Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA84-116M AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Audrey DeJoie , being first duly sworn on oath states that • Public Notice he/she is the Chief Clerk of the NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER VALLEY NEWSPAPERS RENTON, WASHINGTON A Public,Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular Daily News Journal, Daily Record Chronicle, Daily Globe News meeting in The Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall,Renton,Washing- Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week.That said newspapers ton on May 14, 1985, at 1:30 p.m. to consider the following petition: are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six MT. OLIVET APPEAL months prior to the date of publication referred to,printed and published Appeal by James L.Colt,President,Mt. Olivet Cemetery Co. Inc., of an Ad-in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King ministrative Decision by the Environ- County, Washington. Valley Newspapers have been approved as legal mental Review Committee to request roposednewspapersbyorderoftheSuperiorCourtoftheStateofWashingtonforpojetinvolving119,172onalinformationon cubi yardsfillof King County. material on approximately four (4) acres of property(file SP-116-84),file AAD-028-85; property located at 100 The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Daily News Blaine Avenue North. Legal descriptions of the files noted Journal , Daily Record Chronicle ,X , Daily Globe News , (and t above are on file in the Renton Building and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its Zoning Department. Asubscribersduringthebelowstatedperiod. The annexed notice a are Ilinvfedstodbeprepersons tot saidt petitions present at the public Notice of Public Hearing was published hearing on May 14, 1985, at 1:30 p.m.to express their opinions. on may 3, 1985 R9851 Ronald G. Nelson Building and Zoning Director Published in the Daily Record Chronicle May 3, 1985. R9851 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $ 20.79 . r CITY OFF fENTCl Subscribed and sworn to before me this dayof 19 I r (I 1 1 ( 9th l7 ty 85 f I r JUL 1 5 1985 BU11_D;NG;7.ONIRIG DEPT. Notary Public for the State of Washington, residing at Federal Way, King County, Washington. VN#87 Revised 10'84 0870E May 17, 1985 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION. APPELLANT: AMERICAN MEMORIAL SERVICES/MT. OLIVET CEMETERY FILE NO. AAD-028-85 ADDRESS: 100 Blaine Avenue N.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Appeal of an administrative decision by the Zoning Administrator to request additional information on a proposed fill project involving 119,172 cubic yards of material on approximately four (4) acres of property. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's letter of March 18, 1985, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing as follows: The hearing was opened on May 14, 1985 at 1:40 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit #1 - Yellow file, SP-116-85, containing application and other documents pertinent to this hearing. Exhibit #2 - Letter dated January 4, 1985 from Roger Blaylock to James Colt. Exhibit #3 - Letter dated March 8, 1985 from Roger Blaylock to James Colt. Exhibit #4 - Manila work file from the Building and Zoning Department, SP-028-85. Exhibit #5 - Letter from Ron Nelson to James Colt, dated February 2, 1984. Exhibit #6 - Letter from Ron Nelson to James Colt, dated July 19, 1982. Exhibit #7 - Series of Engineering drawings, date stamped June 23, 1983 and May 2, 1985. APPEARING: Lawrence Warren, Attorney for the City of Renton Seth Fulcher, Jr., Attorney for the Appellant James L. Colt, Appellant Ronald Nelson, Director, Building & Zoning Department James Hansen, Assistant Building Official Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator Don Monaghan, Design Engineer for the City of Renton Attorney Warren opened testimony by questioning the basis and necessity for this hearing stating he felt the letter from Roger Blaylock to Mr. Colt precipitating this appeal was not an administrative decision, merely a request for more information before Mr. Colt's application could move along within the City's departments. The Hearing Examiner stated the sole issue for discussion at this hearing is whether or not Mr. Colt's attempt to apply for a fill and grade permit met City conditions. Other information referring to previous applications on this site need not be discussed. Mt. Olivet Cemetery/James Colt AAD-028-85 May 17, 1985 Page 2 Attorney Fulcher stated to the Examiner his concern with regard to the policies followed by City departments with respect to the cross-referencing of information and other documentation received from applicants.. He questioned the use of more than one file (i.e. master file for City Clerk, work file for the Building Department and yet another file for the Hearing Examiner's Office). Attorney Fulcher continued stating it was felt due to responses received from various City departments cross-referencing prior applications, that the material submitted in support of prior applications should be accepted. It was his contention that the issue before the Hearing Examiner was to determine City policies in terms of incorporating and using previous information, and feels his client should be permitted to reference, and have accepted, information and documentation from previous applications to fulfill the City's requirements for the current permit request. He indicated his displeasure with what he considered to be inconsistent information as relates to city policies and procedures with regard to acceptance and processing of applications. He feels the City is acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner on Mr. Colt's current permit application. He suggested the Hearing Examiner review the procedures for acceptance and review of applications, and was advised by the Examiner that it was not within his jurisdiction to set policy, nor were the policies and procedures an issue in today's hearing. The Examiner again reiterated the single issue in this hearing was to determine if Mr. Colt did in fact submit an application for a grade and fill permit, and did that application meet City requirements. Mr. Colt began by calling the city Zoning Administrator, Roger Blaylock, to testify. He requested Mr. Blaylock to verbally review all of the documents contained in the official yellow file for this special permit. After this review Mr. Colt stated he had information to show that documents had been deleted from the original application presented. He presented a manila file containing additional information on the current permit request, bearing the same file number as the official file. The Examiner requested Mr. Colt at some point in the hearing to present the documents he felt were deleted from the original application, and in the interest of time, to advise what additional information the City required of him on his permit application. Mr. Colt referred to a letter from Mr. Blaylock dated March 8, 1985 setting out the additional information requested. Mr. Colt questioned the time frame used by the City in the processing of applications and their obligation to respond. He felt from the time he presented the permit application on December 27, 1984, until he received the letter from Mr. Blaylock on March 8, 1985, he had complied with all requirements for the permit application. He stated he felt when the Building Department signed his permit as "accepted", it was the City's way of saying he had complied with their procedure. It was pointed out by Attorney Warren that a signature in the "accepted" portion of the application merely means the department had received the application and would then begin the review procedure within the various city departments. Attorney Warren reiterated "accepted" did not mean "approved". He also pointed out that even after the application is accepted, the ERC must review, and that SEPA regulations take precedent over other departments until it's review is made. The ERC is also permitted to set out requirements other than those made by other city departments. Their review must also be considered in the processing time frame before a hearing date is set before the Hearing Examiner. Referring to a time frame for processing, Roger Blaylock referred to City Code Section 4-2808(b)(3) He also reviewed Section 4-2307 setting out requirements for new applications. At this point the Hearing Examiner asked Mr. Colt, both attorneys and members of staff present if they would like to consider a short recess to see if they would like to consider remanding the application back to staff for a 15 day period to consider new information, and if at the end of that time it is found that the application is considered complete, a recommended date could be presented for a hearing before the Hearing Examiner. At this time the Hearing Examiner called for a short recess. The hearing resumed at 3:20 P.M., with all original parties present. Attorney Fulcher advised the Examiner that Mr. Colt did not wish to remand the application, he wished to proceed with the hearing. Mr. Colt proceeded to call Ron Nelson, Building and Zoning Department Director to testify. Under direct questioning from Mr. Colt, Mr. Nelson described his participation in the review process as pertains to this application and how the other departmental information was interpreted by his department. Mr. Nelson stated that until this appeal was filed Mr. Colt's application was progressing, and would have been further along in the review process if the applicant had presented the additional information as requested. Reference was made to Exhibit It 5, and Mr. Colt questioned why documents presented as support for previous permits/applications could not be used to support SP-116-85. Attorney Warren objected to constant reference of documents and applications prior to the March 8, 1985 letter requesting a hearing. He stated the letter of March 8, 1985 setting out additional information needed would serve to let Mr. Colt know at that time that his application was not acceptable as presented to the City. Mr. Nelson