Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutShort Plat File No 078-77BEGINNING OF FILE Spout. (Plot — O18-17 © ~ MICROFILMED RENTON CITY CLERK" S OFFICE INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO? ine < Mr. Torohoff DATE: FROM: pee SUBJECT: 5 Check $10.00 Enclosed please find a check for $10.00 made out to King Co. Recorder for the recording of the Coleman Short Plat. ye Thanks, JAMES P. CURRAN CHARLES PETER CURRAN MELVIN L. KLEWENO, JR. STEPHEN L. JOHNSON THOMAS O. McELMEEL LAW OFFICES Curran, Kleweno, dohnson 6 Curran 213 4TH AVENUE SOUTH POST OFFICE BOX 26 Kent, Washington 95O07l // — TELEPHONES (206) 852-2345 (206) 852-2346 February 13, 1978 TO: City Council, City of Renton Charles J. Delaurenti, Mayor, City of Renton L. Rich Beeler, Hearing Examiner, ~~ Del Mead, City Clerk RE: E. R. COLEMAN Approved Short Plat #078-77 Ladies and Gentlemen: We are attorneys assisting Mr. Coleman in regard to the above referenced plat. We have concluded that the steps now being taken by the City with reference to the plat are contrary to your City Ordinances. We believe that Mr. Coleman is fully entitled to have building permits issued pursuant to that approved short plat at this time. We are prepared to initiate a Superior Court action to enforce that right if necessary. In the hopes of avoiding the expense to all parties of such an action, we are submitting this writing to you to persuade the City Council to promptly discharge any further action so that building permits can be issued. The following is the history of this short plat request: September 27, 1977 Public hearing held October 5, 1977 Decision by hearing examiner to approve the short plat per exhibit #3 (see exhibit #3 attached to this letter) October 20, 1977 Hearing examiner states in letter to E. R. Coleman: "Dear Mr. Coleman: This is to nofity you that the RECEIVED above referenced requests, which were approved CITY OF RENTON subject to conditions as noted on the Examiner's HEARING EXAMINER report of October 5, 1977, have not been appealed FEB 1% 7978 within the time period set by ordinance, and there- AM : Py fore, this application is considered final and is Si Dilated 1 21314135.6 being submitted to the City Clerk effective this date for permanent filing. r Signed: L. Rich Beeler, Hearing Examiner" Page ‘Two February 13, 1978 Renton City Ordinances, Sec. 4.3015 and 3016 limit rights to request reconsideration or to appeal to 14 days with regard to final action of the hearing examiner on short plats. (Copy of ordinance attached) . December 12, 1977 December 27, 1977 January 9, 1978 January 6, 1978 Hearing examiner states in letter that Exhibit 3 depicts 3 lots and that "my intention was to approve 3 lots on the subject property as requested". (Emphasis added). He then goes on to say that he is reopening the.matter because there is confusion. (One might inquire as to who is confused - Mr. Coleman's application requested 3 lots, the exhibit #3 is taken from the short plat application and clearly depicts 3 lots, A, B, and C and the examiner states that he intended to approve 3 lots). (Copy of letter attached) . Notice is sent by the City of Renton to Mr. Coleman that the City Council will ‘consider an appeal filed December 27, 1977 and that the appeal will be heard on January 16, 1978. At the Council Meeting of January 9, 1978, the Council acts on a recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee. Mr. Coleman had no notice or chance to be heard at either any committee meeting or at this counsel meeting. He first heard of these various actions when he came to the council meeting of January 16, 1978. (Notice of City attached). The Examiner advises the appellants by letter that he is going to reconsider the application based upon adequacy of the 30 foot street by requesting the Traffic Engineer to re-examine the approved plat. Page Three February 13, 1978 January 19, 1978 The Traffic Department sends a written memo Saying the 30 foot street is entirely adequate. (See memo attached). January 25, 1978 Hearing Examiner concludes that Mr. Coleman's approved plat shall be reduced to 2 lots. February 7, 1978 Mr. Coleman filed notice of appeal of the Examiner's action of January 25, 1978. Your actions to date are contrary to the requirements of Sec. 4 -3001, et seq., which does not permit review of approved plats after the expiraticn of 14 days and Section 9-1101 et seq., which does not provide for any City Council intervention into previously approved short plats once the 14 day period has expired. We will look to the City to pay the damages and legal expenses suffered by Mr. Coleman by reason.of the City interfering with a short plat already declared final. Will you kindly give this office notice of any further conmittee meetings or public hearings on this matter. We would particularly appreciate the chance to review this entire matter with the City Council. Yours very truly, CURRAN, KLEWENO, JOHNSON & CURRAN a gp NEE on ae Cry ro 2% “ 7 By ‘ase Charles Peter Curran CPC:mb Attachments cc: Sherwood Martin er f Et e fi r ra aS aa d Me e e LP S Cr 6 LD E M N L YO _ , P I E LS E P F FH PI O M L AI A Q D S AG SH oF ee | ’ PE E a fy = - = vo d oe ea e GE | V ys af : in ‘ -" Y a tL S i : “a “S a h NS OF ol ! EZ EL Sa ay . hy a ~, . on ii a m e l ’ SS Py ' ‘ vf a2 aS Or c s CO 31 ; nH Ge O y DE S C I oT sa ; ; a AE “ V in = a\ >.” &j& . ; - > 4 SF y mn LS wy O Tike CITY OF RENTON oe Se rp io MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 Z : S oc al 2 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR © LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 2D oy : “Oy & L. RICK BEELER, 235-2593 4 foes a "ED sep” oo gi af ce CG Ps Mr. Ernest Coleman RE: File No. Short Plat 078-77 222 Williams Avenue S. E-0'7/9=7°7 Renton, WA 98055 W-080-77 Dear Mr. Coleman: This is to notify you that the above referenced requests, which were approved subject to conditions as noted on the Examiner's report of October 5, 1977, have not been appealed within the time period set by ordinance, and therefore, this application is considered final and is being submitted to the City Clerk effective this date for permanent filing. anita, | omy i ( He K aa ~ ! L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner LRB: mp cc: Del Mead, City Clerk Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director 4—3014 A--3016 (A) That substantial evidence was presented demonstrating the subject reelassifica- tion appears not to have been specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; or (B) That the property is potentially zoned for the reclassification being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and conditions have been met which would indicate the change is appropriate; or (C) That since the last previous land use analysis of the area and area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private develop- ment or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. Within fourteen (14) calendar days of the conclusion of a hearing, the Examiner shall render a written decision, including findings and conclusions, and shall transmit a copy of such decision by regular mail, postage prepaid, to the applicant and other parties of record in the case requesting same. The person mailing such decision, together with the supporting documents, shall prepare an affidavit of mailing, in standard form, and such affidavit shall become a part of the record of such proceedings. In the case of applications requiring Council approval as set forth in Section 4—3010(B)2, the Examiner shall file a decision with the City Council at the expiration of the fourteen (14) day period provided for a rehearing, or within five (5) days of the conclusion of a rehearing, if one is conducted. Thereupon the City Council shall cause to be prepared the appropriate legislation. 4—3015, as amended: RECONSIDERATION: Any aggrieved party feeling ‘that the decision of the Examiner is based on an 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 after the written decision of the Examiner has been rendered. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such ap- pellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. 4—3016, as amended: APPEAL OF EXAMINER’S DECISION: Any party to the proceedings and aggrieved by the Examiner's decision may submit an appeal in writing to the City Council, by filing same with the City Clerk, within four: teen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written decision, requesting a review of same. Such appeal shall be accompanied by a fee of twenty five dollars ~ ($25.00) paid to the City Clerk. Thereupon the Examiner shall cause to be forwarded to the members of the City Coun- cil all of the pertinent documents, including his written decision, findings, conclusions and notice of appeal. If, after the examination of such record, the Council determines 1176;577 er) . a > . “ & rmpryTy NOP Va Who paw me} Sw " O Chile CITY OF RENTON O baal oe i. MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASEL 98055 Pa wll if iS) 3, — ': be CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR © LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 4 a L. RICK BEELER, 285=2593 % x 7ED sepve December 12, 1977 Mr. Ernest R. Coleman Ri: File No. Short Plat 078-77 1100 North 36th Ernest R. Coleman. Renton, WA 98055 & Parties of Record Dear Mr. Coleman & Parties of Record: It recently was brought to my attention that the decision of October 5, 1977 regarding this application was confusing as to whether two or three lots were approved in the report. The decision on page six was to "approve the short plat per Exhibit #3." However, what constituted Exhibit #3 was unclear. Upon review of the record it should be clarified that Exhibit #3 depicted the 3-lot short plat request originally submitted by the applicant and _ that this exhibit was not revised to a 2-lot configuration. My intention: was to approve three lots on the subject property as requested. Since this clarification may have affected your response to the October 5, 1977 written decision and upon advice of the City Attorney, the period for requesting reconsideration by the Examiner or appeal to the City Council is opened as of the date of this letter, and will expire on December 27, 1977. If you require additional information regarding procedures for requesting reconsideration or notice of appeal to the City Council, please refer to- Section 4-3015 and 4-3016, Code of General. Ordinances, available in the City Clerk's office. \ I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused in this matter. Respectfully yours, eke a > a thas L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director 2: ene = TEIIs MUNICIPAL BUILDING CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR Q CITY OF RENTON 200 MILL AVE SO. RENTON, WASH. 9805 DELORES A. CITY CLERK December 27, 1977 APPEAL FILED BY James C. Aiken, Charmaine C. Baker, Robert L. Moffatt and Joan L. Moffatt Re: Appeal of Land Use Examiner's Decision, dtd. 10/5/77 Short Plat 078-77, Ernest Coleman To Parties of Record: Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's decision has been filed with the City Clerk's Office this date, along with the proper fee of $25.00, pursuant to Title 4, Ch. 30, City Code, as amendéd. The City Code requires the appeal must be set forth in writing. The written appeal and all other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. Please contact the Council Secretary, 235-2586, for date and time of the committee meetings if so desired. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above-referenced appeal will be considered by the Renton City Council at its regular meeting of January 16, 1978 at 8:00 p.m. in the Council] Chambers, Second Floor, Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Ave. S. , MEM: jt Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON Se £ lee — ——— So OP De on ie Maxine E. Motor Deputy City Clerk MEAD MEMORAG DUM January LOY, LOTS TQ: RICK BEELER Hearing Examiner FROM: DEL BENNETT Deputy Director of Public Works RE: SHORT PLAT 078-77 Ernest R. Coleman ‘In response to your memo dated January 6, 1978, we have again reviewed the proposed Short Plat #078-77 submitted by Ernest R. Coleman. The response to the questions raised in your memo are as follows: 1) According to the 1976 Trip Generation Manual prepared by the Institute of Traffic Engineers for residential areas, there would be 10 trips per day per lot. If the proposed short plat were two lots, then there would be 20 trips per day, or three lots would produce the average of 30 trips per day. .The additional traffic that: would occur as a result of the three additional single Family lots would not be significant. Tt would appear that the existing easements could accommodate the additional traffic without any difficulty. : 2) The existing traffic utilizing the 17.6-foot easement for through vehicular traffic between Meadow Avenue North and Park Avenue North has not resulted in any unusual traffic problems. We have no recorded accidents or complaints regarding the use of this easement. The width of the proposed easement, which is 30 feet, would be adequate for single family development, and in our opinion the easement road would not endanger the public welfare or other affected properttles. 3) The City's Arterial Street Plan duces pet -comcéro itsell with easements, private roads, ete, Much of the development in the older neighborhoods has occurred many, many years ago and a number of nonconforming access roads were developed which have not caused any serious difficulties. When possible, we would like the development to adhere to our ordinances, but many times it is’not a very practical or feasible solution. Il hope the response to your questions will help in making your decision. RECEIVED ae CITY OF RENTON \ =i, { HEARING EXAMINER EE tee ee ag DCB:icah . JAN 2 01978 ( ) AM PR — THO Ml 213814 fr pi te > ° THE CITY OF RENTON Zz MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 fo) | CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR @ LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER $ L. RICK BEELER, 235-2593 February 8, 1978 Mr. Ernest R. Coleman 222 Williams Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Notice of Appeal dated February 7, 1978, to L. Rick Beeler from E. R. Coleman, regarding Short Plat #078-77. Dear Mr. Coleman: Your letter of February 7, 1978, is not clear as to whether you are appealing my decision regarding the above to the City Council (per Section 4-3016) or whether you are requesting my reconsideration of my decision (per Section 4-3015). References were made to both processes. It seems that you may be requesting reconsideration. If so, your letter does not "...set forth the specific errors relied upon..." (Section 4-3015) in making your request. This information is necessary for me to respond to your letter if, in fact, you seek reconsideration. Otherwise, an appeal must be directed to the City Clerk. Hearing Examiner cc: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Del Mead, City Clerk COLEMAN & MATTAINI Ernest R. Coleman 222 Williams Ave. South Renton, Washington 98055. (206) 226-6462 February 7, 1978 Land Use Hearing Examiner L Rick Beeler, Municipal Building 200 Mill Ave. So., Renton, WA. 98055 tir. Beeler: This letter is in protest, AND NOTICE OF APPEAL your right-about-face decision re: Ernest Coleman Short Plat # 078-77. These changes of your original decision were spelled out in your letter to a Mr. & Mrs. Sherwwod B. Martin under date of Jan. 25, 1978. I received a copy of this letter on Jan. 27, 1978. My appeal is based on the right of an applicant, covered under Title IV, Sec. 4-3015, City Code of Renton. I would ask that you notify me immediately as to your plans in handling this appeal. Very—-trulys9 -w € “oR £ C G2 Y Lp gE R. Coleman cc: Honorable Mayor Delaurenti RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER FEB 81978 AM FS DO eis 1 123.4156 4 Real Estate - Commercial - Industrial - Vacant Land n oF 7x, £ open © THE CITY OF RENTON Oo Ne Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 ey — E CHARLES J. DELAURENT!, MAYOR @ LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER % & L. RICK BEELER, 235-2593 7€o sepie™ January 25, 1978 Mr. and Mrs. Sherwood B. Martin 3728 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 RE: Request for Reconsideration on File No. Short Plat No. 078-77, E-079-77, & W-080-77; Ernest R. Coleman. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Martin: Pursuant to your letter, received December 27, 1977, and my letter of January 6, 1978, the decision regarding this application was reconsidered. The established record and the attached memoranda of January 6 and 19, 1978 were reviewed in reaching the subsequent decision. Two issues were contested in the reconsideration as well as in the public hearing. Is the proposed three-lot density appropriate? And is the proposed 30-foot easement adequate? Part of the second issue was the dust problem associated with the existing north 17.6-foot portion of the 30-foot easement; however, this specific problem was outside the purview of the Examiner as was stated in Finding No. 8. But the problem was orally relayed to the Public Works Department for further investigation. The issue of density is a function of minimum lot size which is affected in this case by the amount of property dedicated for vehicular access. The issue of adequacy of the 30-foot easement was found to be more complex than considered in the original, previous decision; therefore, this issue was reviewed in total again. The Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives are essentially silent relative to these two issues except for Objective No. 6, Land Use Report, page 18, which states: 6. Encourage the development and utilization of land to its highest and best use in such a way as to promote the best interest of the community and contribute to its overall attractiveness and desirability as a place in which to work, shop, live and play. This objective provides only very general guidance in this application; however, assistance is provided in the Purpose (Section 9-1101.2) of the Subdivision Ordinance: 2. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Ordinance that subdivisions be conceived, designed and developed in accordance with sound rules and standards in the interest of the public and property owners. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be held to be the minimum requirements for the protection of the public health, safety, welfare and esthetics, and such provisions are intended to provide for wholesome environmental conditions in the community, adequate public services, and safe and functional streets and thoroughfares. Mr. and Mrs. Martin Page Two January 25, 1978 Although unstated in any pertinent documents in effect at this time, a principle is implied in these two general guidelines and in normal ordinance interpretation. This principle, taken in the context of the Subdivision Ordinance's provision for Exceptions (Section 9-1109), is that the inherent burden rests with the applicant to meet the minimum requirements of applicable ordinances, goals and objectives as much as possible without self-inflicting grounds for an Exception (Section 9-1109). The Exception provision implicitly was created to resolve situations either beyond the applicant's control of which, if ordinance requirements were met, would produce the necessary cause for the Exception. EASEMENT Relative to the issue of the adequacy of the proposed 30-foot easement, two discoveries were made. First, the Public Works Department in the attached memorandum of January 19, 1978, stated the opinion that the cumulative easement of 30 feet, although nonconforming with the Subdivision Ordinance, presented no foreseeable traffic problems or danger to the public safety and welfare. Second, existing ordinances (e.g. Subdivision Ordinance) and the Comprehensive Plan do not address or permit private streets. Herein a contradiction occurs which complicates the issue since the grounds for an Exception (Section 9-1109) contain no provision for the conclusion of the aforesaid Public Works Department. This may have been intentional, for the question then follows of why a requirement for a 50-foot right-of-way for streets is necessary if 30 feet is adequate for public safety and welfare. The Examiner is constrained from addressing this policy question but confined to the existing ordinances. Clearly the south 12.5-foot portion (owned by Mr. Coleman) and the north 17.5-foot portion (controlled by the northerly property owners) of the proposed 30-foot pan-handle shaped easement strip does not meet the Subdivision Ordinance requirement of access via a 50-foot dedicated public street (Sections 9-1108.23.A.(5) and 9-1108.23.F.(2)). The cumulative 30-foot easement does not meet this standard without additional dedication of property north and/or south of this easement. Such dedication is beyond the control of Mr. Coleman east of the subject site since he does not own the pertinent property. Due to this fact an Exception should be granted for this portion of the easement. This would best serve the "interests of the community," the “public health, safety and welfare," and “safe and functional streets." (Land Use Report, page 18, Section No. 6, and Section 9-1101.2). On the other hand, sufficient property exists in the remainder of the site for a 25-foot easement which would be the normal dedication required of a property owner for one-half of the 50-foot right-of-way. The depth of the property is 107.6 feet (Exhibit No. 3) and the minimum lot depth is 80 feet (Section 9-1108.23.F.(3).(b), leaving 27.6 feet for the necessary dedication of 25 feet. In the record, testimony was not given as to why this could not be done; however, it is assumed that the reason is that the remaining property area would compute to two lots instead of three lots. It is very evident that some hardship is created for Mr. Coleman as a result of the loss of one lot, but the question becomes whether or not the hardship is "undue" (Section 9-1109.1). Within the process for computing density is the requirement that from the gross amount of property is subtracted the required area for street right-of-way. The net property area then becomes the basis for calculating density. Utilizing this Mr. anid Mrs. Martin Page Three January 25, 1978 process, the loss of one lot (figured on the net property area) does not constitute undue hardship since the normal process was used. Otherwise, hardship could be claimed by any applicant who lost density by calculation based on net versus gross property area. Mr. Coleman is not deprived of "...the reasonable use or development of his land..." (Section 9-1109.1.A), as he still will have two building sites. No "...rights or privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity..." (Section 9-1109.1.B) have been infringed upon since other subdivisions in the vicinity (under the existing Subdivision Ordinance) have faced the same requirements. But relative to the "public welfare" or "injury" (Section 9-1109.1.C) no such detriment or injury could be found; however, this is insufficient in itself to justify an Exception without regard to the previous other findings of Section 9-1109. Therefore, it was concluded that sufficient grounds do not exist for an Exception for a dedication of less than 25 feet for public right-of-way. The resulting 42.5-foot cumulative easement more nearly meets the aforementioned criteria of the Subdivision Ordinance, the conclusions of the Public Works Department in the attached memorandum of January 19, 1978, the "best interest of the community," and the “public health, safety, welfare and aesthetics," "the wholesome environmental conditions in the community," and the safety and functionality of streets (Land Use Report, page 18, Objective No. 6, and Section 9-1101.2). However, since it is less than the required 50 feet of right-of-way, an Exception is required. Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions under these specific circumstances, it is clear that the applicant would be meeting reasonable requirements. There exist "special, physical circumstances" which impact Mr. Coleman's property such that dedication of the additional necessary 3.5 feet would render the depth of the lot less than 80 feet, thereby nonconforming, and consequently deprive him of subdivision of his property into two lots (Section 9-1109.1.A). The Exception will provide the applicant with reasonable privileges while meeting reasonable requirements (Section 9-1109.1.B). The Exception will not be "detrimental" or "...injurious to other property in the vicinity" (Section 9-1109.1.C). DENSITY In view of the above conclusion regarding the easement access, the issue of density is moot. The 25-foot easement automatically reduces the density from three to two lots due to the reduction of net property area. , DECISION The decision of the Examiner is to: 1. Approve a Short Plat of two single family lots meeting all applicable zoning and subdivision requirements. Exhibit No. 3 should be accordingly revised. 2. Approve an Exception to allow a 12.5-foot dedication for public access for the easterly 80 feet which abuts the easterly parcel adjoining the subject site, extending to Meadow Avenue North. 3. Approve an Exception to allow access via a 42.5-foot access easement of the subject site. The northerly 25 feet of the westerly 234 feet shall be dedicated for public access. 4. Disapprove the Waiver of the off-site improvement of paving. A half-street shall be paved as deemed appropriate by the Public Works Department. All utility poles and obstructions between the 17.5-foot easement and the hereinabove required ’ ‘ Mr. and Mrs. Martin Page Four January 25, 1978 easements shall be removed. All exposed banks shall be stabilized to prevent erosion and sluffing. 5. Final approval of the Short Plat by the Planning and Public Works Departments for compliance with the aforesaid decisions. 6. Pertinent portions of this decision shall be contained in Restrictive Covenants. Expiration of the appeal period on this request for reconsideration will be February 8, 1978. L. Rick Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner cc: Ernest R. Coleman Parties of Record Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Councilman George J. Perry, Chairman, Planning & Development Committee Councilwoman Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Member Councilwoman Patricia M. Seymour-Thorpe, Member Larry Warren, City Attorney Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Del Mead, City Clerk Attachments a “ 2 THE CITY OF RENTON hela a MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 it 3 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR @ LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER e JAMES L. MAGSTADT, 235-2593 7€D sepie™ January 6, 1978 TO: Del Bennett, Deputy Public Works Director FROM: L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner SUBJECT: Short Plat No. 078-77, Ernest R. Coleman A request for reconsideration and an appeal of my decision on this application has been filed with the City Clerk. The City Attorney has advised that per Chapter 30 (Hearing Examiner Ordinance) the issue of reconsideration must be considered first, thereby temporarily suspending the appeal until the reconsideration decision is made. Per the attached letter to Mr. and Mrs. Martin (petitioners for reconsideration) I have elected to reconsider my original decision, specifically in the areas of density and of adequacy of a 30-foot easement/road. To assist me in making my decision, please provide written information that has not already been entered into the record on the following: 1. What traffic impact or implications would occur as a result of three additional single family lots using the existing 17.6-foot easement and Mr. Coleman's 12.5-foot easement? 2. What traffic implications exist regarding the 17.6-foot easement for through vehicular accéss between Meadow Avenue North and Park Avenue North? Will this size of easement/road be adequate for single family development of 7200 square foot lots? Will this easement/road endanger the public welfare or other affected properties? 3. What "master plan" would you envision for access in this area? Are there other alternative access considerations from the traffic safety and control standpoints that would be more appropriate and more conforming with applicable city ordinances? Please respond as soon as possible in order to facilitate an expeditious decision." fe Planning Department MEMORANDUM January 19, 1978 TO% RICK BEELER Hearing Examiner FROM: DEL BENNETT Deputy Director of Public Works RE: SHORT PLAT 078-77 Ernest R. Coleman In response to your memo dated January 6, 1978, we have again reviewed the proposed Short Plat #078-77 submitted by Ernest R. Coleman. The response to the questions raised in your memo are as follows: 1) According to the 1976 Trip Generation Manual prepared by the Institute of Traffic Engineers for residential areas, there would be 10 trips per day per lot. If the proposed short plat were two lots, then there would be 20 trips per day, or three lots would produce the average of 30 trips per day. The additional traffic that would occur as a result of the three additional single family lots would not be significant. It would appear that the existing easements could accommodate the additional traffic without any difficulty. 2) The existing traffic utilizing the 17.6-foot easement for through vehicular traffic between Meadow Avenue North and Park Avenue North has not resulted in any unusual traffic problems. We have no recorded accidents or complaints regarding the use of this easement. The width of the proposed easement, which is 30 feet, would be adequate for single family development, and in our opinion the easement road would not endanger the public welfare or other affected properties. 3) The City's Arterial Street Plan does not concern itself with easements, private roads, etc. Much of the development in the older neighborhoods has occurred many, many years ago and a number of nonconforming access roads were developed which have not caused any serious difficulties. When possible, we would like the development to adhere to our ordinances, but many times it is not a very practical or feasible solution. I hope the response to your questions will help in making your decision. RECEIVED ite," RENTON a bible : ethan DCB:cah JAN 2 01978 C AM PM FBG dl2s 152314156 ~ 7 & & RECEIVED _ COLEMAN & MATTAINI Ernest R. Coleman ee ook y 222 Williams Ave. South JAN LAC Renton, Washington 98055 AN italia (206) 226-6462 VB DP.) 1 & January 13, 1978 Mr. L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Ave. So., Renton, WA. 98055 Dear Mr. Beeler: Re short Plat 078-77 E 079-77 W 080-77 I have discussed at length with both you and City Attorney, Larry Warren, the handling of the above referred to Short Plat. Your letter to me on Oct. 20, 1977 stating your decision had not been appealed during the alloted time for such an appeal and the application was considered final and was being submitted to the City Clerk as of that date for permanent filing. I appreciated the manner in which this was hand- led. Contacts were made with different contractors re: grading the road, staking the three sites, moving the two power poles, etc. Then on Dec. 9, 1977 I received a call from you stating the original objectors had raised a question as to the clarity of your summarization of the hearing. This was seven weeks after you had written your letter of Oct. 20, stating the approval of the plat was final. I asked for a letter giving your reasons for a possible further delay. You stated you would discuss it with Attorney Warren then write me. I received this letter on Dec. 12 which is over a month ago. During this time I was called by one of the dissent neighbors, "Bob Moffitt". He only seemed to be concerned there were 3 sites instead of 2. I told him I felt there had been a fair hearing and was going ahead on the basis of your find- ings. He immediately threatened me with a suit etc. Your letter of Dec. 12, stated your intent was to approve the 3 lot plan. Then, I could not understand why the appeal period was reopened as this was the main concern of the objectors. I can find nothing under 4-3015 and 4-3016 i i e can b i which in a NY RMF ¥otkhet Similar industrial - Vacant Land ening Oy SNe 2--cont. a % 2--cont. Coleman to Beeler appeal period. I have a letter dated Dec. 2, stating the reopening and, or appeal would be dealt with at the Renton City Council regular meeting of Jan. 16, 1978. I had made it a point to be sure and attend this meeting. Now, I am told this was acted On by the Council at their meeting of Jan. 9. (last Monday). I am quite upset over the way I have been treated and the way This SMALL SHORT PLAT request has been handled. There are many platted lots in this area much smaller than the ones I am re- questing. It is very unfortunate conditions have deteriorated so badly in our City Administration where, after something has gone through the necessary steps and has been approved, that a dissident person can come in and cause such a delay, problem, and much more work by several people, by having the appeal period reopened. I am very bitter and feel this is a CHEAP shot. No wonder so many of the smaller builders I have known and worked with over the past 30 years have quit trying to over come the obstacles they are faced with in Renton and have gone elsewhere. a Se Gi ORL j ca A ptCLAME eman bbe Williams Ave. So., Renton, 226-6462 cc: Mayor Delaurenti Chairman Council Examining Comm. ey e& é oF Re, A . THE CITY OF RENTON ao MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 fo] 3 CHARLES J. DELAURENT| , MAYOR @® LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER & JAMES L. MAGSTADT, 235-2593 "ED sepv™ January 6, 1978 Mr. and Mrs. Sherwood B. Martin 3728 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 RE: Short Plat No. 078-77, Ernest R. Coleman; Request for Reconsideration. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Martin: Pursuant to your letter of December 27, 1977, I have reviewed the record of this application. Section 4-3015 (the rules governing reconsideration) specifies that "...errors of law or fact, error in judgment..." may constitute grounds for reconsideration. My review of the record indicated that my decision of October 5, 1977, should be reconsidered. Specifically, I am going to take a second look at the number of lots that were approved and request further analysis by the Traffic Engineering Division of the adequacy of a 30-foot easement/ road. Another public hearing will not be held, but you and the other parties of record will be mailed copies of all correspondence and/or evidence that is utilized in my forthcoming decision. May I also mention that an appeal of the original decision was also filed. The reconsideration decision will temporarily suspend the appeal until after my decision is rendered. L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Chairman, City Council Planning & Development Committee Larry Warren, City Attorney Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Del Mead, City Clerk Del Bennett, Deputy Public Works Director Ernest R. Coleman Parties of Record 2 te Es 3728 Park Avenue North Xenton Washington 98055 December 27, 1977 Mr, L Rick Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner The city of Renton Municipal Building Renton, Washington Dear Mr, Beeler: I wish to request a reconsideration of the hearing regarding Short Mat O78-77 applied for by Ernest R, Coleman, 3) The i< lots approved by your office would have an adverse affect on local property values, I question the value of holding a hearing providing for residents to present their points and then categorically denying all requests even though the applicant himself was agreeable to our major request which was to reduce the number of lots to two, The roadway is also a serious issue to which no consideration Was given in spite of the fact that Mr, Coleman knowingly cut himself off from his own property, forcing himself to either abandon its use or to make an impact on the other property owners by use of the roadway which we must now maintain for the benefit of his proffit. The decision handed down by your office was the first statemnet by a public agency establishing the roadway,on which we pay property taxes as a public though- rofare, Sherwood B. Martin and Luanna T, Martin 3728 Park Avenue North RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER JAN 31978 7 Q,O.9 ET 2:15 4 ww p> December 23, 1977 Mr. Le Rick Beeler ¥ CLEp, 1 hen ~4 ON Land Use Hearing Bxemin gE, ths ¥ g.. Toy & Municipal Building N oN 200 Mill Ave. So. Ler 34 IW OVo Renton, Washington 968055 Referencet (a) File No. Short Plat 078.77, Emest R. Coleman (b) Public Hearing minutes dated October 5, 1977 (Public Hearing conducted September 27, 1977 at 10:45 A.M. in the council chambers of Renton Municipal Building), (c) Letter dated December 12, 1977, L. Rick Beeler to Mr. Ernest R. Coleman and Parties of Record, subject File No. Short Plat 078-77 Emest R. Coleman. Dear Sirs As outlined in your letter dated December 12, 1977 (Reference c) thisis a formal request to reopen the public hearing on File No. Short Plat 078-77, Emest Ro Coleman and is in compliance with City Codes Title IV, Sections 3015 and 45016, The parties of record feel that your decision to allow the Short Plat 078-77 three (3) lot configuration is not in the best interest of the aggreived adjacent property owmerse The concerms expressed in the Public Hearing conducted on September 14, 1977 (reference b) have not changede In our opinion the conduct of your office in this matter has been anything but straight forward. Any person who reviews your minutes of the September 14, 1977 Public Hearing would conclude that Mr. Coleman gave his concurrence with subdividing the property into a two (2) lot configuration. By granting the time extension to December 27, 1977 to respond to your decision the Renton City Attormey obviously agrees wi th USe To preclude any further mi sunderstanding by the tax paying property owners involved it is our intention to be represented by legal council in any further matters involving File No. Short Plat 078-77. Your early response in the matter will be appreciated, RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER JAN 31978 AM PM FZ, 8,910.12: 1 12,3,41516 & a & = % THE CITY OF RENTON 4> 4, ba _ MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 mM =) — a CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR @® LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER ie Oa L. RICK BEELER, 235-2593 \:) December 12, 1977 Mr. Ernest R. Coleman RE: File No. Short Plat 078-77 1100 North 36th Ernest R. Coleman Renton, WA 98055 & Parties of Record Dear Mr. Coleman & Parties of Record: It recently was brought to my attention that the decision of October 5, 1977 regarding this application was confusing as to whether two or three lots were approved in the report. The decision on page six was to “approve the short plat per Exhibit #3." However, what constituted Exhibit #3 was unclear. Upon review of the record it should be clarified that Exhibit #3 depicted the 3-lot short plat request originally submitted by the applicant and that this exhibit was not revised to a 2-lot configuration. My intention was to approve three lots on the subject property as requested. Since this clarification may have affected your response to the October 5, 1977 written decision and upon advice of the City Attorney, the period for requesting reconsideration by the Examiner or appeal to the City Council is opened as of the date of this letter, and will expire on December 27, 1977. If you require additional information regarding procedures for requesting reconsideration or notice of appeal to the City Council, please refer to Section 4-3015 and 4-3016, Code of General Ordinances, available in the City Clerk's office. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused in this matter. Respectfully yours, Li-Po \ (_ i . 4. . SASL nn L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner ce: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director oF Re, “4 a & sg fo) THE CITY OF RENTON 2 bald z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 fe) 2, wl 2 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR @ LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER a Shae 20, 1977 L. RICK BEELER, 235-2593 *7€0 sepve™ Mr. Ernest Coleman RE: File No. Short Plat 078-77 222 Williams Avenue S. E-079-77 Renton, WA 98055 W-O080-77 Dear Mr. Coleman: This is to notify you that the above referenced requests, which were approved subject to conditions as noted on the Examiner's report of October 5, 1977, have not been appealed within the time period set by ordinance, and therefore, this application is considered final and is being submitted to the City Clerk effective this date for permanent filing. Sinceyely,., L. Rick Beeler / Hearing Examiner LRB: mp ec: ; Del Mead, City Clerk Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director : —_ @:, —o sf ‘ , October 5, 1977 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, APPLICANT: Ernest Coleman FILE NO. Sh. Pl. 078-77 E-079-77 W-080-77 LOCATION: Property located west of Meadow Avenue North midway between North 36th Street and North 38th Street and east of Park Avenue North. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests approval of a proposed three (3) lot short plat, with approval of an exception to allow access to the short plat via a private easement road 12.5 feet in width, together with a waiver of the off-site improvement requirements to allow gravelled surfacing of the proposed access easement. SUMMARY OF Planning Department Recommendation: Approval with conditions. ACTION: Hearing Examiner Decision: Approval of Short Plat and Exception; Denial of Waiver. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on September 21, 1977. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on September 27, 1977 at 10:40 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were sworn. . It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the Planning Department report, and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. Michael Smith, Planning Department, reviewed Exhibit #1, and entered the following additional exhibits into the record: Exhibit #2: King County Assessor's Map Exhibit #3: Plat Map Exhibit #4: Planning Department Plat Configuration Mr. Smith reported the inadequacy of an existing water main and indicated that installation of a 6 to 8-inch main had been recommended adjacent to the subject site. The Examiner noted that the 17.5-foot easement and the 12.5-foot easement served only two lots according to the King County Assessor's map; however, Exhibit #3 indicated that the easement extension was longer. Mr. Smith advised that because the assessor's map may not always designate recorded easements, a title search would be required. The Examiner asked a representative from the Traffic Engineering Division to comment regarding the easement roadway. Responding was: Paul Lumbert Traffic Engineering Division In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the establishment of a 32-foot easement as recommended in a memorandum from the Traffic Engineering Division, dated September 21, 1977, attached to Exhibit #1, Mr. Lumbert indicated that a joint project comprised of property owners on the northern 17.5-foot existing easement as well as the southern 12.5-foot existing easement could provide a 30-foot roadway. The Examiner asked Mr. Lumbert if joint development of this nature would set a precedent for future proposals and inquired about the possibility of installation of a fence to border the 12.5-foot easement. Mr. Lumbert stated that under normal circumstances, an equal amount of property would be designated on both sides of the easement and indicated that although such fencelines had not been allowed on city property, King County had allowed the procedure. The Examiner referred to a letter attached to Exhibit #1 from Don Monaghan, Engineering J ne Sh. Pl. 078-77 Paget Two » E-079-77 W-080-77 Design Division, which recommended denial of the request for exception to the Subdivision Ordinance because of inadequacy of the proposed 12.5-foot roadway for proper ingress and egress and suitable turnaround area. Mr. Lumbert reported that the easement originally was a temporary construction easement which has not been converted into a ‘ permanent easement possibly at the request of the property owner. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the desirability of the proposed 30-foot wide easement from Meadow Avenue North to Park Avenue North, Mr. Lumbert reported that the roadway would provide improved access through the area. The Examiner asked the applicant if he concurred in Exhibit #1. Responding was: Ernest Coleman 1100 North 36th Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Coleman indicated that he did not concur with the report with regard to access and limited number of lots. He objected to Item #P.1. of Exhibit #1 regarding proposed access and suggested an alternative of adding the 17.5-foot easement to allow a 30-foot roadway access to serve the proposed three-lot subdivision. Mr. Coleman advised that because of the location of existing power poles in the access roadway, paving should be delayed until the improvements were completed and the poles removed or relocated. He indicated that three sewer stubs had been installed on the property at considerable expense when subdivision into three lots had been anticipated. He reported that the size of the proposed lots was compatible with existing residential lots in the area and felt that low maintenance and taxes were factors to consider in subdividing the plat into three parcels. The Examiner asked for testimony in favor of the application. There was no response. The Examiner entered a letter signed by four residents on Park Avenue North in opposition to construction of three houses on the subject property and granting permission to build a substandard width easement with substandard paving. The letter was labeled Exhibit #5 by the Examiner. The Examiner asked for testimony in opposition to the application. Responding was: Charmaine Baker 3713 Meadow Avenue North - Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Baker submitted a letter containing 12 signatures from residents on Meadow Avenue North which she read into the record. The letter was labeled Exhibit #6. The residents opposed the application because of nonconformance with size and standards of surrounding developed property, degradation of appearance of neighborhood as a result of previous short-platting in the area, and inadequacy of the existing easement. She inquired about Item #0.6. of Exhibit #1 relating to extension of a 6-inch water main from Park Avenue North to accommodate fire flow and service requirements and asked if the existing easement would be restored to its original condition following the project. Mr. Smith advised that the applicant would maintain the responsibility for restoration of the roadway. She questioned previous testimony relating to installation of a fence between the 12.5-foot easement and the 17.5-foot easement separating the paved portion from the existing roadway. Mr. Smith advised that a fence would not be installed. In response to Mrs. Baker's inquiry regarding width of the improved right~of-way in relation to a 3-lot short plat, Mr. Smith indicated that the easement would not meet city minimum requirements. She also inquired about material proposed for the easement and reported that crushed rock minimized dust and was preferable to gravel. Mrs. Baker further objected to the applicant's statement that lots of lesser size require less maintenance and advised that homes in the area are well-maintained by residents who desired comparable maintenance by new residents. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the possibility of formation of an L.I.D. for improvement of the existing easement, Mrs. Baker reported that the potential expense had precluded the project in the past. Responding was: Sherwood Martin 3728 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Martin objected to a three-lot plat configuration because of incompatibility with existing standards and size of surrounding property and reported favorable real estate appraisal of his own property due to large lots and country-like setting in the Surrounding area. He also objected to increased traffic on the existing inadequate easement which he felt would produce an increase in dust, noise and deterioration of eo © Sh. Pl. 078-77 Page Three E-079-77 W-O80-77 the roadway. He stated that reduction in the size or quality of the 12.5-foot easement would encourage traffic to utilize the 17.5-foot easement causing an increase in noise, dust and traffic hazards. He stated that dust levels are intolerable at the present time due to heavy traffic on the unimproved easement and maintenance responsibilities would be imposed on existing property owners with the construction of three new homes. He also suggested that a speed deterrent be imposed in the area. The Examiner asked Mr. Martin if consideration had been given to oiling the roadway to reduce dust levels. Mr. Martin indicated that cooperation had not been successful in the past to ease the problem. The Examiner noted that the easement had been utilized as a public right-of- way for 18 years and expressed a concern that it currently would be considered a public Street. Mr. Martin reported that the width of the roadway prevented it from being utilized as a public right-of-way. Responding was: Luanna Martin 3728 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Martin indicated a desire to close the easement as a solution to the existing access problems. In response to previous discussion regarding oiling of the easement she noted that extreme expense of oil prices in prior years had precluded the procedure and residents had installed crushed rock to curtail the problem. She indicated that a problem presently exists with ownership of 110 feet of the access roadway east of Park Avenue North. Responding was: Jim Baker 3713 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Baker indicated that access had been assured to homeowners on the easement and had been utilized since his residency in 1961. He reported the problem of dust and indicated that fencing separating the proposed easement from Mr. Coleman's property would cause an increase of traffic from Park Avenue. Responding was: Joan Moffatt 3709 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Moffatt expressed concerns regarding fire protection if the access were closed noting that her residence exists 1,000 feet from the nearest fire hydrant. She also expressed objection to a three-lot plat. Mr. Coleman indicated his concurrence with subdividing the property into a two-lot configuration. He reported his intent to pave the street and remove the poles when improvements were installed but now is also required to extend a 6-inch main from Park Avenue, and he indicated his cooperation in contributing to the improvements. Mr. Martin expressed the desire to coordinate a mutually satisfactory agreement with the applicant prior to revisions in the access easement. The Examiner asked Mr. Smith for additions, corrections or modifications to Exhibit #1. Mr. Smith indicated his preference for a continuation of the hearing to allow the applicant and residents utilizing the easement to discuss alternatives for solution of access problems. He also advised that questions relating to the proposed water main should be directed to the Utilities Division of the Public Works Department. The Examiner asked the applicant if he favored a continuation of the hearing for the purpose of resolving problems relating to the easement and improved circulation to reduce future impact. Mr. Coleman objected to possible delay and potential expense in retaining an attorney during negotiations with property owners and restated his intent to improve the roadway. He objected to continuation of the hearing for those reasons. The Examiner stated that sufficient justification did not exist to require the applicant to negotiate a mutual agreement regarding access and for that reason he would not grant a continuance of the hearing. Mr. Coleman reported contacting the King County tax department regarding ownership of the easement east of Park Avenue North and the department had been unable to supply records to dispute that the portion of the 17.5-foot easement was not included. Mr. Martin subsequently withdrew his request to continue the hearing. g? Sh. Pl. 078-77 Pagé Fou E-079-77 W-O080-77 Mr. Smith advised that if the hearing were not continued, the Planning Department wished to submit several comments at this time including protection of the slope by rockery on the 12.5-foot easement on the southern portion abutting the property facing Meadow Avenue North and removal or relocation of the existing power poles between the two easements. He indicated concurrence with Traffic Engineering recommendations to develop the 12.5-foot easement at this time with development and improvement of the 17.5-foot easement the responsibility of the abutting property owners. He corrected the width of the easement stated in Exhibit #1 to 30 feet. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding requirements for paving rather than crushed rock, Mr. Smith reported that a 10-foot paved driveway is required on a pipestem lot by city ordinance. The Examiner asked for further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on Item # Short Plat 078-77, E-079-77 and W-080-77 was closed by the Examiner at 12:15 p.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The request is for approval of a three-lot short plat, an Exception from Chapter 11 to allow access via a 12.5-foot easement, and a Waiver of off-site improvements. 2. The Planning Department report accurately sets forth the issues, applicable policies and provisions, findings of fact, and departmental recommendations in this matter, and is hereby attached as Exhibit #1 and incorporated in this report by reference as set forth in full therein. 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended by R.C.W. 43.21.C., Gordon Y. Ericksen, responsible official, determined that the proposal is exempt from the threshold determination and EIS requirements. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. All existing utilities are available and in close proximity. 6. The proposal is compatible with the required setbacks, lot coverage and height requirements of Section 4-706 (R-1), Title IV, Code of General Ordinances. 7. A 17.5-foot access easement abuts the north boundary of the proposed 12.5-foot easement. This 17.5-foot easement was created approximately 18 years ago, has never been closed to use by the general public, and was specified for use by properties along the north boundary of the easement. Residents of the area generally were not opposed to the applicant using the easement, but were concerned about the existing nuisance of dust that would be increased by additional traffic on the easement. 8. The dust problem in the existing 17.5-foot easement was not a matter for consideration by the Examiner, except in evaluation of the requested waiver of off-site improvements. 9. Upon consideration of the testimony, the applicant revised the request to a short plat of two lots. 10. The Traffic Engineering Division testified that approval of the proposed 12.5-foot easement would be unprecedented since the city has not allowed such small easements in the past. Some small easements had been approved under the King County administration. Joining of the 17.5-foot and 12.5-foot easements was considered most desirable, acceptable and precedented. No other points of access appear available to the property. Evidence was not submitted to indicate that the applicant attempted to join the easements. ll. The Utilities Division found that the existing 3-inch water line in Meadow Avenue North was of insufficient capacity and recommended that a 6-inch water line be brought from Park Avenue North to the site. The applicant protested the recommendation because of the costs involved. 12. Two utility poles exist between the two easements which may require relocation due to access interference. 13. The grading of the 12.5-foot easement will probably produce a bank along the south portion of the easement and abutting the property facing Meadow Avenue North. This eo 8 Sh. Pl. 078-77 Page Five B-079=77 W-080~-77 bank may require stabilization. CONCLUSIONS : 1. The short plat conforms to the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning requirements. 