan L. Moffatt iten ton - , . • . . - . . . , .. . . . . , . .„ . • , :, ' t • \ . . ,.. . , -1, ‘e/.6'12/e3a-//) vi. 7./--- •' l'C•7- 1-'('- ‘: ' , . . , ,t, . . , „ • „ , • . . , . . . • .f . , , . .. . Of RP THE C:I:TY OF RENTON % MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR • DELORES A. MEAD �,o �• �•�, O� �Q. _' ". CITY CLERK 4TeD _co, March 3 , 1978 Mr. Ernest R. Coleman 222 Williams Ave. So Renton, WA 98055 Re: Appeal; of Hearing Examiner's Reconsideration Decision dated, January 25, 1978, Appeal Fee of $25.00 Filed Dear Mr. Coleman:: Enclosed is City of, Renton .Treasurer'v'Check #1203 in sum of $25.00 which constitutes rebate of above appeal fee, the City Council direct- ing return of the fee and dismissal: of appeal in view of timing fac tor. We attach, for your; further information excerpt of Minutes of the proceedings of the Renton City Council" Meeting of February 27, 1978 concerning the matter: Yours very truly, , CTTY OF RENTON Delores.' A. Mead ,City. Clerk • DAM:jt Enclosures INTER—OFFICE MEMO TO: Finance Department DATE March 3, 1978,1 FROM: Del Mead, City Clerk The Renton City Council , at its meeting of February 27, 1978, authorize the return of the,\appeal fee of $25.00 to Ernest Coleman - SP 078-77. Please issue the check to the Clerk's Office for transmittal . 4 RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting February 27 , 1978 Municipal Building Monday, 8: 00 P . M. Council Chambers MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Charles Delaurenti led the Pledge of Allegiance and called the regular meeting of the Renton City Council to order. ROLL CALL OF EARL CLYMER, Council President; GEORGE J. PERRY, PATRICIA M. COUNCIL SEYMOUR-THORPE, RICHARD M. STREDICKE, BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, CHARLES SHANE AND THOMAS W. TRIMM. ROLL CALL OF C. J. DELAURENTI , Mayor; GWEN MARSHALL, Finance Director; DEL MEAD, STAFF City Clerk; LAWRENCE WARREN, Acting City Attorney; GORDON Y. ERICKSEN, Planning Director; WARREN GONNASON, Public Works Director; RICHARD GEISSLER, Fire Chief; CAPT. BOURASA, Police Rep. , DONALD CUSTER, Administrative Assistant. MINUTE APPROVAL MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND PERRY, COUNCIL APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 1978 AND FEBRUARY 6, 1978 AS WRITTEN AND MAILED. CARRIED. Introduction Mayor Delaurenti introduced Superior Court Judge G. M. Shellan. AUDIENCE COMMENT Logan Garrison, 75 Monterey Drive NE, called attention to petition on Consent Agenda against formation of undergrounding L.I .D. in Undergrounding of Monterey Terrace. Mr. Garrison reported a petition favoring the Utilities in formation of a Local Improvement District had been filed with the Monterey Terrace. Clerk 2/24, but was too late for this evening' s agenda. Mr. Garrison submitted copies of four letterswithdrawing names from the petition against the LID and originals attached to petition .for the LID which will be submitted to Council 3/6/78. Councilman Stredicke made in- quiry re 2/16/78 meeting held in the Renton Library, being advised the meeting consisted of Monterey Terrace residents moderated by Mike Schultz, President of Monterey Terrace Community Club, with no City participation. Randy Rockhill , 116 Capri NE, favored the LID and submitted letter to that effect. MOVED BY. STREDICKE, SECOND THORPE, MATTER OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING IN MONTEREY .TERRACE BE REFERRED TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, FOR RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING AND ALL OTHER MATTERS TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. CARRIED. (See later petition - Consent Agenda. ) Appeal of Attorney C.P. .Curran, representing Ernest R. Coleman, Short Plat Hearing Examiner 078-77, Exception 079-77 and Waiver 080-77 asked the matter of Decision Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Coleman Ernest Coleman Short Plat be removed from the agenda for consideration. Mr. Short Plat 078-77 Curran objected to the reopening of appeal period by the Examiner E-079-77 and after Mr. Coleman had been advised that the short plat was granted W-080-77 and matter not appealed. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL SUSPEND RULES AND ADVANCE THE APPEAL ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION AT THIS TIME ALONG WITH THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning and Development Committee Chairman Perry presented committee report noting review of the Examiner's written decision, findings and conclusions of 1/25/78 regarding reconsideration deci- sion of the Examiner. The report explained the 14-day appeal period; that the .appellant' s, Notice of Appeal dated 2/7/78 was not accom- panied by the fee of $25 required by Section 4-3016. The committee report concluded and recommended that the Council conclude that appel- lant has failed to perfect his appeal as required by Section 4-3016. The committee report recommended that the Council dismiss the appeal for failure to perfect the appeal in a timely fashion; also that the Council direct the City Clerk to refund the appeal fee. MOVED BY Appeal Dismissed PERRY, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION.* Discussion ensued; Charmaine Baker explained 12/23/77 appeal of Examiner' s decision filed by Mr. & Mrs. J. Baker and Mr. and Mrs. R. Moffat. *ROLL CALL: 5-AYE: CLYMER, PERRY, THORPE, SHINPOCH, TRIMM; 2-NO: STREDICKE AND SHANE. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING This' being the date set and proper notices having been published and Springbrook posted according to law, Mayor Delaurenti opened the public hearing Annexation to consider the 75% petition for annexation of 231 .8 acres to the City. Renton City Council 2/27/78 Page 2 Public Hearing - Continued Springbrook Springbrook area located in the vicinity South of S.W. 43rd/Carr. Annexation Road and East of SR-167 and North of S. 192nd St. Letter from the Continued City Clerk explained the 75% petition had been presented to Council 1/9/78 and public hearing date set; that the petition has been certified valid by the Planning Department and contains signatures representing ownership of 75.6% of the total assessed valuation, at least 75% being required by law. The letter explained that at preliminary meeting held 12/20/76, the Council authorized circulation of the petition, at which time the owners agreed to accept: (1 ) the City's Comprehensive Plan; (2) the proposed zoning; and (3) any pre- existing bonded indebtedness of the City. The letter noted Council ' s responsibility to determine whether to accept the annexation as petitioned, that if accepted the Planning Department should be authorized to file Notice of Intent with the King County Boundary Review Board. Planning Director Ericksen noted maps and other data sheets available to the public, showed slides and explained data of the area, i .e. population 75, approximately 25 properties, King County Zoning SR and RM-900, Renton Comprehensive Plan single family and low and medium density multi-family; reasons for annexa- tion - obtain utilities to allow development and County permit process bogged down. Planning Director Ericksen explained that the annexation will create a County island of the Valley freeway between SW 43rd and SE 192nd Ave. due to annexation by the City of Kent to the Valley freeway, therefore, a resolution has been requested to annex that. property. Ericksen noted the Boundary Review Board has advised the municipal method of annexation as there are no residents of the freeway area and both annexations can be incorporated into one notice of intent. Upon inquiry, Planning Director Ericksen advised Renton water and sewer franchises in northern half of annexation. Continued Persons present making inquiries : Jeffery Larson, 19040 106th SE, inquired of eastern boundary. Roy Fournier, 18404 Springbrook Rd. , advised being one ofinitiators and that eastern boundary was Section line. Robert Wilson, 9920 S. 192nd, inquired re greenbelt designa- tion of hillside, being advised intent to preserve as natural buffer due to severe topography, that low density or open space allowed. Grover Shedgrudd, 18216 Talbot Rd.S. , opposed annexation. Warren Diamond, 18624 Springbrook Rd. , expressed concern of commercial devel- opment. Mrs. Hayes , 19006 Springbrook Rd. , inquired re size of green- belt area lots, being advised 220' x 220' . Mrs. Hayes also inquired of water pressure and was advised by Public Works Director Gonnason of need for installation of pumping station which would be installed at homeowners expense. Owen Bing, 19034 Talbot Rd.S. , inquired re fire hydrants and electric fences, being advised of fire truck tank capa- city, that hydrants would be installed on LID basis, also of Fire District mutual aid agreements. The question of valid petition was raised by Grover Shegrudd, and upon further inquiry, Planning Director Ericksen reported certification of petition as those on tax records as required by law. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND CLYMER, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.* Councilwoman Thorpe requested inclusion of comments to her inquiry re fire and safety: Fire Chief Geissler reported mutual aid with Fire District 40 until area growth requires building of fire station to the South of Benson or hospital area; Police Capt. Bourasa advised no increase in staff would be required at the present time for coverage of area. Upon further Thorpe inquiry re State pit area, Planning Director Ericksen advised the State does not have to comply with City zoning, however, Erickson noted the pit area may be sold and new owner would have to comply with City regulations. *MOTION CARRIED. Continued MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND STREDICKE, COUNCIL ACCEPT ANNEXATION AND REFER MATTER TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR PREPARATION OF PROPER RECORDS AND FILING WITH THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD. Councilman Shane opposed annexation pending determination that services to the area will not be at the expense of present taxpayers. Councilwoman Thorpe requested inclusion of her inquiries for the record, that though the people in area would like to see it remain in present rural state, both Staff report and Comprehensive Plan show the area will develop; that the , connection to City water will not improve pressure without pump station P • 0 �a® . OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY ® RENTON,WASHINGTON 0 0 ® � . POST OFFICE BOX 526 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING O RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 255-8678 121 LAWRENCE J.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY o�4TEE SEP1��'® February 27, 1978 MEMORANDUM TO : COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE RE : File No . Short Plat 078-77 , Exception 079-77 , and Waiver 080-77: Ernest R. Coleman Appeal of Examiner's Reconsideration Decision dated January 25, 1978 The Planning and Development Committee has examined the records and Hearing Examiner ' s Written Decision, Findings and Conclusions dated January 25 , 1978 regarding the above appeal . I , COMMITTEE FINDINGS : The Committee finds and recommends that the City Council find as follows : 1 . The reconsideration decision of the Hearing Examiner was rendered on January 25, 1978 . 2 . The period of time allowed by Section 4-3016 for submittal of a Notice of Appeal from that decision expired with the close of business on February 8, 1978•' 3 . The appellant' s Notice of Appeal dated February 7, 1978 was received by the Office of the Hea'r4i?g Examiner on February 8, 1978 . The Notice of Appeal was not accompanied> by. the appeal fee of $25 .00 required by Section 4-3016 . II . COMMITTEE CONCLUSIONS : The Committee concludes, and recommends that the City Council conclude, based upon the above findings , that the appellant has failed to perfect his appeal as required by Section 4-3016 . • 411, III . COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS : The Couuuittee recommends that the City Council dismiss the appeal for failure to perfect the appeal in a timely fashion. The Committee also recommends that the City Council direct the City Clerk to refund the appeal fee . George Perry Barbara Shinpoch Patricia Seymour-Thorpe 110 - v, 41 o THE CITY OF RENTON clo MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 r o CHARLES J. DELAURE MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER ApgT � � ��1 COE (9, L. RICK BEELER , 235-2593 FD SEP1t ,°��' a �`` February 15, 1978 d f���9� �® v Members, Renton City Council �� �Q1���o, g Renton, Washington P ON'-NW"p�xt G OP' RE: Appeal of Examiner's Decis o �`, + . . Coleman, Short Plat #078-77, E-079-77, and W-080-77. Dear Council Members: The attached letter of appeal regarding the referenced application, the Examiner's Report and Decision, and all correspondence relating to the subject request are being forwarded for your review and are listed in chronological order as follows: 1. Examiner's Report and Decision, dated October 5, 1977, recommending approval of a three-lot configuration, approval of the exception request, and disapproval of the waiver of off-site improvement of paving. The date of October 19, 1.977 was established for expiration of the appeal period. 2. Letter to Mr. Ernest Coleman from the Examiner, dated October 20, 1977; notification of transmittal of unappealed application to the City Clerk for final filing. 3. Letter to Mr. Coleman and parties of record from the Examiner, dated December 12, 1977; notification that due to the necessity for clarification of Decision No. 1 due to a discrepancy in referencing Exhibit #3, and upon advice of the City Attorney, a new appeal period for the application was being established to expire on December 27, 1977. 4. Letter to the Examiner from Mr. & Mrs. James Baker and Mr. & Mrs. Robert Moffatt, dated December 23, 1977; appeal of the Examiner's decision. 5. Letter to the Examiner from Mr. & Mrs. Sherwood Martin, dated December 27, 1977; request for reconsideration by the Examiner. 6. Letter to Mr. & Mrs. Sherwood Martin from the Examiner, dated January 6, 1978; notification of acceptance of request for reconsideration, and intent to obtain additional pertinent information from the Traffic Engineering Division. 7. Letter to the Examiner from Mr. Ernest Coleman, dated January 13, 1978; objection to reopening appeal period. 8. Letter to Mr. & Mrs. Sherwood Martin from the Examiner, dated January 25, 1978; findings of reconsideration including recommendation for a two-lot configuration and access revisions accompanied by attached memoranda from the Examiner, dated January 6, 1978, and Public Works Department, dated January 19, 1978. t Members, Renton City Council Page Two February 15, 1978 9. Letter to the Examiner from Mr. Ernest Coleman, dated February 7, 1978; request for reconsideration or appeal. 10. Letter to Mr. Coleman from the Examiner, dated February 8, 1978; request for clarification of applicant's intent to appeal or request reconsideration. 11. Letter to the Examiner from law firm of Curran, Kleweno, Johnson & Curran, representing Mr. Ernest Coleman, dated February 13, 1978; appeal to the City Council. The attached letters and report are correspondingly numbered to the previously listed chronology for reference. If you require additional information or assistance regarding this .matter, please contact the undersigned. Res ` f Amir �� r lirvt1 L. wick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: Planning Department City Clerk Attachments (11) t' r RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting February 27 , 1978 Municipal Building Monday, 8: 00 P . M. Council Chambers MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Charles Delaurenti led the Pledge of Allegiance and called the regular meeting of the Renton City Council to order. ROLL CALL 'OF EARL CLYMER, Council President; GEORGE J. PERRY, PATRICIA M. COUNCIL SEYMOUR-THORPE, RICHARD M. STREDICKE, BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, CHARLES SHANE AND THOMAS W. TRIMM. ROLL CALL OF C. J. DELAURENTI , Mayor; GWEN MARSHALL, Finance Director; DEL MEAD, STAFF City Clerk; LAWRENCE WARREN, Acting City Attorney; GORDON Y. ERICKSEN, Planning Director; WARREN GONNASON, Public Works Director; RICHARD GEISSLER, Fire Chief; CAPT. BOURASA, Police Rep. , DONALD CUSTER, Administrative Assistant. MINUTE APPROVAL MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND PERRY, COUNCIL APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 1978. AND FEBRUARY 6, 1978 AS WRITTEN AND MAILED. CARRIED. Introduction Mayor Delaurenti introduced Superior Court Judge G. M. Shellan. AUDIENCE COMMENT Logan Garrison, 75 Monterey Drive NE, called attention to petition on Consent Agenda against formation of undergrounding L.I .D. in Undergrounding of Monterey Terrace. Mr. Garrison reported a petition favoring the Utilities in formation of a Local Improvement District had been filed with the Monterey Terrace Clerk 2/24, but was too late for this evening's agenda. Mr. Garrison submitted copies of four letterswithdrawing names from the petition against the LID and originals attached to petition for the LID which will be submitted to Council 3/6/78. Councilman Stredicke made in- quiry re 2/16/78 meeting held in the Renton Library, being advised the meeting consisted of Monterey Terrace residents moderated by Mike Schultz, President of Monterey Terrace Community Club, with no City participation. Randy Rockhill , 116 Capri NE, favored the LID and submitted letter to that effect. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND THORPE, MATTER OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING IN MONTEREY TERRACE BE REFERRED TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEc FOR RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING' AND ALL OTHER MATTERS TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. CARRIED. (See later petition - Consent , Agenda. ) Appeal of Attorney C.P. •Curran, representing Ernest R. Coleman, Short Plat Hearing Examiner 078-77, Exception 079-77 and Waiver 080-77 asked the matter of Decision Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Coleman Ernest Coleman Short Plat be removed from the agenda for consideration. Mr. Short Plat 078-77 Curran objected to the reopening of appeal period by the Examiner E-079-77 and after Mr. Coleman had been advised that the short plat was granted W-080-77 and matter not appealed. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL SUSPEND RULES AND ADVANCE THE APPEAL ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION AT THIS TIME ALONG WITH THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning and Development Committee Chairman Perry presented committee report noting review of the Examiner's written decision, ' findings and conclusions of 1/25/78 regarding reconsideration deci- sion of the Examiner. The report explained the 14-day appeal period; that the appellant's. Notice of Appeal dated 2/7/78 was not accom- panied by the fee of $25 required by Section 4-3016. The committee report concluded and recommended that the Council conclude that appel- lant has failed to perfect his appeal as required by Section 4-3016. The committee report recommended that the Council dismiss the appeal for failure to perfect the appeal in a timely fashion; also that the Council direct the City Clerk to refund the appeal fee. MOVED BY Appeal Dismissed PERRY, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION.* Discussion ensued; Charmaine Baker explained .12/23/77 appeal of Examiner' s decision filed by Mr. & Mrs. J. Baker and Mr. and Mrs. R. Moffat. *ROLL CALL: 5-AYE: CLYMER, PERRY, THORPE, SHINPOCH, TRIMM; 2-NO: STREDICKE AND SHANE. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been published and Springbrook posted according to law, Mayor Delaurenti opened the public hearing Annexation to consider the 75% petition for annexation of 231 .8 acres to the City. I� v Renton City Council 2/27/78 Page 2 - Public Hearing - Continued Springbroo.k Springbrook area located in the vicinity South of S.W. 43rd/Carr ' Annexation Road and East of SR-167 and North of S. 192nd St. Letter from the Continued. City Clerk explained the 75% petition had been presented to Council 1/9/78 and public hearing date set; that the petition has been certified valid by the Planning Department and contains signatures representing ownership of 75.6% of the total assessed valuation, at least 75% being required by law. The letter explained that at preliminary meeting held 12/20/76, the Council authorized circulation of the petition, at which time the owners agreed to accept: (1 ) the City's Comprehensive Plan; (2) the proposed zoning; and (3) any pre- existing bonded indebtedness of the City. The letter noted Council 's1. responsibility to determine whether to accept the annexation as petitioned, that if accepted the Planning Department should be authorized to file Notice of Intent with the King County Boundary Review Board. Planning Director Ericksen noted maps and other data sheets available to the public, showed slides and explained data of the area, i .e. population 75, approximately 25 properties, King County Zoning SR and RM-900, Renton Comprehensive Plan single family and low and medium density multi-family; reasons for annexa- tion - obtain utilities to allow development and County permit process bogged down. Planning Director Ericksen explained that the annexation will create a County island of the Valley freeway between' SW .43rd and SE 192nd Ave. due to annexation by the City of Kent to the Valley freeway, therefore, a resolution has been requested to annex that property. Ericksen noted the Boundary Review Board has advised. the municipal 'method of annexation as there are no:residents of the freeway area and both annexations can be incorporated into one notice of intent. Upon inquiry, Planning Director Ericksen advised Renton water and sewer franchises in northern half of annexation. Continued Persons present making inquiries : Jeffery Larson, 19040 106th SE, inquired of eastern boundary'. Roy Fournier, 18404 Springbrook Rd. , advised being one ofinitiators and that eastern boundary was Section . line. Robert Wilson, 9920 S. 192nd, inquired re greenbelt designa- tion of hillside, being advised intent to preserve as natural buffer due to severe topography, that low density or open space allowed. Grover Shedgrudd, 18216 Talbot Rd.S. , opposed annexation. Warren Diamond, 18624 Springbrook Rd. , expressed concern of commercial devel- opment. Mrs. Hayes, 19006'Springbrook Rd. , inquired re size of green- belt area lots, being advised 220'x 220' . Mrs. Hayes also inquired of water pressure and was advised by Public Works Director Gonnason of need for installation of pumping station which' would be installed at: homeowners expense. Owen Bing, 19034 Talbot Rd.S. , inquired re fire hydrants and electric fences, being advised of fire truck tank capa- city, 'that hydrants would be installed on LID basis, also of Fire District mutual aid agreements. The question of valid petition was raised by Grover Shegrudd, and upon further inquiry, Planning Director Ericksen reported certification of petition as those on tax records as required by law. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND CLYMER, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.* Councilwoman Thorpe requested inclusion of comments to her inquiry re fire and safety: Fire Chief Geissler reported mutual aid with Fire District 40 until are growth requires building of fire station to 'the South of Benson or hospital area; Police Capt. Bourasa advised no increase in staff would be required at the present time for coverage of area. Upon further Thorpe inquiry re State pit area, Planning Director Ericksen advised the State does not have to comply with City zoning, however, Erickson noted the pit area may be sold and new owner would have to comply with City regulations. *MOTION CARRIED. ,Continued MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND STREDICKE, COUNCIL' ACCEPT ANNEXATION AND. REFER MATTER TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR PREPARATION OF PROPER RECORDS AND FILING WITH THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD. Councilman Shane opposed annexation pending determination that services to the area will not be . at the expense of present taxpayers. Councilwoman Thorpe requested inclusion of her inquiries for the record;'that though the people in area would like to see it remain in present rural state, both Staff report and Comprehensive Plan show the area will' develop; : that the connection to City water will not: improve pressure without pump .station • • • • 4 ,� 11 t�:.....,..; 0 G ®® ttlt Z OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY o RENTON,WASHINGTON z ssr�e'. ,- o POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING • RENTON. WASHINGTON 98055 255-8678 0 ammo CO- LAWRENCE I•WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY o � ,Q.1E0 SEPI�4?) February 27, 1978 OF R EI MEMORANDUM U cg2115-1 TO: COUNCIL MEMBERS 4 FROM: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE NNONG D RE : File No. Short Plat 078-77, Exception 079-77 , and Waiver 080-77: Ernest R. Coleman Appeal of Examiner's Reconsideration Decision dated January 25, 1978 The Planning and Development Committee has examined the records and Hearing Examiner ' s Written Decision, Findings and Conclusions dated January 25, 1978 regarding the above appeal . I , COMMITTEE FINDINGS : The Committee finds and recouuuends that the City Council find as follows : 1 . The reconsideration decision of the Hearing Examiner was rendered on January 25, 1978 . 2 . The period of time allowed by Section 4-3016 for submittal of a Notice of Appeal from that decision expired with the close of business on February 8, 1978 . 3. The appellant' s Notice of Appeal dated February 7, 1978 was received by the Office of the Hearing Examiner- on February 8, 1978 . The Notice of Appeal was not accompanied by the appeal fee of $25 .00 required by Section 4-3016 . II . COMMITTEE CONCLUSIONS : The Committee concludes , and recommends that the City Council conclude, based upon the above findings , that the appellant has failed to perfect his appeal as required by Section 4-3016 . J � 1 III . COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS : The Committee recommends that the City Council dismiss the appeal for failure to perfect the appeal in a timely fashion.. The Committee also recotiunends that the City Council direct the City Clerk to refund the appeal fee. George Perry Barbara Shinpoch Patricia Seymour-Thorpe • . LAW OFFICES • • Gunnar, Kleweno, Johnson 6 Curran JAMES P. CURRAN 213 415 AVENUE SOUTH - TELEPHONES • CHARLES PETER CURRAN • (206) 652-2345 MELVIN L.KLEWENO,JR. POST OFFICE BOX 26 (206) 852-2346 STEPHEN L.JOHNSON Keni,Washin jIon 06031 THOMAS O. McELMEEL • February 24, 1.978 • `l71 n • God NO ••r¢ TO: Renton City Council Members N 1,JJ// VI- �5 / Stif Charles J. Delaurenti, Mayor, City of Renton -ram • L. Rich Beeler, Hearing Examiner, City of Renton • Del Mead, City Clerk, City of Renton• RE: E. ,R. Coleman, Short Plat • Ladies and Gentlemen: Enclosed find a copy of a memorandum of law prepared. by my • research assistant on the above matter. • Yours truly, • • CURRAN, PIEWENO, JOHNSON & CURRAN • By e. (?AaPwAweNeN • Charles Peter Curran CPC:mb • Enc. • • • • • • • • • • I believe the words final action are especially pertinent to this research. I believe .that such powers given to the' Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner places him in i-ha C7t T 7 caret ry,ci+inn a c 'NM-Ti nirc (`i+�7 a,,r7 • The Department re-opened the matter and entered an order denying the pension. In reversing the act of the Department,ent, our Court ruled: "Since the Department is the original and sole tribunal with power' to so determine the facts, and its findings are reviewable only on appeal, it must follow that a judgment by it, . . .is final .and 'conclusive upon the Department and upon the claimant unless set aside on an appeal authorized by the statute, or unless fraud, or something of like nature, which equity recognizes as sufficient to vacate a judgment has intervened." Abraham v. Dept. of Labor and Industries, 178 Wn, 160.. While the case seems to give some right to the Department to re-open in the event of fraud or where equity requires it, the facts of the Coleman case do not seem to • ' offer that opportunity. Here, Exhibit 3 is specifically referred to in the ruling. Exhibit 3 calls for a three lot subdivision and the Examiner says he intended to approve a three lot' subdivision in his letter Of Dec. 12, 1977. Fraud or *equity • do not- seem to arise. Certainly under no circumstances does it appear that the • City can conjure up a set of rules which permit 3rd parties appeal rights after the appeal rights have expired. • In the case of Knestis vs. Unemployment Comp. Division, • 16 . Wn. 2d 577 .(1943) , the Department made a final ruling finding that Knestis was not required to. contribute to the Unemployment Comp. Fund. Again, after the appeal time had expired the • Department discovered law which made it clear that the contributions were due. They re-opened and ordered payment of the funds. ' The Superior Court Judge ruled that when the statute .plainly said that the decision was final 30 days after date of notification or railing, in. the absence of an appeal during that time, then the Department cannot set aside that final 'order. The Supreme Court dealing with the Department's appeal said: . • "The question is not'one of appealability but of finality of the Commissioners decision. . .The determinative factor is not whether the Commissioner has the right'to appeal, but is instead if and when the. . .decision becomes final. .The Department cannot appeal from its own decision. Their determination. . . is final and (they) are without power to set aside that • decision," [fluphasis added.] • Obviously then, it is not .appropriate for the City Council to step into the matter. Lastly, 'in the case of Shannon v. Sponburgh, 66-Wn.2d 135 (1965) , a final order was • entered by'the Liquor Board •authorizing.' he relocation of a'.. tavern .on Magnolia'Hill. • Page 2 6 • - • And, again, like, in this case, after the appeal time expired, disgruntled neighbors began pressuring the Liquor ,Board on the matter, ' The Liquor Board re-opened,the case and revoked its prior permit. Our Court in that case quoted directly from our statute and New'York and Conneticut cases, as follows: "Once the Board's decision was to give consent and it • had conveyed the same' in writing to the .relator, .the only remaining act to be done (apart from inspecting the premises • to see that remodeling conformed to the furnished sketch) was the purely ministerial act of typing a different address on a• piece of paper. R.C.W. 66.08.150 quoted above provides inter alia:. Save as in this title otherwise provided the action, order . or decision of the board as to any permit or license shall • •• be final (Italics ours.) . - As is said in People ex rel. Finnegan v. McBride, 226 N.Y. 252, 123 N.E. 374, . Public officers or agents who exercise judgment and discretion in the performance of their duties may not revoke their determin- ations nor review their own orders once properly and finally made, however much they may have erred in judgment on the facts, even - ' though injustice is the result. A mere change of mind is • - insufficient. Or, as is said in St. Patrick's Church Corp v. Daniels, 113 Conn. • 132, 154 At1. 343, . • • The situation here presented is not that which has most frequently been subjected to question in the courts - a reconsideration• and reversal of decision upon the same ' application or appeal. As to this, it appears' to be well established that a zoning board of appeals or adjustment should not' ordinarily be permitted to review its own • decisions and revoke action- once duly taken. Otherwise • there would be•no finality to the proceeding; the result would be subject to change at .the whim of members or due • • - to the effect of influence exerted upon them, or other . undesirable elements tending to uncertainty and impermanence." [Emphasis added] . • Shannon v. Sponburg, 66 Wn.2d 135 (1966) at Page 141. • The Renton City Ordinance, 4.3010 just as R.C.W. 66.08.150'used the word • final when they say "shall represent the final action." ' • If the City persists with their action, it would be appropriate to file an action in Superior.Court requesting that the City's acts be set aside. Page 3 LAW OFFICES Curran, Kleweno, @Johnson 6 CuPPan ,� : : • 213 4tH AVENUE SOUTH ti'';�� _-- - ---= POST OFFICE BOX 26 / r ��:' :�; j,}.i:�,` , Ken1.,Washin ion 9o031 Del Mead City Clerk City of Renton • 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Wa 98055 / 0 • e• • • LAW OFFICES GuPPan, Kleweno, Johnson 6 CuPPan JAMES P. CURRAN 213 4TH AVENUE SOUTH TELEPHONES CHARLES PETER CURRAN (206) 852-2345 MELVIN L.KLEWENO,JR. POST OFFICE BOX 26 (206) 852-2346 STEPHEN L.JOHNSON Kenl,Washinjfon 96031 THOMAS O. McELM EEL February 13, 1978 f46 g 107�"c1:\, IA *if:0, * E-04 TO: City Council, City of Renton t?, •0 Charles J. Delaurenti, Mayor, City of Renton ` J- W • L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner Del Mead, City Clerk • RE: E. R. COLEMAN Approved Short Plat #078-77 Ladies and Gentlemen: We are attorneys assisting Mr. Coleman in regard to the above referenced plat. We have concluded that the steps now being taken by the City with reference to the plat are contrary to your City Ordinances. We believe that Mr. Coleman is fully entitled to have building permits issued pursuant to that approved short plat at this time. We are prepared to initiate a Superior Court action to enforce that right if necessary. In the hopes of avoiding the expense to all parties of such an action, we are submitting this writing to you to persuade the City Council to proiiutly discharge any further action so that building permits can be issued. The following is the history of this short plat request: September 27, 1977 Public hearing held October 5, 1977 Decision by hearing