HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA90-002 �' / it 1
7--0
LS _
ill1 J
J` 38 Z }T I 9 to 1� • s }� • _ 8 11 d 5.4111111113
N E ,�• 7 • \Z , ' '.
�!// 18 a : I I N E • IOT" P I1 IC) • .`..4' 3 IZ
e �` I 1 i (. 1) i 1i H(`I.CICQ ` �Z
// . ,,� t`•Q .) P-1 � , •1 ) l_ 1 ! I = j , ,,' •I'. :,: S 7 ' ..,, 5 �-8 A SS •� �. 1 Ili lib 15 ,.
/ I ii, w z, s ') 13 1 G- 1 • r ;9N E 1(r •-• 1•2 '�3 •W®� '\3 ® ' 4 5 c, = 1 Z
11
lit
/37 • 14 - ..A, '' I •ts I Q i /� 1 Z•�y �: � 16 l/ � ' 1 1 10.9 23 T ; 4 3 r
( , ! .. — 12♦ 1 ` s i 13
= • t NE
r t! l � 9
—1 • I.L)t ! , w.v,,.,, L • 11_ LANE •..:a0� 1
' \� 20 •� LL ,�..NL/ } �, _ ♦ .'0 b S ♦ '! F'2 1 S 4v'. .1 p ♦ 1
J l !, 1 �j .1 11 l 14 It �• '• io • • W
J L.,..„:1111 114- -- • :1' •t l 1 6 1 to ,1 cC b 1 � �•1 1
"i' 4,""i9'- . . /0"`� , •.. 5T.. I �. it7 �,. e'r
Ri•-•
iY -. I •
53 25 i.4� t 2 it �`�- � i1. �--_3.-r-"--'---•- - .1 ,)t . •I
... i. ++JI .. ,T ,•I1, to L 1 , , a 1r1. ,,t 'S
4
•
4 0— ' (1: • ti-.:Li-i i ' :•, ..i__2-±15 if id1.1,-. .. it:1! .,: i 1, No i.anwsio 41. i .
0 OM
•••11 hiZ T. s/ IL .7 zo e,21 J• 11 8,� Z �,-_ �.--1 —' G " ,N 'A K.
I'l jA N 1 S
� �. L ) •-� • 1I =11• Q I _ s [i tT: ' . 's® S
Cr. . ,�� s3 . :w : F�ARK •1. .
1, ', , 1• 10 1 '+`,, •- — �.Q ,, e ;'•)i. 1 Y - s t l'� 1• ) • 5 .. �I ' w HONE Y .. D
) ` • ) "—t r • ,y - 1 , I. a� ; ), �Hci8j . E.IEMENT.4
. v/ L- ,, .Ia s c-4 . ' N E -J 1 J 8 T~ T 5 •, .1 . In •:. liti•In .'.` In 1 KA•7
o
ye
, 1
I, 1j ... .... I
ti 1 ' �a� T - r , —
� I) - e ' I z -� ,1 - mmi .I! I ! c . I off . SS R..o
1 1 I '\ .. i i .I:.� .. .I,.. 11 71 S +• ) Z. I S. -_/(. 1) -
n � 1 I N E 7���� .' fj I . 7 • S 1. 1 1 t
I
I I a .. ® b ,„ sT
•x :11
71t I ��� - a 5 b T B 9 Io 11 z ,• to ® a. -17� ' •j7 ..\ ! 13i '1 :---:\: 1i A C ') _ �M e Q
i� � 1. Iz
Y 'O —� J 1 I •.,=, LS III l_�=)I== i, =019 19 i=\: g r02, �)/.� �d 1!. ,s• „ R_ 1 ., Rom.� ,.
EN z
ty H l I' b . I) , o 8 O WEI
REINIL n ,i t, � 31 ',
I T , •)I\�Z� • 20
Pl ' - 8 I .' A i. ,o 9 �2. SI•{ , y 1 � -4 ' Ii
Y2 • 1 _ ) . ',s . •{1�,.,to �t21 I• ...1 ..o"�i- .Y..I �.. it • ,1 a `! ,- :.) ,7,. �. .._ �• IS• I. •
�W 24 �){ �� ..—
o 26 • 16 I N E FI W b ' " PL I ) Q. LS 33•
s I /� c Q • . / u. ,- ►—
� � QI ' ♦ �S I A •' ;i c' : .i Q2 i- I I 1. S ♦ ; �w 4 io• Q I-J )2
• • ° S , b --i---*4 8.3 t 1,11.L:._Y�,1,.,, t ��1 4 1• .u._.. _, ... O ._27 �. �-♦
•7= ,e ,. ,. 14 .• ,T ,• i,tot, it �> ,S 14 ,c Y ,, ID i• t t, t22fI L♦ 7 .,' S r! 26 29 • t ..
