HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA81-033OF R
A
nf s ht
tb
THE CITY OF RENTON
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055
p P.BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARINGEXAMINERO
30 P
43
FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-25939
TFD SEPIE
December 9, 1981.
Mr. John C. Ramsey
3517 S .E. 5th Street
Renton, WA 98055
Mr. John D. O'Hare
583 Pierce Avenue S.E.
Renton, WA 98055
RE: File No. ECF-079-81 , File No. ECF-080-81 ; Maple Valley
Heights Short Plat; Environmental Review Committee Appeal .
Dear Sirs :
I have reviewed your request for reconsideration in the above entitled
matter and find that the request is not justified.
The original appeal was addressed to the environmental determinations
pertaining to ECF-079-31 and ECF-080-81 , which expressly pertain to
Lots 2 and 3, respectively. Pursuant to ordinance and state law, the
minor construction of less than four units is categorically exempt
from environmental review, and, therefore, those items are not now
within the power of the Hearing Examiner to review. (See Finding No.
1 of the Examiner's report of November 16, 1981 . )
This matter may be appealed to Superior Court within twenty days of
the date of this letter.
Very truly yours,
A-104S
Fred J. Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
cc: Parties of Record
2,7 ,i444.30/9Y1
k
4a,frut
RECEIVED
CITY OF RENTON
f.,,e.l
0 , s4.
9ka6-6-
HEARING EXAMINER
2a4i, -1-, G/41-
AM Ia w- ti
7i8/9il0,llil2iA 12:: 1 tSoF f
fr?efraite.„24
4,
a) -Xj.:6. le). ,EeF-D79- ?/
Z 7/0. e P.h-' 33--6i
0.aftii)/42... Z7ezel-piam-,
c,9 .0 to x
1:: ,024. La- Alfrielz/L''
Cent Mf 1 -----4 G
47J._ ,e)fizfeA,,,i-i-ne-, i',
v-,-- f Gay z t-
46‘,4' .z. ,,,,,,a 3 xf d,41.
v>
e Vaile, 41-e-e-:".46
5.4d-P,h,74..e /
4
ki-ixii
g a./ 7I'.
4 il
z
4,,
cv,
z,... .
rJ
a
D
e71,
7),A, ,-,.
r.,,„
zz. ,
1
6a --e--1_P.,0IAI/writ
Y-
6 *. , •*
t. Z Av440-0-/-e- &"-
n-4S4e-e'r-4-1.1' em.-
62,e4A,1,,,Z oria)Nep,
e4e.le,e-c- -49 - 41j.-"Iff
ned-a44444a4 noti4V-14‘A-e. 4- 4-14-teteih'S
7- o .6.aa.,
p4.4
2fi'T sih2 /6, /7 8/.
5-73 Ems' Arm S•
OF
p' ,.,..
O THE CITY OF RENTON
fie``MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055
oisiLL tz BARBARA' Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR a LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
9,
0 FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593
09
rFD
P
September 25, 1981SEPjEMO
Mrs . Marcy Wearmouth
3512 S.E. 6th Street
Renton, WA 98055
RE: File No. Short Plat 033-81 ; Maple Valley Heights (Sigi Ullrich) .
Dear Mrs. Wearmouth:
Following our telephone conversation this date concerning proposed construction
on the referenced site, I took the opportunity to review all files and
information regarding this subject. It appears that following publication of
the Examiner' s report on May 19, 1981 , a request for reconsideration was
received from the applicant, and a response transmitted from the Examiner to
all parties of record on June 5, 1981 . The Examiner ' s response indicates that
he reversed his original decision to deny the short plat request, and approved
the application in accordance to a site plan (Exhibit #3) submitted with the
request for reconsideration. A new appeal period was then established to
allow any party of record the opportunity to appeal the revised decision,
which expired on June 19, 1981 . Exhibit #3, which is on file with the
Planning Department, indicates that four dwelling units will be contained on
Lot 1 , eight dwelling units on Lot 2, eight dwelling units on Lot 3, and
four dwelling units placed upon Lot 4, for a total of 24 units on the entire
site. Our records show that both the Examiner's report and the Examiner' s
response to the request for reconsideration were mailed to you as a party
of record.
Following application for a building permit by the applicant, the proposed
development was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee on
September 16, 1981 ; and it was the committee' s finding that the proposal
would not significantly impact the environment of the surrounding area in
an adverse manner. The decision of the ERC is appealable to the Hearing
Examiner until 5:00 p.m. on October 5, 1981 . For your review, I have
enclosed copies of the Examiner 's report and the response to the request
for reconsideration as well as. the final declarations of non-significance
issued by the ERC.
If I can provide further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate
to call .
Sincerely,
L
Marilyn J. Petersen
Hearing Assistant
November 16, 1981
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND DECISION,
APPELLANT:John C. Ramsey FILE NO. ECF-079-81,
ECF-080-81
APPLICANT:Clark-Rich, Inc.
LOCATION: Property located northwest of the intersection of S.E.
6th Street and Pierce Avenue S.E.
PURPOSE OF APPEAL: The appellant, resident adjacent to the subject site, has
appealed a Declaration of Non-Significance issued by the
Environmental Review Committee on September 21 , 1981 ,
following application for a building permit by the
applicant.
The appellant exercised his right to appeal the
determination pursuant to Section 4-2806(D) of the
Renton Environmental Ordinance, as amended.
SUMMARY OF DECISION: Reverse the ERC, and impose substitute conditions. f'
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the letter of appeal, 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 November 3, 1981 at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the
Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
The rules of procedure for public hearings regarding appeals of environmental
determinations were explained, in this case, an appeal of a declaration of non-
significance issued upon application for a building permit on the subject site.
The Examiner then requested testimony by the appellant. Responding was:
John C. Ramsey
3517 S.E. 5th Street
Renton, WA 98055
Mr. Ramsey advised that 102 residents in the neighborhood had signed a petition circulated
in the area of the subject site to indicate their concern regarding the negative
declaration of environmental significance issued for the subject proposal .
Utilizing the city's environmental checklist form, Mr. Ramsey discussed each category of
concern to surrounding residents. Impact to direct and indirect air quality was referenced,
and it was noted that if fireplaces are provided in the 24 proposed dwelling units, air
quality would be impaired. Mr. Ramsey also questioned the type of heating which would be
supplied to the units, and whether exhaust fumes would be emitted into the environment.
Concern was expressed regarding containment and pick up of garbage which may emit
objectionable odors, and increased air pollution resulting from automobile fumes.
Provision of storm drainage facilities to absorb runoff from increased impermeable
surfaces resulting from construction on site was questioned, and it was noted that during
periods of heavy rainstorms, backups in the storm sewer system on S.E. 5th Street have
occurred frequently and result in street flooding. Mr. Ramsey addressed potential impact
from noise associated with increased traffic, population increase including additional
children, and nuisance from pets, if allowed in the complex. Other concerns regarded
light and glare from exterior lighting of the complex and associated parking areas, and
loss of privacy occuring from proximity of the two-story multifamily complex to existing
residential yards. Responding to impacts to population and employment, Mr. Ramsey stated
that the existing neighborhood had been well-planned; however, construction of a complex
the size of the proposal will concentrate a large number of people within a very small
area.