examiner to approve the short plat per exhibit #3 (see exhibit #3 attached to this letter) October 20, 1977 Hearing examiner states in letter to E. R. Coleman: "Dear Mr. Coleman: This is to nofity you that the above referenced requests, which were approved subject to conditions as noted on the Examiner's report of October 5, 1977, have not been appealed within the time period set by ordinance, and there- fore, this application is considered final and is • being submitted to the City Clerk effective this date for permanent filing. Signed: L. Rich Beeler, Hearing Examiner" • • Page Two February 13, 1978 Renton City Ordinances, Sec. 4.3015 and 3016 limit rights to request reconsideration or to appeal to 14 days with regard to final action of the hearing examiner on short plats. (Copy of ordinance attached) . • December 12, 1977 Hearing examiner states in letter that Exhibit 3 depicts 3 lots and that "my intention was to approve 3 lots on the subject property as requested". (Emphasis added) . He then goes on to say that he is reopening the matter because there is confusion. (One might inquire as to who is confused - Mr. Coleman's application requested 3 lots, the exhibit #3 is taken from the short plat application and clearly depicts 3 lots, A, B, and C and the examiner states that he intended to approve 3 lots) . (Copy of letter attached) . December 27, 1977 Notice is sent by the City of Renton to Mr. Coleman that the City Council will • consider an appeal filed December 27, 1977 and that the appeal will be heard on January 16, 1978. January 9, 1978 At the Council Meeting of January 9, 1978, the Council acts on a recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee. Mr. Coleman had no notice or chance to be heard at either any committee meeting or at this counsel meeting. He first heard of these various actions when he came to the council meeting of January 16; 1978. (Notice of City attached) . January 6, 1978 The. Examiner advises the appellants by letter that he is going to reconsider the application based upon adequacy of the 30 foot street by requesting the • Traffic Engineer to re-examine the approved plat. Page Three February 13, 1978 January 19, 1978 The Traffic Department sends a written memo saying the 30 foot street is entirely adequate. (See memo attached) . January 25, 1978 Hearing Examiner concludes that Mr. Coleman's approved plat shall be reduced to 2 lots. February 7, 1978 Mr. Coleman filed notice of appeal of the Examiner's action of January 25, 1978. Your actions to date are contrary to the requirements of Sec. 4. -3001, et seq., which does not permit review of approved plats after the expiration of 14 days and Section 9-1101 et seq. , which does not provide for any City Council intervention into previously approved short plats once the 14 day period.has expired. We will look to the City to pay the damages and legal expenses suffered by Mr. Coleman by reason of the City interfering with a short plat already declared final. Will you kindly give this office notice of any further committee meetings or public hearings on this matter. We would particularly appreciate the chance to review this entire matter with the City Council. Yours very truly, 0, JOHNSON & CURRAN By Charles Peter Curran CPC:mb Attachments cc: Sherwood Martin • OF- R� V O. THE CITY OF RENTON V tro I' 7 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE .SO. RENTON. WASH. 980.55 7 � o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR ® LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 'O A- L. RICK BEELER ; 235 -2593 0,Q • .ieD SEP1E�O 'J Mr. Ernest Coleman RE: File No. Short Plat 078-77 222 Williams Avenue S. E-079-77 Renton, WA 98055 W-080-77 Dear Mr. Coleman: This is to notify you that the above referenced requests, which were approved subject to conditions as noted on the Examiner's report of October 5, 1977, have not been appealed within the time period set by ordinance, and therefore, this application is considered final and is • being submitted to the city Clerk effective this date for permanent filing. Since.Tely, ., • L. • Rick Beeler , Hearing Examiner - - LRB:mp cc: Del Mead, City Clerk Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director . • . • ...• — • • , r.•\/ —::.,', „i, • . ' (1'I t•.••..•,7/.••• (/ ,..— • .11• 1_A) . • — fv - • . 11 ' / 7 / • .1/ ' / '1 . V)• . I' ' • • — I ' . ).' 1...,,,1 . • - • ,\.-'. ..s...;,,•,-, \\ ' . . . .. • • qq :..,:),. .L., . . •. . , 5Z/,: 5-,;',.' ----..; 1..,.\ •::•::: V) — , \•2 N\ • . • 1 • --1: N .-;, 1 . • 1,. • -Ni . . . , • • . . . . .. . • • ::: r. . C',i • . • . • . . .. . . . • •-.. - (3:',1 ('''', . . .. , . . . ' .. .,. . • (,) - . . -l) `‘- (A . ... . • . • •• , . „ .. . . . . . . . ,-.... . _ . . . ..,- . . • .. . . . . . . . • . . . • .. . • . • , . . - . • • . . .. . . . . . , . . • . . , . . . . .. . . - • • . . . . . . . • . . . . .. . • ...„_, • .• . c,,,, cs,) . . . . . . • • • . . . • . . \J • . . ' , . , . . . . . . • • . . . . . . • • . . - . • • . • •, . t • . , . .,.; , . ,•-•, , _ •;•1. [...) . ...—.,..._..„.....____________ . •.., . I •••••. 1 . . • ' • ,. I VI • •. • . I —•. . . . . . . f. n •(-..1,,) • • ,- . . , ,. • . . cy N " • . . ‘.. . . • . IN\) . . ' . • , 1 - ,‘) . . .. NI - . - ...._f • • . • ..-", • .—o- . • • \, . . i:\:. N., . • . r' , • • . I,\e' • . . . s (. . -•_ ' . ..) '.. I,. • • ... •• .1k '', -,) • . . • 'k., ‘k I r•• . . . . . • . U • . . ... 1..,\ . . . . . C'k) • kk..) ` . , . • .%-\.) • -2- s)\ . N • . . • 1-... • • . . - r• \''. ' . . , ,1I . . . , . . . . , . . . • . • :,,..C'E/ /".5,6 ' . . . ,-/ ) f• tO ,.. • 's•- . , -720/ • • .-•' . l'U( 0 V3 . '• . • ) I, ' . • . . -,. . . ,.5Z/ • . '-7 ssi I,- • • . • .. ., (,c.; L-\ • ,., • '. . . . • • • . ••• \:k- ii, • •• .. . . . . • . • ' •• • . . . • i•-• ,•`.;1 "/-- . • • . • I/^) cc-,,I i: • . . . . . • • . . • • . . . • LU ''r•'" • • . • .• • It, It) . . _----, ili ..\'1 ., . . --• • . ---.. • ''/: ,.- . ,`,. ••1. ','. •----:.---.... . • . . • • IN •,) .1.11 . . • • . , z' ----) . . • ,--- • . • • . • -t--:( >1:- i -/-ie, ,, / _ .- . . .>c • •.... ......_....... ........ .. .... ... .... ... . . . • . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . • v/ .-i --.,/, .„ ,, ..___/ . , .• .\ • th f 4-3014 • 4--3.016 (A) That substantial evidence was presented demonstrating. lhe'subject rec:lassifica- !1 • don appears not to have been specifically considered- at the time of the last , r area land use analysis and area zoning; or . (B) That the property is potentially zoned for the reclassification being requested • : pursuant,to the policies set forth.in the Comprehensive Plan and conditions . •-A^ . have been met which would indicate the change is appropriate; or , `.1 (C) That since the last previous land use analysis of the area and area zoning of the trt subject property, •authorized public improvements, permitted private develop- !., I; • . ment or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone [I • significant and material change. • . ;' ... Within fourteen (14) calendar days of the conclusion of a hearing, the Examiner shall render a written decision, including findings and.conclusions, and shall transmit a copy > I• . . of such decision by regular mail, postage prepaid, to the applicant and other parties of'record in the case requesting same. The person mailing such decision, together with • :' I. the supporting documents, shall prepare an affidavit of mailing, in standard form, and such affidavit shall become a part of the record of such proceedings. • . j • In the .case 'of applications requiring Council approval 'as set forth in Section II 4-3010(B)2, the Examiner shall file a decision with the City Council at the expiration of the fourteen (14) day period provided for a rehearing, or Within five (5) days of the I i ' conclusion of a rehearing, if one is conducted. Thereupon the City Council shall cause i to be prepared the appropriate•legislation. • } 'f ' 4-3015, as amended:. RECONSIDERATION: Any aggrieved party feeling that the j'' ; i ' decision.of the Examiner is based on an erroneous procedure, errors �i li of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery o.f'new evidence which could not be t,i �; reasonably available.,at the prior hearing, may make a written request for review by •i' the Examiner within fourteen (14).days after the•written decision of the Examiner has ;s I been rendered. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such ap- 1 pellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he i . • . deems proper. i i ) 4-3016, as amended: APPEAL OF EXAMINER'S DECISION: Any party .to the. . proceedings and aggrieved by the Examiner's decision may submit an appeal in writing to the City Council, by filing same with the City Clerk, within four- . teen (14) c•alendar days from the date of the Examiner's written decision, requesting • a review of same. Such appeal shall be accompanied by a fee of twenty five dollars ($25.00) paid to the City Clerk. • • •I Thereupon the Examiner shall cause to be forvVarded.to the members of the City Coun- . cil all of the pertinent documents, including his written decision, findings, conclusions • and notice of appeal. If; after the examination 'of such.record,.the Council determines • 1 1176;577 • I . -. F • • CJ \® ..? MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON. WASI-I. 98055 • 0� ® . CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR 0 ' LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER • O,S, �� • L. RICK BEELER , 235 - 2593 4T• FQ SEP1���� • December 12, 1977 . Mr. Ernest R. Coleman RE: File No. Short Plat 078-77 ' 1100 North 36th Ernest R. Coleman • Renton, WA 98055 Parties of Record ' Dear Mr. Coleman & Parties- of Record: It ,recently was brought to my attention that the decision of October 5, 1977. regarding this application was confusing as to whether two or three • lots were approved in the report. The decision on page six was to "approve ' 'the. short plat per Exhibit #3. " However, what constituted Exhibit #3 was unclear. Upon review of the record it should be clarified that Exhibit #3 depicted the 3-lot short plat request originally submitted by the applicant and that this exhibit was •not revised to a 2-lot configuration. My intuition was to approve three lots on. the subject property •as requested. Since this clarification may have affected your response to the. October 5, 1977 written decision and upon advice of the City Attorney, the period . for requesting reconsideration by •the Examiner or appeal to the City • . . Council is opened as of the date of this letter,. and will expire. on • December 27, 1977. If you require additional information regarding procedures for requesting reconsideration or' notice of appeal to the City Council, please refer -to- Section 4-3015 .and 4-3016, Code of General. ' Ordinances, available in the City Clerk's office. "\•. ' I sincerelyapologize - p gize for any inconvenience caused in this matter. • RespeftfulJy yours, . . ' . q-' i :0 -1- , ____.,________. . . ._______-:,• L. Rick Beeler •• Hearing Examiner , • cc: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director . • • ` °�i �r,n^,�u. A,1-1 �� CITY 014 1,1 17J N • IN A, ) IN z �:,��Ss , 11• MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 9805E 0 o R . °' CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR DELORES A. MEAD A� CITY CLERK • •"Po l(D SEPZ ° • • December 27 , 1977 • • • APREAL FILED BY James C. Aiken; Charmaine C. Baker, Robert L. Moffatt and Joan L: Moffatt • • Re: Appeal of Land Use Examiner' s Decision, dtd . 10/5/77 • Short. Plat 078-77, Ernest Coleman • • To Parties of Record: • • . Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's decision has been filed • • with the City Clerk' s Office this date, along. with• the proper fee of $25.00, pursuant to Title '4, Ch. 30,' City Code, as amended . • The City Code requires the appeal must be set forth in writing . . The written appeal and all other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council 's• Planning and Development Committee. Please contact • . the Council Secretary, 235-2586, for date and time of the committee . - meetings if so desired.- . NOTICE IS HEREBY, GIVEN that the above-referenced appeal will be • considered by the Renton City 'Co.uncil at its regular meeting of January 16, .1978 at 8:00 .p.m. in the Council Chambers , Second Floor, Renton Municipal Building, 200. Mill Ave. S. Yours very truly, . CITY' OF RENTON • • - >•- Maxine E. Motor Deputy, City Clerk• • • • • MEM:jt . • • • Ni;MORA;;ilUM • • • January 19 , 1978 • TO : RICK i3EELER • Heating Examiner FROM: DEL BENNETT • • Deputy Director of Public Works • RE : SHORT PLAT 078-77 Ernest R . Coleman . • • • In response to your memo dated January- 6 , 1978 , we have again . reviewed the proposed Short. Plat 11078-77 submitted by Ernest R. Coleman . The response to the questions raised . in your memo are as follows : • 1) According to the 1976 Trip Generation Manual prepared by the Institute of Traffic Engineers for residential areas , there • • • would be 10 trips per .day per lot . .If ' the pro.posed •short plat were two lots ;• then there would be 20 trips per day ,- or three . lots would produce the average of 30 trips per day . The additional . traffic that • would occur as a result of the three additional single family lots would not be significant . It would appear- that • the existing easements could accommodate the additional traffic without any difficulty . 2) The existing traffic utilizing the 17 . 6-foot easement tor through vehicular traffic between Meadow Avenue North and Park Avenue North has not r. esu'lte'd . in any unusual. traffic problems . We have no recorded accidents or complaints regarding the use of this easement . The width of the . proposed .easement, which is • 30 feet ; would be adequate for single family development, and in our opinion the—casement road would hot endanger the public welfare or other affected properties . 3) The City ' s Arterial. .Street Plan does not concern itself with easements , private roads , etc . Much of the development in the older neighborhoods •has occurred many ; many years ago and a number of • noneonforming access roads were developed' which have not • caused any serious difficulties . When possible , we would like the development to adhere to our ordinances , but many times it is not a very practical or. .feasible solution . I hope the response to your questions will help in making your • decision. • • RECEIVEC) ".���.�""'"^�.M„� • CITY OF RENT0N• 1 R • HEARING EXAMINER - DCI : cah. JAN 2 01978 AM • . • 7,fli9tll;11111211 213,4,5,E . S A J • THE CITY OF RENTON A NA®♦ MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 p , . ' CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR ® DELORES A. MEAD CITY CLERK o6P4'ED SEPtt*go February 16, 1978 APPEAL FILED BY CURRAN, KLEWENO, JOHNSON &. CURRAN, LAW OFFICES ON ,BEHALF OF ERNEST R., COLEMAN Re: Appeal of Examiner's Reconsideration Decision. dated January 25, 1978, Ernest R. Coleman Short, Plat 078-77, Exception 079-77 & Waiver 080-77 To Parties of Record: ' Appeal 'of'Land Use Hearing Examiner's reconsideration decision has been . filed, with the..City Clerk's office, along with the proper fee of $25.00, pursuant -to Title 4, Ch. 30, City Code, as amended. The City Code requires the appeal must be set forth in writing. The written appeal and all other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council 's Planning and Development Committee. Please contact the Council Secretary,:, 235-2586, after 12:00 noon for date and, time of the committee meetings if so desired. All meetings are open to the public. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above-referenced appeal will be considered by the Renton City Council at its regular meeting of February 27, 1978 at, 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Second Floor, Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Ave. S. Yours very truly, , CITY OF RENTON , 49441.414i, a. 7fre-eziot Delores A. Mead City Clerk DAM:j t ' cc: Mayor , ' Planning Director Planning & Development Committee , , and City Council Members Public Works Director Land Use Hearing Examiner ' Finance Director ' Building Division ' October 5, 1237\G OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER `: CITY OF RENTON , • eG� \�� =�"J REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION c,,„: APPLICANT: Ernest Coleman FILE NO. Sh.\1. 0i78-77�Cpt.'� E-0794746' av W-080-77 LOCATION: Property located west of Meadow Avenue North midway between North 36th Street and North 38th Street and east of Park Avenue North. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests approval of a proposed three (3) lot short plat, with approval of an exception to allow access to the short plat via a private easement road 12.5 feet in width, together with a waiver of the off-site improvement requirements to allow gravelled surfacing of the proposed access easement. SUMMARY OF Planning Department Recommendation: Approval with conditions. ACTION: Hearing Examiner Decision: Approval of Short Plat and Exception; Denial of Waiver. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on September 21, 1977. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on September 27, 1977 at 10:40 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were sworn. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the Planning Department report, and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. Michael Smith, Planning Department, reviewed Exhibit #1, and entered the following additional exhibits into the record: Exhibit #2: King County Assessor's Map • Exhibit #3: Plat Map Exhibit #4: Planning Department Plat Configuration Mr. Smith reported the inadequacy of an existing water main and indicated that installation of a 6 to 8-inch main had been recommended adjacent to the subject site. The Examiner noted that the 17.5-foot easement and the 12.5-foot easement served only two lots according to the King County Assessor's map; however, Exhibit #3 indicated that the easement extension was longer. Mr. Smith advised that because the assessor's map may not always designate recorded easements, a title search would be required. The Examiner asked a representative from the Traffic Engineering Division to comment regarding the easement roadway. Responding was: Paul Lumbert Traffic Engineering Division In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the establishment of a 32-foot easement as recommended in a memorandum from the Traffic Engineering Division, dated September 21, 1977, attached to Exhibit #1, Mr. Lambert indicated that a joint project comprised of property owners on the northern 17.5-foot existing easement as well as the southern 12.5-foot existing easement could provide a 30-foot roadway. The Examiner asked Mr. Lumbert if joint development of this nature would set a precedent for future proposals and inquired about the possibility of installation of a fence to border the 12.5-foot • easement. Mr. Lumbert stated that under normal-circumstances, an equal amount of property would be designated on both sides of the easement and indicated that although such fencelines had not been allowed on city property, King County had allowed the procedure. The Examiner referred to a letter attached to Exhibit #1 from Don Monaghan, Engineering . Sh. P1. 078-77 Page Two E-079-77 W-080-77 Design Division, which recommended denial of the request for exception to the Subdivision Ordinance because of inadequacy of the proposed 12.5-foot roadway for proper ingress and egress and suitable turnaround area. Mr. Lumbert reported that the easement originally was a temporary construction easement which has not been converted into a permanent easement possibly at the request of the property owner. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the desirability of the proposed 30-foot wide easement from Meadow Avenue North to Park Avenue North, Mr. Lumbert reported that the roadway would provide improved access through the area. The Examiner asked the applicant if he concurred in Exhibit #1. Responding was: Ernest Coleman 1100 North 36th . Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Coleman indicated that he did not concur with the report with regard to access and limited number of lots. He objected to Item #P.1. of Exhibit #1 regarding proposed access and suggested an alternative of adding the 17.5-foot easement to. allow a 30-foot roadway access to serve the proposed three-lot subdivision. Mr. Coleman advised that because of the location of existing power poles in the access roadway, paving should be delayed until the improvements were completed and the poles removed or relocated. He indicated that three sewer stubs had been installed on the property at considerable expense when subdivision into three lots had been anticipated. He reported that the size of the proposed lots was compatible with existing residential lots in the area and felt that low maintenance and taxes were factors to consider in subdividing the plat into three parcels. The Examiner asked for testimony in favor of the application. There was no response. The Examiner entered a letter signed by four residents on Park Avenue North in opposition to construction of three houses on the subject property and granting permission to build a substandard width easement with substandard paving. The letter was labeled Exhibit #5 by the Examiner. The Examiner asked for testimony in opposition to the application. Responding was: Charmaine Baker 3713 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Baker submitted a letter containing 12 signatures from residents on Meadow Avenue North which she read into the record. The letter was labeled Exhibit #6. The residents opposed the application because of nonconformance with size and standards of surrounding developed property, degradation of appearance of neighborhood as a result of previous short-platting in the area, and inadequacy of the existing easement. She inquired about Item #0.6. of Exhibit #1 relating to extension of a 6-inch water main from Park Avenue North to accommodate fire flow and service requirements and asked if the existing easement would be restored to its original condition following the project. Mr. Smith advised that the applicant would maintain the responsibility for restoration of the roadway. She questioned previous testimony relating to 'installation of a fence between the 12.5-foot easement and the 17.5-foot easement separating the paved portion from the existing roadway. Mr. Smith advised that a fence would not be installed. In . response to Mrs. Baker's inquiry regarding width of the improved right-of-way in relation to a 3-lot short plat, Mr. Smith indicated that the easement would not meet city minimum requirements. She also inquired about material proposed for the easement and reported that crushed rock minimized dust and was preferable to gravel. Mrs. Baker further objected to the applicant's statement that lots of lesser size require. less maintenance and advised that homes in the area are well-maintained by residents who • desired comparable maintenance by new residents. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the possibility of formation of an L.I.D. for improvement of the existing easement, Mrs. Baker reported that the potential expense had precluded the project in the past. Responding was: Sherwood Martin 3728 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Martin objected to a three-lot plat configuration because of incompatibility with existing standards and size of surrounding property and reported favorable real estate appraisal of his own property due to large lots and country-like setting in the surrounding area. He also objected to increased traffic on the existing inadequate easement which he felt would produce an increase in dust, noise and deterioration of Sh. P1. 078-77 Page Three E-079-77 W-080-77 the roadway. He stated that reduction in the size or quality of the 12.5-foot easement would encourage traffic to utilize the 17.5-foot easement causing an increase in noise, dust and traffic hazards. He stated that dust levels are intolerable at the present time due to heavy traffic on the unimproved easement and maintenance responsibilities would be imposed on existing property owners with the construction of three new homes. He also suggested that a speed deterrent be imposed in the area. The Examiner asked Mr. Martin if consideration had been given to oiling the roadway to reduce dust levels. Mr. Martin indicated that cooperation had not been successful in the past to ease the problem. The Examiner noted that the easement had been utilized as a public right-of- way for 18 years and expressed a concern that it currently would be considered a public street. Mr. Martin reported that the width of the roadway prevented it from being utilized as a public right-of-way. Responding was: Luanna Martin 3728 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Martin indicated a desire to close the easement as a solution to the existing access problems. In response to previous discussion regarding oiling of the easement she noted that extreme expense of oil prices in prior years had precluded the procedure and residents had installed crushed rock to curtail the problem. She indicated that a problem presently exists with ownership of 110 feet of the access roadway east of Park Avenue North. Responding was: Jim Baker 3713 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Baker indicated that access had been assured to homeowners on the easement and had been utilized since his residency in 1961. He reported the problem of dust and indicated that fencing separating the proposed easement from Mr. Coleman's property would cause an increase of traffic from Park Avenue. Responding was: • Joan Moffatt 3709 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Moffatt expressed concerns regarding fire protection if the access were closed noting that her residence exists 1,000 feet from the nearest fire hydrant. She also expressed objection to a three-lot plat. Mr. Coleman indicated his concurrence with subdividing the property into a two-lot configuration. He reported his intent to pave the street and remove the poles when improvements were installed but now is also required to extend a 6-inch main from Park Avenue, and he indicated his cooperation in contributing to the improvements. Mr. Martin expressed the desire to coordinate a mutually satisfactory agreement with the applicant prior to revisions in the access easement. The Examiner asked Mr. Smith for additions, corrections or modifications to Exhibit #1. Mr. Smith indicated his preference for a continuation of the hearing to allow the applicant and residents utilizing the easement to discuss alternatives for solution of access problems. He also advised that questions relating to the proposed water main should be directed to the Utilities Division of the Public Works Department. The Examiner asked the applicant if he favored a continuation of the hearing for the purpose of resolving problems relating to the easement and improved circulation to reduce future impact. Mr. Coleman objected to possible delay and potential expense in retaining an attorney during negotiations with property owners and restated his intent to improve the roadway. He objected to continuation of the hearing for those reasons. The Examiner stated that sufficient justification did_ not exist to require the applicant to negotiate a mutual agreement regarding access and for that reason he would not grant a continuance of the hearing. Mr. Coleman reported contacting the King County tax department regarding ownership of the easement east of Park Avenue North and the department had been unable to supply records to dispute that the portion of the 17.5-foot easement was not included. Mr. Martin subsequently withdrew his request to continue the hearing. 41111 41111 Sh. Pl. 078-77 Page Four E-079-77 W-080-77 Mr. Smith advised that if the hearing were not continued, the Planning Department wished to submit several comments at this time including protection of the slope by rockery on the 12.5-foot easement on the southern portion abutting the property facing Meadow Avenue North and removal or relocation of the existing power poles between the two easements. He indicated concurrence with Traffic Engineering recommendations to develop the 12.5-foot easement at this time with development and improvement of the 17.5-foot • easement the responsibility of the abutting property owners. He corrected the width of the easement stated in Exhibit #1 to 30 feet. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding requirements for paving rather than crushed rock, Mr. Smith reported that a 10-foot paved driveway is required on a pipestem lot by city ordinance. The Examiner asked for further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on Item # Short Plat 078-77, E-079-77 and W-080-77 was closed by the Examiner at 12:15 p.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The request is for approval of a three-lot short plat, an Exception from Chapter 11 to allow access via a 12.5-foot easement, and a Waiver of off-site improvements. 2. The Planning Department report accurately sets forth the issues, applicable policies and provisions, findings of fact, and departmental recommendations in this matter, and is hereby attached as Exhibit #1 and' incorporated in this report by reference as set forth in full therein. 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended by R.C.W., 43.21.C. , Gordon Y. Ericksen, responsible official, determined that the proposal is exempt from the threshold determination and EIS requirements. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. All existing utilities are available and in close proximity. 6. The proposal is compatible with the required setbacks, lot coverage and height requirements of Section 4-706 (R-1) , Title IV, Code of General Ordinances. 7. A 17.5-foot access easement abuts the north boundary of the proposed 12.5-foot easement. This 17.5-foot easement was created approximately 18 years ago, has never been closed to use by the general public, and was specified for use by properties along the north boundary of the easement. Residents of the area generally were not opposed to the applicant using the easement, but were concerned about the existing nuisance of dust that would be increased by additional traffic on the easement. B. The dust problem in the existing 17.5-foot easement was not a matter for consideration by the Examiner, except in evaluation of the requested waiver of off-site improvements. 9. Upon consideration of the testimony, the applicant revised the request to a short plat of two lots. 10. The Traffic Engineering Division testified that approval of the proposed 12.5-foot easement would be unprecedented since the city has not allowed such small easements in the past. Some small easements had been approved under the King County administration. Joining of the 17.5-foot and 12.5-foot easements was considered most desirable, acceptable and precedented. No other points' of access appear available to the property. Evidence was not submitted to indicate that the applicant attempted to join the easements. 11. The Utilities Division found that the existing 3-inch water line in Meadow Avenue North was of insufficient capacity and recommended that a 6-inch water line be brought from Park Avenue North to the site. The applicant protested the recommendation because of the costs involved. 12. Two utility poles exist between the two easements which may require relocation due to access interference. 13. The grading of the 12.5-foot easement will probably produce a bank along the south portion of the easement and abutting the property facing Meadow Avenue North. This Sh. Pl. 078-77 Page Five E-079-77 W-080-77 bank may require stabilization. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The short plat conforms to the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning requirements. 2. Since the 17.5-foot easement abutting the site has existed unrestricted for many years, it is a reasonable conclusion that public use of the easement can continue uninterrupted. The applicant can use the easement which was not contested but agreed to by parties at the hearing. Therefore, access exists between Meadow Avenue North and Park Avenue North. Similar to existing properties adjoining the 17.5-foot easement, individual driveways can extend to the easement. A turnaround facility is not needed. The dust problem resulting from use of the graveled 17.5-foot easement apparently has become significant. The application before the Examiner does •not include solution of this problem. However, the impacted residents were appraised of possible alternatives to solving this mutual concern. The applicant expressed a willingness to participate in and contribute to the solution. 4. Joining of the two easements is a reasonable solution to the access needs of the properties along both easements. Based upon available testimony it appears that the applicant may unrestrictedly use the 17.5-foot easement which does not provide sufficient width for adequate improvements. Adding the proposed 12.5-foot easement will provide a total of 30 feet of easement for improvements, thereby becoming more acceptable for access and circulation while retaining the status of primarily a private easement/street. This will require relocation of the two existing utility poles. 