D 5 1, b y • i) • ., -_`__' Tl - .°a 11 1 L" 1 '1°' - 1._. 1- ���� L.I 2,1 On •t. G .I
1 _�,
6 _ l �z �� s I. p 4 I; R
I •, ,
J,.� R 1 , .
, ;N , .e. ,, , , ,
, .
—�► C— i ,1 , . ,
w . , _
, . t
, .
2) UDC �LIC .-- -K :........„.j I 4_ P•J I '1*------t--] .
.2
, ♦ _ I I • {\ '
k ) • jjjfff
7- y------
,, ( I b w4,s4 � � - � Ik
� � � T-: pup
1IVVVV���' 1 •to 0 • • 4 3 ,. . . . iii .• 11 I rI i : f f T 1 14 I., 1
. , W .
J 2--Y-t B.... 1
1 B, I .. ,,
,.... ,
1 . .
L� •1 _,.- RLN rI,,1 f--".°.""/Ill . .
. I
•
�.` � ' , ' 'JOC Al 10rIhr l I I 1 i
- 1 i^ 1 ' :SCHOOL ' • i
..:-. '
1j - II4
r ' •
, , F
/
I 7 I .III
•
GPEENWOOD "> 1 l ' _J/ — I I
l
I
ii=I
R31•0. TERY G-1 •
., — - - -
, /,,....... . 1
s. . . , .C— i1 . ,
• LIlA3
ci
-�. .. . . .
i — ,....
—
/� �/ a C D I
// J // 4. _ t I -
I
i T
, / •
),/,-,/,,/ ITEM NO. I . . -,. ,,
, PPUI
• ....
2
•
1 ,
11111 90. 1 - . .., 1,,I=J. 1J:: . .
r l2s
G..., 1 ;
• TJ it lY 11
I I L TA."
•
I T
f• \7"
I t 4
• I
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)ss.
County of King )
DOTTY KLINGMAN
, being first duly sworn,
upon oath, deposes and states:
That on the 26th day. of 'February 1990 affiant
deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing a
decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed' to the parties of
record in the below entitled application or petition.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this o26 tQ day
of t=�; 1990.
Nota Public in and for the State of Washington,
residing at /��- ��� , therein.
Application, Petition, or Case #; AAD-002-90 - EDWARD S. SMITH - (Smith's Cabinet Shop)
(The minutes contain a list of the parties of, record.)
f
}
r V J
February 26, 1990
•
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND DECISION
APPELLANT: EDWARD S. SMITH -TSMITH'S CABINET SHOP
• File No: AAD-002-90
LOCATION: 3504 N.E. 4th
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Appeal of)administrative decision denying the transfer of
grandfathered use rights from an existing legally non-
conforming use to another nonl-conforming use.
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the appella is written appeal and request
for a hearing and examining other available information on
file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the
matter as follows:
MINUTES
The hearing was opened on February 13, 1990 at 9:00 A.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 containing the appellant's written appeal,
request, and other documentation pertinent to this matter.
Exhibit #2 - Vicinity Map
The appellant, EDWARD SMITH, reviewed his appeal stating he is one If the oldest businesses in his
area; due to the nature of.the current business and location of the property it would be impossible for
the current non-conforming use (a cabinet shop) to qualify in the B-1 zone; the building is located on a
dead-end street owned by the City; and utilizing the 'grandfather clause' he would like to sell the
property so it can be used as a machine shop by another party, and he can retire.
FRED PARHANIEMI, 13905 S.E. May Valley Road, buyer for the subject property, said
he currently owns a small machine shop and would like to move to larger quarters. He said this is just
about the only piece of property in the area that is available and affordable for purchase by a small
businessman.