Under the category of traffic impacts to which the applicant had responded that no impacts
would occur as a result of the proposal, Mr. Ramsey indicated concern that pedestrian
safety for children and senior citizens would be impaired, and he noted that during peak
hours, Maple Valley Highway (SR-169) is blocked in either direction in the area of the
ECF-079-81, ECF-080-81 Page Two
entrance to the Maplewood subdivision, and traffic is utilizing S.E. 5th Street, a rapidly .
deteriorating roadway, as an exit from SR-169 to enter the residential area. He questioned '
the required number of parking spaces provided for the complex of one and one-half per
unit, and expressed his opinion that a minimum of 48 spaces should be required to preclude
visitors from being forced to park on the residential streets.
Under the category of public services, Mr. Ramsey's concerns included adequate fire
protection, since definite findings from that department could not be located in the file;
water flow; and time of arrival by emergency vehicles. He questioned whether the number
of police personnel would be increased to meet additional needs of the community, and
indicated concern that Maplewood Park, which was designed for a specific sized neighborhood,
would be overloaded by additional new residents. He also noted a definite need for road
maintenance on S.E. 6th Street on which the new complex fronts, and felt that additional
deterioration would occur upon construction of the facility.
Mr. Ramsey questioned potential overloading of energy sources, such as Puget Power and
water service, resulting in disruption of service for existing residents. He concluded
his testimony by stating that his original understanding was that a short plat would
allow possibly five new homes in. the existing neighborhood, but the impact of a two story
multifamily complex the size of the proposal should be carefully considered.
The Examiner requested further testimony by appellants. Responding was:
John D. O'Hare
583 Pierce Avenue S.E.
Renton, WA 98055
Although Mr. O'Hare had no objection to neighbors, he felt that intrusion of multifamily
dwellings in a single family neighborhood would directly impact the quality of life for
existing residents. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area as single family
residential, existing homeowners purchased their residences because of the single family
character of the neighborhood, and to change that character is a direct environmental
impact to existing lifestyles of the occupants. He noted that the final Northeast
Quadrant of the Comprehensive Plan which was approved by the Planning Commission on
September 17, 1981 , still designates the subject area as suitable for single family
residential development, and although the rights of the owner of the subject site should
not be deprived, the property rights of existing residents to live in the kind of
neighborhood they have chosen should not be deprived either. He encouraged imposing the
requirement for preparation of a formal environmental impact statement to address the
concerns of the neighborhood and mitigate the potential impacts which will occur from
the proposed development.
The Examiner inquired regarding the current Comprehensive Plan designation for the area
of the subject site. David Clemens, Acting Planning Director, indicated that the
current Comprehensive Plan and the recommended Comprehensive Plan designate the entire
area as single family residential, and neither commercial nor multifamily use currently
exists in the general vicinity.
Mr. O'Hare advised that 102 signatures have been collected on petitions circulated in the
neighborhood, and he offered the petition as an exhibit. The Examiner advised that he
would accept the petition, but consideration at the hearing does not include the merits
of the proposal, but only whether it will have more than a moderate effect on the quality
of the environment. He then entered the following exhibits into the record:
Exhibit #1: File No. ECF-079-81; Clark-Rich, Inc.
Exhibit #2: File No. ECF-080-81; Clark-Rich, Inc.
Exhibit #3: Petition containing 102 Signatures
Objecting to Negative Declaration
Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding whether sidewalks currently exist in the
neighborhood, Mr. O'Hare advised that sidewalks are in place. The Examiner then invited
testimony by the Acting Planning Director, David Clemens, member of the Environmental
Review Committee. Mr. Clemens stated that the primary issues which have been raised
relate to traffic generation and associated impacts of that activity based upon the best
available information from the Institute of Traffic Engineers. He advised that a 24-unit
complex will generate approximately 144 daily traffic trips of which between 14 and 16
trips will occur during peak hours. Related to that is the question of parking and the
standard of 1.5 spaces per unit established by the city. The 16 trips during peak hour
represent one vehicle passing a particular point approximately every four minutes, and
the impact of that additional traffic, although on a single family neighborhood may seem
to be a large increase over relatively stable flow, does not represent a significant
increase in the committee's opinion. The increase of 60 persons in the neighborhood
represents an increase of approximately 5 to 10%, and the committee had felt that it was
ECF-07y-81 , ECF-080-81 Page Three
not a significant adverse environmental consequence. Lastly, regarding the question of
parking, Mr. Clemens advised that a previous study of over 1 ,000 dwelling units conducted
by him had revealed that the total number of parking spaces that appear to be necessary
in multifamily complexes was less than the 1.5 spaces required per dwelling unit.
Responding to concerns regarding water supply and its adequacy, he noted that the
requirement of the building permit would be to extend the trunk facility to upgrade
available capacity and assure adequate fire flows. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry
regarding financial responsibility for the extension, Mr. Clemens stated that the developer
would bear the entire cost; however, a latecomer's fee for future connection may be
required. He advised that during discussion of the negative declaration published on
September 21, 1981, the Fire Marshal had indicated that fire protection procedures would
be adequate for both the existing residents and new residents. Regarding the question of
water runoff and absorption, the Public Works Department had indicated in its review that
additional information would be necessary regarding storm drainage facilities prior to
issuance of the building permit, and it was felt that city standards for storm drainage
could be accommodated underground in parking areas. Mr. Clemens summarized by stating
that it was the opinion of the committee after evaluating all potential consequences of
the project, subject to compliance with the city's regulations regarding public health
and safety and provision of adequate utilities, that the proposal would not have a
significant adverse impact on the environment, and the Declaration of Non-Significance
was appropriate.
The following files were entered into the record by reference:
Exhibit #4: Short Plat File No. 033-81 , V-034-81;
Maple Valley Heights Short Plat
Mr. O'Hare requested evidence of Fire Department approval of the project, which he noted
could not be located in existing files. Mr. Clemens stated that the initial comment
by the Fire Inspector had indicated that additional information was necessary regarding
provision of access; however, at a subsequent meeting, the Fire Marshal had determined
that the question of adequacy of access and fire flows for water was resolved. Oral
comments had been accepted at that meeting from the Acting Planning Director, Public
Works Director, Fire Marshal, Police Department representative, Traffic Engineer, and
two other Planning Department staff members regarding environmental issues.
The Examiner requested further comments. Responding was:
Ronda Bunker
567 Pierce Avenue S.E.
Renton, WA 98055
Mrs. Bunker discussed traffic impacts to her neighborhood, and noted that installation
of a traffic signal is proposed in October of 1982 at the intersection of 132nd Avenue
S.E. and Maple Valley Highway. She indicated concern with traffic from the highway and
inquired if environmental review had addressed impact resulting from that arterial rather
than just to the immediate neighborhood. Mr. Clemens advised that the question before
the Environmental Review Committee was, would the increase of traffic from this specific
development adversely affect the neighborhood, and it had been determined that the effect
from one trip every four minutes during peak hours between 4:30 and 5:30 p.m. did not
appear to impact the environment. The Examiner inquired regarding the level of service
at the intersection of the proposed development and the Maple Valley Highway. Responding
was:
Gary Norris
Traffic Engineer
Mr. Norris stated that reports of problems at that intersection have not been received
by the department, although there is a great deal of congestion at the intersection of
the Maple Valley Y. The proposed signal location presents sight distance problems and
is considered a constraining facility because of limitation to two lanes. The Examiner
requested clarification of the location of the proposed traffic signal. Mr. Norris
advised that the signal , located at 132nd Avenue S.E. just east of the railroad overpass,
will provide gaps in traffic for vehicles in the Maplewood area. Mr. Ramsey indicated
concern regarding the assumption that gaps will occur as a result of signal installation,
and noted that eastbound traffic is backed up from 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and congestion
had worsened upon installation of a signal at 140th Avenue S.E. which leads to the
Fairwood subdivision. As a result of that installation, northbound traffic flow was
improved, but congestion increased for eastbound traffic because of the delays which
occurred from the light, and traffic is backed up past Maplewood Lane S.E., the entrance
to the community. Installation of an additional traffic signal at 132nd Avenue S.E. will
only serve to deteriorate the situation further, he felt, coupled with increased traffic
from the proposal. Mr. Clemens stated that traffic congestion on SR-169 has existed
ever since installation of the traffic signal at 140th; however, the question before the
committee was whether the additional traffic generated by the proposal would adversely
affect the environment, specifically, the neighborhood in question. He stated that the
ECF-079-81 , ECF-080-81 Page Four
peak hour traffic generated by this project of approximately 16 vehicles did not appear
to be significant or adverse. Mr. O'Hare felt that it was not possible to separate the
Maplewood area from the total problem of SR-169, that roadway is currently carrying a
peak load of traffic, and the additional traffic generated from the proposal cannot be
accommodated.