5. Improvement (paving) of the 17.5-foot easement remains to be resolved by the parties abutting the easement since improvements were not required under King County jurisdiction. On the other hand, the applicant is seeking division of his land under city jurisdiction which requires pavement of the proposed 12.5-foot easement unless a waiver is granted. In the Examiner's review of the waiver application, the most applicable criteria for evaluation of the request are: a. ". . .absence of such improvements located within a reasonable distance. " (Section 9-1105.6.B. b. "That there are special physical circumstances or conditions affecting said property such that the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use or development of his land. " (Section 9-1109.1.A) c. "That the exception is necessary to insure such property the rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under similar circumstances." (Section 9-1109.1.B) d. "That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity." (Section 9-1109.1.C.) It is clear that the existing abutting 17.5-foot easement is only graveled and that the applicant has requested to be able to improve his proposed 12.5-foot easement in the same manner. The easement will be slightly more than 300 feet in length which constitutes a large sum of money for pavement and may prevent development of his land. Putting gravel or crushed rock on the 12.5-foot easement will probably contribute to the dust problem that exists, consequently adversely impacting people and properties in the area. Paving this easement will not produce this impact but would be the applicant's contribution to improvement of the total of 30-foot easement. It would then be up to the remaining property owners to follow suit in eliminating the dust problem. 1 Sh. Pl. 078-77 Page Six E-079-77 W-080-77 6. The capacity of the water line in Meadow Avenue North appears to be inadequate to serve the needs of the neighborhood as well as the applicant's proposal. Since it has not been shown that the applicant is significantly adding to the existing overload situation, it is unreasonable to require the applicant to install at his expense a new 6-inch water line from Park Avenue North to serve only his proposed three lots. It is reasonable to assume that such a new line will serve other properties as well or to reduce the overload on the undersized line in Meadow Avenue North. Therefore, it is apparent that others will benefit from such an installation. In fact this improvement may be extremely difficult to construct since the applicant does not possess a utility easement from his property to Park Avenue North. The L.I.D. process is the logical and reasonable solution to providing this recommended water line. DECISION: Based upon the record, testimony, findings and conclusions, it is the Examiner's decision to: 1. Approve the short plat per Exhibit #3. 2. Approve the Exception to allow a 12.5-foot access easement provided such easement includes all parties having access to or abutting the adjacent 17.5-foot easement. 3. Disapproval of the Waiver of the off-site improvement of paving. All utility poles and obstructions between the 12.5-foot and 17.5-foot easements shall be removed. Any exposed banks shall be stabilized to prevent erosion and sluffing. This decision is further conditioned upon review by the Planning Department for compliance with these conditions. ORDERED THIS 5th day of October, 1977. L. Rick Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of October, 1977 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Paul Lumbert Ernest Coleman Charmaine Baker Sherwood Martin • Luanna Martin Jim Baker Joan Moffatt TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of October, 1977 to the following: Charles J. Delaurenti Council President George J. Perry Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Ron Nelson, Building Division Gerard M. Shellan, City Attorney • Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before October 19, 1977. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV. Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying a filing fee of $25.00. and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection in the City Clerk's office, first floor of City Hall, or same may be purchased at cost in said office. Al O - V 64 THE CITY OF RENTON V 4 Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o :' o� — CHARLES.J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 'O �� L. RICK BEELER , 235-2593 '' ;" 4TED SEPSEO� February 8, 1978 " :-: Mr. Ernest R. Coleman . , 222 Williams Avenue South ., Renton, WA . 98055 :> ,--' ' - RE.: Notice b_f Appeal 'dated February .•7 1978; to.:L. Rick Beeler from E R. Coleman.,': `regarding;•Short Plat #078-77. f Dear Mr: Coleman: •r:>. Your letter of February, 7, _.1978, 'is not clear( as to Whether you are appealing my decision regarding the above .to the City Council (per Section 4-3016) or whether you are requesting My reconsideration of ',`,`:, • my decision (per Section.,4-3015)". References were"made, to both processes. It seems that you may be requesting.,reconsideration:,', If so, your : letter does not ". . .set forth the specific. errors .'relied upon. . . " (Section 4-3015) in making your request. This information is necessary for me to respond to your letter if, in fact, you seek reconsideration. Otherwise:; ,an appeal must be directed to the City....,. Clerk. Re tf , . L. Rick Beeler. . . - Hearing Examiner - cc: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Del Mead, City Clerk • • _ --`t ,9q „J ' COLEMAN & MATTAINI 3f' Ernest R. Coleman:, - • 222 Williams Ave '.South p Renton, Washing ton 98.055: ,,{K;: ,Y (206) 226-6,462 , • ,a; a, ,°:',: • February 7 19.78 ,try ,r w {„ Land Use Hearing Examiner $; ' L Rick Beeler, • ,_,, ,4°; Municipal fir. pal Bui ] d'ing 200 .Mill Ave . So. , .. Renton , WA. 98055 .. ' rJr. Beeler • This letter is So in •prote's,.t,:,: AND-„NOTI:GE� •OF :APPEAL,' .1 your right-about-face. decision':�re : 'E.rnest ..Coleman ,• ort Plat #. 078-7,7.. These chap es' : 'of' 9 your• ;o ri g i na l . d e c i s i on; were. ,."';, , spelled out i;n• your, aette`r .,'to.:a,'Mr.:;:&,:Mrs:'':. B . Martin under date,,-of J. .n 25;'; .'1,.978;..;%',,I:`. ., ce ved a 'copy of ,this letter on .,Ja 27 .frece� ved n 1,.9`7.8 ,, . M a n e�a.Y 1' i,°P S•`:: ased'` on ,th coveredotif.' a° .9 rt,,4,-a`';:: ,,u n d' P''1 i a,n.t er •Title° P , ; ` u ;.I V, Se,c - .: : ,. ` : : ,; isIwou1ask ..thatY ttf te,'1 .as;'; Ety u r t a n sn handl an9, -s ,app.p,al.r . Ve r tr y t ( fZ : " f 1 Cole man , --,.,,... •cc . Honorable Ma o'r Dela'urentr , ':yeti'' rI '''f;''.sF�' 1t'' ,. Y., c2 +' :rf ., Jt` S4'* sagaa ) pp..� 'i tj , CITY OF RENTQI .' • 'A HEARING EXAMINER, i.: 't4' F- R 9`7 pfti �9 (itIFt12i`1e2. a4i6`. • 'tip .,.:• ` ._v. n ' - - - :�:`RealEsateCommeccti - ndustrlat scatLand`' Y. .ilf.,' f'1 St ' S THE CITY OF RENTON U Q MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o ; CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • DELORES A. MEAD O A- CITY CLERK 4TFO SEPS� February 16, 1978 APPEAL FILED BY CURRAN, KLEWENO, JOHNSON & CURRAN, LAW OFFICES ON ,BEHALF OF ERNEST R. COLEMAN Re: Appeal of Examiner's Reconsideration Decision dated January. 25, 1978, Ernest R. Coleman Short Plat 078-77, Exception 079-77 & Waiver 080-77 To Parties of Record: Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's reconsideration decision has been filed with the City Clerk's office, along with the proper fee of $25.00, pursuant to Title 4, Ch. 30, City Code, as amended. The City Code requires the appeal must be set forth in writing. The written appeal and all other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council 's Planning and Development Committee. Please contact the Council Secretary, 235-2586, after 12:00 noon for date and time of the committee meetings if so desired. All meetings are open to the public. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above-referenced appeal will be considered by the Renton City Council at its regular meeting of February 27, 1978 at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Second Floor, Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Ave. S. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON 42. 7 &axL Delores A. Mead City Clerk DAM:j t cc: Mayor Planning Director Planning & Development Committee and City Council Members Public Works Director Land Use Hearing Examiner Finance Director Building Division 11/ '" -up THE CITY OF RENTON � !1 J 1 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON.WASH. 98055 pCHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • DELORES A. MEAD CITY CLERK O,pR)to SEP1°° February 16, 1978 APPEAL FILED BY CURRAN, KLEWENO, JOHNSON & CURRAN, LAW OFFICES ON .BEHALF OF ERNEST R. COLEMAN Re: Appeal of Examiner's Reconsideration Decision dated January 25, 1978, Ernest R. Coleman Short Plat 078-77, Exception 079-77 & Waiver 080-77 To Parties of Record: Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's reconsideration decision has been filed with the City Clerk's office, along with the proper fee of $25.00, pursuant to Title 4, Ch. 30, City Code, as amended. The City Code requires the appeal must be set forth in writing. The written appeal and all other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council 's Planning and Development Committee. Please contact the Council Secretary, 235-2586, after 12:00 noon for date and time of the committee meetings if so desired. All meetings are open to the public. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above-referenced appeal will be considered by the Renton City Council at its regular meeting of February 27, 1978 at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Second Floor, Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Ave. S. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON a. Delores A. Mead City Clerk DAM:jt cc: Mayor Planning Director Planning & Development Committee and City Council Members Public Works Director Land Use Hearing Examiner Finance Director Building Division • 4 ®V R •v `ck. THE CITY OF RENTON C.) `® 1 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 ea 0 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR i DELORES A. MEAD CITY CLERK ogP�O SEPIt February 16, 1978 APPEAL FILED BY CURRAN, KLEWENO, JOHNSON & CURRAN, LAW OFFICES ON ,BEHALF OF ERNEST R. COLEMAN Re: Appeal of Examiner's Reconsideration Decision dated January 25, 1978, Ernest R. Coleman Short Plat 078-77, Exception 079-77 & Waiver 080-77 To Parties of Record:. Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's reconsideration decision has been filed with the City Clerk's office, along with the proper fee of $25.00, pursuant to Title 4, Ch. 30, City Code, as amended. The City Code requires the appeal must be set forth in writing. The written appeal and all other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council 's Planning and Development Committee. Please contact the Council Secretary, 235-2586, after 12:00 noon for date and time of the committee meetings if so desired. All meetings are open to the public. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above-referenced appeal will be considered by the Renton City Council at its regular meeting of February 27, 1978 at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Second Floor, Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Ave. S. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON diekted, a. wzi-a-d- Delores A. Mead City Clerk DAM:jt cc: Mayor Planning Director Planning & Development Committee and City Council Members Public Works Director Land Use Hearing Examiner Finance Director Building Division Mr. & Mrs. .; .ei d B. Martin 3728 Park Ave: ' Renton, WA 98055 Ms. May Dodge 3724 Park Ave. North Renton, WA 98055 Ms. Verna A. Amick 3720 Park Ave. N. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. & Mrs. James C. Baker 1 3713 Meadow Avenue N. �� Renton, WA 98055 Mr. & Mrs. Robert L. Moffatt 3709 Meadow Ave. N. • Renton, WA 98055 Ms. Sharon Zimmerman 3701 Meadow Ave. N. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. & Mrs. Hal. E.; Clausen 3705 Meadow Ave.' N. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. & Mrs. Jay H. Ross 3719 Meadow Ave. N. Renton, WA 98055 Ms. Lois Savage 3704 Meadow Ave. N. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. & Mrs. Gordon C. Mitchell 3613 Meadow Ave. N. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Ernest R. Coleman 222 Williams Ave. S. Renton, WA 98055 .]crf eE . Curran, Kleweno_ lnhnc.+. o --� I • LAW OFFICES Curran, Kleweno, Johnson t, Curran JAMES P. CURRAN 213 412 AVENUE SOUTH TELEPHONES CHARLES PETER CURRAN (206) 852-2345 MELVIN L.KLEWENO,JR. POST OFFICE BOX 26 (206) 852-2346 STEPHEN L.JOHNSON Kent,Washingion 96051 THOMAS O. McELMEEL February 13, 1978 • ' � C'e ��- TO: City Council, City of Renton c �r 1r; ', �,rlR Charles J. Delaurenti, Mayor, City of Renton L. Rich Reeler, Hearing Examiner Del Mead, City Clerk RE: E. R. COLEMAN Approved Short Plat #078-77 • Ladies and Gentlemen: We are attorneys assisting Mr. Coleman in regard to the. above referenced plat. We have concluded that the steps now being taken by the City with reference to the plat are contrary to your City Ordinances. We believe that Mr. Coleman is fully entitled to have building permits issued pursuant to that approved short plat at this time. We are prepared to initiate a Superior Court action to enforce that right if necessary. In the hopes of avoiding the expense to all parties of such an action, we are submitting this writing to you to persuade the City Council to promptly discharge any further action so that building permits can be issued. The following is the history of this short plat request: September 27, 1977 Public hearing held October 5, 1977 Decision by hearing examiner to approve the short plat per exhibit #3 (scc exhibit #3 attached to this letter) October 20, 1977 Hearing examiner states in letter to E. R. Coleman: "Dear Mr. Coleman: This is to nofity you that the above referenced requests, which were approved subject to conditions as noted on the Examiner's report of October 5, 1977, have not been appealed within the time period set by ordinance, and there- fore, this application is considered final and is being submitted to the City Clerk effective this date for permanent filing. Signed: L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner" • 010 '. ' ,. ' ' ' ' ' . - ' ''."'''''''.--- - ' , . • Page 'BAD ; February 13, 1978 . • • Renton' City Ordinances, .,:Sec. 4 :3:015 and:. •3016`1'imit; rights to . . -r• request reconsideration.;or to appeal to 14 days;Jwith regard. • to final action of' the hearing examiner' on short plats. (Copy of ordinance attached)' : ' December 12 1977 Hearin examiner' 'states.: in letter. that ;. , g '{ • exhibit. 3",depicts °3--lots 'and that "my • intent'ion was .to:approve ;3 lots .an ahe subject` ro u. ..(Emphasis p, perty: .as;r st added) He,then,;goes:,on"to say',that'he is:,reopening the:matter' because there is confusion:" (One`=might_ inqu re as too who is'confused'r-.Mr, :Coleman's application requested .3 'lots.;.,,fie.exhibit #3 is taken „• • frgm the."short;:plat:;:application and ;, ;,�': clearly depicts`.3>''lots, ',A, B, and C and the,examiner .states'that he'intended' to - •approve'3.,:lots)',.::.':.:'(Copy.of letter•-attached) December 27, 1977 Notice'y:is'sent b' ;the;Cityof:Renton to ---' Mr' Coleman that•°the'':City .Council'`will consider..`an appeail' fi ed December 27, 1977' and`that::the `appeal..will be heard' January 9, 1978 At.:the Council:Meeting.of. January'`'9, the Council.acts 'on''-'a recamndation of. the Planni:ng,''and' Development Chandetee: Mr..'Coleman'had,no;;;notice or chance•::to::be..,::, "` ' - heard at either any;'cea►Tnittee..meeting;;: or at:•ths"counsel`.iiting. He` first : "` heard of•these=various :actions when.;lie came ;to„the.`count l'nee of.Jan"• Ling uary.; 16 '1978: ' (Notice; of City'attachedj ' Jan 6 1978 �The'Examnervises•'="tYie: a llants uary _ . • - Ppe by';>.,. . letter>;that° he' ' s`>, oi i .too reconsic1_ r the ,application''based ;upon:ad' of equacy ''the;:30::;foot' street` r` y,r stirs rthe;.,by egos g Traffic;'Engineer';to;re-examine. the;s' .` approved plate: :::.s'; `„,.:. 1 • • Page Three . February 13, 1978 • . January 19, 1978 The Traffic,Department sends a written memo saying the 30 foOt street is entirely adequate. ' (See memo attached) . January 25, 1978 Hearing Examiner concludes that Mr. Coleman's approved plat shall be reduced to 2 lots. February 7, 1978 ' ' Mr. Coleman filed notice of appeal of the • :miner's action,of January 25, 1978. ,Your actions to date are contrary to the requirements of Sec. 4 -3001, et seq., which does not permit review of approved plats after the expiration of 14 days and Section 9-1101 et seq. , which does not provide for any City Council intervention into previously approved short"plats once. the '14 day period has expired. We will look to the City to pay the damages and legal expenses suffered by Mr. . . Coleman by reason of the City interfering with a short plat already declared final. Will you kindly give this office notice of any further,committee meetings or public hearings on this matter. We Would particularly appreciate the chance . to review this entire matter with the City Council., • Yours very truly, •;, 0 0, JOHNSON & C[JRRAN , • . Charles Peter Curran • . ., CPC:mb . . Attachments '. cc: Sherwood Martin . . • aio - • • - (10 ' . ., , • ... (�, �1 THE CITY l�'9I'O- RE �� ,' MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200, MILLA;VE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 9b055 • cn CHARLES J. DELAU.RENTI , MAYOR ® ,;,:LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER • 0I) 0�Q- : L. RICK BEELER , 235 - 2593 • Mr. Ernest Coleman RE: hi'le No. Short Plat 078-77 222 Williams Avenue S. h-07`.) '17 Renton, WA 98055 W-080-77 Dear Mr. Coleman: This is to notify you that the above referenced requests, which were . approved subject to condit.iobs as noted on the Examiner's report of October 5, 1977, have not been appealed wi.thi.n the time period set by ordinance, and therefore, this application is 'considered final and is being submitted to the City Clerk effective' thi,s 'dat,e for permanent filing. Sincerely, • �'i `` i i .l' ti. L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner- L RB:mp • cc: . Del Mead, Gity Clerk Gordon Y. Erickson, Planning Director • 1t, `f �I Ij • ' i, fh � rn • • l> > • I . Cist,2it • . • 71 :i' (� 'L.. ':. • • • r� • • tv . • 1•�•t \ I '_ • • • '------------.