Responding for staff was Senior Planner, LENORA BLAUMAN who testified that the non-conforming
use ordinance prohibits changing from one non-conforming use to another. It is the city's intent to
phase out non-conforming uses to stabilize existing uses in the area; the change from a cabinet shop to
a machine shop would be a change in an already,non-conforming use which is not permitted; the
subject property has been zoned for commercial uses since 1955, with the Comprehensive Plan calling
for multi-family residential uses for the site. She said-impacts to air quality and noise would be
concerns to be addressed; it may be that the site could be utilized as a machine shop but there are
alternatives to the non-conforming use on this property that would be more appropriate; it is possible a
conditional use permit could be applied for which would give the(city time to put together a different
set of mitigation measures which would possibly make a machine shop more compatible with
surrounding]uses. Also, the owner could consider a rezone for the site to L-1 because those types of
uses are now evident to the south of the site. Blauman said staff would like to assist Mr. Smith in his
request to permit a machine shop on the site, but the request cannot be iursued under the current non-
conformance use ordinance restrictions.
Mr. Smith asked what would happen to his property if this request is denied and the Hearing Examiner
responded the property could be turned into a permitted commercial use din the B-1 zone. Planner
Blauman acknowledged the applicant could pursue a conditional use permit for the machine shop but
staff could not guarantee they would recommend approval to the Examiner, or that the Examiner would
approve the request. Given the usual review and consideration by staff,Examiner,
was pointed out the
conditional use process could take up to four months. Mr. Parhaniemi referred to a site just east of
this property that is zoned for a machine shop and Ms. Blauman pointed'out the other properties cannot
be compared with the instant property even though the uses may be the same because various other
factors must be considered on each individual parcel.
6
Smith's Cabinet Shop
AAD-002-90
February 26, 1990
Page 2
Testifying was NORMAN ROSS, 3520 N.E. 4th. Renton 98056 who owns property south of the subject
site zoned L-1. He questioned if L-1 use is allowed on the applicant's poperty, what other type of
uses could be used other than a machine shop. The Examiner explained this type of issue really should
not be explored at this appeal hearing as there are a whole range of uses that could be permitted, but
asked Ms. Blauman to'quickly review uses that could be placed in an L-1 zone with a conditional use
permit. The Examiner explained that any change in use would have to 1?e reviewed by staff to be sure
it is compatible with surrounding properties.
LOREN ANDERSON. 3500 N.E. 4th, Renton 98056, an adjacent neighbor to the Smith Cabinet Shop
for over thirty years, stated the cabinet shop has been'a good neighbor and feels it has been
advantageous having this type of business in the neighborhood because whatever noise is generated
from the site is done so during normal business hours, weekdays only, no weekends. He said the
business does not generate additional traffic whereas, a commercial business, that could be permitted
under.the B-1 zone could impact surrounding properties with noise, more traffic, and various other
concerns. He questioned what type of mitigation measures would be required for such matters as noise,
parking and outside storage if the subject property had a change of ownership and a conditional use
permit was granted. Anderson said he supports this request because he has had good experience having
an industrial neighbor just a few steps away from his residence.-
TERRY POTTER. 3508 N.E. 4th, Renton 98056, owner of a one acre parcel northwest of the subject
. site expressed concerns about the closeness of the current structure to the road making maneuvering on
the road very difficult. If additional vehicles come to the business and do not park properly it creates
additional problems with parking plus concerns for the safety of small children in the area. Mr. Potter
said 10 ft. of his property was deeded to the city for street expansion bwt this has not been
accomplished as yet and he questioned when it would be done. He was advised to check with the,
Public Works Department. He was also advised that the concerns expressed are those that would be
looked at by staff if a conditional use permit is required or granted for •Ihe applicant. Mr. Potter also
stated he is not just concerned about traffic but the aesthetics of the area and strongly urged any
storage for the business be contained indoors.
Mr. Parhaniemi said he feels his type of business would be more compatible with the area than a
commercial business due to less traffic, noise, air quality concerns, aesthetics, and would provide better
public safety.
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There!was no one else wishing to
speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 9:45 A.M.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &-DECISION: ! .
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes andl enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. The appellant, Edward S. Smith, filed an appeal of an Administrative Determination of the
' Zoning Administrator that a Machine Shop is not a permitted use in the B-1
(Business/Commercial) Zone. The appeal was filed on December 22, 1989 and-was filed in a
timely manner.