The Examiner requested further comments. Since none were offered, the hearing regarding
the appeal of the Declaration of Non-Significance issued by the ERC regarding File No.
ECF-079-81 and File No. ECF-080-81 was closed by the Examiner at 9:52 a.m.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner
now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. The applicant, Sigi Ullrich for Clark-Rich, Inc., applied for building permits to
construct up to 24 units on four lots. The appellant, a neighboring resident, filed
an appeal of the declarations of non-significance issued by the Environmental Review
Committee (ERC) for two of the projects.
The projects which received the ERC review are the two separate eight unit apartment
complexes to be built upon Lots 2 and 3 of the Maple Valley Short Plat (File No.
Sh. Pl. 033-81). While the applicant also intends to construct two separate four-
unit complexes on the adjoining parcels (Lots 1 and 4 of the above short plat),
pursuant to WAC 197-10-170(1)(a), minor new construction of up to four units is
exempt from an environmental determination.
2. A twelve-inch water main will be extended to the subject site by the applicant.
3. The subject proposals are located on the north side of S.E. 6th Street near its
intersection with Maplewood Place. The site is generally level. The area in which
the subject site is located is a relatively secluded residential pocket north of the
Maple Valley Highway at the eastern edge of the city limits. The Maplewood Golf
Course is located immediately east of this neighborhood.
4. The site was annexed into the city in November of 1947. The subject property is
currently zoned B-1 (Business/Commercial).
5. The B-1 zone in which the subject property is located contains other properties
located adjacent to the Maple Valley Highway. The remaining properties adjacent to
the subject site are zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential; Minimum lot size - 7,200
square feet), as are the remaining homes in the subdivision for about three blocks
in each direction.
6. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as
suitable for the development of single family development. The areas surrounding
the site are similarly designated.
The area has been single family since its inception. The Comprehensive Plan has
indicated that the site is suitable for single family uses and the amendments to
that plan now being reviewed maintain that designation.
7. Lots 2 and 3, pipestem lots, would contain about 13,000 square feet each, inclusive
of the pipestems.
8. The site itself is currently undeveloped. Immediately north and east of the subject
sites are single family homes. Similar single family uses in the vicinity also
comprise most of the development which is an older single family subdivision. A
grocery store and park are located west of the subject site. There are no apartment
buildings located near the subject site. The area and site would be characterized
as predominantly rural residential.
9. The appellants allege that the proposal will have a number of impacts on the quality
of the environment, and challenge the two DNSs issued. They allege that air quality
will be adversely affected by the inclusion of fireplaces in such concentrated numbers
in the proposed units. The applicant indicated on the checklist that there would be
no air emissions (Item 2). The plans indicate that there will be hearths and
fireplaces in each of the units. The question was raised as to whether the air
quality was even considered.
10. The appellants indicated that the area experiences storm water problems, and manholes
have been lifted by storm water in the area. The proposal will result in less
permeable surfaces with greater generation of runoff. The storm water problems were
not addressed, and there is no indication that the city has analyzed the problem.
ECF-079-81, ECF-080-81 Page Five
11 . The proposal will result in greater levels of noise and light and glare as a result
of human habitation and activity on the sites.
12. The appellants placed a great emphasis on the general and existing land use, and
incompatibility of the proposal with surrounding development, especially with the
immediately adjacent single family uses.
The appellants argue that to change the lifestyle, which is now "rural residential"
is an impact which should be assessed. They indicate that the change in use to
multifamily will have an impact on property values and the sense of community
because of loss of privacy, increased traffic, noise, glare and population density
change.
The proposal will share property lines with single family uses and loss of privacy
will result. The two story apartment complexes will look down immediately into the
yards and windows of the neighboring single family homes. The subject proposals
adjoin the rear yards of five separate single family homes, and may impact as many
as eight homes.
13. A five to six-foot setback would be observed on the east and a twenty-one foot setback
would be observed on the north. Decks on the second story would overlook the
northerly and northeasterly rear yards.
14. The Maple Valley Highway is a heavily used roadway which is very congested during
the peak hours. Access to the highway is currently difficult, and the appellants
urged that increased population on the subject site will further exacerbate the
situation. The city acknowledged the traffic situation as problematic, indicated a
new signal may ameliorate some problems, and was unable to indicate the level of
service for the adjacent intersections.
15. The increase in population is predicted to be about 48 to 60 new residents, an
increase of about 5 to 10%, in this residential pocket. The applicant indicated
there would be no change in density of population (Checklist Item 11).
16. The appellants allege that the proposal will have an adverse impact on the quality
of life and change the characteristic land use of the subject area. The applicant
indicated that there would be no change in the land use of the area (Checklist Item 8).
17. The predominant lot size in the area is about 7,200 square feet with some lots in the
subdivision exceeding that size. The current density is therefore about four or five
units per acre. The subject proposal would yield about 16 units per acre.
18. The appellants inquired about the impact on the Maplewood Park, a small community
park bordering the subject site on the west.
19. The ERC stated as its reasons for the declaration of non-significance, "The
declaration is issued subject to compliance with conditions of approval imposed by
the Hearing Examiner in Short Plat File No. 033-81 ."
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is
entitled to "substantial weight" (RCW 43.21C.090). Therefore, the determination
of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the city's responsible official , is
entitled to substantial weight, and the appellant has the burden of demonstrating
that the determination, in this case a declaration of non-significance (DNS), was
in error.
2. The determination of non-significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight
and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is
clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn.2d 870, 880; 1980). The
Hayden court, in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King
County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 274; 1976 (hereafter cited as Norway), stated, "A
finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the
reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed."
Therefore, the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can
meet the test. For reasons stated below, the decision of the ERC is modified.
3. There was no contention that the proposals were not major actions which could
significantly affect the quality of the environment. Therefore, the ERC was required
to determine whether, in fact, the subject proposals and their direct and indirect
impacts would have a significant adverse effect on the quality of the environment.
III
ECF-079-81, ECF-080-81 Page Six
A number of factors are to be considered, and while no specific impact alone nor even
a series of impacts mandates a positive declaration, one factor standing alone could
have that effect depending on the nature of the impact and its location (WAC 197-10-
360(2)).
A major action is determined to have a significant adverse effect on the quality
of the environment if more than a moderate effect on the quality of the environment
is a reasonable probability (Norway, at 278). The SEPA guidelines of the Washington
Administrative Code offer some guidance in defining "more than moderate effect" and
how it is arrived at. "The absolute quantitative effects of the proposal are (also)
important..." (WAC 197-10-360(2)). But it is not necessarily the size or scale of
the proposal because..."The nature of the existing environment is an important
factor. The same project may have a significant adverse impact in one location, but
not in another location." (WAC 197-10-360(2)).