stated there Mt. Olivet Cemetery/James Colt AAD-028-85 May 17, 1985 Page 3 are major problems of erosion on the site and no documents presented addressed this concern. At this point, the Examiner read from the sections of the City Code which set out requirements for a permit to grade and fill a site. There was continued discussion on terminology used with regard to an application being accepted and/or incomplete, as well as reference to previous documentation submitted on past permit requests. Attorney Warren argued that it is not the duty of the various city departments to go back through old files and pick and choose documentation to be added to the current application. A review was made of a previously submitted drainage drawing and separate topographical map. Mr. Nelson advised the topographical map is not acceptable, had not- been submitted with the application, did not show boundaries and did not address the concerns expressed regarding erosion on the site. The hearing continued when Mr. Colt called upon Jim Hanson from the Building and Zoning Department to testify. Mr. Colt questioned if Mr. Hanson had based his negative decision for this permit request on past applications, and was told he did not. Mr. Hanson reviewed City code section 4-2307 setting out the requirements to be met for a fill and grade permit and said Mr. Colt's application was incomplete. Mr. Colt asked him to review a topographical map and tell him why it was incomplete. Mr. Hanson reviewed the map and stated the document presented was a topographical sketch, not a fill and grade plan as required, there were no property lines shown, and no limits of the site are shown on the sketch. Mr. Hanson reiterated that Mr. Colt had not presented a complete packet with the permit application, thereby making it impossible to process. The sketch presented had not been approved by Mr. Bray in the Engineering Department. Mr. Hanson continued reviewing code sections setting out requirements and noting Mr. Colt had not met those requirements. Again the Hearing Examiner suggested that Mr. Colt and staff get together and review the application, and within a 15 day period determine what needed to be done to bring the application into compliance, with all documentation attached. Attorney Warren advised the Examiner there would be no remanding to staff as it was agreed by departmental staff present that the application as submitted was not complete. At this point in the hearing the Examiner called for a 10 minute recess. The hearing continued at 5:00 P.M. with all original parties in attendance. Mr. Colt called on Don Monaghan, Design Engineering Department, to testify. In reply to questions from Mr. Colt, Mr. Monaghan responded that he had reviewed the current plans that had been submitted and they were incomplete. He said a complete plan was needed so any individual not familiar with the site could go out to the site and review to see what phase the work might be in. Mr. Colt inquired if Mr. Monaghan knew the property, and he responded stating it was not identifiable as to the sketch presented. When asked if he had reviewed the same sketch in 1983, Mr. Monaghan stated he was unsure when he had first viewed the plan. Attorney Warren asked Mr. Monaghan if there was adequate information on the plan for a fill and grade permit, are the exact boundaries shown, landscaping shown, reclaimation information shown, and to all of those inquiries Mr. Monaghan replied in the negative. Mr. Monaghan further stated the plans required should be drawn up by a certified engineer. He also said there are problems on the site at this time that need to be corrected because the City feels the site is unstable. Mr. Colt requested the Hearing Examiner to find that due to the vagueness of the correspondence from the City of Renton to American Memorial Services regarding a request for additional information, that he had been denied his right of due process by not having all of the information necessary available to them. He stated he feels decisions have been fluctuating, and asked the Examiner to find that staff acted in a arbitrary and capricuous manner in refusing to further process his application. Attorney Warren argued that it was felt Mr. Colt was trying to give the City drawings that had not been approved by staff and make said drawings work for the current application. He said the City is only. required to respond to an application as it is presented, and Mr. Colt's application was-not complete. In closing, Mr. Colt reviewed the actions that took place leading up to and the presentation of a permit application for grading and filling for the subject site. He referred to a previous file, SP-047-80 as he feels it relates to his current application. He said he feels the City has conditioned the application before it has been presented before the Hearing Examiner. He reiterated his feeling that American Memorial Services, Inc. has met their obligations under City code even though the code numbers have changed, and feels the City is acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. There were no closing statements from either attorney, or further comments from staff. The hearing was closed at 5:50 P.M. Mt. Olivet Cemetery/James Colt AAD-028-85 May 17, 1985 Page 4 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: INTRODUCTION The appellant, American Memorial Services, which operates the Mt. Olivet Cemetery at 100 Blaine Avenue N.E., in Renton, has had a number of permits issued to grade and fill an old quarry/gravel extraction site. Those permits have been the subject of various administrative and court appeals but are not part of this appeal. The City refused to issue an annual license and ordered work on the site halted. In order to continue to fill the subject site the appellant filed a new request for a special permit. The appellant submitted various documents as part of the application and cited the contents of the earlier permit files. The City, in written correspondence, indicated information necessary for evaluation was not submitted, and stated processing could not continue. The appellant submitted additional information. The information was routed to various City departments for routine evaluation. Various departments commented that the information was incomplete and requested additional information. A letter from the Building and Zoning Department, the department responsible for processing the application, was sent to the appellant indicating that the application was incomplete and requesting additional information. The appellant thereafter, and in a timely fashion, filed this appeal from the decision that the application was incomplete. Parties to the proceeding were the appellant, American Memorial Services (Mt Olivet Cemetary Company, Inc.) by James L. Colt, and Counsel, Seth Fulcher, Jr. Appearing for the City of Renton was City Attorney, Lawrence J. Warren. Testifying for the City were Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator, Ronald Nelson, Building Director, James Hanson, Assistant Building Director, and Donald Monaghan, Design Engineer. FINDINGS 1. The Special Permit which gave rise to this appeal is identified in City documents as SP-116-84. The permit was filed with the City on December 27, 1984 on a 'form titled Master Application. The form is a general form which contains boxes to check off the type of application. It also provides the applicant blanks in which other relevant information about the projected use may be provided. The form indicates the site address as 100 Blaine Avenue N.E., Renton; 4 acres are involved, the existing use as land fill site, the proposed use as complete land fill, and then any allowable use. Two separate cover letters accompanied the Master Permit Application. One letter was addressed to Ronald Nelson the Building Director. The second letter was addressed to the Building and Zoning Department. Also submitted to the Building and Zoning Department as part of the packet of information was an affidavit of ownership, a separate sheet containing the legal description of the site, an Environmental Checklist, a xeroxed map (apparently a copy of a Kroll Map) showing. Mt. Olivet Cemetery and surrouding property, another map again showing Mt. Olivet Cemetery and surrounding property with zoning classifications, an engineering estimate sheet for landscape earthwork prepared by Giaudrone and Associates and a topographic sketch of what would appear to be the fill site, prepared by the same firm. 2. For purposes of this appeal, the two earlier special permits issued to the appellant, American Memorial Services (AMS), SP-034-77 and SP-047-80, are not subject to this appeal. 3. Both cover letters to the City, the one to Nelson and the general letter to the Building Department referenced the "complete sets of plans for this project in files SP-034-77 and SP-047-80." 