2. Since the 17.5-foot easement abutting the site has existed unrestricted for many years, it is a reasonable conclusion that public use of the easement can continue uninterrupted. The applicant can use the easement which was not contested but agreed to by parties at the hearing. Therefore, access exists between Meadow Avenue North and Park Avenue North. Similar to existing properties adjoining the 17.5-foot easement, individual driveways can extend to the easement. A turnaround facility is not needed. The dust problem resulting from use of the graveled 17.5-foot easement apparently has become significant. The application before the Examiner does not include solution of this problem. However, the impacted residents were appraised of possible alternatives to solving this mutual concern. The applicant expressed a willingness to participate in and contribute to the solution. 4. Joining of the two easements is a reasonable solution to the access needs of the properties along both easements. Based upon available testimony it appears that the applicant may unrestrictedly use the 17.5-foot easement which does not provide sufficient width for adequate improvements. Adding the proposed 12.5-foot easement will provide a total of 30 feet of easement for improvements, thereby becoming more acceptable for access and circulation while retaining the status of primarily a private easement/street. This will require relocation of the two existing utility poles. 5. Improvement (paving) of the 17.5-foot easement remains to be resolved by the parties abutting the easement since improvements were not required under King County jurisdiction. On the other hand, the applicant is seeking division of his land under city jurisdiction which requires pavement of the proposed 12.5-foot easement unless a waiver is granted. ° In the Examiner's review of the waiver application, the most applicable criteria for evaluation of the request are: a. "...absence of such improvements located within a reasonable distance." (Section 9-1105.6.B. b. "That there are special physical circumstances or conditions affecting said property such that the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use or development of his land." (Section 9-1109.1.A) c. "That the exception is necessary to insure such property the rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under similar circumstances." (Section 9-1109.1.B) d. "That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity." (Section 9-1109.1.C.) It is clear that the existing abutting 17.5-foot easement is only graveled and that the applicant has requested to be able to improve his proposed 12.5-foot easement in the same manner. The easement will be slightly more than 300 feet in length which constitutes a large sum of money for pavement and may prevent development of his land. Putting gravel or crushed rock on the 12.5-foot easement will probably contribute to the dust problem that exists, consequently adversely impacting people and properties in the area. Paving this easement will not produce this impact but would be the applicant's contribution to improvement of the total of 30-foot easement. It would then be up to the remaining property owners to follow suit in eliminating the dust problem. & ee oo Sh. Pl. 078-77 Page Six » E-079~77 W-080-77 6. The capacity of the water line in Meadow Avenue North appears to be inadequate to serve the needs of the neighborhood as well as the applicant's proposal. Since it has not been shown that the applicant is significantly adding to the existing overload situation, it 1s unreasonable to require the applicant to install at his expense a new 6-inch water line from Park Avenue North to serve only his proposed three lots. It is reasonable to assume that such a new line will serve other properties as well or to reduce the overload on the undersized line in Meadow Avenue North. Therefore, it is apparent that others will benefit from such an installation. In fact this improvement may be extremely difficult to construct since the applicant does not possess a utility easement from his property to Park Avenue North. The L.I.D. process is the logical and reasonable solution to providing this recommended water line. DECISION: Based upon the record, testimony, findings and conclusions, it is the Examiner's decision to: 1. Approve the short plat per Exhibit #3. 2. Approve the Exception to allow a 12.5-foot access easement provided such easement includes all parties having access to or abutting the adjacent 17.5-foot easement. 3. Disapproval of the Waiver of the off-site improvement of paving. All utility poles and obstructions between the 12.5-foot and 17.5-foot easements shall be removed. Any exposed banks shall be stabilized to prevent erosion and sluffing. This decision is further conditioned upon review by the Planning Department for compliance with these conditions. ORDERED THIS 5th day of October, 1977. } (Gia sacs L. Rick Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of October, 1977 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Paul Lumbert Ernest Coleman Charmaine Baker Sherwood Martin Luanna Martin Jim Baker Joan Moffatt TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of October, 1977 to the following: Charles J. Delaurenti Council President George J. Perry Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Ron Nelson, Building Division Gerard M. Shellan, City Attorney Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before October 19, 1977. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV. Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying a filing fee of $25.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection in the City Clerk's office, first floor of City Hall, or same may be purchased at cost in said office. 38TH oT 427 | shay) Fre} LJ [she fos] [A ee pee eee eT! ME A D O W AV E AN . IN T E F S T A T E HI G H W A Y go s SCALE 15 200° GP sususcr we UZ, SHORT fray 016-77 Ww -080-77 £-079-77 a December 2, 1977 Mr. George Perry, President Renton City Council Municipal Building 20 Mill Ave. So. Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Mr. Perrys Enclosed is a copy of a letter smt to Mr. Le Rick Beeler, Land Use Hearing Examiner as a result of a Public Hearing conducted on September 2/th and the resulting minutes and findings which were sent to us. We are formally appealing the Examiner's decision (City Codes Title IV, Section 3016). a check for $25.00 accompanies this letter to be paid to the OCity Clerk. Our strongest objection to Mr. Coleman's request had to do with building three houses in an area designed for two. During the process of the hearing Mr. Coleman revised his request and concurred with subdividing the property into a two-lot configuration. (See Page Three of Public Hearing minutes dated October 5, 1977, Paragraph 5.) His concurrence was reiterated on page four of the minutes under Findings, Item number 9, Since we had no objections to Mr. Coleman developing the property into a two-lot configuration, there was no appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision. By accident we discovered Mr. Coleman was proceeding with plans to develop a three-lot configuration and that the Hearing &xaminer con- curred in this development. ‘The minutes were not clear on this decision and it was only because of a phone call to the Hearing Examiner by Mrs. Baker that the Axaminer realized the discrepancy that appeared in the minutes. He consulted the City attomey and the enclosed letter, dated December 12, 1977 to Mr. Brest R. Ooleman and Parties of Record, subject File Noe Short Plat 078-77, Ermest R. Coleman was the result of that conversations As we said in our letter to Mr. Beeler, we feel that he has bem less than straight foreward in this matter and we feel that it has been handled in a very underhanded mannere We therefore request that the City Council examine all pertinent docummts on record as a result of this public hearing, plus the written decision, findings and conclusions. We feel there is substantial error in fact or law existing in the record and we ask that the property continue to be zoned as a two-lot configuration. Sin c sags Py / f a 4» Khel cc Charles J. Delaurenti, Mayor Oe Yl; fh “HOE ie , A Da thee & heey X. Wy ) “syed din, Died, Lz 1/7 fa AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING State of Washington) ) County of King ) Marilyn J. Petersen , being first duly sworn, upon oath disposes and states: That on the 5th day of October , 19 #77, affiant deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below-entitled application or petition. tar, L, os eee, ¢ a Subscribed and sworn this at day of Ockoner ; 19 ts a t await ane \ baad Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Renton Application, Petition or Case: Ernest Coleman, Sh. Pl. 078-77, E-079-77, W-080-77 (The minutes contain a List of the parties of record) October 5, 1977 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, APPLICANT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: Ernest Coleman FILE NO. Sh. Pl. 078-77 E-079-77 W-080-77 Property located west of Meadow Avenue North midway between North 36th Street and North 38th Street and east of Park Avenue North. Applicant requests approval of a proposed three (3) lot short plat, with approval of an exception to allow access to the short plat via a private easement road 12.5 feet in width, together with a waiver of the off-site improvement requirements to allow gravelled surfacing of the proposed access easement. Planning Department Recommendation: Approval with conditions. Hearing Examiner Decision: Approval of Short Plat and Exception; Denial of Waiver. The Planning Department staff report was received by the Examiner on September 21, 1977. After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on September 27, 1977 at 10:40 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were sworn. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the Planning Department report, and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. Michael Smith, Planning Department, reviewed Exhibit #1, and entered the following additional exhibits into the record: Exhibit #2: King County Assessor's Map Exhibit #3: Plat Map Exhibit #4: Planning Department Plat Configuration Mr. Smith reported the inadequacy of an existing water main and indicated that installation of a 6 to 8-inch main had been recommended adjacent to the subject site. The Examiner noted that the 17.5-foot easement and the 12.5-foot easement served only two lots according to the King County Assessor's map; however, Exhibit #3 indicated that the easement extension was longer. Mr. Smith advised that because the assessor's map may not always designate recorded easements, a title search would be required. The Examiner asked a representative from the Traffic Engineering Division to comment regarding the easement roadway. Responding was: Paul Lumbert Traffic Engineering Division In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the establishment of a 32-foot easement as recommended in a memorandum from the Traffic Engineering Division, dated September 21, 1977, attached to Exhibit #1, Mr. Lumbert indicated that a joint project comprised of property owners on the northern 17.5-foot existing easement as well as the southern 12.5-foot existing easement could provide a 30-foot roadway. The Examiner asked Mr. Lumbert if joint development of this nature would set a precedent for future proposals and inquired about the possibility of installation of a fence to border the 12.5-foot easement. Mr. Lumbert stated that under normal circumstances, an equal amount of property would be designated on both sides of the easement and indicated that although such fencelines had not been allowed on city property, King County had allowed the procedure. The Examiner referred to a letter attached to Exhibit #1 from Don Monaghan, Engineering Sh. Pl. 078-77 Page Two E-079-77 W-080-77 ¢ “P “°° :* Design Division, which recommended denial of the request for exception to the Subdivision Ordinance because of inadequacy of the proposed 12.5-foot roadway for proper ingress and egress and suitable turnaround area. Mr. Lumbert reported that the easement originally was a temporary construction easement which has not been converted into a permanent easement possibly at the request of the property owner. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the desirability of the proposed 30-foot wide easement from Meadow Avenue North to Park Avenue Nerth, Mr. Lumbert reported that the roadway would provide improved access through the area. The Examiner asked the applicant if he concurred in Exhibit #1. Responding was: Ernest Coleman 1100 North 36th Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Coleman indicated that he did not concur with the report with regard to access and limited number of lots. He objected to Item #P.1. of Exhibit #1 regarding proposed access and suggested an alternative of adding the 17.5-foot easement to allow a 30-foot roadway access to serve the proposed three-lot subdivision. Mr. Coleman advised that because of the location of existing power poles in the access roadway, paving should be delayed until the improvements were completed and the poles removed or relocated. He indicated that three sewer stubs had been installed on the property at considerable expense when subdivision into three lots had been anticipated. He reported that the size of the proposed lots was compatible with existing residential lots in the area and felt that low maintenance and taxes were factors to consider in subdividing the plat into three parcels. The Examiner asked for testimony in favor of the application. There was no response. The Examiner entered a letter signed by four residents on Park Avenue North in opposition to construction of three houses on the subject property and granting permission to build a substandard width easement with substandard paving. The letter was labeled Exhibit #5 by the Examiner. The Examiner asked for testimony in opposition to the application. Responding was: Charmaine Baker 3713 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Baker submitted a letter containing 12 signatures from residents on Meadow Avenue North which she read into the record. The letter was labeled Exhibit #6. The residents opposed the application because of nonconformance with size and standards of surrounding developed property, degradation of appearance of neighborhood as a result of previous short-platting in the area, and inadequacy of the existing easement. She inquired about Item #0.6. of Exhibit #1 relating to extension of a 6-inch water main from Park Avenue North to accommodate fire flow and service requirements and asked if the existing easement would be restored to its original condition following the project. Mr. Smith advised that the applicant would maintain the responsibility for restoration of the roadway. She questioned previous testimony relating to installation of a fence between the 12.5-foot easement and the 17.5-foot easement separating the paved portion from the existing roadway. Mr. Smith advised that a fence would not be installed. In response to Mrs. Baker's inquiry regarding width of the improved right-of-way in relation to a 3-lot short plat, Mr. Smith indicated that the easement would not meet city minimum requirements. She also inquired about material proposed for the easement and reported that crushed rock minimized dust and was preferable to gravel. Mrs. Baker further objected to the applicant's statement that lots of lesser size require less maintenance and advised that homes in the area are well-maintained by residents who desired comparable maintenance by new residents. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the possibility of formation of an L.I.D. for improvement of the existing easement, Mrs. Baker reported that the potential expense had precluded the project in the past. Responding was: Sherwood Martin 3728 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Martin objected to a three-lot plat configuration because of incompatibility with existing standards and size of surrounding property and reported favorable real estate appraisal of his own property due to large lots and country-like setting in the surrounding area. He also objected to increased traffic on the existing inadequate easement which he felt would produce an increase in dust, noise and deterioration of Sh. Pl. 078-77 Page Three E-079-77 W-080-77 the roadway. He stated that reduction in the size or quality of the 12.5-foot easement would encourage traffic to utilize the 17.5-foot easement causing an increase in noise, dust and traffic hazards. He stated that dust levels are intolerable at the present time due to heavy traffic on the unimproved easement and maintenance responsibilities would be imposed on existing property owners with the construction of three new homes. He also suggested that a speed deterrent be imposed in the area. The Examiner asked Mr. Martin if consideration had been given to oiling the roadway to reduce dust levels. Mr. Martin indicated that cooperation had not been successful in the past to ease the problem. The Examiner noted that the easement had been utilized as a public right-of- way for 18 years and expressed a concern that it currently would be considered a public street. Mr. Martin reported that the width of the roadway prevented it from being utilized as a public right-of-way. Responding was: Luanna Martin 3728 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Martin indicated a desire to close the easement as a solution to the existing access problems. In response to previous discussion regarding oiling of the easement she noted that extreme expense of oil prices in prior years had precluded the procedure and residents had installed crushed rock to curtail the problem. She indicated that a problem presently exists with ownership of 110 feet of the access roadway east of Park Avenue North. Responding was: Jim Baker 3713 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Baker indicated that access had been assured to homeowners on the easement and had been utilized since his residency in 1961. He reported the problem of dust and indicated that fencing separating the proposed easement from Mr. Coleman's property would cause an increase of traffic from Park Avenue. Responding was: Joan Moffatt 3709 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Moffatt expressed concerns regarding fire protection if the access were closed noting that her residence exists 1,000 feet from the nearest fire hydrant. She also expressed objection to a three-lot plat. Mr. Coleman indicated his concurrence with subdividing the property into a two-lot configuration. He reported his intent to pave the street and remove the poles when improvements were installed but now is also required to extend a 6-inch main from Park Avenue, and he indicated his cooperation in contributing to the improvements. Mr. Martin expressed the desire to coordinate a mutually satisfactory agreement with the applicant prior to revisions in the access easement. The Examiner asked Mr. Smith for additions, corrections or modifications to Exhibit #1. Mr. Smith indicated his preference for a continuation of the hearing to allow the applicant and residents utilizing the easement to discuss alternatives for solution of access problems. He also advised that questions relating to the proposed water main should be directed to the Utilities Division of the Public Works Department. The Examiner asked the applicant if he favored a continuation of the hearing for the purpose of resolving problems relating to the easement and improved circulation to reduce future impact. Mr. Coleman objected to possible delay and potential expense in retaining an attorney during negotiations with property owners and restated his intent to improve the roadway. He objected to continuation of the hearing for those reasons. The Examiner stated that sufficient justification did not exist to require the applicant to negotiate a mutual agreement regarding access and for that reason he would not grant a continuance of the hearing. Mr. Coleman reported contacting the King County tax department regarding ownership of the easement east of Park Avenue North and the department had been unable to supply records to dispute that the portion of the 17.5-foot easement was not included. Mr. Martin subsequently withdrew his request to continue the hearing. Sh. Pl. 078-77 Page Four E-079-77 W-080-77 Mr. Smith advised that if the hearing were not continued, the Planning Department wished to submit several comments at this time including protection of the slope by rockery on the 12.5-foot easement on the southern portion abutting the property facing Meadow Avenue North and removal or relocation of the existing power poles between the two easements. He indicated concurrence with Traffic Engineering recommendations to develop the 12.5-foot easement at this time with development and improvement of the 17.5-foot easement the responsibility of the abutting property owners. He corrected the width of the easement stated in Exhibit #1 to 30 feet. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding requirements for paving rather than crushed rock, Mr. Smith reported that a 10-foot paved driveway is required on a pipestem lot by city ordinance. The Examiner asked for further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on Item # Short Plat 078-77, E-079-77 and W-080-77 was closed by the Examiner at 12:15 p.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The request is for approval of a three~lot short plat, an Exception from Chapter 11 to allow access via a 12.5-foot easement, and a Waiver of off-site improvements. 2. The Planning Department report accurately sets forth the issues, applicable policies and provisions, findings of fact, and departmental recommendations in this matter, and is hereby attached as Exhibit #1 and incorporated in this report by reference as set forth in full therein. 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended by R.C.W. 43.21.C., Gordon Y. Ericksen, responsible official, determined that the proposal is exempt from the threshold determination and EIS requirements. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. All existing utilities are available and in close proximity. 6. The proposal is compatible with the required setbacks, lot coverage and height requirements of Section 4~706 (R-1), Title IV, Code of General Ordinances. 7. A 17.5-foot access easement abuts the north boundary of the proposed 12.5-foot easement. This 17.5-foot easement was created approximately 18 years ago, has never been closed to use by the general public, and was specified for use by properties along the north boundary of the easement. Residents of the area generally were not opposed to the applicant using the easement, but were concerned about the existing nuisance of dust that would be increased by additional traffic on the easement. 8. The dust problem in the existing 17.5-foot easement was not a matter for consideration by the Examiner, except in evaluation of the requested waiver of off-site improvements. 