4. Reviewed under these criteria, the decision of the ERC must be reversed. The ERC
reviewed the subject proposal with an eye toward traffic as one of the primary issues.
The population increase was also reviewed. The impacts on air quality and Maplewood
Park were not addressed. Nor were the impacts of the incompatible nature of the
proposed land use on the neighboring properties.
In reviewing whether or not a decision of the responsible official is clearly
erroneous in order to allow a court to review the decision, "the entire record is
opened to judicial scrutiny and the court is required to consider the public policy
and environmental values of SEPA as well ." 89 Wn.2d 78, 84, 569 P2d 712 (1977)
Emphasis supplied.)
5. The public policy goes beyond simply the issues of traffic, water supply and fire
flow and access. As far as traffic is concerned the questions raised by the
appellants on the traffic in the area and the impact of new development on both
traffic and existing land uses are valid and were not sufficiently reviewed.
While there is evidence to support the conclusions of the ERC that the project could
4'
not have had an adverse impact on the quality of the environment, there are also
enough unanswered or incompletely answered questions about the impact on the land
use, housing, population and traffic as to conclude that the decision was clearly
erroneous under the guidance of the court decisions.
The impact on the park of the new residents was not reviewed, and the potential
impact on land use and housing were treated as peripheral matters.
The policy matters as they relate to land use are well documented in the city's
Comprehensive Plan and detailed in the policies element of that document. The
proposed use will have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment,
that is, the rural , low density single family environment of the subject area, and
more particularly, the immediately adjacent single family homes.
6. The area can best be described as rural , with the surrounding subdivision a
residential area of about five homes to the acre. While a small grocery store is
located in this area, the store appears to serve the local needs and is not a
large commercial establishment.
The proposed apartment complex will be entirely out of character with the general
nature of development in the area with up to 16 units per acre, and is especially
out of character with the existing Comprehensive Plan and policies element. There
will be no low density buffer between it and the single family uses. The proposal
is also out of character with the proposed amendment to this plan which continues
to recognize the area as a single family neighborhood. In Norway at 279, the court
indicated that a substantial change in character of the site, although an expansion
of nearby uses and in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, was a significant
adverse impact. Even the imposition of conditions did not necessarily reduce that
significant impact. They indicated that the "project will constitute a complete
change of the use of the existing area." The review, therefore, encompasses the
entire ERC review including the declaration itself and the imposition of mitigating
conditions or the failure to impose such mitigating conditions as permitted by
Sections 4-2803 and 4-3011 (B)(4).
7. The decision announced by the court in Polygon Corporation v. Seattle, 90 Wn.2d 59
and Section 4-2803 of the Renton Environmental Ordinance codifying that decision
allow the imposition of conditions to make the project compatible with its
environment. If a project may be denied outright because of its potential impacts,
it most certainly may be conditioned.
Pursuant to Section 4-3011(6)(4), the Examiner may impose conditions as an extension
of the powers of the ERC on an administrative review.
ECF-079-81, ECF-080-81 Page Seven
8. The Comprehensive Plan requires various buffer arrangements between incompatible uses
including a step down or transition zone between more intense, greater density uses
and less intense single family type uses.
The policies element indicates that districts should be identified and the integrity
preserved (3.8), and that new uses should be designed to be compatible with existing
uses (3.6.4). The subject area is and has been a stable single family area with a
convenience grocery store located within the community. The proposed project is both
out of character with the area and generally incompatible with the immediately
adjacent single family uses. The construction of the complex is not in character
and will neither preserve the integrity of the district nor preserve property values.
The unique identity of the area, that is, strictly single family, recognized in
Policy 3.B.6 will be disturbed by the proposed development.
9. While landscaping is recommended to minimize the detrimental impact between
incompatible uses (Policy 3.C), the five to six foot side yards cannot provide
sufficient buffering space, and the utilization of the rear yard for extensive
landscaping will eliminate the open space potential for residents of the complex.
10. The neighborhood objective 4.A.4 of eliminating incompatible uses would be violated
with the introduction of this incompatible use. While "in-filling" is an important
component of urban development, those projects proposed to accomplish in-filling
should be compatible with the area and surrounding properties and not intrusive.
The subject proposals do not represent compatible attempts at in-filling.
11. "Single family dwellings should be buffered by low density multiple family uses
from more intense uses. Multifamily dwellings should be located near employment
and shopping centers." (Policies 4.C.4 and 8)
Dwellings should have a minimal impact on the surrounding area and incompatible
uses should not be permitted (Policies 4.D and 4.D.1).
These policies alone clearly identify the proposed use as inappropriate to the area.
12. The Renton Urban area Comprehensive Plan at page 5 defines the meaning of the map
designation "single family" as those areas whose densities do not exceed six families
per acre and even in single family attached, the density does not exceed 10 units
per acre. The subject proposal , in fact, proposes a density of two to three times
that permitted under the Comprehensive Plan.
The plan at page 9 further indicates the city should encourage proper land use
principles. Proper land use principles dictate that unlike uses or districts should
generally be separate and distinct. The use of roads and rear yard abutment to
delineate different use districts is generally employed. In the subject case, these
principles are violated, and relatively small , ineffectual buffers are proposed.
13. Compatible zoning alone does not condone the approval of a use which is otherwise
environmentally incompatible with its area. The court upheld the complete and
unconditional denial of a building permit for a 13-story apartment building in the
Polygon case, solely on the basis of its environmental impacts, although the area
was zoned for high rise complexes. The court in Polygon stated, "We have said that
SEPA requires the disclosure and full consideration of environmental impacts in
governmental decision making. That mandate would be meaningless under the facts of
this matter if the superintendent was powerless to decide in the manner that 'full
consideration to environmental impacts' impelled." (Emphasis supplied) Therefore,
while the zoning permitted the 13-story building proposed in that case, the permit
was denied, and the court found that the denial was proper based on environmental
considerations.
14. Objective No. 1, at page 17 of the Land Use Report, indicates that proper planning
should "prevent blight by protecting residential and other exclusive districts from
the unwarranted infiltration of incompatible uses which would contribute to
premature decay and obsolescence, and prevent the development of orderly growth
patterns." Objective No. 4 of the same report indicates that proper planning should
protect property values within the community for the benefit of its residents and
property owners through the effective control of land use." These are environmental
matters which should be given full consideration.
15. The proposals when compared and analyzed in light of these various policies and
based on the different character of the proposals and the existing environment
certainly have more than a moderate effect on the quality of the environment.
The appellants raised a number of issues. As the SEPA guidelines (WAC 197-10)
indicate, if questions about the impact of a proposal appear to remain after
ECF-079-81, ECF-080-81 Page Eight
submission and review of the environmental checklist an environmental impact statement
is in order (WAC 197-10-330(2)). The questions remaining after the appellants'
arguments are sufficient to call into question the ERC's declaration of non-significance.
16. The declaration of non-significance issued by the ERC was based in part on the
imposition of the condition that the project be constructed according to the site
plan included in the short plat approval. Such a reading of the short plat decision
is incorrect. The approval of the short plat does not necessarily nor should it
limit the imposition of such other conditions as may be required to mitigate the
impacts disclosed in the environmental checklist. The short plat, in fact, principally
determined that the division of land served the public use and interest, and only
secondarily addressed the potential development. A checklist of impacts was not
prepared for the short plat, and, therefore, no binding decision on the ultimate
impacts of development on the environment was made at that time.