4.The Master Application was received by Jerry F. Lind on December 27, 1984. In addition to the information provided by the appellant on the form, there is a section reserved for "Staff Use Only -- Administrative Processing." Lind marked the box provided on the form 'Accepted' under the phrase "Application determined to be:" The other choice on the form would have been 'Incomplete.' Lind signed the form. 5.The affidavit of ownership signed by the appellant had the following language: Acceptance of this application and required filing fee does not constitute a complete application. Plans and other materials required to constitute a complete application are listed in the 'Application Procedure.' Mt. Olivet Cemetery/James Colt AAD-028-85 May 17, 1985 Page 5 6. The copy of the Kroll map which is scaled 1" = 200' appears to have been the map prepared by the City for the earlier permit application SP-034-77 since it bears information containing that number. It does not particularly identify the subject site or the location of the fill area. 7.The zoning map submitted with the application showing Mt. Olivet Cemetery also appears to have been prepared for SP-034-77 since it again contains that permit's reference number. The information contained in the map would appear to be at least 7 to 8 years old. Certain zoning designations noted on the map, including that of the subject site, are no longer used in the City of Renton and have not been used for more than a year. 8.The landscape earthwork quantity estimate sheet was originally prepared on September 16, 1983. The topographic sketch was scaled at 1" = 50' and would appear to show a deep depression with a low elevation of approximately 242 feet and a high elelavtion of approximately 300 feet. It also appears to show the finished elevations ranging from approximately 270 feet to 300 feet. A road easement is designated and the phrase Mt. Olivet Cemetery appears on the map. A power right-of-way is also shown. No complete boundaries are represented on the map. 9. As additional background, the appellant had begun work under the auspices of the earlier special permits. That work was stopped when the City refused to issue an annual license. Work in progress was stopped. This stoppage may have resulted in unsafe conditions on portions of the old fill site, as correspondence indicates that the City determined that potentially unstable conditions resulted from the failure to complete the work authorized by the special permits. The appellant was informed that the site would, among other things, have to be stablized even in the absence of an annual license. As what appears to be the result of correspondence on this matter, the appellant submitted various plans to the City on June 23, 1983. The record does not reflect approval of those plans nor whether any work was performed pursuant to those plans. The record reflects the City's belief that the site is still unsafe. While the City had in its possession the June 23, 1983 plans, they do not appear to have been deliberately submitted as part of the Master Application packet on December 27, 1984, nor is there any reason to believe they were considered or should have been considered as part of that application. Those June, 1983 plans appear to have been submitted again on May 2, 1985 subsequent to the filing of this appeal since they bear a date receipt stamp with the later date. 10. The Zoning Administrator, Roger Blaylock, wrote the appellant on January 4, 1985, approximately 5 working days after submission of the Master Application that: Our plan checking has revealed that the required information has not been submitted in order for us to evaluate [your plans]. Unfortunately, the City cannot reference documentation in previous land use files (SP-034-77 and SP-047-80) as you have suggested in your cover letter." The letter from Blaylock concludes: Please be advised that the Building and Zoning Department cannot process the application any further until it is completed." 11. The City's method of processing an application and compiling an official file does not appear to be an exact science. Apparently until a public hearing is scheduled, documents, both copies and originals are, placed in various files, routed to different departments for review and circulated internally. After such routing and review, an 'official file' is compiled containing the original Master Application, supporting documentation, original comment sheets from the various departments and other original correspondence. Until such compilation is made, the City maintains various working files. 12. The City was in receipt of various other documents and plans submitted over an approximately 8 year period. These materials were related to prior applications, the correspondence generated as a result of those permits and the lack of completion of those permits. Blaylock's letter indicates clearly that those materials could not be considered as part of the current request. Mt. Olivet Cemetery/James Colt AAD-028-85 May 17, 1985 Page 6 13. The appellant submitted additional materials on February 11, 1985, apparently in response to the January 4th letter and a telephone conversation with Mr. Blaylock. Included in those materials was again the "Topographic Sketch", a three page narrative, "Mt. Olivet Cemetery, Inc. Method of Reclamation" and a cover letter from appellant indicating a desire for a March 19, 1985 hearing date on the request. The narrative indicated the types of materials to be used, the density of the materials after compaction, the cell size (layers of fill material and covering materials), the completion materials which included replacing natural fill materials, topsoil and hydroseeding, including the mix of seed, fertilizer and water. The setbacks of the tops and toes of slopes was not specified but was to provide safety and benefit for adjacent property, and be not less than 10 feet. Distance to undefined structures was given. A buffer strip on the north and west property lines in which natural vegetation would be maintained was specified as 50 feet. 14. The Master Application form indicates that the documents, including the material submitted on February 11, was routed on February 12, 1985. The material was routed to the Building, Design Engineering, Fire, Parks, Police, Policy Development, Traffic Engineering and Utility departments or divisions. 15. The routing appears to serve two purposes. One purpose is to solicit comments for an environmental determination, while the other is to solicit information for an analysis of the request on its merits. The routing is via two separate forms: a Development Application Review Sheet and an Environmental Checklist Review Sheet. Comments from departments are expected to result from the circulation of these two review sheets. Don Monaghan, Design Engineer, on both review sheets cited a separate memo which indicated that he needed more information. The memo requested "a detailed before and after grading plan," "a detailed temporary erosion control plan ...," "a phasing plan for the partial completion of the filling, stabilization and hydroseeding," " identification of the ground water aquifer and the direction of its flow," and "all of the above prepared by a licensed engineer." The Utility Engineer, Ronald Olsen wrote: "Note this area in ground water protection area which must be protected." 16. Jim Hanson, Assistant Building Director, responded on the Environmental sheet: application is not complete, plans and/or checklist does not show compliance with Sec 2307, Sec 2306, or 2303 of the Mining & Grading Ord." On the Development Review Sheet he wrote: "plans do not comply with Mining & Grading Ord. Sec. 2303, 2306 & 2307. Project must comply with Sec 4-2310, 2, Eng. Grading. Past Permit has not been completed as proposed." 16. Clinton Morgan of the Traffic Engineering Department, wrote on the Environmental sheet: "Not enough detailed plans to make appraisal of proposed file." Traffic Engineering noted on the Development Sheet: "No (sic) enough detailed plans for site and where the fill will occur." 17. These routing sheets appear to include not only the requests or comments relating to more detailed information, but also statements referring to conditions or requests for conditions. Such conditions are usually referred to the Environmental Review Committee, the City's responsible State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) official and the Hearing Examiner, who reviews the requests on their merits at a public hearing. 18. In referencing these comments, Roger Blaylock, the City's liaison with applicants, including the appellant, wrote the appellant on March 8, 1985. The letter referenced almost verbatim, the comment sheets of Don Monaghan, the Design Engineer, and Jim Hanson, the Assistant Building Director. While Mr. Blaylock introduced the verbatim statements as a request from the departments for additional information. The letter also included some of the proposed conditions those departments would have imposed on a permit, if it were approved. While not clearly a request for just additional information, the letter from Mr. Blaylock clearly indicates that additional information was necessary "prior to formally accepting the application as complete." 19. After receiving this letter the appellant filed the instant appeal and the matter was set for this hearing. Mt. Olivet Cemetery/James Colt AAD-028-85 May 17, 1985 Page 7 20. Other correspondence appears to have occurred subsequent to the setting of the appeal hearing. Additional plans were also submitted which appear to be the same or similar to plans submitted on June 23, 1983, since these plans show receipt by the City on two dates: June 23, 1983 and May 2, 1985. The plans are not considered as part of the application for purposes of this decision. If the plans were received later than the appeal date, there is no evidence they were reviewed by City officials who should be given first chance to determine their respective suitability per ordinance requirements. Since they were submitted more than a year earlier then the instant application, there is no evidence that the City culled all of its old records to find any information relevant to all aspects of the appellant's prior requests or current application. The record actually demonstrates that the appellant was informed that old records could not be relied upon, and new documents and plans clearly outlining the current request were necessary. 21. The Ordinance itself advises: "For advice and assistance before the application for a special permit from the Hearing Examiner and an annual license to operate under this Ordinance from the Building and Public Works Department, the applicant should consult early and informally with the Building and Public Works Departments." (Section 4-2303 (1)). While various plans 'floated' around City Hall, any such plans were not part of the official application which was received by the City on December 27, 1984. Some of the information the appellant urges be considered as part of the current application was received by the City more than a year earlier. The packet presented in December, 1984 would have to meet the requirements of the ordinance. Other information, even if viewed, reviewed or even approved earlier, would be part, at best, of a preliminary or informal process. The applicant has the burden of presenting current information for City review. No where in the Ordinances is there an affirmative duty for the City to cull, examine, copy and prepare documents from old records or submissions for inclusion in the applicant's application. Even if files were hanging around, the applicant had the responsibility to compile them into a coherent application. There was•no way the City could know, nor does it appear it had the responsibility to determine, if old information was relevant in part or in its entirety to the subject application. 