---.._..1 ,:::; • • 1 J.y • � 1. ` �.:i� _�J.-�__• ____-_�_ _- - - '- • 9,I�,�u;�:, 1: • t„ I 1�` - •t •r. • i 1. J' 1 L � `' CITY OF RENTAL 3 No.- 938 FINANCE DEPARTMENT' RENTON, WASHINGTON 9801 551 . 19 ,)?) RECEIVED OF TOTAL - GWEN E. MARSHAL L, ..,FINANCE DIRECTOR BY LI / .► o THE CITY OF RENTON U AA 2 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 Z 8 now CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 4 Q- L. RICK BEELER , 235-2593 O,fl4TfD 0O SEP1 February 8, 1978 Mr. Ernest R. Coleman. 222 Williams Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Notice of Appeal dated February 7, 1978, to L. Rick Beeler from E. R. Coleman, regarding Short Plat #078-77. Dear Mr. Coleman: Your letter of February 7, 1978, is not clear as to whether you are appealing my decision regarding the above to the City Council (per Section 4-3016) or whether you are requesting my reconsideration of my decision (per Section 4-3015) . References were made to both processes. It seems that you may be requesting reconsideration. If so, your letter does not ". . .set forth the specific errors relied upon. . . " (Section 4-3015) in making your request. This information is necessary for me to respond to your letter if, in fact, you seek reconsideration. Otherwise, an appeal must be directed to the City Clerk. Re tf L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: Ma -or Charles J. Delaurenti .,`el Mead, City Clerk FEB 1978 <-3, tc2 RECEIVEf ' CITY of REM i©T� \c"" CLERK'S OFF'; 401 Ernest R. Coleman, File No. Short Plat 078-77, E-079-77, W-080-77; Appeal of Examiner's Decision. Parties of Record: Mr. & Mrs. Sherwood B. Martin 3728 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Ms. May Dodge 3724 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Ms. Verna A. Amick 3720 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mr. & Mrs. James C. Baker 3713 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mr. & Mrs. Robert L. Moffatt 3709 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Ms. Sharon Zimmerman 3701 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mr. & Mrs. Hal E. Clausen 3705 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Ctt Mr. & Mrs. Jay H. Ross ��\5,U t�) 3719 Meadow Avenue North c�,� �<"� Renton, WA 98055 o; EDMs. Lois Savage W 3704 Meadow Avenue North t Renton, WA 98055 `C� 011 ° ��N�®� �� Mr. & Mrs. Gordon C. Mitchell ' lt' ta%t 3613 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Ernest R. Coleman 222 Williams Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 CITY ` :,.;:': _ OF RENT ��1T �� f .,;: ,, :; No: ',;" ,s FINANCE DEPARTMENT : u , -,;,, .+;., RENTON,,, WASHINGTON' 9 80 55 ' .. .. ° . . • i _ '•, . , 1 RECEIVED OF l• - ( .,lrl, ^ st 9 • .r • - if ,ref / ,:�_�• C.) • -� ",.; "?;: - ,, • .. .I'y if.,?.(: ,...?: (..` I ., tS'" ;.'art.-• .Cr '�y'c�� 'if'�a k` • fi • ,. ti" ,�, rill&bi TOTAL I '• • - ' GWEN E MARSHALL`;'•'FINANCE DI RECTOR k{ 41011 Renton City Council 1/9/78 Page 4 • OLD BUSINESS Committee on Council President Clymer presented Committee on Committees report Committees Report recommended change in committee structure to six committees and the matter be referred to the Ways and Means Committee for incorp- Council Committees oration of ordinance changes. Committee assignments were also re- for 1978 ported (first name listed being chairperson) : COMMUNITY SERVICES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Patricia Seymour-Thorpe George Perry Richard Stredicke Barbara Shinpoch Thomas Trimm Patricia Seymour-Thorpe WAYS AND MEANS PUBLIC SAFETY . Richard Stredicke Thomas Trimm George Perry Charles Shane Barbara Shinpoch Patricia Seymour-Thorpe TRANSPORTATION UTILITIES Barbara Shinpoch Charles Shane Charles Shane Thomas Trimm Richard Stredicke George Perry MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES, CARRIED. Council Agenda Committee on Committees report made recommendation to the Committee of the Whole that the Council Agenda be established on Wednesday by 5:00 P.M. and the Council packet and Staff report be placed on each Council Member' s desk by Friday, 12:00 noon. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Committee The Committee on Committees report recommended that the referrals Referrals to the Public Services Committee still remaining from 1977, be separated and referred back to the appropriate committee: Public Safety Committee 11/3/75 Tow Truck Rates 3/22/76 Taxi Regulations 10/25/76 Fire Protection Master Plan 9/19/77 Ambulance and Aid Car Fees Utilities Committee 8/29/77 Talbot Crest Dr.S. Residents' request - Surface Water 10/3/77 Ray Brown request for latecomer' s agreement Tl/7/77 McElroy sewer connection request 11/21/7 Miller/Cline request to connect to City sewer 12/5/77 Loveless/Powell request water/sewer latecomer's agrmt. Transportation Committee 4/11/77 Talbot roadway construction overrun 6/20/77 Monitoring 6-Year Street Construction Program 9/19/77 Amtrak Passenger service information 11/7/77 Brown/Strand petition for alley vacation in Kennydale 11/14/7 South Renton Park & Ride Facility - Review/Report back 12/19/7 Renton Center traffic signals MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES RECOMMENDATION REGARDING SEPARATION OF REFERRALS . CARRIED. Ways & Means The Ways and Means Committee concurred in the Mayor' s reappoint- Committee Report ment of Peggy Ziebarth to the Municipal Arts Commission for three Appointment year term expiring 12/31/80. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND THORPE, COUN- Peggy Ziebarth CIL CONCUR IN COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning and Planning and Development Committee Chairman Perry presented com- Development mittee report noting review of the request for reconsideration Committee Report and request for appeal , filed by separate parties , regarding the E.Coleman SP-078 Ernest Coleman Short Plat No. 078-77 and recommended that the Reconsidered matter of reconsideration be remanded back to the Nearing Examiner for review and response. The committee further recommended that Council action on the appeal request be postponed until the com- pletion of the Hearing Examiner' s reconsideration review. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND PERRY, COUNCIL CONCUR IN COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Renton City Council 1/9/78 Page 3 Correspondence and Current Business - Continued Transamerica records for review by the Court. Trial date to be given, Attorney Court Case Warren anticipating early date. The letter noted the Attorney Continued would be going back to the Court to obtain clarification as wording would prevent the City from taking any action on Renton Hill and the Attorney was of the opinion the intent was to limit the City's right to act strictly to the Transamerica property. Councilman Perry inquired of Planning Director Ericksen re P.U.D. application, being advised that consultant working for Mr. Farrell had indicated intent to present plans for 'P.U.D. but plans have not been received. Appeal of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision was filed by Roger E. Berg SCS & Stirskey re SCS & Stirskey Holdings Rezone 091-77 from R-2 to R-3 for Holdings R-091-77 property located north of the Seattle Pipeline R/W just south of Rezone Denied. SW 2nd St. and between the City limits and Hardie Ave. SW. Hearing Examiner Land Use Hearing Examiner recommendation: Denial . The appeal Denial Upheld alleged Examiner was not logical and decision not based on facts and testimony and claimed error in judgment. The Planning and Development Committee report submitted by Chairman Perry reported examination of the record and the Examiner' s decision, findings and conclusions pursuant to Section 4-3017, and recommended that the City Council concur in the recommendation of the Hearing Exami- ner for denial of the rezone request of R-2 to R-3, and refer to the Ways and Means Committee. MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE RECOMi•1ENDATION OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOP- MENT COMMITTEE, CONCUR IN EXAMINER' S RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL OF REZONE. CARRIED. Appeal of Appeal of the Hearing Examiner' s reconsideration decision dated Examiner' s 12/9/77 was filed by Richard and Arlene Ross for Short Plat Reconsideration 088-77 and Exception 089-77, property located in the vicinity of R. P. Ross et ux 516 SW 3rd Pl . along the north side of SW 3rd Pl . approximately Short Plat 088-77 midway between Earlington Ave. SW and Stevens Ave. SW. The appli- and Exception 089 cant had requested approval of a two-lot short plat and approval of exception allowing access to one of the two lots via existing 20 ft. easement road in lieu of standard frontage on a dedicated public right-of-way. The appeal charged error in judgment or law and explained being owners of the property for 13 yrs . ; prior to change in ordinance in 1971 owner had right to short plat and build on the lot; noting three adjoining owners have developed their property using the easement road in the manner now being denied and without request to furnish 40 ft. r/w. Planning and Develop- ment Committee report was presented by Chairman Perry noting review of record according to City Code and recommended that the Council concur in the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner for denial of the short plat and exception and refer the item to the Ways and Means Committee for proper resolution or ordinance. Moved by Shinpoch, Second Perry, Council concur in the committee report. Councilwoman Thorpe inquired regarding dedication of the right-of-way. Councilman Perry used map showing area and discus- sion ensued regarding access to the subject property. Mr. Ross, being present, advised perpetual 20 ft. easement providing ingress and egress and utilities had been submitted with the application. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND THORPE, THE ROSS APPEAL MATTER BE REFERRED BACK TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FOR ONE WEEK. CARRIED. Human Rights Letter from Y.W.C.A. President Sharon Wylie, Committee of Manage- ment of the East Valley YWCA, complimented the City for continu- ing interest in human rights for the community. The letter noted emphasis on the goal by the YWCA to eliminate prejudice and in- justice and went on record supporting the adoption of the revised Human Rights Commission ordinance. Introductions Mayor Delaurenti introduced newly appointed State Senator "Bud" Shinpoch and State Representative Avery Garrett. ` � RENTON CITY COUNCIL � PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ' COMMITTEE REPORT _ January Q , 1978 ' TO: Council Members FROM : Planning and Development Committee RE : E . CULEMAN SHORT PLAT NO. 078-77 REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL ' ' Upon review of the request for reconsideration and . . . ' ' the request for appeal , filed by separate parties , the committee recommends that the matter ,,of recon- sideration siderdtion be . remanded back to the Hearing Examiner for review and response . The committee ,further recommends that Council dCtiOD On the appeal request , ` be Dostp0ned until the completion- of the 'HeariDg . Examiner / S reconsideration review' ` 6—e'.Qrq2 p8rry , CDal rmd � ra SDlnpoCn , MemDSr Rich` tred1Cke , Member / ' ' • 0F Rti �41$ 0 THE CITY OF RENTON 00 ? MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 p = CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER ,pq 42- JAMES L. MAGSTADT , 235 - 2 593 rf® SEP1C- January 6, 1978 Mr. and Mrs. Sherwood B. Martin 3728 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 RE: Short Plat No. 078-77, Ernest R. Coleman; Request for Reconsideration. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Martin: Pursuant to your letter of December 27, 1977, I have reviewed-the record of this application. Section 4-3015 (the rules governing reconsideration) specifies that ". . .errors of law or fact, error in judgment. . . " may constitute grounds for reconsideration. My review of the record indicated that my decision of October 5, 1977, should be reconsidered. Specifically, I am going to take a second look at the number of lots that were approved and request further analysis by the Traffic. Engineering Division of the adequacy of a 30-foot easement/ road. Another public hearing will not be held, but you and the other parties of record will be mailed copies of all correspondence and/or evidence that is utilized in my forthcoming decision. May I also mention that an appeal of the original decision was also filed. The reconsideration decision will temporarily suspend the appeal until after my decision is rendered. Respec)tfully-)yours, L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Chairman, City Council Planning & Development Committee Larry Warren, City Attorney Go don Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Airel Mead, City Clerk Del Bennett, Deputy Public Works Director Ernest R. Coleman Parties of Record CITY CLERK ' S OFFICE INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO Larry Warren, Acting City Attorney DATE : 1/3/78 FROM: Del Mead, City Clerk SUBJECT : Appeal of Land Use Examiner's Decision S.C.S.. & Stirsky Holdings, Rezone 091-77; Ernest Coleman, Short Plat 078-77; and Richard & Arlene Ross, Short Plat 088-77 and Exception 089-77 The above appeals will be discussed at the Planning & Development Committee meeting to be held Wednesday, January 4, 1978, at 4:30 p.m. Chairman Perry has requested that you be present. Attached are copies of the Appeals and the letters that were sent to the parties of record. 0 THE CITY OF RENTON via 7 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 p CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • DELORES A. MEAD �A (O CITY CLERK O,ITtO SEP1 - December 27, 1977 APPEAL FILED BY James C. Aiken, Charmaine C. Baker, Robert L. Moffatt and Joan L. Moffatt Re: Appeal of Land Use Examiner's Decision, dtd. 10/5/77 Short Plat 078-77, Ernest Coleman To Parties of Record: Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's decision has been filed with the City Clerk's Office this date, along with the proper fee of $25.00, pursuant to Title 4, Ch. 30, City Code, as amended. The City Code requires the appeal must be set forth in writing. The written appeal and all other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council 's Planning and Development Committee. Please contact the Council Secretary, 235-2586, for date and time of the committee meetings if so desired. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above-referenced appeal will be considered by the Renton City Council at its regular meeting of January 16, 1978 at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Second Floor, Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Ave. S. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON Maxine E. Motor Deputy City Clerk MEM:jt cc: Mayor Planning & Development Committee (3) Planning Director Public Works Director Land Use Hearing Examiner Finance Director Ron Nelson, Building Div. • ( 4 ) Paul Lumbert Traffic Engineering Division ) ; 3 Ernest Coleman 1100 North 36th St. Renton, WA 98055 Charmaine Baker/Jim Baker 3713 Meadow Ave. No. Renton, WA 98055 ) : Sherwood Martin/Luana Martin 3728 Park Ave. N. Renton, WA 98055 4 Robert L. Moffatt/-Joan Moffatt 3709 Meadow Ave. N. Renton, WA 98055 14,01- -4 1 apri- >I ) - • } • • _ .`},n!'"Y�ig.,�,\i3'-�',`'1', s; • .'::•:;•'::.*,1'; J1 ) ,}{ n' 9ti• 1 :`W. • •t: , r f': :f:�y y<. �y �7r:�r iri i. ,• .....i',r,is: T' .'-:, ..' i'. `.y F':'v : 'r 3 'a" 4', .:r° ;n u o - r i - ; e:, l f. is s ton,:' '980'S ;s 5`+ } t�4 is q.. '.L ;�a w m � mz � * r:. t't ie r� � D„ ,; • 3 ,Y' � r�t. J '_ V ki T. r;y f `tit.. 4 J 5 is A'i �A. h5. ,I.P1 i�`i B � r' 9 i'y,. Cv ! - M. v. �. d' s- _a ,�7 U�` t. .++i0 =�ri 'o n': rti'y '1 1. �1 C 'CV Y. • ��' ,ri, .V.:,` ' nicz gal +Bu.ildi'ns .,-;.'.....:.•_r., 'e'er ' « :t F b `" I n tci,,, • ,, Renton -. a ,; : ,,.. ; „ , . - :2' ri, .Gam' �\�':: ' ,,�"':. i•' 5��: r 4. 1 , ,i 'il e',7- B .c h. ccJ r, r' '� i'• Y��. :r• t ,a: �Oa r,: r r�9 c; x k, ;. n',>: ,��Is. a?J 4' `yc, . . 'i _ "'-" ,.. . � _ � .'.hlftil;l' ,It il, �..Oj._lilaTla ".-g •:.,a, '� � ..�r 8�,7 'a lic.d:�f`ca:.: Ly, - .,;1y^:'�� .. - ,;;.,;,:� �„w lc-�� YL�' - •r,r i°i.;�;;f,:�'iEf:: Ji��y`:. ' J ;.I. f ct''a. e „ �_' z .a d. _s- roved'li o T .'Ul'� L, i ..t :ho y.�. `too ho• r 'il - F.