17. The appellants have raised questions about traffic, recreational needs, air quality,
housing and population and land use. Unlike the ERC, the appellants focused upon the
latter three elements, and have demonstrated that the nature of the subject proposal
and the proposed location thereof will have a significant adverse impact on the
quality of the environment, and that an EIS should be prepared or the proposal
modified to mitigate the potential impacts of multifamily development on the
immediately adjacent single family homes and the surrounding single family
neighborhood.
18. WAC 197-10-370 permits the project sponsor to alter the proposal to achieve a
negative declaration. Conditions modifying the proposal may also be imposed pursuant
to Section 4-2803. Therefore, to provide fidelity to the Comprehensive Plan elements
cited above and permit compatible construction on the subject site, the applicant
could modify the proposal to scale down the subject project which would permit
buffering between the proposed uses and the adjacent single family uses by limiting
construction to two duplex units on each site.
Such limited construction would also decrease the required parking, permitting the
development to be shifted further from the property lines, thereby lessening the
impact on the adjacent single family uses both in size and location. More peripheral
landscaping could then be employed and useful outdoor living space would be preserved
for the subject units. Duplexes would serve as buffers between the adjacent single
family homes and the applicant's proposed four-plexes and would be more in character
with the adjacent development. In other words, duplexes would more effectively
serve as a transitional buffer in this location. There would also be a corresponding
decrease in traffic, population, air quality deterioration, noise, light and glare
as the number of units, and, therefore, residents are decreased.
DECISION:
The determination of the ERC is reversed, and in its place the following environmental
determination is made:
To mitigate the environmental impact of the subject proposal, no more than one
two-unit duplex may be constructed on each of Lots 2 and 3 of the Maple Valley Heights
Short Plat.
ORDERED THIS 16th day of November, 1981.
dC1.
Fred J. Kau m n
Land Use Hea ing Examiner
TRANSMITTED THIS 16th day of November, 1981 by Affidavit of Mailing to the
parties of record:
John C. Ramsey, 3517 S.E. 5th Street, Renton, WA 98055
John D. O'Hare, 583 Pierce Avenue S.E., Renton, WA 98055
Ronda Bunker, 567 Pierce Avenue S.E., Renton, WA 98055
TRANSMITTED THIS 16th day of November, 1981 to the following:
Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch
Councilman Richard M. Stredicke
Richard Houghton, Public Works Director
David Clemens, Acting Planning Director
Michael Porter, Planning Commission Chairman
and Members, Planning Commission (9)
ECF-079-81, ECF-080-81 Page Nine
Ron Nelson, Building Official
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer
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 November 30, 1981 . 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 is governed by Title IV, Section 3011 , which requires that such appeal be filed
with the Superior Court of Washington for King County within 20 days from the date of the
Examiner's decision.
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 16th day of November 19 81 , 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.
iel
Subscribed and sworn this \bT- day of Novem\Oet'19 $1 .
a , Hyt .
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing at12,nk-o n
Application, Petition or Case: John C. Ramsey; Env. Appeal ; ECF-079-81 , ECF-080-81
The minuteb containn a tizt 06 the pantieb 06 necand. )
OF R -
1/
rrTf,.. THE CITY OFRENTONtr.` ‘ z
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055
o UMWesiLLj. rn BARBARA' Y. SHINPOCH. MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
CO'
FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-25930,
9g10 SEP1°.°
June 22, 1981
Mr. Shupe Holmberg, P.E.
John R. Ewing & Associates
622 S. Central
Kent, WA 98031
RE: File No. Short Plat 033-81 ; Maple Valley Heights.
Dear Mr. Holmberg:
This is to notify you that the above referenced request , which was
approved with conditions upon reconsideration, has not been appealed
within the time period established by ordinance. Therefore, this
application is considered final and is being submitted to the City
Clerk effective this date for permanent filing.
Please contact the Planning Department for information regarding
preparation of the final short plat mylar for filing with King
County.
Sincerely,
A"-14--X VOA*
Fred J. Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
cc: Planning Department
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 19th
day of May 19
81 ,
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.
ON
Subscribed and sworn this 1q - day of McNr 19 t i
kt\x'61:( "I(Y)
Notary Public in and for thi State of
Washington, residing at Prv`
Application, Petition or Case: Maple Valley Heights; Sh. P1 . 033-81
The minuted conta.i.n. a £L4.t ob the paAti,eb o6 necond. )
OF J .
o VAIN ° THE CITY OF RENTON
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055
NAL
o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
co-
FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593O9
TF0 SEPT,
P
June 5, 1981
Mr. Shupe Holmberg, P.E.
John R. Ewing & Associates
622 S. Central
Kent, WA 98031
RE: File No. Short Plat 033-81 ; Maple Valley Heights ; Request for
Reconsideration.
Dear Mr. Holmberg :
I have reviewed your request for reconsideration in the above entitled matter,
and find that your request is justified in light of the new site plan you
submitted, now entitled Exhibit #3 for further reference.
While development of the parcel under unified planning or a Planned Unit
Development might well permit the relocation of buildings and parking to
minimize impact of the adjacent grocery store on the subject site and also
allow placement of the subject proposal further away from the northerly and
easterly single family residences, the proposed plan , Exhibit i!3, appears to
permit the proposed yards to serve as buffers.
The four lots will enable the applicant to achieve financing to construct
additional needed housing in the City of Renton and also make available a
stock of moderately sized rental housing, increasing the choice of future
residences of the city.
The applicant should modify the site plan to further increase the west side
yard of proposed Lot 1 sin:e the grocery store is located on a B-1 parcel and
could conceivably decrease its side y•3rd which would result in crowding of the
proposed residential development on the subject property. Therefore, a minimum
10-foot wide yard shall be required on the west side of Lot 1 .
The decision is therefore modified to read that Exhibit #3 is approved subject
to providing yards no less than those indicated on Exhibit 113, and with the
additional requirement that the side yard on Lot 1 be increased to no less than
10 feet in width. Landscaping of the subject site shall be subject to approval
of the city' s landscape architect or other appropriate official .
A new appeal period is now established for this matter to expire on June 19,
1981 . Please contact this office if you require further information or
assistance.
Sincerely,
Fred J. K fman
Hearing Examiner
cc: Parties of Record
t
J E
John R.Ewing &AssociatEs
cNd EnginEErs-land s&rwEyof s
JN 49805
June 1, 1981
RECEIVED
Fred Kaufman
CITY OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINER
Land Use Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
r
JUN 1981
AM PM
200 Mill Ave. S
7,R,9110,11112111213141.516
Renton, WA 98055
RE: Proposed Maple Valley Heights Short Plat
Dear Mr. Kaufman:
Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015, of the Renton City Code, we are
requesting reconsideration of the denial of the above short plat for the
following reasons:
1. The short plat is intended for residential use. The applicant
has discussed his proposed develc -:ment with the Renton Planning Dept.
and plans to build 4-plexes on Lots 1 and 4 and apartments on Lots 2
and 3. The enclosed site plan shows the proposed development.
2. The access to the northerly portion of the property would be
via a 24-foot access road whether the property is short-platted or
developed as a single parcel. The proposed access and turnaround
were discussed with Ed Wooten of the Fire Dept. prior to submitting
the short plat for review. Final Fire Dept. approval of the access and
turnaround will need to be obtained before any building permits can be
issued for the site.