22. The Ordinance specifically requires a variety of maps, plans and details. The sections, requirements and appellant's submissions are presented below. 4-2307(4)(A) Adequate information shall be submitted for the entire project which may include work over several years. The appellant submitted various maps from 1977, a topographic sketch, the environmental checklist, and an engineering estimate of fill material. 4-2307(5) Map scale, Information on Plans and Specifications. Plans shall be drawn on 22 by 34 inch sheets with a vertical scale of 1" representing 40 horizontal feet and 1" representing 10 vertical feet. All Plans shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that they will conform to the provision... The topographic sketch, while on the correct size page, is in the wrong scale. It shows a segment of property, no particular standardized reference point or section lines. It is what its title purports it to be - a sketch. 4-2307(5)(A) General vicinity map of the proposed site showing adjacent land uses on a 1" representing 600 or 800 feet. The two maps which the appellant extracted from an old file do not show adjacent land uses, they show zoning which only indicates a potential land use. The zoning which is shown contains outdated information from 1977. The scale on one map is 1" = 200 feet which would appear to show much less of the surrounding area then required by a scale of 1" to 600 feet. There is no scale evident on the other map which indicates the acreage for the fill at approximately 11.3 acres. The Master Application form filled out by the appellant indicated only 4 acres would be filled. 4-2307(5)(B) Property limits and accurate contours of at least 10 foot intervals of existing ground and details of terrain and area drainage. Only one contour map exists and it does not show property limits. l Mt. Olivet Cemetery/James Colt AAD-028-85 May 17, 1985 Page 8 4-2307(5)(D) Existing natural drainage systems including both perennial and intermittent streams and the presence of bordering vegetation. No such plans are part of the Master Application. The narrative discusses vegetation but its extent, nature and type is not indicated. 4-2307(5)(E) Detail plans of all surface and subsurface drainage devices, walls, cribbing, dams and other protective devices to be constructed. There were no plans submitted on December 27, 1984 as part of the Master Application showing such plans. 4-2307(5)(F) Location of any buildings or structures on the property. The narrative indicates a distance to such structures but they are not shown on any plans, nor is their location or characteristics shown. 4-2307(5)(H) Setbacks and those areas that are not to be disturbed. Again, while setbacks are indicated in the reclaimation narrative, they are not shown on plans, and the specificity is limited to setbacks of "at least 10 feet." 23. The comments from the Utility Engineer, Ronald Olsen, which state: "Note this area in ground water protection area which must be protected," would appear to lend substance to a request which Mr. Monaghan formulated as: "All of the above to be prepared by a licensed engineer." Section 4-2307(4) permits Public Works to require the plans and specifications to be prepared and signed by a licensed engineer. 24. Plans, if the topographic sketch could be considered such, and it is not, prepared almost 2 years earlier would not appear to satisfy this requirement. Since work was in progress when halted in an earlier period, erosion cited as a hazard may have occurred, and two years have passed, the topographic sketch is not sufficiently current to serve any meaningful purpose. Any plan for the site should not only be signed by a licensed engineer, but to be meaningful, the plan should be current. CONCLUSIONS 1. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the Building and Zoning Department's decision from which he is appealing was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious. (Section 4-3011(B)(4)). The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the decision of the Zoning Administrator that the application was incomplete should be modified or reversed. While a number of issues were raised, including past conduct, and the time frame for review, the only substantive issue to resolve is: Was the Master Application complete on March 8, 1985? The answer, after a review of the evidence, supports the determination of the Zoning Administrator that the application was not complete. In fact, not only was additional information required, but the minimum requirements of the Ordinance, particularly those contained in Section 4-2307, were not satisfied. 2. While the appellant may have held a good faith belief that the application was complete, the supposedly surprise determination of the Zoning Administrator would not appear to have prejudiced the appellant. City staff indicated that without sufficient information they could not have recommended that the Special Permit the appellant sought should be approved. 3. In addition, any belief the appellant founded upon the 'check-off' box on the Master Application which indicated acceptance should have been countered by a similar careful reading of the last paragraph of the Affidavit of Ownership the appellant also signed and received. Quoting again, "Acceptance of this application and required filing fee does not constitute a complete application. Plans and other materials required to constitute a complete application are listed in the Application Procedure." Coupled with the letter that Mr. Blaylock sent on January 4, 1985, the appellant cannot still claim as he does, that he was led to believe by the 'check-off' box the application was complete. Within approximately 5 working days he should have been clearly disabused of this belief, since the City informed him his application was not complete. Mt. Olivet Cemetery/James Colt AAD-028-85 May 17, 1985. Page 9 At this date the appellant cannot claim he was deceived by a 'check-off' box. He even submitted additional information without any recorded evidence of resistance or protest when informed that old records could not be referenced in the new request. 4. Since it appears the City reserved the right to determine after submission of an application, its completeness or incompleteness, the question is - was the information submitted on December 27, 1984 in the Master Application, and as supplemented by subsequent submissions, complete under the provisions of Section 4-2307? The findings indicate that the appellant failed to provide maps of the appropriate scale (Section 4-2307(5)), provided maps lacking property limits Section 4-2307(5)(B)) and adjacent land uses (Section 4-2307(5)(A)), submitted information with conflicting figures on acreage to be filled - 4 acres in one instance and approximately 11.3 in another; submitted a 7 year old zoning map with incorrect zoning designations for the subject site, provided no information on drainage features or control measures, included an ambiguous narrative indicating a distance to structures which are not identified as to location or type, imprecise setbacks and no landscape buffer details. City staff also indicated the area was part of the ground water protection zone and that a licensed engineer should prepare the plans. 5. The plans drawn up and entitled a topographic sketch, even accompanied by the earthworks quantity estimate, were drafted in 1983, and would not necessarily satisfy today's on-site conditions. Those plans may or may not represent current conditions, and City officials should not be required to speculate regarding current on-site conditions. 6. Any plans which the appellant may have submitted and which pertain to prior applications, enforcement actions or other actions of the City, do not appear to be clearly part of the current application. As the findings indicate, the City does not have a responsbility to perfect the appellant's application. Over seven years.the City may have amassed large volumes of paper, plans and maps since there had been two prior special permits. It was not the City's responsiblity to determine if somewhere in those files and old applications sufficient information containing current information existed to satisfy its permit requirements. The responsibility was solely the appellant's. 7. Therefore, under the various provisions of the Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance, and particularly the provisions contained within Section 4-2307, the application was not complete on March 8, 1985 when Zoning Administrator Roger Blaylock so informed the appellant by letter. A cursory review of the information which appellant insists was part of the Master Application, either by incorporation by reference or any other means which the appellant might suggest, requires the City to consider it, whether old information submitted prior to December 27, 1984 or even new information submitted after the appeal was filed, still indicates many of the items of information required are not provided. 8. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary and capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472 (1966)). The decision of the Building and Zoning Department that the application was incomplete is founded upon a fair review of input from staff and a clear reading of the Ordinance. Information was either not provided, was provided in the wrong format, or was incorrect, outdated or both. The decision was not unreasoning nor does it appear willful. It is not arbitrary and capricious. 9. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255, 259 (1969)). The appellant has failed to demonstrate with cogent evidence that a mistake was made. Even if all the material the appellant indicates should have been considered as part of the application is considered, the requirements of Section 4-2307 have not been met. The application is incomplete and it is, therefore, impossible to determine with a definite and firm conviction that the Building and Zoning Department made a mistake. Mt. Olivet Cemetery/James Colt AAD-028-85 May 17, 1985 Page 10 10. To allay, if possible, any need to further appeal a decision of the Building Department or the Public Works Department in the matter of who should draw up plans, the following determination was made. The declaration that the site is in the ground water protection area, which should easily be verifiable by map reference, is a reasonable ground to determine that "the plans and specifications be prepared and signed by a licensed civil engineer" as provided by Sections 4-2307(4), 7) and (8). 11. In light of the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the decision of the Building and Zoning Department is affirmed. DECISION The decision of the Building and Zoning Department is affirmed. ORDERED THIS 17th day of May, 1985. FRED J. KAU AN HEARING EX INER TRANSMITTED THIS 17th day of May, 1985 to the parties of record: Lawrence Warren 100 So. Second Ave. Renton, Wa. 98055 Seth Fulcher, Jr., Attorney 210 Union Trust Annex Seattle, Wa. 98104 James L. Colt 100 Blaine Ave. N.E. Renton, Wa. 98055 Ronald Nelson City of Renton James Hansen City of Renton Roger Blaylock City of Renton Don Monaghan City of Renton TRANSMITTED THIS 17th day of May, 1985 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Public Works Director Larry M. Springer, Policy Development Director Members, Renton Planning Commission Ronald Nelson, Building & Zoning Director Jim Matthew, Fire Marshall Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Renton Record-Chronicle Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before May 31, 1985. 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 a 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. Mt. Olivet Cemetery/James Colt AAD-028-85 May 17, 1985 Page 11 Any appeal is governed by Title IV, Section 3011, which requires that such appeal be filed with the Superior Court of Washington for King County within twenty (20) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning land use decisions. This means that parties to a,_ land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. OF RSA A 04f _ , ° BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT r „ RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR 0 p MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON.WASH.98055 • 235-2540 0, 9l? eo SEP M 4 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR March 8, 1985 James L. Colt Mt. Olivet Cemetery Co., Inc. P. O. Box 547 Renton, WA 98057 Re: Special Permit for Fill and Grade/File,_SP-116-84 Dear Mr. Colt: Thank you for your statements on method of reclamation for the proposed Mt. Olivet Cemetery fill received on February 11, 1985. After our initial conversation, we received additional comments from various City departments concerned with the adequacy of the plans submitted. The City of Renton has become extremely concerned with any fill activity in this general area because of the sensitivity and impact upon City wells. The City has adopted an official ordinance regulating land fills or development within those areas of sensitivity. I have enclosed a brief pamphlet showing the basic areas. The departments have requested the following information: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARATMENT: 1. The detail before and after the grading plan. 2. A detailed temporary erosion control plan which is to installed and operational before any work is to proceed. 3. A phasing plan for the partial completion of the fill in stabilitation and hydroseeding. 4. Identification of the ground water aquifer and direction of its flow. Quarterly sampling and testing of suffient samples to ensure there is no ground water contamination. Said sampling to continue for five years after the fill in operation is complete. No contamination of ground water will be allowed. 5. All of the above to be prepared by a licensed engineer. 6. Paving of a hard surface roadway at least 100 feet into the site to contain tracking. 7. Modification of operating hours to 8:30 to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, aad- e. JeightSite- to be observed by an independent observer paid for by the applicant and approved by the City. Said observer to certify operation of the site and material disposal in the field. Fill mets or exceeds the requirements of the permit and license. James L. Colt March 8, '1985 Page 2 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING: 1. Not enough detail plans for site review and where the fill is occurring. 2. Operating hours restricted to 8:30 - 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. 3. Bonding required for roadway cleaning and maintenance. 4. Warning signs of truck crossing to be in place when operating and removed when not in operation. BUILDING DIVISION: The application is not complete. The plans and/or checklist does not show compliance with sections 4-2307 or 4-2306, or 4-2303 of the Mining and Grading Ordinance. I would personally advise you to contact your engineer and have him provide the necessary plans. As a result of the technical detail of the materials necessary, I will have to submit the plans to the Public Works Department for review prior to formally accepting the application as complete to be sent to the Environmental Review Committee. The Environmental Review Committee has taken the position that they will not consider the application until it basically meets the technical requirements of the Mining and Grading Ordinance per the interpretation of the Public Works Department. Again, I must remind you that the cemetery activity is specifically limited to the old cemetery site and new conditional use permit reviews must be conducted to expand the cemetery beyond that. During our conversation you mentioned that the previous owner had used property that was outside of the official recognized cemetery. Those possible illegal actions do not provide you with the rights to extend the cemetery beyond the original designated portion. I have included new application forms if you desire to apply for the conditional use permits at this time. Since the City is presently experiencing a backlog of land use requests' through the Hearing Examiner process, I would advise you that it might be expedient to consider the use change at this point. Sincerely, ge;lock Zoning Administrator RJB:1386Z:c1 Enclosures MT0 OLIVET SP-116-84 February 8, 1985 Mr. Roger Blaylock Building & Zoning Department City of Renton 200 Mill Ave. So. Renton, Wa. 98055 Dear Mr. Blaylock, Per our discussion of yesterday, I have attached herewith the copy of Mt. Olivets "Method of Operation" for the completion of our land reclamation project. I have also enclosed the reduction of the topographical plan you requested in the size of 8.5 X 14 " If possible a hearing date prior to March 19, 1985 would be most helpful as we are hoping to complete this project as quickly as possible. Thank you for your assistance in processing our application. Sincerely, I\ 4,,,,,Artir*./b-- _____ s L. Colt, v . Olivet Cemetery Co. Inc. JLC/hs f S86` 0>/ D'Lim- n Jo`n,„s Cr, y ,V 0,it., Cemetery, Mausoleum, Crematory & Gardens Box 547 • 100 Blaine Ave. N.E., Renton, WA. 98057 • 206-255-0323 MT. Olivet Cemetery Inc. Method of Reclamation In summary, the intent of the work is to restore the' existing gravel pit to more natu'ral elevations, providing a large greenbelt area, and providing a more useable facility. The work will encompass the property directly north of Mt. Olivet Cemetery (see Giadrone Plans) . Areas with existing treesand topsoil will be maintained for a distance of 50` (Fifty) from the north and west property lines to provide a natural buffer zone during the reclamation process. The reclamation process will require the excavation and removal of 80, 000 yards of earth material from the site to provide for the cover material used to construct fill cells of not more than 5 ft. in height and to provide for the final natural earth cover over the entire site. This earth material will be removed from the site, and replaced as the lifts of compacted material require the replacement of appropriate amounts of earth cover. The final elevations shall be achieved by filling the lower areas -and excavated areas with construction waste materials and compacting and covering with natural earth materials. The construction waste materials will be placed in five (5) ft. maximum lifts. COMPACTION: The fill material and mixture of the material shall be such as to provide a relatively uniform density with no extreme soft spots. Density shall be as high as possible in accordance with good mixing compacting standards and shall at no time be less than forty (40) percent of the density of a similar sample of material compacted under ideal conditions by providing a fifty (50) pound square foot sure- charge on a one (1 ) cubic foot sample of the material . cz Broken wood, building material and related debris co from structure removal (exclusive of brick and c G:j-TO 2 concrete) shall be satisfactorily broken and n crushed to provide a reasonably compacted cell when rn covered by granular material . Protection l oo G"' shall be provided for any wood or burnable j material ' o prevent fire either on the surface zc or subsurface. The earth cover on any cell con- taining flammable material including paper, wood, on G:a-1 or natural vegetation shall be sufficiently covered o to prevent the spread of flames, should combustion occur in any cell due to spontaneous combustion. STABILIZATION: Brick, broken concrete, crushed building materials, not including extensive wooden or flammable matter, may be utilized in embankments where they may be of assistance in preventing undue sliding, water scouring of voids which might harbor vermin. This material shall be sufficiently mixed or covered with suitable granular material to pre- vent unsightly effects. COMPLETION: 1 . When the desired elevation has been attained, the contractor will place 2 feet of natural fill on the construction waste material , and properly compact. Compaction will be the same as above. 