�: a��'t'irot:' �tle: .a c..- _.�-' :;rr��'a:- -bii''t'1'oca1; ,rope ,y`;':,.a �tr':.=r•7 , '�a',.y.d� t7� ail ;p., 1 Z =1. � .,�.. car k,'. r tci iarese`nt their ii s 1 �heil'':�Ca e vid,i.ri for. re.,i; enta;c• P pro. �;':. �%�;' 'r.:c Lil.e denyi.ng'' 11, re`dues-ts:',c.v�n" ttzciii�,ti',vac. ap'p_i Ga :, �' '` to our na'or re, ue'st:'wfix"ch '��ha' to:.i duce the nw 1" .ttw :t ,,V, _ a .se.rious' a's'�ut• t•o 'v+11i:c. • ,�<,�., = T"rl� roadv�a-y;'`i:s;4�1 0� • '=t,.,-,, �•-': �Gu± h ims•e l f 1a Gss ;�: . ;"r•r,1, .Wd. t given � LE' o"f :'.tli�e•:fae't that.Al'r..,•:Co,leirlan� ].zl'04VYngJ.•y',' f • g. lf ''to' ei 0 17., zib'andon ts; u's:� or '• , „ „ti: :, off ,from h`is ",o�'��i,�p'rope:r',ty,; I;cr.ci ny h:im..ae .. - - ;-;.i ;,�;;r:�., to mt?ke an',i,mp`a•ct`an the other' propert};: ow iers b}r ,use of_tie`roadway Ft ti-fich e. must' now ma.iz�,ta'�,n for ttie benefit ;of k :l.,..s:>,.p :offxt ";' Tlie'de�: sign. " ,niri 't b. .=a i tihi"c':,a`>e n'c}y • n d •down byour, office 1�<a the £'i�'st state e y. :pu -b; ,',„,- hv"t, ti,. ro e'rt- taxLb' �• s :a:: uba:i.c' 'hough •' est..lbli.shing the'.xoadclay;.ori. lnnic tie'-p,ay:,'P P._ ,y+;,,. I?. rofa.re® Cis ; ',"` Y�iu S;, t Pl. �., • r:,f, • �/ 4., .l P. 9=`K" 4 • '%dd, L d '► ii` ri ;`T ''i a ;.. 4 372° Park Avenue °:oi:th i. e."t: J. i.S ,f.e. f � is // 'cakb, :t� r,�1 f.' t lam.. ".\'.--.:'' ''''.' '.:-..-• -;', -.1:-.'•!,:i.,-:•-•'' ., �1 , t, • l q .a. C b 1 tyl; I ,.,, a .-,: ,. , .,.,,' :�, .,- �:� i.:, A 1. .F,� -i jj/By J,,l,., J , Y t�..,.. �,��: ,:Flea? YJ • :A' 1„ W ti w fp`� V ,a (1 t�t�. � , 1'p id't- `i. ,p: }� 't: ,.is`. t''a''`.`ll� 4 -i tiS �G•. Y u,-, 0 • 'f t3 �Y h rFt. t ` 1. �y• ,J r A .n ,, u S. I - ,1 •:'.}.e:'�;X.t,,;••;:.�rJ� 1TC:°!1+4,"'»4'r'�?;� 'n �g l ia' `1 sM 1 JR. 3 1 I - • 411. : 37,25 r1),ar.Ic Avenue.'iyorth . ' Denton • [.:. " It ashin tOri. 98055: ' ' bec.einber- 27,,.1977 K Mr. L •Rick Beefier • •• ;n • r'� Sit•. Land' Use` Hearin; •:3=;tialri]nez. • • " , • • `r1-`? '-c.v �: cr `'. The ci ' of entoTt .. . `'4c4 �+`� , A4unic:i.p'a1. I3ui.icli'n; .N - % .r..nton; tbashinc ton c", y@� '.r>':`", ;; D'^ar Nir. heeler-•:, \ Gr,�..�I', ,/,�+ - 'ti '. =T.':`re rtli:ri Short ,r.-'tic?ri-;u.f `�th�e<;,taett�r;iiio, �'d �. , . '�;���„ I ,t.ish 'to re uest:. a'_r.,�c:o> 3id� a, u::; . Plh t .Q78'277.. app1.ie<l I or by .11'ie_.st :Co le.nllrl„ ,, • the' 'tree lot s-'appi>oved. iiv _'vour o•ff ic:4 ;lv• ould.,leave an.:I1ver`se a if ec t 'on' local .,property',v.al..ues. ,5..'nue:stion .'the •value.' cf: Iio3din.g -;a• heari.n . .providi.ng for res .ci rirk.ts,'. to; rr'r:."sent .thei:r points' l.nd then cat:egorica.I1y .deny.in; a1;1 reouest:s".even .,tii:o?igli t tie 'appli.c1rit himself ';eaas.,,•agreeable to our major, reilt:rre..s't..,i+h.icl-:- .1'w'as. to ieduce the nun;be of •'lot's.'to two, • • The roadway.i /also• °' ,a:' serr.ious• 'issu.c t:o vlit.h no cons.idera.t^icn evas :;i Ven in spite'•"csr; ,the fact that.Plr. Coleinan l:not�-i.n;.ly cut Lzir sc l f ?,°' ' off from hi s own, •pi pertv,. i i.or"c.inP 11 ins e]i to either. abaruion 'i:t.s -u.Se or .r ' to rnal;:e an imp'act,. on.-::the, oth el:. pr`oper,•tY -own ets by:'use of- tile roadway, v,lric..h we mast n.ow. .mairitain for. the, benefit of his: prof fi."t® '. .T'nc: cl.^ci.si.o0 , handed.down by your office ,,,iis. the fi,rst statemnnet .by 'a- public av: nr,:y . ,ry stab.]i sbing the:.170.aday', on wi i_ch :ie pay property'.'taxes a'.s,•-a ,public thou-;h •rc,I arc. iourYs/t/ruly-, ' •' �/y jJ1 J i ,,,s.he.rv.Dori- 8,,..",fa.r+t'in and. J'Ii•anira I. 'Mar."-Cii?' f=:,,,44,41 572 na lc irvr:nUe North y:: • ! '."� _-_ 1:J i}r+ui1�^I O December 23, 1977 Mr. George Perry, President �efos. Renton City Co un ci 1 r�- 0/7k 4 Municipal Building CIF o��e� 200 Mill Ave. +�o. ,� 19/rs . co/ Renton, Washington 98055e:;, /0F`� 0`-') cin Dear Mr. Perry Enclosed is a copy of a letter sent to Mr® L. Rick Beeler, Land Use Hearing Examiner as a result of a Public Hearing conducted on September 27th and the resulting minutes and findings which were sent to us® We are formally appealing the xaminer's decision (City Codes Title IiV, Section 3016). IA check for $25®00 accompanies this letter to be paid to the City Clerk. Our strongest objection to Mr. Coleman 's request had to do with building three houses in an area designed for two. During the process of the hearing Mr. Coleman revised his request and concurred with subdividing the property into a two-lot configuration. (See Page Three of Public Hearing minutes dated October 5, 1977, Paragraph 5. ) His concurrence was reiterated on page four of the minutes under Findings, Item number 9® Since we had no objections to Mr. Coleman developing the property into a two-lot configuration, there was no appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision. By accident we discovered Mr. Coleman was proceeding with plans to develop a three-lot configuration and that the Hearing iDcaminer con- curred in this development® The minutes were not clear on this decision and it was only because of a phone call to the Hearing Examiner by Mrs. Baker that the Ocaminer realized the discrepancy that appeared in the minutes® He consulted the City Attorney and the enclosed letter, dated December 12, 1977 to Mr. Ernest R. Coleman and Parties of Record, subject File No® Short Plat 078-77, Ernest R. Coleman was the result of that conversation® As we said in our letter to Mr. Beeler, we feel that he has been less than straight foreward in this matter and we feel that it has been handled in a very underhanded manner® We therefore request that the City Council examine all pertinent documents on record as a result of this public hearing, plus the written decision, findings and conclusions. We feel there is substantial error in fact or law existing in the record and we ask that the property continue to be zoned as a two-lot configuration® Sincerely, cc Charles J. Delaurenti , Mayor r�� C a Y O O , • CITY OF RENTWIt No 3416 ; ;:f ,- FINANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 / -�w 7 19 RECEIVED OF. E9 ..p ,,,...:,,,$) •„. '• P---- Af.- i ' .it."frn.-e-/7Z e9-4.,a a(P....-4.:-Z--11-.4 V4-4 . .. ,..C7a O ai:: T,' C ti 5P-- 07F-77 TOTAL sc---16 e GWEN E. AL , F� ANCE. DIRECTOR -' BY MARSH' , 0 December 23, 1977 Mr. L. Rick Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner Municipal Building 200 Mill Ave. So. Renton, Washington 98055 • References (a) File No. Short Plat 078.77, Ernest R. Coleman (b) Public Hearing minutes dated October 5, 1977 (Public Hearing conducted September 27, 1977 at 10045 A.M. in the council chambers of Renton Municipal Building). (c) Letter dated December 12, 1977, L. Rick Beeler to Mr. Ernest R. Coleman and Parties of Record., subject File No. Short Plat 078-77 Ernest R. Coleman. Dear Sirs As outlined in your letter dated December 12, 1977 (Reference c) this is a formal request to reopen the public hearing on File No. short Plat 078-77, Ernest R. Coleman and is in compliance with City Codes litle IV, Sections 3015 and 3016, The parties of record feel that your decision to allow the Short Plat 078-77 three (3) lot configuration is not in the best interest of the aggreived adjacent property owners* The concerns expressed in the Public Hearing conducted on September 14, 1977 (reference b) have not changed. In our opinion the conduct of your office in this matter has been anything but straight forward. Any person who reviews your minutes of the September 14, 1977 Public Hearing would conclude that Mr. Coleman gave his concurrence with subdividing the property into a two (2) lot configuration. By granting the time extension to December 27, 1977 to respond to your decision the Renton City Attorney obviously agrees wi th us. 'lb preclude any further misunderstanding by the tax paying property owners involved it is our intention to be represented by legal council in any further matters involving File No. Short Plat 078-77. Your early response in the matter will be appreciated* Yours truly, L i l�l L j • 111' . .. .,._ . . -... , . . . of Re. - . • • 4 ,v . . . . .?, A. - 06. ;poi THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO: RENTON.WASH.98055 . • 1 °' CHARLES J. DELAURENTI 1 MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER p liv e L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 �+4, • SEPIE4,Q December 12, 1977 Mr. Ernest R. Coleman RE: File No. Short Plat 078-77 1100 North 36th Ernest R. Coleman Renton, WA ' 98055 s• . Parties of Record Dear Mr. Coleman ` Parties ofRecord: It recently was brought to my attention that ,the decision of October 5,. 1977 regarding this application was confusing as to whether two or three • lots were approved in the report. . The decision on page six Was to "approve the short plat per Exhibit *3." However, what constituted Exhibit N3 was unclear.:. Upon review- of the record it should be clarified that Exhibit #3 depicted the 3-l6t short.plat request originally submitted by the applicant and that this exhibit was not revised to a 2-lot configuration. My intention was to approve three lots on the Subject property as requested. Since this clarification may have affected your response to the 'October 5, 1977. written decision and upon advice of the' City Attorney, the period for requesting reconsideration by the Examiner or• appeal' to the City • Council. is opened as of the date of this letter, and will expire on December 27, 1977. If you require additional information regarding procedures for requesting reconsideration .or notice of appeal to the City Council, please refer to Section 4-3015 and 4-3016, Code of General Ordinances, available in the City Clerk's office. . I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused in this matter. Respectfully yours, 4.J.L_ L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner - cc: Mayor Charles' J. Delaurenti Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director • • • October. 5, 1977 • OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON • • • • REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, . APPLICANT: Ernest Coleman FILE NO. Sh. P1. 078-77 • E-079-77 W-080-77 LOCATION: Property located west of Meadow Avenue North midway between • North 36th Street and North 38th Street and east of Park Avenue North. • • • SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests approval of a proposed three (3) lot short plat, with approval of an exception to allow access to the short plat via a private easement road 12.5 feet in width, together with a waiver of the off-site improvement requirements to allow gravelled surfacing of the proposed • access easement. SUMMARY OF . Planning Department Recommendation: Approval with conditions. ' • ACTION: Hearing Examiner.Decision: Approval of Short Plat and Exception; • Denial of Waiver. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on September 21, 1•9;77. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, .examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on September 27, 1977 at 10:40 a.m. in the Council Chambers of ' the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were sworn. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the Planning Department report, 'and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. Michael Smith, Planning Department, reviewed Exhibit #1, and entered the following additional exhibits into the record: Exhibit #2: King County Assessor's Map • Exhibit #3: Plat Map • • Exhibit #4: Planning Department Plat Configuration • Mr. Smith reported the inadequacy of an 'existing water main and indicated that installation of a 6 to 8-inch main had.been recommended adjacent to the subject site. The Examiner noted that the 17.5-foot easement and the 12.5-foot easement served only • Iwo lots according to the King County AssessorLs ..map; however, Exhibit #3 indicated that the easement extension was longer: Mr. Smith advised that because the assessor's map may not always .designate recorded easements, a title.search would be required. The Examiner asked a representative from the Traffic Engineering Division to comment regarding the easement roadway. Responding was: Paul Lumbert Traffic Engineering Division • In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the establishment of a 32-foot easement as recommended in a memorandum from the Traffic Engineering Division, dated September 21, 1977, attached to Exhibit #1, Mr. Lumbert indicated that a joint project comprised of property owners on the northern 17.5-foot existing easement as well as the southern 12.5-foot existing easement could provide a 30-foot roadway. The Examiner asked Mr. Lumbert if joint development of this nature would set a precedent for future proposals and inquired about the possibility of installation of a fence to border the 12.5-foot easement. Mr. Lumbert stated that under normal circumstances, an equal amount,of property . , would be designated on both sides of the easement and indicated that although such fencelines had not been allowed on city property, King County had allowed the procedure. The Examiner referred to a letter attached to Exhibit #1 from Don Monaghan, Engineering y, J-Z �• I • . . 410 Sh. .P1. 078-77 Page Two N • E-079-77 • ' • W-080-77 :: Design Division, which recommended denial of the request for .exception to the Subdivision Ordinance because of inadequacy of the proposed 12.5-foot roadway for proper ingress • and egress and suitable turnaround area. Mr. Lumbert reported that the easement . . originally was a temporary construction easement which has not been converted into• a permanent easement:possibly at the request of the property owner. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the desirability of the proposed 30-foot wide•easement ' " from Meadow Avenue North to Park Avenue North, Mr. Lumbert 'reported ,that the roadway • '. would provide improved access through the area. . , The Examiner asked .,the applicant 1f he concurred in Exhibit #1. Responding was: Ernest Coleman 1100 North 36th • Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Coleman indicated that he did not concur with the report with regard to access and . limited number of lots. He objected to Item #P.1. of Exhibit #1 regarding proposed access and suggested an alternative of adding the 17.5-foot easement to allow a 30-foot .. roadway access to serve the proposed three-lot subdivision. Mr. Coleman advised that because of the location of existing power poles in the access roadway, paving should : . be delayed until,the improvements were completed and the poles removed or relocated. . He indicated that three sewer stubs had been installed on the property,,,at considerable . • expense when subdivision into three lots had been, anticipated. He reported- that the size of the proposed lots was compatible with existing residential lots in the area and felt that low maintenance..and taxes were factors to consider in subdividing the • plat into three parcels. • The Examiner asked for testimony in favor of the application. There was no response. ' . The Examiner entered, a letter signed by four residents on Park Avenue North in . opposition to construction of three houses on the subject property and granting permission to build a, substandard width easement with substandard paving. The letter . ' was labeled Exhibit #5 by the Examiner. The Examiner asked for testimony in opposition to the application. Respondingwas: ' Charmainc'Baker• . 3713 Meadow Avenue North ' ' Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Baker submitted a letter containing'12 signatures from residents on Meadow Avenue • North which she read into the record. The letter was labeled Exhibit #6. The residents opposed the application because of nonconformance with size and standards of surrounding developed property,, degradation of appearance of neighborhood as a result . of previous short-platting in the area, and inadequacy of the existing easement. She inquired about Item #0.6. of Exhibit #1 relating to extension of a 6-inch water main ' from Park Avenue North -to accommodate fire flow and service requirements and asked if - the existing easement would be restored to its original condition following,the project. • Mr. Smith advised that the applicant would maintain the responsibility for restoration of the roadway. She questioned previous testimony relating to installation of a fence ,between the 12.5-foot easement and the 17.5-foot easement separating the paved portion ' ' . " from the existing roadway. Mr. Smith advised that a fence would not be installed. In response to Mrs. Baker's inquiry regarding width of the improved right-of-way in relation to a 3-lot short plat, Mr. Smith. indicated that the easement would not meet city minimum requirements. She also inquired about material proposed for the easement' and reported that crushed rock minimized dust and was preferable to gravel. ) Mrs. Baker further objected to the applicant's statement that lots of lesser size require less maintenance and advised that homes in the area are well-maintained by-residents who ' desired comparable maintenance by new residents. In response to the Examiner's. inquiry . ' regarding the possibility of formation of an L.I.D. for improvement of the existing • easement, Mrs. Baker reported that the potential expense had precluded the project in the past. • Responding was: Sherwood Martin . ' '• 3728 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Martin objected to a three-lot plat configuration because of incompatibility with existing standards and size of surrounding property and reported favorable real estate appraisal of his own property due to large lots and country-like setting in the surrounding area. He also objected to increased traffic on the existing inadequate easement which he felt would produce an increase in dust, noise and deterioration'of r, . `' Sh. P1. 