2. The appellant owns an existing business located at 3504 N.E. 4th street in the City of Renton.
The business is actually located north of N.E. 4th on a small cul-de-sac. This rather small,
informal street provides access to not only the appellant's business but some residentially
developed properties. The street is apparently a city right-of-way, but is not developed to city
standards. 'I
3. The site is located north of Greenwood Cemetery, between Monroe Avenue N.E. and Union
Avenue N.E. i
• 4. The zoning in the area reflects a mixture of B-1, the subject's site's zoning, L-1 (Light
Industry), T (Trailer Park), R-3 (Medium Density,Multiple Family); and General (Single
Family; Lot size - 35,000 sq. ft.). Embedded within the B=1 district is a narrow parcel-width
L-1 district. The subject site is located north of the L-1 parcel 'hut is firmly surrounded by B-
1 zoning. The subject site has been zoned B-1 since 1955.
5. The appellant has operated a cabinet shop on .the subject site for more than 40 years. The shop
pre-dates the adoption of the Renton Zoning Code which was enacted in 1953. The appellant
has decided to retire and intends to sell the shop to a third party. This new proprietor proposes
establishing a machine shop in place of the cabinet shop.
Smith's Cabinet Shop
AAD-002-90
February 26, 1990
Page 3
6. The appellant met with city officials to determine if the proposed change in use from a cabinet
shop to a machine shop would be permitted. Staff wrote the appellant on December 12, 1989.
The appellant was informed that the cabinet shop is a legal non-conforming use and that
conversion to a machine shop would be considered a conversion to a different non-conforming
use which is not permitted pursuant to Section 4-31-23(B)(4). (All references are to the new
codification of the Renton City Code)
I '
7. Section 4-31-23(B) states:
Nonconforming Uses: The lawful use of any building, structure or land
existing at the time of enactment of this Code may be continued,
although such use does not conform with the provisions of this Code,
provided the following conditions are met:
4. Changes: No non-conforming building, structure or use shall be
changed to another non-conforming use.
8. Section 4-31-10 provides:
4-31-10: B-1 BUSINESS DISTRICT: I
I
A. Purpose and Intent: The purpose of the Business District Zone (B-
1) is to provide for retail sales of products of every type and description,
a wide variety of personal and professional services to clients and/or
customers at the business location, and all manner of recreation or
entertainment uses. The B-.1 Business District provides for conditional
approval, after public hearing, of retail or entertainment uses involving
storage and recreation outside of an enclosed structure. Prohibited from
the B-1 Business District are uses which involve the bulk(storage of
products, or the exterior storage of products in a manner which would be
construed as bulk storage except that the minimum area requirements are
not exceeded, manufacturing uses or activities as a principal use.
9. Some examples, but by no means exhaustive, of the types of uses permitted as of right in the
B-1 zone include:
Retail sales:
(1) Apparel and accessories.
(2) Automotive and marine accessories.
(3) Auto, boat and motorcycle sales.
(7) Furniture and home furnishings.
Office uses:
(1) All types of business offices.
(3) Professional, offices such as lawyers, doctors and dentists.
Services:
(2) Boarding and lodging houses.
(4) Business services: Duplicating and blueprinting, steno and
employment.
(The numbers in parenthesis reflect the subsection identifications of the various uses.)
Also, while staff may permit other uses, they must be "similar in general character to the
following specific uses and in keeping with the intent of this zone" (Section 4-31-10(B)).
10. The provisions of the B-1 zone enumerate certain additional uses;that may be permitted as
conditional uses. (Section 4-31-10(B)(3)). Manufacturing uses are not included in this list.
They are, as a matter of fact, specifically excluded by Section 4-31-10(C).
Prohibited Uses: In the Business District (B-1) Zone, the following uses
are prohibited:
Smith's Cabinet Shop ` 1
AAD-002-90
February 26, 1990
Page 4
i
1. Bulk storage of products, or the exterior storage of products in a
manner which would be construed as bulk storage except for the fact they
do not exceed the minimum area requirements of Section 4-31-29.