2. Placement or replacement of 6" of topsoil will follow the placement of natural fill when finish elevations have been reached. 3. Hydroseeding after placement of topsoil shall be done on the site as it is completed to provide natural ground cover. The mixture shall be, fiber at 2, 000 lbs. per acre; seed 168 lbs. per acre; fertilizer 50 lbs. per acre; and water 3, 250 gallons per acre. Watering, after hydroseeding, shall be as required until full germination. The tops and toes of cut and fill slopes shall be set back from setback lines as far as necessary to preserve the setback for the safety and benefit of adjacent properties, the adequacy of foundations, and to prevent damage as a result of water run-off or erosion of the slopes. Distance to the setback-line for the top of slopes shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet. The distance to structures shall be as follows: m Height Top Toe L G r-t n I feet 5 feet 3 feet 1 9 feet 7 feet Height/2 feet G~ c01 Pe and over 10 feet 15 feet D A. . . U STRIP: The trees and natural vegetation shall be maintained n +s natural state for a distance of 50 ft. (fifty) from theC.Acnot4uvlandwestpropertylines, during the reclamation process. LEVELS: All operations shall be controlled to prevent undue nuisance to the public. Maximum allowable daytime sound pressure as measured in any residential zone shall not exceed 60 DB at least ninety (90) percent of the time between the hours of 7:00 am and 8: 00 pm. PERMITTED WORK HOURS: All work done in residential areas shall be between the hours of 7: 00 am and 4: 00 pm, Monday through Saturday, except for repairs to machinery. Discharge of materials into the air or water shall be subject to the requirements of the appropriate governing agency. Activities shall be operated so as to reduce dust and mud to a minimum. Access roads shall be maintained in such a condition that confines the mud and dust to the site. Such roads shall be improved to a width sufficient to permit the unhindered movement of emergency vehicles. Soil erosion and sedimentation shall be confined to the site by such means as a temporary cover of vegetation, mulches, diversions, sedimentation ponds or other acceptable methods. No toxic materials shall be allowed to wash from the site or be discharged into receiving water courses. SUMMARY OF RECLAMATION PROCESS: The restoration and reclamation shall be performed using the method outlined above, and shall consist of : 1 . The removal from the site of 80, 000 cubic yards of earth materials, and the replacement - of the natural earth materials with similar material as required to provide the natural cover over the lifts of compacted building debris, vegetation, concrete ect. in the amount of approximately 80, 000 cubic yards. 2. The placement and compaction of 150, 000 cubic yards of compacted debris, placed in 5 (five) ft. lifts, to bring the site to the final grade as indicated on the Giaudrone site plan. 3. The hydroseeding of the entire site to provide open greenbelt areas of natural vegetation. SE 2-8-1985 C) 3-632 M M [+ Ti MT. OLIVET CEMETERY CO. INC. P.O. BOX 547 2 100 BLAINE AVE. N. E. WASHINGTON 98057RENTON 206-255-0323 i f 1 0.. N s 1 N -----\ ... ser•edwr .. f 7.....• 7------- ----- - s erry 0 F.fi,......,_PII: i-,-„, iv p., pi , 5 DLONING -Pr "‘ nei 2S IS 0 25 SO SCALE I".SO. i. 1 7.1 . VI. ‘, 1 i\41 ey I.43EME*,,\ r / :it . s s \ s_ . „_. _. c- i . , _r-i•''',:-.;'„....,/ . i Arg SC. 0R,r,.NAL- CON TOu R 3co---F1 NISH CONTOURL-.....", 5-- I I I i I 1111 I 1 . .EH 1 Mr. OLl'igi (...-EFIE-I.EKi i I 1 14 ! '. To FI'Da R4.0-1 IC S K TC H for r MR. .rAt..4 Es co i--r 1. JO.---...4t= 1". b . .1 -• • : -7 i a..1 ,z 1_:___ .,.. ..:GIAUDRONE 1 41,_,? 4 ff- — AND rnAo. ....5... 0,......, SCL7 ker4IvN....,r-------= —.-:.-ASSOCIATES ••-.—• 60 N S U L I 1 N 0 ENGINEERS ,....• gs.L. ....,..,.2i.....1.-..;.a i.“,.. •• •" 4".. I lkiddand.WirshIngtoet 206/1121-41214 Nos.Ne••_•7_:./.21.,5.L_.....••-a—2.-L-- d OF RA BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENTt$ RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR z .JL o 09 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 co- 1tED SEP1t.10 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH January 4, 1985 MAYOR Mr. James L. Colt Mt. Olivet Cemetery Company, Inc. P.O. Box 547 Renton, Wa. 98057 SUBJECT: Special Permit for Grade and Fill File: SP-116-84 Dear Mr. Colt: The Renton Building and Zoning Department is in the process of routing and reviewing the above referenced Special Permit application. Our plan checking has revealed that the required information has not been submitted in order for us to evaluate. Unfortunately, the City cannot reference documentation in previous land use files (SP-034-77 and SP-047-80) as you have suggested in your cover letter. On November 4, 1983 written correspondence was sent to your legal counsel, Larry Setchell, stating that his letter of September 15, 1983 was unaccep- table as an application. No formal application was received until Decem- ber 27, 1984, over 13 months later. Specific requirements for submission of an application for a fill and grade permit have not changed during the last ten years under provisions of Chapter 23 of the Municipal Code. The environmental review form under the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 changed on October 1, 1984. Please be advised that the Building and Zoning Department cannot process the application any further until it is completed. Sincerely, Roger J. Blaylock Zoning Administrator RJB/dm I MT0 OLIVET CIY% S7p t t'nq,p _ December 20, 1984 p l l F.: D Mr. Ronald G. Nelson DEC 2 7 ig84 Building and Zoning Director City of Renton BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. 300 Mill Ave. South Renton, Wash. 98055 Re: Mt. Olivet Cemetery / American Memorial land fill Dear Mr. Nelson, Enclosed herewith are new copies of the " Master Application " for the completion of our land reclamation project. The city has several complete sets of plans for this project in files # SP-034-77, and SP-047-80, and I have enclosed complete copies of the current topographical plans and quantity analysis of only that portion of the property to be completed under this application. These plans were originally submited in Sept. 1983. Additional site plans as requested by the city, and a complete Master Application were filed in October of 1983, with the Cemeteries check # 7449 in the amount of $200.00, as required by the city. This check was returned to us in July 1984. Upon my inquiry regarding our application I was given a new Master Application form, and asked to update our checklist. I have included a copy of the Checklist and the cover letter from Mr. Setchell with your set of plans only. When these were brought to your department in November 1984, I was informed that a new " Master Application, and Checklist " would be needed before you could proceed. Thus the current "Master Application & Checklist" submitted herewith. Also enclosed is a check in the amount of 461.00, which Mr. Blaylock indicated would cover the Grading and Filling Permit for 4 (four) acres in the amount of $400.00, and 61.00 for Checklist Review. These documents and all of the existing files, though duplicative, cover the last four acres of our property to be completed. Thank you for your past assistance with our permits. S er J L. Colt Mt. Olivet Cemetery Co. Inc. JLC/hs Enclosures cc: Tarry Setchell Cemetery, Mausoleum, Crematory & Gardens Box 547 0 100 Blaine Ave. N.E., Renton, WA. 98057 0 206-255-0323 4%. MT. OLIVET CITY OF RENTON TIjiiMU December 20, 1984 DEC 2 7 E034 — J Building and Zoning Department BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. City of Renton 300 Mill Ave. South Renton, Wash. 98055 Re: Mt. Olivet Cemetery / American Memorial Land Fill Permit Gentlemen, Enclosed herewith are copies of the " Master Application " for the completion of our land reclamation project. The city has several complete sets of plans for this project in files # SP-034-77, and SP-047-80, and I have enclosed complete copies of the current topographical plans and quantity analysis of only that portion of the property to be completed under this application. The Cemetery proposes to complete it's land reclamation using the method of fill and the same type of fill materials as previously approved under our permits cited above. This approved method of operating is also as required under our King County Health Dept. conforming permit, # 17-011. We propose to complete our project, and reclaim a rough unusable site, restoring a mined out gravel pit to an open parklike area. We believe this is in the public interest,and will substantially benefit the City of Renton . Sinr erel g /6,m-_ _ _ . ..., ______.4's L. Colt Mt Olivet Cemetery Co. Inc. JLC/hs Enclosures Cemetery, Mausoleum, Crematory & Gardens Box 547 • 100 Blaine Ave. N.E., Renton, WA. 98057 ® 206-255-0323 4;.Y. 6•\ ala I . I .4 lY. J.t u.t 1N i u U i , ALL 1\V%J 1 ; r LILDONG ZONING' DEPAR _ _SENT 1 l -ELY f. ,- e,4 EcF- -8 to .. NOTE TO APPLICANT: Since this is o comprehensive application form, only those items related to your specific type of applications) are to be completed. rloare print or tom. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) 4l` PP N TYPE OF APPLOCAT2011 NAME __.__...., FEES MT OL I VET CEMETERY CO INC LI 6 EZONE (Ffif9 TO ADDRESS BOX 547 ED SPECIAL PERMIT* ti„ r1 TEAS ORARY PERMIT* CITY RENTON WASH I NGTON 98057 ZIP j i cO 4DITIc AL USE PERMIT* SITE FLAN APPROVAL TELEPHONE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GRADE AND FILL 7 0 6-2.5 5-0 3 2 3 No. of Cubic Yards: q I 3 I VARIANCE C .N I ACT P nS-0 L+ 4 From Section: I Justification Required NAME JAMES L COLT, PRESIDENT ADDRESS SUBDIVISIONS: SAME AS ABOVE q Jl SHORT PLAT CITY ZIP TENTATIVE PLAT i PRELIMINARY PLAT TELEPHONE FINAL PLAT WAIVER Justification Required) O' E NO.. OF LOTS: a l NAME PLAT NAME: AMERICAN MEMORIAL SERVICES INC ADDRESS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: SAME AS ABOVE FRELIMINARY CITY ZIP FINAL P.M): NAME: TELEPHONE 2 0 6.7 5 5. 