078-77 Page Three • ' E-079-77 • - W-080-77 the roadway. He stated that reduction in the size or quality of the. 12.5-foot'easement would encourage traffic to utilize the 17.5-foot easement causing an increase- in noise, ' . dust and traffic hazards. He stated thatdust levels are intolerable at the present time due to heavy traffic, on the unimproved easement and maintenance. responsibilities would be imposed on existing property owners with the construction of three new homes. . • He also suggested that a speed deterrent be imposed in the area. The Examiner asked . . Mr. Martin if consideration had. been given to oiling the roadway to reduce dust levels. • ' . Mt. Martin indicated that cooperation had•not been successful in the past to ease the problem. The Examiner noted that the easement had been utilized as a public right-of- .way for. 18 years and expressed a concern that it currently would be considered a public street. Mr. Martin reported that the width of the roadway prevented it from being utilized as 'a public right-of-way. . Responding was: , Luanna Martin - • 3728 Park Avenue North. , Renton, WA 98055 . Mrs. Martin 'indicated a desire to close the easement, as a solution to the existing ' access problems. In response to previous discussion regarding oiling of the easement she. noted that extreme expense of oil prices in prior years had precluded the procedure. and residents had installed crushed rock to curtail the problem. She indicated that a 'problem presently exists with ownership of 110 feet of the access roadway east of• Park - Avenue North. . Responding was: . :.:%.: .:... ..._..,_ „ Jim Baker . ' 3713 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 - . Mr. Baker indicated that access had been assured to homeowners on the easement and had been utilized 'since his residency in 1961. He reported the problem of dust and indicated that. fencing separating the ,proposed easement from Mr. Coleman's property would cause ' • an increase of traffic from Park Avenue. ' Responding was: ' 'Joan Moffatt 3709 Meadow Avenue North' Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Moffatt expressed concerns regarding fire protection if the access were closed noting that her residence exists 1,000 feet from the nearest fire hydrant. . -She also • . , expressed objection to a three-lot.plat. . vMr. .Coleman'indicated his concurrence with subdividing the property into a.two-lot configuration. He. reported his intent to pave the street and remove the''poles when . improvements were installed but now is also required to extend'a 6-inch main from Park Avenue, and .he indicated his cooperation in contributing to the improvements. Mr. .Martin expressed the desire to coordinate a mutually satisfactory agreement with the • applicant prior to revisions in the access easement. . The Examiner asked Mr. Smith for additions, corrections or modifications to Exhibit #1. Mr. Smith indicated his preference for a continuation of the hearing to allow the. ' applicant and residents utilizing the easement to discuss alternatives for solution of ""access 'problems. ' He also 'advised that questions relating to the proposed water main should be directed to the Utilities Division•of the Public Works Department.' The Examiner asked the applicant if he favored a continuation of the hearing for the purpose of resolving problems relating to the easement and improved circulation to reduce future • impact. Mr. Coleman objected to possible delay and potential expense in retaining' an • . attorney during negotiations with property owners and restated his intent to improve .the roadway. He'objected to continuation of the hearing for thosereasons. The Examiner stated that sufficient justification did not exist to require the applicant' to negotiate a mutual agreement regarding access and for that reason he would not grant a continuance . of the hearing. ' Mr. Coleman'reported contacting the King County tax department regarding ownership of • , ,, the easement.east of Park Avenue North and the department had been unable to supply . records to dispute that the portion of the 17.5-foot easement was not included. Mr. Martin subsequently withdrew his request to continue the hearing. • • • Sh. P1. 078-77 Page. Four E-079-77 W-080-77 • Mr. Smith advised that if the hearing were not continued, the Planning Department wished to submit several comments at this time including protection of the slope by rockery' on the 12.5-foot easement on the southern portion abutting the property facing Meadow Avenue North and removal or relocation of the existing power poles between the two easements. He indicated concurrence with Traffic Engineering recommendations to develop' the 12.5-foot easement at this time with development and, improvement of the 17.5-foot easement the responsibility of the abutting property owners. He corrected the width • of the easement stated in Exhibit #1 to 30 feet. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding requirements for paving rather than crushed rock, Mr. Smith reported that a 10-foot paved driveway is required on a pipestem lot by city ordinance. The Examiner asked for further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on Item # Short Plat 078-77, E-079-77 and W-080-77 was closed by the Examiner at 12:15 p.m. • FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: • 1. The request is for approval of a three-lot short plat, an Exception.from Chapter. 11 to allow access via a 12.5-foot easement, and a Waiver of off-site improvements. • 2. The Planning Department report accurately sets forth the issues, applicable policies. and provisions, findings of fact, and departmental recommendations in this matter, and is hereby attached as Exhibit #1 and incorporated in this report by reference as set forth in full therein. ' • 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental • Policy Act of 1971, as amended by R.C.W. 43.21.C. , Gordon Y. Ericksen, responsible official, determined that the. proposal is exempt from the threshold determination and EIS requirements. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. • 5. . Ail existing utilities are available and in close proximity. 6. The proposal is compatible with the required setbacks, lot'coverage .and height requirements of Section 4-706 (R-1) , Title IV, Code of General Ordinances. • . 7. A 17.5-foot access easement abuts the north boundary of the proposed 12.5-foot easement. This 17.5-foot easement was created approximately 18 years ago, has' never been closed to use by the general public, and was specified for use by properties along the north boundary of the easement. Residents of the area generally were not opposed to the applicant using the easement, but ,were concerned about the existing nuisance of dust that would be increased by additional traffic on the .easement. • 8. The dust problem in the existing 17.5-foot easement was not a matter for consideration by the Examiner, except in evaluation of the requested waiver of off-site improvements. 9. ) Upon consideration of the testimony, the applicant revised the request to a short plat of two lots. 10. . The Traffic Engineering Division testified that approval of the proposed 12.5-foot easement would.be unprecedented since the city has not allowed such small • easements in the past. Some small easements had been approved under the King County administration. Joining of the 17.5-foot and 12.5-foot easements was considered most desirable, acceptable and precedented. No other points' of access appear available to the property. Evidence was not submitted to indicate that the • applicant attempted to join the easements. • 11. The Utilities Division found that the existing 3-inch water line in Meadow Avenue North was of insufficient capacity and recommended that a 6-inch water line be brought from Park Avenue North to the site. The applicant protested the recommendation because of the costs involved. 12. Two utility poles. exist between the. two easements which may require relocation due to' access interference. • • 13. The grading of the 1.2..5-foot easement will probably produce a bank 'along the south portion of the easement and abutting the property facing Meadow Avenue North. This • _ Sh. P1. 078-77 Page Five E-079-77 W-080-77 • bank may require stabilization. .CONCLUSIONS: • 1. The short plat conforms to the goals 'and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning requirements. 2. Since the 17.5-foot easement abutting the site has existed unrestricted for many years, it is a reasonable conclusion that public use of the easement•can continue uninterrupted. The applicant can use the easement which was not contested but agreed to by parties at the hearing. Therefore, access exists between Meadow Avenue North and Park Avenue North. Similar to existing properties adjoining the 17.5-foot easement, individual driveways can extend to the easement. A turnaround facility is not needed. The dust problem resulting from use of the graveled 17._5-foot easement apparently • has become significant. The application before the Examiner does not include solution of this problem. However, the impacted residents were appraised of possible alternatives to solving this mutual concern. . The applicant expressed a willingness to•participate in and contribute to the solution. 4. Joining of the two easements is a reasonable solution to the access needs of the properties along both easements. Based upon available testimony it appears that the applicant may unrestrictedly use the 17.5-foot easement which does not provide sufficient width for adequate improvements. Adding the proposed 12.5-foot easement will provide a total of 30 feet of easement for improvements, thereby becoming more acceptable for access and circulation while retaining the status of primarily a private easement/street. This will require relocation of the two existing utility poles. • - • 5. Improvement (paving) of the 17.5-foot ,easement remains to be resolved by the parties abutting the easement since improvements were not required under King County jurisdiction. On the other hand, the applicant is seeking division of his land under city jurisdiction which requires pavement of the proposed 12.5-foot easement unless a waiver is granted. In the Examiner's review of the waiver application, the most applicable criteria for evaluation of the request are: • • a. ". . .absence of such improvements located within a reasonable distance." (Section 9-1105.6.B. b. "That there are special physical circumstances or conditions affecting. said property such that the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use or development of his. land." (Section 9-1109.1.A) c. "That •the exception is necessary to insure such property the rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under similar circumstances. " (Section 9-1109.1.B) d. "That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public . welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity." (Section 9-1109.1.C.) It is clear that the existing abutting 17.5-foot easement is only graveled and that the applicant has requested to be able to improve his proposed 12.5-foot easement in the same manner. The easement will be slightly more than 300 feet in length which constitutes a large sum of money for pavement and may prevent development of his land. Putting gravel or crushed rock on the 12.5-foot easement will probably contribute to the dust problem that exists, consequently adversely impacting people and properties in the area. Paving this easement will not produce this impact but ' • would be the applicant's contribution to improvement of the total of 30-foot easement. It would then be up to the remaining property owners to follow suit in eliminating the dust problem. • Sh. P1. 078-77 Page. Six . • • E-079-77 W-080-77 6. The capacity of the water line in Meadow Avenue North appears to be inadequate to serve the needs of the neighborhood as well as the applicant's proposal. Since it has not been shown that the applicant is significantly adding to the existing overload situation, it is unreasonable to require the applicant to • install at his expense a new 6-inch water line from Park Avenue North .to serve . only his proposed three lots. It is reasonable to assume that such a new line • will serve other properties as well or to reduce the overload on the undersized line in Meadow Avenue North. Therefore, it is apparent that others will benefit from such an installation. In fact this improvement may be extremely difficult to construct since the applicant does not possess a utility easement• from his " property to Park Avenue North. The,L.I.D. process is the logical and reasonable • solution to providing this recommended water line. • • ' DECISION: • ' Based upon the record, testimony, findings and conclusions, it is the Examiner's • decision to: . • • ' • 1. _Approve the short plat per Exhibit #3. • 2. Approve the Exception to allow a 12.5-foot access easement provided such easement includes all parties having access to or abutting the adjacent 17.5-foot easement. '3. Disapproval of the Waiver,of the. off-site improvement of paving. All utility ' poles and obstructions between the 12.5-foot and 17.5-foot easements- shall be removed. Any exposed banks shall be stabilized to prevent erosion and sluffing. This decision is further conditioned,upon review by the Planning Department for • compliance with these conditions. ORDERED THIS 5th day of October, 1977. • • • • • L. Rick Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner • TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day .of October, 1977 by Affidavit of Mailing to the . parties of record: Paul Lumbert Ernest Coleman Charmaine Baker Sherwood Martin Luanna Martin Jim Baker • ' • Joan Moffatt TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of October, 1977 to the following: Charles J. Delaurenti Council President George J. Perry Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Ron Nelson, Building Division • • • Gerard M. Shellan, City Attorney • Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing' on or before October 19, 1977. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or • fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior-hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) •days from the date of the Examiner's decision.. This request shall set forth- the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV. Section 3016, which requires that . such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying a filing fee of $25.00 and meeting . other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection in the City Clerk's office, first floor of City Hall, or same may be purchased at cost in said office. 0 ov A THE CITY OF RENTON t$ Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON.WASH. 98055 0 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR ® LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 co- 0 SEPIVakt- - December 12, 1977 Mr. Ernest R. Coleman RE: File No. Short Plat 078-77 1100 North 36th Ernest R. Coleman Renton, WA 98055 Parties of Record Dear Mr. Coleman & Parties of Record: It recently was brought to my attention that the decision of October 5, 1977 regarding this application was confusing as to whether two or three lots were approved in the report. The decision on page six was to "approve the short plat per Exhibit #3." However, what constituted Exhibit #3 was unclear. Upon review of the record it should be clarified that Exhibit #3 depicted the 3-lot short plat request originally submitted by the applicant and that this exhibit was not revised to a 2-lot configuration. My intention was to approve three lots on the subject property as requested. Since this clarification may have affected your response to the October 5, 1977 written decision and upon advice of the City Attorney, the period for requesting reconsideration by the Examiner or appeal to the City Council is opened as of the date of this letter, and will expire on December 27, 1977. If you require additional information regarding procedures for requesting reconsideration or notice of appeal to the City Council, please refer to Section 4-3015 and 4-3016, Code of General Ordinances, available in the City Clerk's office. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused in this matter. Respectfully yours, L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director ND1NG ' OF FILE FILE nr� A6411 **# 97877