3. The enclosed site plan shows that the proposed development
would allow proper setbacks from all property lines. The existing
grocery store is 12 feet from the westerly property line and would be
a minimum of 18 feet from any building within the proposed short plat.
4. The use of the property would not be any different whether
the property is short-platted or developed as a single parcel. The
short plat, if approved, would aid the financing of the project.
5. The size of the proposed lots and the intended use is con-
sistent with the Renton zoning for this property.
622 So.CEntral KEnt,Washington 98031•(206)852-6633
Fred Kaufman
June 1, 1981
Paget
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
V::ry truly yours,
JOHN R. EWING & ASSOCIATES
Shup Holmberg, P,E.
SH:mu
enc
1
May 19, 1981
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND DECISION,
APPLICANT: Maple Valley Heights FILE NO. SH. PL. 033-81 ,
Sigi Ullrich) V-034-81 .
LOCATION:Approximately 150 feet west of the northwest corner of Pierce
Avenue S.E. and S.E. 6th Street.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant seeks approval of a four-lot commercial short
plat together with a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance
to permit two pipestem lots.
SUMMARY OF ACTION: Planning Department Recommendation: Approval with conditions.
Hearing Examiner Decision: Denial
PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department preliminary report was received by the
REPORT: Examiner on April 29, 1981.
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 May 5, 1981 at 9:22 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton
Municipal Building.
Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the
Planning Department preliminary report. Roger Blaylock, Associate Planner, presented the
report, and entered the following exhibits into the record:
Exhibit #1: Application File containing Planning Department
report and other pertinent documents
Exhibit #2: Short Plat with staff comments
Responding to the Examiner's inquiry concerning size of the proposed lots, Mr. Blaylock
advised that Lots 1 and 4 would contain approximately 5,000 square feet; and Lots 2 and
3 would consist of approximately 10,000 square feet each. He also noted that although it
appears that the applicant intends to develop the lots for establishment of four-plex
units, the existing B-1 zoning for the site would allow development of a variety of uses
which may or may not be consistent. The Examiner stated that the proposed subdivision is
not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of single family residential land
use for the site which requires a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. Mr. Blaylock
clarified that the applicant is applying for development under the current B-1 zoning
category. The Examiner concurred that although the applicant is entitled to utilize the
site for any use under the B-1 zoning category, it may be possible that the proposed short
plat will not serve the public use and interest. Mr. Blaylock concurred that the
possibility exists.
The Examiner requested testimony by the applicant. Responding was:
Jack Ewing
622 S. Central
Kent, WA 98031
Responding to previous discussion, Mr. Ewing clarified that proposed development will
include establishment of five or six four-plexes on the subject property, and the density
would depend upon Fire Department requirements for the turnaround on the northern portion
of the site. He objected to the Planning Department recommendation for site plan approval
due to the limited time frame for development, and indicated that all development plans
will require review and approval by all city departments upon submission of a building
permit. In order to develop the property under the B-1 zoning, Mr. Ewing stated, extension
of a 12-inch water main 1,000 feet to the west will be required to Maple Valley Highway and
tied into the existing line east of the property at a substantial cost to the applicant.
He also noted that sewers are available to the site.
r
Sh. Pl. 033-81 Page Two
The Examiner requested testimony in support or opposition to the proposal. There was no
response. Discussion occurred between the Examiner and Mr. Blaylock regardingexemptionfromreviewundertheStateEnvironmentalPolicyActforlotscontaininglessthan4,000
square feet. It was determined that further research regarding categorical exemptionsforindividualusesshouldbeaccomplishedsincethereviewoftotalsitedevelopmentmaybe
required.
The Examiner requested further comments. Since none were offered, the hearing regarding
File No. Short Plat 033-81 was closed by the Examiner at 9:58 a.m.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner
now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. The request is for approval of a four-lot short plat together with a variance to permit
two pipestem lots.
2. The application file containing the application, SEPA documentation, the Planning
Department report, and other pertinent documents was entered into the record as
Exhibit' #1.
3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental
Policy Act of 1971 , R.C.W. 43.21.C. , as amended, the subject proposal has been
determined exempt from the threshold determination by the Environmental Review
Committee, responsible official .
4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the
impact of this development.
5. A twelve-inch water main will have to be extended to the subject site.
6. The .86 acre parcel is located on the north side of S.E. 6th Street near its
intersection with Maplewood Place. The site is generally level.
7. The site was annexed into the city in November of 1947. The subject property is
currently zoned B-1 (Business/Commercial).
8. The Coriprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as
suitable for the development of single family development.
9. The applicant proposes constructing from five to six fourplexes on the subject site.
10. Lots 1 and 4 would each contain about 5,010 square feet while the remaining lots, Lots
2 and 3, proposed pipestem lots, would contain about 10,000 square feet each, inclusive
of theipipestems.
11. The smallest lot size which would be permitted in a single family zone in the City of
Renton is 6,000 square feet under the G-6000 (General; Single Family Residential;
Minimum lot size - 6,000 square feet) zone. Most of the lots in the area are at
least 7,200 square feet.
12. The silte itself is currently undeveloped. North of the subject site are single family
homes. Similar uses are also located east and south of the subject site. A grocery
store and park are located west of the subject site.
13. The B:1 zone in which the subject property is located contains other properties
located adjacent to the Maple Valley Highway. The remaining properties adjacent to
the subject site are zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential; Minimum lot size - 7,200
square feet).
14. A fifteen foot utility easement is necessary across the central portion of proposed
Lots 2 and 3.
15. The aplicant proposes providing pipestem access to the northerly lots, Lots 2 and 3.
The pipestem would be 20 feet wide and about 84 feet long.
16. The Planning Department indicated that proposed development of the subject siteshouldbereviewedunderasiteplanreviewhearingbytheExaminerduetothenarrowand
small configuration of Lots 1 and 4, potential maneuvering and parking problems, and
the Hire Department's need for a turnaround for Lots 3 and 4, portions of which are more
than 150 feet from a public street. The Planning Department also indicated that the
proposal may not serve the public use and interest.
P1. 03)-81 Page Three
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The proposed short plat and pipestem lots do not appear to serve the public use and
interest. The size of the entire parcel and the proposed resulting lots will create
small lots with poor configuration for construction of multifamily uses.
2. The pipestem access will result in creation of narrow entry roads passing close to the
forward lots, Lots 1 and 4, and will create maneuvering problems for the Fire Department.
3. The property can best be developed as a single parcel with unified access and site
development rather than constricting the lot sizes and access method.
4. Site plan review would not be necessary if the lots were to be developed on a more
expansive plan, and each lot will not have to be carefully scrutinized to determine
whether the use proposed on it would be appropriate. Unified development will also
permit larger buffers along the north and east property lines where existing single
family uses are already developed.
5. The small size of the proposed forward lots is not consistent with the larger lots
generally developed in the immediate area and will create a feeling of crowding on the
lots.
6. While the site may be zoned B-1, the Comprehensive Plan designates the area for single
family development, and the easterly and northerly uses are single family. Larger lots
and less constricted development on the larger site would be more consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The unified development of the subject site would also allow the
development to be designed to be compatible with adjacent single family development,
and give more of an appearance of low density multifamily which should buffer and be
allowed adjacent to single family uses (Page 9, Policy 4). Fourplexes are more akin to
high density development on 5,000 square foot lots.
7. Unified development would also permit uses proposed for Lot 1 to be moved away from the
commercial grocery.