7 4 7 91 . D Residential I 9 Industrial r Ej Commercial ,f] Mixed AK MOBILE HOME PARKS: PROPERTY ADDRESS 1 0 0 BLAINE AVE N E, RENTON TENTATIVE PRELIMINARY EXISTING USE PRESENT ZONING ri FINAL LAND FILL SITE G- 1 PROPOSED USE PARK NAME: COMPLETE LAND FILL , AND THEN ANY NUMBER OF SPACES: ALLOWABLE USE Eti ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COM4ITTE_E SQ. FT. ACRES TOTAL FEESAREA: d 4 (FOUR)1 AaLgr USE ONLY ADlNI@[+OlSTRA`l;OV E PR®CESSSIN S i DATE . P n r pA , APPLICATION RECEIVED BY: yam- + -DEC 2 7 I U' H APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: 1,•- 1 `G/"" al Accepted J BUILDING/ZONING DEPT.ED Incomplete Notification Sent On By: Initials) DATE ROUTED ADDITIONAL MATERIAL RECEIVED BY: APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: FE%. 1 2 n1"tt 55 ED Accepted Incomplete Notification Sent On By: Initials) ROUTED TO: EArrl Building bpi Design Eng. Fire Parks Es] Police L1 Policy Dev. L7 Traffic Eng. Utilities REVISED 1-31-84 Legal description of property (if more space is required, attach a separate sheet). LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" AFFIDAVIT I,DAMES L COLT, PRES , MT OL I VET being duly sworn, declare that I am X uthorized representative to act for the property owner, [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,,TO BEFORE ME THIS 7 DAY OF,,."1 : 1.d-/6-1 19, f. NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON,RESIDING AT c)2, Z/ ER I CAN MEMORIAL SERVICES INC LIVFT . ;M..`T RY CO I NC 001 ,, e, '7.2,,,,° 7-----:,./7C-4 /1 , y_6( e.:.1.0-, 14. '' CA 40,41. '6.,,,, : :z ,:7,;74'; Name of Notar Public) Sigh Lure of Owner) 1p 3 ES L COLT, PRES 1DENT 4-2//_-,4-,,- (-",..:.ID 0 BOX 547 Address) ' GUI. . /i'> Address) RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 City) State) (Zip) 206-2.55-0323 Telephone) Acceptance of this application and required filing fee does not constitute a complete application. Plans and other materials required to constitute a complete application are listed in the "Application Procedure." Form 4174 BEGINNING 250 FEET WEST AND 252 . 22 FEET NORTHEOF F THETE EASTMQUARTENRING CORNER OFSECTION 17 , TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH ,J I COUNTY, WASHINGTON ; THENCE NORTH 565 FEET ; THENCE WEST 549 FEET ; THENCE NORTH TO THE Nky,p GLINESAIDOFNOROHTLINETTOUTHEEUER OSTERLYF TLINETOF QUARTER : THENCE EAST RIGHT PUGET SOUND POWER AND TRANSMSSION 2500774E THENCEESTABLISHEDBYDEEDRECORDED SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE TO THE SECTION LINE; THENCE SOUTH TO A POINT SOUTH 88°52 ° 04" EAST OF POINT OF BEGINNING ; THENCE NORTH 88°52 ° 04" WEST 250 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING ; EXCEPT MOUNT OLIVET ROAD. EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST yQUAGE RTERSOOF THE,E NORTHN EAST QQUARTER OF SECTION 17 , TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH , WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MOUNT OLIVET CEMETERY ALSO KNOWN AS 017. 46 FEET NORTH AND 799 FEET WEST OF SOUTHEASTNORTHCORNEROF SAID SUBDIVISION ; THENCE SOUTH 89°45 17 EAST 565 FEET ALONGrfA' Y OF SAID CEMETERY TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING ; THENCE S011HE10E2 ' 53" WEST PARALLEL WITH EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION 565 FEET ; T SOUTH 89°45 ' 17" EAST PARALLEL WITH SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION 250 FEET TO EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION ; THENCE NORTH 1 °02 ' S8" WEST P.L•O':C. EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION TO A POINT SOUTH 89°45 ' 17" EAST FPO,: THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 89°45 ' 17" WEST 250 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION 60 FEET IN WIDTH AS DESCRIBED IN AUDITOR ' S FILE NO. 7806030884 ; A STRIP OF LAND 60 FEET IN WIDTH OVER, UNDER AND ACROSS A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH , RANGE 5 EAST , W . M . , IN KING ,:OUP TY, WASHINGTON, MORE PARTICULARLY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF THE PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 26°38 ' 54" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 501 . 26 FEET ; THENCE SOUTH 6°54 ' 11 " EAST CONTINUINC ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 138. 35 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 1°07 ' 56" WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE A DISTANCE OF 543 .67 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88°52 ' 04" WEST A DISTANCE OF 60. 00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1 °07 ' 56" EAST PARALLEL TO AND DISTANT 60 . 00 6 FEET ; FEET FROM THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION A DISTANCE OF 539 . U6ON SAIC THENCE NORTH 6054 ' 11 " WEST PARALLEL TO AND 60 . 00 FEET DISTANT SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 123. 69 FEET ; THENCE NORTH 26° 33 ' SQ WEST CONTINUING PARALLEL WITH AND 60. 00 FEET DISTANT FROM SAID SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN AODISTANCEOOF 490. 82EFEET;THENCEEGNORTH 63021 ' OV" EAST A DISTANCE OF 60 CITY OF RENTON 11 DEC 2 71984 BUll D1NG/ZONING DEPT. OF ECF: , ECF- /19 - y O L U: 0 z City of Renton 9 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 0gT60 SEP P Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43,21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for allproposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine Whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions how may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you.The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental. effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impacts. Use of Checklist for Nonproject Proposals: (Please Type or Print Legibly) Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: MT OLIVET LAND. RECLAMATION 2. Name of applicant: MT OLIVET CEMETERY CO INC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: P 0 BOX 547 RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 JAMES L COLT, PRESIDENT 4. Date checklist prepared: UPDATED 1 /3/84 5.Agency re4ues ing c ecklist: CITY OF RENTON 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): COMPLETION OF EXISTING RECLAMATION PROJECT BY 6/30/ 1987 CITY OF RENTON DEC 271984 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, c;1 irther activity related to or connected with this proposal? if yes, explain. NO 8.List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. RENTON CITY FILE # SP-034-77 & #' SP-047-80 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. NO 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if,known. NO ADDITIONAL APPROVALS REQUIRED 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. COMPLETION OF EXISTING RECLAMATION PROJECT IN ACCORDENCE WITH THE PLANS HEREWITH AND PER PLANS AND PERMITS ISSUED BY KING- COUNTY & CITY OF RENTON, TO. RECLAIM GRAVEL PIT 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including,a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topography map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. LOCATION AS INDICATED ON SITE PLANS HEREWITH, AND PROPERTY LIES ADJACENT TO N E 3RD STREET, TO SOUTH, AND DIRECTLY WEST OF THE MCIVIAHON & SEGALE MINING OPERATIONS , AND NORTH OF MT OL I VET CEMETERY B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. 1 description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, • eep slopes, ountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, caly, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. NO FARMLANDS d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. NO 2 - e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanta s of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. FILL QUANTITIES ESTIMATED PER TOPO PLAN & PROPOSAL, FILL MATERIALS TO BE BUILDING DEBRIS , CONCRETE, DIRT, PER COUNTY & CITY PERMITS f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. NO g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project constructioh (for example, asphalt or buildings)? NONE h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: PROPOSED OPERATIONS ARE WITHIN THE LOWEST DEPRES ION OF SITE PER PLANS , ALL RUNOFF FROM OPERATIONS TO REMAIN IN DEPRESSION, EXISTING RETENTION POND TO BE MAINTAINED, UPON COMPLETION, SITE WI LL BE RESTORED TO ORIGINAL CONTOURS , AND NATURAL STATE 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. NONE b. Are there any off-site sources of emission? NO c. Proposed measures to •reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: N/A 3. WATER a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. OLIVET CREEK, YEAR ROUND STREAM NORTH OF SITE 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. NO 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. N/A 3 - 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximately quantities if known. NO 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. NO 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. NO b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and appaoximately quantities if known. NO 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from . septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals .. . .; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. NONE c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. SURFACE WATER RUNOFF FROM SITE WILL BE MAINTAINED PER PLANS IN LOWEST DEPRESSION INDICATED ON PLAN, ANY OTHER RUNOFF TO BE DIRECTED TO EXISTING POND AS INDICATED 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. NO 4 - d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: NO IMPACTS , EXISTING POND TO BE MAINTAINED DURING PROJECT COMPLETION 4. Plants a. heck or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other o brgreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other NONE, GRAVEL P I T o Sh s 1 o grass o crop or ain o Wet soil p ts: cattail, butt p, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other o water plant . ater lily grass, milfoil, other a other types of a on b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? NONE c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. NONE d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: RE VEGETATION OF SITE