Loading...
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