8. Policies of the Comprehensive Plan indicate that dwellings should be designed to take
advantage of the surroundings (Page 9, Policies Element). The small lots constrain
how and where structures can be located on the subject site. Larger lots would avoid
such constraints.
9. The placement of a fourplex on a 5,000 square foot lot will not permit the units to
achieve the same basic amenities generally available to single family dwellings as
indicated by Policy 7 (Comprehensive Plan Policies Element, Page 9). Nor would
development of such small lots for multifamily development allow for setbacks from either
the grocery store or the proposed pipestems to promote needed residential privacy
Page 10, Comprehensive Plan Policies Element).
10. The construction of residential dwellings on the B-1 zoned property would reduce the
buildable area of Lots 1 and 4 by 30 feet since a minimum 10-foot front yard is
required and a minimum 20-foot rear yard is required (Sections 4-711(A)(1) and
4-709B(e and f)). The sideyard setbacks would be dependent on the height of the
building (Ibid) and the height would be limited to 35 feet (Section 4-711 (C)).
11. The division of the approximately 37,460 square foot lot into small, constrained
building lots with both access and maneuvering problems, and located as they are
adjacent to single family uses, is not in the public use and interest. The proposal
should be denied.
DECISION:
The proposed short plat is denied.
ORDERED THIS 19th day of May, 1981.
Fred J. K.4f,
VOAA-irr-itt—..—..
man
Land Use Hearing Examiner
TRANSMITTED THIS 19th day of May, 1981 by Affidavit of Mailing to the party
of record:
Jack Ewing, 622 S. Central, Kent, WA 98031
Marcy & John Wearmouth, 3512 S.E. 6th St., Renton, WA 98055
Don Faccone, 1424 W. James Place, Apt. M-7, Kent, WA 98031
Sh. P1. 033-81 Page Four
TRANSMITTED THIS 19th day of May, 1981 to the following:
Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch
Councilman Richard M. Stredicke
Richard Houghton, Acting Public Works Director
David Clemens, Acting Planning Director
Michael Porter, Planning Commission Chairman
Barbara Schellert, Planning Commissioner
Ron Nelson, Building Official
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be
filed in writing on or before June 2, 1981. 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 disc very 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 da e 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 t the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that
such appealibe 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 Finance Department, first floor of City Hall, or same may be purchased at cost in
said department.
it
PLANNING DEPARTNENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXANINER
PUBLIC HEARING
MAY 5, 1981
APPLICANT:MAPLE VALLEY HEIGHTS (Sigi Ullrich)
FILE NUMBER: Short Plat 033-81 and V-034-81
A. SUMMARY & PURPOSE OF REQUEST:
The applicant seeks approval of a 4-lot commercial Short
Plat together with a Variance from the Subdivision Ordinance
to permit two pipestem lots.
B. GENERAL INFORMATION:
1. Owner of Record: Sigi Ullrich
2. Applicant:Sigi Ullrich
3. Location:
Vicinity Map Attached) Approximately 150
feet west of the
northwest corner
of Pierce Avenue
S.E. and S.E. 6th
Street
4. Legal Description: A detailed legal
description is available
on file in the Renton
Planning Department.
5. Size of Property: 86 acre
6. Access: Via S.E. 6th Street
7. Existing Zoning: B-1 , Business Use
8. Existing Zoning in the Area: B-1 ; R-1, Residence
Single Family, minimum
lot size 7,200 square
feet
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 Daily Record Chronicle
on April 20, 1981 ,
and posted in three
places on or near
the site as required
by City Ordinance
on April 17, 1981 .
C. :ISTONY/BACKGROUND:
The subject site was annexed into the City by Ordinance
No. 1293 of November 20, 1947.
I
D. PHYSICAL BACKGROUND:
1 . Topography: The site is generally level.
2. Soils: Puyallup fine sandy loam (Py) . Permeability
is moderately rapid. Runoff is slow and the erosion
hazard is slight. Stream overflow is a•slight
to severe hazard, depending upon the amount of
flood protection provided. This soil is used for
row crops, pasture and urban development.
3. Vegetation: Scrub grass is the dominant feature
along with a scattering of shrubs.
4. Wildlife: The existing vegetation provides suitable
habitat for birds and small mammals.
5. Water: No surface water was observed on the subject
site (April 17, 1981) .
6. Land Use: The subject site is presently undeveloped.
To the north, east and south are single family
dwellings while •a grocery store and park are located
westerly of the property.
E. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS:
The surrounding properties are a combination of residential,
commercial and recreational uses.
F. PUBLIC SERVICES:
1 . Water and Sewer:' A 4-inch water main is located
on S.E. 6th Street and a 6-inch main on Maplewood
Place. A 15-inch sanitary sewer is also located
on S.E. 6th Street.
2. Fire Protection: Provided by the City of Renton
as per ordinance requirements.
3. Transit: Metro Transit Routes No. 143 and 912
operate along the Maple Valley Highway within 500
feet to the south of the subject site.
4. Schools: Not applicable.
5. Recreation: Not applicable.
G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE:
Section 4-711, B-1 , Business District
H. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OP THE CCWREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER
OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT:
1. Subdivision Ordinance, Section 9-1105, Short Subdivisions.
2. Subdivision Ordinance, Section 9-1109, Variance.
I. IMPACT ON THE NATURAL OR HUMAN ENVIRONMENT:
1. Natural Systems: Minor.
2. Population/Employment: These impacts could be
better addressed if the eventual land uses were
identified (See L-6 of the Analysis) .
3. Schools: Minor.
4. Social': Minor.
5. Traffic: Specific uses for the proposed lots are
unknown at this time. These impacts may be better
addressed at the time of site development.
J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION:
Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance
and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended,
RCW 43-21C, the subject request is exempt from the threshold
determination of environmental significance.
K. AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED:
1. City of Renton Building Division.
2. City of Renton Engineering Division.
3. City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division.
4. City of Renton Utilities Division.
5. City of Renton Fire Department.
6. City of Renton Parks Department.
L. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS:
1. The proposed short plat is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and B-1 zoning for the subject
site and surrounding area.
2. Lots 1 and 4 of the subject proposal comply with
the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance
for size and frontage. Lots 2 and 3 do not meet
the minimum 60 feet frontage standard required
by Section 9-1108-23F3c. For this reason a Variance
has been requested to permit two (2) pipestem lots.
As proposed, these lots would meet the requirements
for pipestems as outlined in Section 9-1108-23F3d.
Since S.E. 6th Street is the only access available
to this area and the proposed pipestems do not
involve any other parcels, it would appear that
the request is a reasonable one and not detrimental
or injurious to adjacent properties. (Section 9-1109)
3. Storm water detention will be required as per Engineering
Division comment. A 15-inch drainage easement
along the northerly portions of proposed Lots 2 and
3 must be described on the face of the plat. See
other comments.
4. The Utilities Engineering Division advises that
approved water and sewer plans will be required
with a fire flow analysis. Hydrant locations must
be approved by the department and systems development
charges for water and sewer will apply.
5. A fire equipment turnaround is necessary for proposed
Lots 2 and 3 because portions of the lots are greater
than 150 feet from the public street. The Fire
Department also notes that the proposed plat must
meet fire flow standards and that a pre-construction
conference with the Fire Marshall is necessary.
6. The existing land uses to the north, east and south
are long established single family residential.
The B-1 zoning of the subject site will permit
a variety of commercial use and/or multiple family
uses in addition to single family dwellings. A
total *of 34 multiple family dwelling units could
be constructed on the site, this would suggest
that some form of screening and/or buffering of
these existing residences should be provided by
the future developers of the site.