2. Manufacturing activities.
11. A separate provision of the Conditional Use Permitting criteria does allow review of some
manufacturing uses. But, again, it is not of right. Section 4-31-36 provides that L-1 uses may
be established in a B-1 zone and H-1 uses may be established in ;an L-1 zone subject to certain
criteria not relevant to this decision.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the Zoning Administrator's decision was
either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional]provisions, or was arbitrary
and capricious (Section 4-3011(B)(1)(b). The appellant has failed j to demonstrate that the action
of the administrator should be modified or reversed. The decision is affirmed.
2. 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 or capricious (Northern Pacific
Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 255, 259
(1969).
3. 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).
4. Retail sales, office uses and services are enumerated in Section 4 31-10(B)(1)(a), (b) and (c).
None of these listings include uses similar to that now operated by the appellant nor those
proposed by the potential purchaser. The cabinet shop is a manufacturing use as is the
proposed machine shop.
5. The uses most like those proposed, because of the intensity of uses, might be auto repair and
upholstery. These uses, auto repair and possibly upholstery; are clearly not analogous. Neither
of these uses entail creating products from scratch or raw materials.
6. The city has three manufacturing'oriented zones - the H-1 zone, the L-1 zone and the M-P
zone. The B-1 zone as stated is reserved for retail uses, office uses and some service uses. It is
clear by the prohibitory language of that section that manufacturing uses are ordinarily to be
excluded. The cabinet shop is a manufacturing use and is a use not normally permitted in the
B-1 zone. A use that is ordinarily prohibited from a certain zone by reason of changes to the
code or the adoption of an initial zoning code, but that predates such changes, can be permitted
to remain. Such a use becomes, under most zoning definitions, aFlegally "non-conforming use."
Certain codes require phasing out such uses within a certain period of time, while some codes
permit those uses to continue without restriction, although limiting the rights of expansion or
even remodeling. The appellant's use falls within these strictures
7. While the appellant has been and remains free to pursue his business objectives in the B-1 zone,
they are pursued as legal non-conforming uses. Change in use, size or intensity is not
permitted. Section 4-31-23(B)(4) states: "No non-conforming building, structure or use shall be
changed to another non-conforming use." I
8. The cabinet shop is clearly not permitted in the B-1 zone. Any conversion to any use other
than a conforming use is clearly not permitted. The general principles of zoning are to
eliminate non-conforming uses and encourage land to be used in a manner compatible with the
zoning code. Non-conforming uses under general principles are too be phased out. Renton's
code permits continuation of such uses where they stand, but does not sanction continuation
when the use is concluded by its owner/operator. Therefore, con ersion of one non-conforming
use to another would thwart the objective,of the zoning code. Conversion of a cabinet shop to
a machine shop is not permissible. Staff's determination is correct.
9. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the administrator's decision was founded upon
anything but a fair review of the Zoning Code as it pertains to the existing and proposed use.
The appellant has failed to demonstrate with cogent evidence that;a mistake was made.
Therefore, the determination is affirmed.
10. There was a discussion of the potential impacts from some permissible B-1 uses on adjacent
land uses, as well as the suitability of the site for retail uses; The appellant and neighboring
1
r '
Smith's Cabinet Shop
AAD-002-90
February 26, 1990
Page 5
property owners are probably correct regarding the nature of the impacts that might conceivably,
be generated by certain retail or other permitted B-1 uses. The ilmpacts could be greater than
those from the current operation or the proposed operation.
11. A fast food restaurant, while probably a remote possibility, would obviously generate a large
amount of automobile traffic. This office is not in a position to make that type of
determination in this appeal. The strict reading of the appeal remedies does not permit this
office to weigh that issue at this time. Merely, the question ansv,,eyed above is whether the
proposed conversion is permissible under the Zoning Code. It is iiot.
12. Finally, this office wants to be clear, that while staff has suggested that options for legalizing
the existing or proposed use may exist, those options are limited to discretionary review. No
certainty can be attached to staff's suggestions that the site could;be reclassified to either L-1 or
•H-1, or that a conditional use permit may be available. Those are issues which would be
explored in a separate public hearing or hearings, and they are issues that are dependent upon a
number of separate variables.
DECISION
The determination of the Zoning Administrator is affirmed.
I'
ORDERED THIS 26th day of February, 1990.
1` :.yam
(9.