UPON. COMPLETION OF •RECLAMATION , WITH GRASS , SHRUBS AND OTHER NATIVE N W TREES 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: Hawk, heron, irds, other N/A Mammals:ear, elk, beaver, other Fi • s, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. N/A c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. NO 5 -, d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, it any: REVEGETAT ION OF GRAVEL PIT AREA TO PROVIDE A NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, woad stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. NONE b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. NO c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: N/A 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. NO 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. NONE 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: COMPLETION OF PROJECT WILL ELIMINATE ANY EXISTING HAZARDS ON SITE, INHERANT TO ABANDONED GRAVEL MINING OPERATIONS AND RESTORE THE SITE TO A NATURAL PARK LIKE ENVIRONMENT b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? SAND AND GRAVEL OPERATIONS TO EAST, BOEING PLANT TEST FACILITY TO THE WEST, 405 FREEWAY TRAFFIC TO WEST 6 - 2) What types and levals of noise would be created b associated with the project on a short-term or a- long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. NO INCREASES IN NOISE FROM PRESENT OPERATIONS 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: N/A 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? CEMETERY OPERATIONS , LAND RECLAMATION, SAND AND GRAVEL EXTRACTION INMEDIATLY EAST OF SITE b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. NO c. Describe any structures on the site. NONE d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? NO e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? G- 1 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? CEMETERY g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. NO i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? N/A j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? NONE k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A 7 - 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: tit 9. Housing a. Approximately how any units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, r low-income housing. b. Approxima o nits, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether h' , 1 ' le, r 1 -income housing. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. b. What v' s t 7iii iate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?mt. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? b. Could ligh or 1 from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfe w h ie c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: 8 - 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? b. Would the proposed proje' disp ce any,- xisti c tional uses? If so, describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or c trol impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provi ed by the project or applicant, if any: 13. . Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any. places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. NO b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. MT OLIVET CEMETERY c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: N/A 14. Transportation a. • Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. PER SITE PLANS , ACCESS CURRENTLY IN USE b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximately distance to the nearest transit stop? c. N/A How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? NONE d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe indicate whether public or private). NO 9 - e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. NO f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. NONE g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: N/A 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. NO b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. N/A 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. N/A b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. NONE C. SIGNATURE I. the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: MT OL I V.FT-CFn/f-F/FRY m r Nr Name Printed: JAMES L COLT, PRESIDENT 10 - D. SUPPLEMENTAL Si-it'ET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS This sheet should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs. Do not use this sheet for project actions.) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous sutstances; or production of noise? WILL NOT INCREASE ANY DISCHARGES Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: COMPLETION OF 1977 PROJECT WILL REDUCE AND EL IM I NATE EX I ST I NG UNCOMPLETED SITE CONDITIONS 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? COMPLETION OF PROJECT WILL RESTOPE NATURAL VEGETATION TO SITE WITH NO AFFECT ON FISH CR MARINE. LIFE Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: N/A 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? N/A Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: N/A 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? WOULD NOT HAVE ANY AFFECT Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: n/a 11 - 5. How would the pr,;F;.,3al be likely to affect land am.; .00reline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? N/A Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: N/A 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? N/A Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: N/A 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. DOES NOT CONFLICT SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it Might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: MT OL I VET CEMETERY CO- INC Name Printed: DAMES L COLT, PRESIDENT 12 - i 1 .5.a)i : Yr 44 v r Cam'pf A 54 'fr4•l . I • `11 : 4 %' y t 1 1 ' .\r(' h'J 14,E , 1 9y74 a4 ''jY, + `} " ` V' V qS+ 1 )), ,. • ,tr,!t.• lr,•Yf.';\ 1• '( 1 n'1 { ID-0:a jil 1 ..."'' j•••$,;,.. 1, 1• 11,r, . ,. ,, fill' ,,..: -/3.•, iiy,.s1 411 }, ;;!rt,f7,, 0 ' 0I J I en d '1 A W 7( ,y'! f v 'S t1 zig . •,,ei;:::,...,),!'4' ..;..;.:,i 1. L, L .,:', -Mt r 1 r.. rt 6; J.r ti15 4;.. - . ,,, , L Ill•. ':'r1 • ., 1• , 4,',I, C+Nib if4f. ram i r :(w 1'. f r• ,.. L. S, t)1• 45 l.J' • 1 I • r I f L., , , g[14. 1.: z -4i--4./0411,-; 112, I'L a 999 4 at 0 i, 1 1--- at ; 56 ' 'li 1 11 11 X. 11 III 51....v T. s. i..,9/ IJq x".,....+ yeµ,;...y-. --- _ I 6*Le 0'xoo® Ps..11141.Pit eT azatotzuti °, USY 9c1U % la APICCILVOILOWitto IRr7 DEC 2? 94 g ll.DiNI GIZONING DE'T' z ti-A\ .! u-.1,:.,^3v.4-,',g1 t,:.,4Z, ,\--''',, ''' '1„• • . :4 1 .', ,*7,I. .- 1. 11 .-:' : 1..k. .....i,1- °. \V'''''' -. J. ' .•W', \.. ,,,••3> "1A'; .ti) 1' * i. 15 14 A :'' I 10 r 1 ,p, $ r--ram V . 1'_ 1.1-i- Itli• _ PACIFIC CAR j r' \\• \ t/ . •t\ t 1 ° I ' t X• lam I '• • ) tl I FOUNDRY CO 1 U.N 1 tif• '' L. ri i t 's\ ' ''IV‘) . V I., • 1 46..4 1 P7a, ""-. I 1 r. w: n.s' t a- .., t ». .-w.:.. •r;...-: Phil i i = wY, pi.'' - ta : t // j v f .._ w .... w a.r,aw• 1 t t 4., 1 III Fw F` e fir tkiiiii . ' if, \,::::.', iii, i d 1 Y.' ' i ' I';'. 3 ,. -----. ,v4.. " ' — ' - : - - 4 • 1yam, p N r' VI` I y 4.' Z.4 X 4 ; ; ,0 tie' At,' ,0 ., 7-7 fin M/O[lvt ! r,' 1 A/ 4g I w r C£MErfAtr - I 11 r/ ten i y_, 1 i t\ „ ... L .... ..... ,.. .. Atli RENTON CITY °LIIv11Tw. r 1 1 • r r i ; I 4* 1 v y._\`,\ 'tat ._• S g C,' p 1 h r '1 11 r 1 Y. i ti tee s SPECIAL PERMIT: MT. OLIVET CEMETERY CO. , INC. ; Appl . SP-034-77; special permit to fill and grade in GS-1 zone; property located north and east of the existing t platted cemetery, east of N.E . 3rd St. , in the vicinity of 100 Blaine Ave. N.E. between Blaine Ave . N .E . and the powerline right-of-way. APPLICANT Mt. Olivet Cemetery Co. , Inc. TOTAL AREA ±11. 3 acres i Blaine Ave. N.E. PRINCIPAL ACCESS_ EX! S1ING ZONING GS-1 Residential Single Family 35 , 000 Sq.Ft. EXISTING USE Undeveloped Pill ana grading operation; future reuse of site PROPOSED USE for expansion of cemetery area. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Public/Quasi-Public COMMENTS CITY OF RENTON 1 Pr4-1,14.41--t---- BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. LANDSCAPE EARTHWORK QUANTITY ESTIMATE SHEET JOB No. 3-632 CLIENT JAMES L. COLT CALCULATE D BY BSL/JMG JMGCHECKEDBY DATE 9-18-83 LOCATION MT. OLIVET CEMETERY, RENTON, WASHINGTON CONTOUR CONTOUR AVERAGE ELEVATION INCREMENTAL VOLUME CUMMULATIVE VOLUMEELEVATION (FEET) AREA (SQUARE FEET) AREA (SQUARE FEET) CHANGE (FEET) CUBIC FEET) CUBIC YARDS) CUBIC YARDS) 241 203,005 i M iiiiiiiiiiii ii iii.ii ii i i iiiiiiiiiiii ii ii /I I / I I I I/ / > > I I 1 / I I 1200,701 1 200,701 7.433 7.433 242 198.396 245 193.511 195,954 3 587,861 21,773 29,206 250 185,370 189,441 5 947,203 1 35,082 64,288 E, 176,891 5 884,453 32,758 97.045z255168,411 158,103 5 790,515 29,23 126,323 260 147,795 a 127,918 5 639,590 23,689 150,01226510R,041 270 95,391 5 476,95382,740 17. 65 167.677 q 275 72,119 77,430 5 387,148 14.339 182.016 280 61,999 67,059 5 335,295 12,418 194,434 57,327 5 286,635• 205.05010.616 285 52,655 290 43,838 48,247 5 6.2_935 213,985 295 32,916 38,377 5 191,885 300 11,899 22 408 5 112 038 221 ,p91 241 fIJllllll l Jl/I 1IJ///i II / I? / 1// / l4 I II I / 1 /1 1 / / /fr 1 1/ / / / I J J / /I l I,208.040 242 208,040 208.040 1 208,040 7.705 7.705 245 208,040 208,040 3 624,120 23,116 30,821 250 207,890 207,965 5 1.039.825 38.512 69,333 z 255 207.214 207,552 5 1,037,760 38,436 107.769 260 205,986 206,600 5 1,033,000 38,259 146.028 265 204,183 205,084 5 1.025,423 37,979 184,007 270 186,773 195.478 5 977.390 36,200 220.207 A t 275 162,800 174,786 5 873,932 32,368 752 575Ei150,826 0 280 138,852 5 754,130 27,931 280,506 a. 285 112,500 125,676 5 628,390 23,273 303.779 290 86,873 99,686 5 498,432 18,460 122,239 295 59,293 73,083 5 365,415 13.534 135,773 300 34,018 46 655 5- 233 277 8 640 344,413l/ / / / / f // / II/// I/ / 1 f IIII//.4 I/// / fI / / / I // / COMPACTED FILL REQUIRED = 344,413 - 225,241 2 i - 11 W { 0`Z MtiNASK;• G"/e, 119,172 CUBIC YARDS c DEC 2 71984 b ~e h BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. C' c:+ 4,-, a=° , oowsv.1ro ENOI It t G':nor 2 a a..... .,Len bowl S. ..lint...r.n.ISM .r.e.... sad ! d a S UP bfrV / d5 auu 31121 311A ICJ NIflPJi