7. As submitted, proposed Lots 1 and 4 would contain
only 83.5 feet of depth and approximately 5,010
square feet of size. This could result in either
very small commercial buildings or relatively tight
multiple family structures. Potential parking
and maneuvering problems may also materialize depending
upon the eventual uses of Lots 2 and 3. In these
reasons and the ones outlined in L-6 above, it
is advised that Site Plan approval through the
Hearing Examiner be required.
M. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based upon the above analysis, it is recommended to
approve the Short Plat and Variance requests subject
to the following:
1 . Satisfaction of Items L-3 through L-5 of the analysis;
and
2. Site Plan approval for all lots in the Short Plat.
4
i ,
IPG SItilL::ti7-.--.
k 1 *, - I . I
1,•.kilr,..411Wri. 51110"sor
1 4 Ji,a
4b
RIVER
i
y` -
I
I
ALM.N. Tr,„,„
LINE EST ie0I4'0p 6.4
V
tip
w ` .
tea' -_---------------------
Sol,*C0000 -
0404".
R-3 i 4v. •
v000
o
MAPLE VALLEY HEIGHTS (Sigi Ullrich)
SHORT PLAT - File Short Plat 033-81 and V-034-81
APPLICANT SIGI ULLRICH TOTAL AREA +.86 acre
PRINCIPAL ACCESS S.E. 6th Street
EXISTING ZONING B-1, Business Use
EXISTING USE Vacant
PROPOSED USE 4-lot commercial short plat
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Single Family Residential
COMMENTS
444
MantitrA,:i7
agiandiE:r.MgeariZY:
FOP"•
44,f")
1 •
ii,
71ke?
41it r
Ljr)j
ft1";*
Ent.
Nem— ' wzip
5116
EX I 511 Li e
A -4G-Ria1117(LIR Lic4-1-r iqpdts-rRY
5E- FAMILY HI - HMVY
L p-Low p5K151-fY MUL Mr- A FA-rURIKI&- PARK
MP- MWIUM MNI5I1y M. C.- COMMR106,st/
f? +.4.‘31-rY JAul%T.
QP- pLIBLic,
vision 3/1981
7V4/81
RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
Application: Si*AT 14 T 0334/te//ids) * 0100. F(U•O.?s9/
r 41)eipesient toifi
Location:
pp
air. l$O'lficiPSYere /Wei er de iilibrre4e.Se'c
4.5t 6t '
Applicant: Slat i Vl/rich
IQ: Public Works Department
Engineering Division SCHEDULED ERC DATE: "I.,.
D Traf ' Eng. Division
SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: /s/gf
tilities Eng. Division
Fire Department
Parks Department
El Building Department
0 Police Department
0 Others:
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN
WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON
41b4le/
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: j/
Approved 'pproved with Conditions ID Not Approved
CQvrr'A-rct-'7 7 i,Zt,-/r - cEQv/i'tf7 V' 44Z.ESS
N c
a'.cSI 7 /
v
fCL T S'//2C:(
S ti/1 %G v Ci _ L'c /
a. /4741i2S///1ems
l c
DATE: L-/7 /69/
Signature of Director or Auth rized Representative
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: J (/.//-?/
Approved EiApproved with Conditions EiNot Approved
cS ,C STtimp ON /f', Vim/ .S &64- .
1
DATE:
4/7/51
Signatures
Director or Authorized Representative
r
3 •
teL w..a
s %` "r, -1'ar«tr s-y `s' s . "<41•41
ti,
7 a.?1 _1 ' f'
0...
e
UTILITY APPROVAL SURIECT TO
LATE COMERS AGREEMENT • WATER, A/p
LATE COMERS AGREEMENT • SEWER
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE • WATER .D//sa
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE • SEVIER H'',pm/se f/
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ARTA CHARGE • WATER N'p
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ARE. CHARGE • SEWER A/p
APPROVED WATER FUN yes
APPROVED SiltLH PLAN
yes-
APPROVED FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS
BY FIRE DEPT. 7O5
FIRE FLOW ANALYSIS YX5., , ._ .
Revision 3/1S
7/407
RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
Application: SHOAT i ftr 6 34/(Weis) * UAitti4AtepO).0..
jpspes1* .tkk
Location: Repair.. LEO•14/si7' /W eerimer de Are c .Se
St 6ttal;
Applicant: Si/ j L)llr'te t
L( ; Public Works Department
Engineering Division SCHEDULED ERC DATE: swag's
Traffic Eng. Division
SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:. / /Rf
Utilities Eng. Division
Fire Department
Parks Department
Build' epartment
olice Department
Others:
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN
WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON
049/
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
POLICE
Approved ® Approved with Conditions D Not Approved
1) The street be improved to full city standards with sidewalk,
curb & gutter.
T•t 1_p rggnn
DATE: 4/6/RJ
Signature of Director. or Authorized Representative
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
Approved (]Approved with Conditions ONot Approved
DATE:
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative
vision 3/1981
rst4rg(
RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
Application: .VOAT "eAr 6334/(V/eis) phormwera/.O3
6 r Et)pfefkatt MO.
Location: AptitIY. •!$D'14,0S?'e /M eVriger de ift`ree.4u...S '41
Applicant: Sr.
TO: Public Works Department
Engineering Division SCHEDULED ERC DATE: •'•a+
Traffic Eng. Division
SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:RSAYUtilitiesEng. Division
El Fire Department
Park apartment
wilding Department
Police Department
Ej Others:
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN
WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
Approved El Approved with Conditions Not Approved
DATE: ' 6.1"-31SignatueoDirector, or Authorized Representative
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved
DATE:
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative
Revision 3/19
cf/61p'
RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
Application: 5//oAT 1907- 6334/(ç'Jo'Fs) * mks
r Li p
esiem
Location: 14'
r•Y. lSO tvst d /lf/to„Qo. e'IF i p e w.s
1
C5 fit Si;
Applicant: SiQ j u//Heil
T_O: Public Wo 'Department
gineering Division SCHEDULED ERC DATE:
OTraffic Eng. Division
SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:.Q$7RfUtilitiesEng. Division
Fire Department
Parks Department
Building Department
Police Department
Others:
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN
WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON
ga0/9/
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: L`,•/ , .'/ ,,
7
Approved Er Approved with Conditions Not Approved
re rid
iciz.va1ks rcqut . S, c. 6ff,- S71.
DATE: ¢/' >/ /
Signature ofDirector. or Authorized Representative
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved
DATE:
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative
vision 3/1981
7(Qleri
RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
Application: St/OAT .Pair 6334/(Weis) * Molts (FCU.o3
i r Pt)papt-s1ei.< Mi
Location:
Asses. .f-W r terrter de ift-reIC e 'TT_
so
4fILSt.
Applicant: Sig, V 1treeA
ID: Public Works Department
Engineering Division SCHEDULED ERC DATE: "ro+
DT-ralfic Eng. Division
SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:471c0(
Utilities Eng. Division
Fire Department
Parks Department
Building Department
Police Department
Others:
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN
WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: iC,¢l=r-c ENG/A/C/Zbe6 `w,
Q pproved Approved with Conditions [' Not Approved
U -
DATE:
Signature of Director or Authorized Rej4esentl6ve
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved
DATE:
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative
BEGINNING
OF FILE
FILE TI
iy w
MICROFILMED
O33o1
IdtlicWWIgt
3N0A / NO
Jçço
311AAO
9NIaN3