FRED J. K FMAN
HEARING EXAMINER
TRANSMITTED THIS 26th day orFebruary, 1990 to the parties of record:
Edward Smith
i 3504 N.E. 4th
, Renton,, WA 98056
Fred Parhaniemi
13905 S.E. May Valley Road
Renton, WA.
Norman Ross
3520 N.EE 4th
Renton, WA 98056 1
Loren Anderson
3500 N.E. 4th
Renton, WA 98056
Terry Potter
3508 N.E. 4th
Renton, WA 98056
TRANSMITTED THIS 26thNday of February, 1990 to the following:
Mayor Earl Clymer Councilman Richard M. Stredicke
Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Lynn A. Guttmann, Public Works Director
Members, Renton Planning Commission Ken Nyberg, Community Development Director
Glen Gordon, Fire Marshal Larry M. Springer, Planning Manager `
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Ronald Nelson, Building Director
Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer Brent McFall, Administrative Assistant
Kim Scattarella, Engineering Specialist Valley Daily News
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed
in writing on or before 5:00 P.M. March 12, 1990. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of
the Examiner is ambiguous or 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 Examinef within fourteen (14) days,from the date of the
Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguitiesi or errors discovered by such
appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper.
Smith's Cabinet Shop
AAD-002-90
February 26, 1990
Page 6
Any appeal is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 11, 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 pending 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 public communication
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.
. I
,
I }"
l
� 1
\ I
•
•
COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM,FEBRUARY 13, 1990 •
COUNCIL CHAMBERS,SECOND FLOOR,RENTON MUNICIPAL,BUILDING
The application(s) listed are in order of application numberi only and not
necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing
at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. •
•
PROJECT NAME: Smith Metal Shop
•
PROJECT NUMBERS: AAD-002-90 •
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: .A hearing has been scheduled to appeal an
administration determination regarding permissibility of transferring grandfather
use rights from an existing legally non-conforming cabinet shop to a machine •
shop. Property located at 3504 N.E. 4th Street. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
. q
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 10
6
7
Lynn R a i n e y ,being first duly sworn on oath states
that he/she is the Chief Clerk of the
VALLEY DAILY NEWS
• Kent Edition • Renton Edition • Auburn Edition
Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week. That said newspapers NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six RENTON HEARING EXAMINER
gRENTON, WASHINGTON
months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY
in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT
N-
Count , Washington. The ValleyDailyNews has been approved as a legal HIS REGULAR S ONING IN THE CO ND
Y g PP g CIL CHAMBERS THE SECOND
newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for FLOOR OF CITY HALL, RENTON, WASH-
King County. INGTON, ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13,
1990, AT 9:00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE
FOLLOWING PETITIONS:
The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Kent Edition Smith Metal Shop
D-
, Renton Edition XX , Auburn Edition , (and not in AA A h hearso
earing has been scheduled to appeal
supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers an administration determination regarding
during the below stated period. The annexed notice a P i i c Not i C e permissibility of transferring grandfather
use rights from an existing legally non-con-
forming cabinet shop to a machine shop.
(Hearing) R 3 a 15 Property located at 3504 N.E. 4TH Street.
Legal descriptions of the files noted
above are on file in the Renton Community
was published on F'- r} 2 , 1 9()I Development Department.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID
PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRE-
SENTThe full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the S AT FEBE PUBLICY13,
HEARING ON
g g g TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1990, AT 9:00
sum of$ 2 3 .2 8 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS.
Published in the Valley Daily News Feb-
ruary 2, 1990 R3955
Aappy
Subscribed and sworn before me this 2 3 day of r e b . 19 p
Notary blic for the State of Washington
residing at Auburn,
King County, Washington
VDN#87 Revised 4/89
„ ® CITY OF RENTON
..LL HEARING EXAMINER
Earl Clymer, Mayor Fred J. Kaufman
January 3 , 1990
Edward S. Smith
Smith' s Cabinet Shop
3504 N.E. 4th
Renton, WA 98056
Re: Appeal of Administrative Determination
Case #AAD-002-90
Dear Mr. Smith:
The hearing you have requested to appeal an administrative decision
regarding placement of a machine shop on your property has now been
set. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, February 13 , 1990 at
9 : 00 A.M. in the council chambers located on thef second floor of the
Renton Municipal Building.
Due to scheduling constraints it is important that all parties adhere
to the above date and time. If you have any questions please contact
this office.
Sincerely,
771:=1P4A4-4---,
FRED J. KAUFMAN
HEARING EXAMINER
FJK/dk
cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney
Ken Nyberg, Community Development Director
Larry Springer, Planning Manager
Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator
Laureen Nicolay, Planning Division
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2593 •
Sm4h & 4äieI
T2E021g&EMeath. ; $5" Oct5-7161 RENTON, WASH.
kY
OCA—Vc?
' •-- ) c?' I!C1c4 100 ,;2 9 _/ 0 0 a
lje„,, Aci yc,/,,,,,,,_. ., v-i-,,;,,,,
c9c0-000' _..,„ _ , /0 ,
a 41, fu) it,70 yz ,
aovnti I a, wfi�nn''^
�t/!� Lr
via ./Rad ,geP/ry , / (
.1/1/ 4---r/1,4-i
cvnAmixo ktoi,6- ;y0 ii,),„-6 , , /, r ,e.vreheli-rifZi
y t--A,0_)s 1 r c e I t e 61-y‘.i a/ * , ,, A/1/0 4rie.rozeY aya
, - ---4-Z-L/
bdif/xt \ -3' - ' ,/ t\(`
d' \J
//J2
0 CITY OF RENTON
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
•
Earl Clymer, Mayor • Planning Division.
•
R.FrEAVED
December 12, 1989 DEC 221989
RENT
Edward S.. ,'Smith �c KEAR� E „ ®�
--3504 N.E. ,- 4th Street •
Renton, Washington 98056 •
Re 3504 N.E. 4th Street - Administrative determination
regarding permissibility of transferring grandfather use •
rights from an existing legally non-conforming cabinet shop
to a machine shop
Dear Mr. Smith:
This letter is sent in confirmation of your November 28th
telephone conversation with Laureen Nicolay of our office
regarding ,,the appropriate zoning for a machine shop.
As you know, the above referenced property .is zoned Business
District (1B-1)', which does not permit manufacturing activities of
any sort ;.(see Section 4-711C2, enclosed) . You are able to
currently :Hoperate your cabinet shop from this site because your
manufacturing business was legally established prior to current.
code requirements.
However, a NEW business wishing to establish itself at the site
would be required to conform with today's Business District (B-1)
regulations pursuant to Section 4-726 of the , Code which states
"no non-conforming building, structure or use shall be changed to
another non-conforming use" . I have determined that a machine
shop is functionally and characteristically sufficiently
different from a - cabinet shop as to be considered a different
use. Therefore, the City would not be able to , approve a business
license for a machine shop• to operate at your B-1 zoned site.
In order to operate any business other than the cabinet shop or a
business specifically listed as permitted by the B-1 regulations
(see Section 4-711, enclosed) , you would first need to obtain a
conditional use permit bra rezone of the property to either a
Light Industrial (L-1) or a Heavy Industrial (H-1) zoning
designation.
Since this is an administrative determination, • you . do have the
right to appeal this 'to the Hearing Examiner. You must do so
within 14' days of the date of this letter by filing the
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2550'
• Facsimile (206) 235-2513
Edward S. Smith
December 12, 1989
Page 2
appropriate forms and the $75. 00 filing fee with the City Hearing
Examiner's office.
If you have any questions regarding this determination, please
feel free to contact me or Laureen Nicolay of our office at 235-
2550.
Sincerely,
Donald K. Eri kson, AICP
Zoning Administrator
DKE/LN:mjp
enclosure
cc: Laureen Nicolay
Inquiry file
Policy determination file
�
-
CITY OF RENTDN
CITY TREASURER
01-03-1990 2:02 pm,
REG/RCPT : 02-04187
CASHIER ID: I === AMOUNT ===
8000 MISCELLANEOUS REVE $75.00
HEARING EXAMINER FILING FEE
000.000.00.33O.58.00.0000
---------
TOTAL DUE $75.00
RECEIVED FROM:
SMITH'S CABINET SHOP
CHECK $75.00
| --_-----------
1 TOTAL TENDERED $75.00
| ------�------- |
CHANGE DUE $0.00 |
� --------- ---- i