9. Upon consideration of the testimony, the applicant revised the request to a short plat of two lots. 10. The Traffic Engineering Division testified that approval of the proposed 12.5-foot easement would be unprecedented since the city has not allowed such small easements in the past. Some small easements had been approved under the King County administration. Joining of the 17.5-foot and 12.5-foot easements was considered most desirable, acceptable and precedented. No other points of access appear available to the property. Evidence was not submitted to indicate that the applicant attempted to join the easements. 1l. The Utilities Division found that the existing 3-inch water line in Meadow Avenue North was of insufficient capacity and recommended that a 6-inch water line be brought from Park Avenue North to the site. The applicant protested the recommendation because of the costs involved. 12. Two utility poles exist between the two easements which may require relocation due to access interference. 13. The grading of the 12.5-foot easement will probably produce a bank along the south portion of the easement and abutting the property facing Meadow Avenue North. This Sh. Pl. 078-77 Page Six E-079-77 W-080-77 6. The capacity of the water line in Meadow Avenue North appears to be inadequate to serve the needs of the neighborhood as well as the applicant's proposal. Since it has not been shown that the applicant is significantly adding to the existing overload situation, it is unreasonable to require the applicant to install at his expense a new 6~-inch water line from Park Avenue North to serve only his proposed three lots. It is reasonable to assume that such a new line will serve other properties as well or to reduce the overload on the undersized line in Meadow Avenue North. Therefore, it is apparent that others will benefit from such an installation. In fact this improvement may be extremely difficult to construct since the applicant does not possess a utility easement from his property to Park Avenue North. The L.I.D. process is the logical and reasonable solution to providing. this recommended water line. DECISION: Based upon the record, testimony, findings and conclusions, it is the Examiner's decision to: 1. Approve the short plat per Exhibit #3. 2. Approve the Exception to allow a 12.5-foot access easement provided such easement includes all parties having access to or abutting the adjacent 17.5-foot easement. 3. Disapproval of the Waiver of the off-site improvement of paving. All utility poles and obstructions between the 12.5-foot and 17.5-foot easements shall be removed. Any exposed banks shall be stabilized to prevent erosion and sluffing. This decision is further conditioned upon review by the Planning Department for compliance with these conditions. ORDERED THIS 5th day of October, 1977. ) Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of October, 1977 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Paul Lumbert Ernest Coleman Charmaine Baker Sherwood Martin Luanna Martin Jim Baker Joan Moffatt TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of October, 1977 to the following: ‘Charles J. Delaurenti Council President George J. Perry Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Ron Nelson, Building Division Gerard M. Shellan, City Attorney Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before October 19, 1977. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV. Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying a filing fee of $25.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection in the City Clerk's office, first floor of City Hall, or same may be purchased at cost in said office. Sh. Pl. 078-77 Page Five E-079-77 W-080-77 bank may require stabilization. CONCLUSIONS : 1. The short plat conforms to the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning requirements. Since the 17.5-foot easement abutting the site has existed unrestricted for many years, it is a reasonable conclusion that public use of the easement can continue uninterrupted. The applicant can use the easement which was not contested but agreed to by parties at the hearing. Therefore, access exists between Meadow Avenue North and Park Avenue North. Similar to existing properties adjoining the 17.5-foot easement, individual driveways can extend to the easement. A turnaround facility is not needed. The dust problem resulting from use of the graveled 17.5-foot easement apparently has become significant. The application before the Examiner does not include solution of this problem. However, the impacted residents were appraised of possible alternatives to solving this mutual concern. The applicant expressed a willingness to participate in and contribute to the solution. Joining of the two easements is a reasonable solution to the access needs of the properties along both easements. Based upon available testimony it appears that the applicant may unrestrictedly use the 17.5-foot easement which does not provide sufficient width for adequate improvements. Adding the proposed 12.5-foot easement will provide a total of 30 feet of easement for improvements, thereby becoming more acceptable for access and circulation while retaining the status of primarily a private easement/street. This will require relocation of the two existing utility poles. Improvement (paving) of the 17.5-foot easement remains to be resolved by the parties abutting the easement since improvements were not required under King County jurisdiction. On the other hand, the applicant is seeking division of his land under city jurisdiction which requires pavement of the proposed 12.5-foot easement unless a waiver is granted. In the Examiner's review of the waiver application, the most applicable criteria for evaluation of the request are: a. "...absence of such improvements located within a reasonable distance." (Section 9-1105.6.B. b. "That there are special physical circumstances or conditions affecting said property such that the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use or development of his land." (Section 9-1109.1.A) c. "That the exception is necessary to insure such property the rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under similar circumstances." (Section 9-1109.1.B) d. "That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity." (Section 9-1109.1.C.) It is clear that the existing abutting 17.5-foot easement is only graveled and that the applicant has requested to be able to improve his proposed 12.5-foot easement in the same manner. The easement will be slightly more than 300 feet in length which constitutes a large sum of money for pavement and may prevent development of his land. Putting gravel or crushed rock on the 12.5-foot easement will probably contribute to the dust problem that exists, consequently adversely impacting people and properties in the area. Paving this easement will not produce this impact but would be the applicant's contribution to improvement of the total of 30-foot easement. It would then be up to the remaining property owners to follow suit in eliminating the dust problem. BR civy oF RENTRE No, 3416 oe FINANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 __ = 45 -A 7] 19 ZZ RECEIVED or 12 studs 7 neta LL a crawiertsg heath a7 2f a0 TOTAL 250120 GWEN E. go Ze JI ANCE DIRECTOR ) BY i tk. ‘taut ht Cteomas @ : ’ RECEIVED _ CITY OF RENTON =;XHIBIT NO.2 | HEARING EXAMINER sep2vis77 = PEM NO. KL0T8-27 “# PM £89. 7% @-dfe-77 AM 2,8 DilO M21 1213:4.5.6 4 September 26, 1977 Subject: Application for 3-lot short plat approval, exception to subdi- vision ordinance regarding access, and waiver of off-site improve- ments, Files Ng,78-77, E-079-77, and W-080-77, We the Undersigned: 1, Are opposed to the construction of three houses on the Coleman property because; a. It would degrade the appearance of the neigborhood, b., It would not conform to the size and standards of the surrounding developed property. c. It would increase traffic on the existing easements which are not intended for access to the Coleman property, but which can- not now be controlled in such a way as to prevent their use for that purpose, Any increase in traffic would produce unacceptable levels of dust, noise, hazard, and deterioration on the narrow, graveled existing easements, 2. Are opposed to the granting of permission to build a substandard-width easement with substandard paving because: a. Substandard paving also would contribute to an increase in, the dust level in the air, This penetrates our homes and creates signif - icant problems in housekeeping, cleanliness, and health. b. Any reduction in the size or quality of the easement makes it less desireable to use the Coleman-property easement and more desire- able to use the easement off Park Avenue, again leading to the traffic, noise, health, and hazard problems cited above, It should be noted that the existing easements are not only inadequate to higher traffic demands in terms of their present quality, but they are also very close to our homes, In the event that Mr. Coleman would be willing to work out an arrangement whereby he would do something to alleviate the problems mentioned, and help us with the maintenance .cost which will be imposed on us, we might then be willing to agree to the construction of a less than standard-width easement to his property, ue 3 Pylon’ 2728 Asif ia Aan AD hartin 3126 Aah Axe, Fon, ?) Kole LAL 7 3524 fork Are. 7a, Dm Oot 3720 ftuf Gu bis receveD @Be % CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER 7% 4 ae ITEM NO. 4.4.02%..22. £-077-77 wy og0-7] oy SEP 2 ¢1977 - Sevier 26, 1977 7 ,8:9:109121152131:4:516 é We the undersigned have reviewed Mr. E. Coleman's application for a three-lot short pl@t approval Files No. 078-77, B-O79-77 and W-080-77. (See attachment) We strongly object to the application for development of three lots in an area now zoned for two for the following reasons le. In other areas where short platting has been permitted the resulting buildings have degraded the appearance of the neighborhood. 2 Three-lot development does not conform to the size and standards of the surrounding developed property. 5. The existing easement even with the addition of the proposed widening would not be adequate for the amount of traffic that would be generated by three additional houses. We understand Mr. Ooleman's desire to develop the property, but we feel it should be done properly and conform to the standards of the neighborhood. We do not object to the variance allowing the widened road to be an additional 12.5 feet rather than 17.5 as ordinarily required since further widening would jeopardize the existing steps on a developed lot. We do not feel that Mr. Coleman should be required to pave the 12.5 addition, but since improving the two lots will require heavy equip- ment on the existing road, we feel Mr. Coleman should be required to restore the entire easement with crushed rock. Since the easement road is narrow, the property should be developed to provide a turn around and adequate parking for each of the two lots so that there is no encroachment on the neighbor's private drives and parking areas. If this was done we do not feel that the turn around suggested by the planning department on the westem end of the property would be required, Very Sincerely Yours, fied earce C Deliv 3713 AMenew Avé. Nv. py Meso Be NW (Unecity Wu THe heokeRiy AcKess WHE. zAsemtut) 32709 Mepnpos Ave. 376 & vé fReerey NMiVF PR PERTY, ACKb%S 3709 Meavow heéeW. (Pp ree / <Viaee Aurion Ca B70O/ DMleadtwY) fonlsr Fs Aerectly <A0, tordercng Leb ery (fecen Coal. SI0s theadow Hue pW. Atartte, < Khag, 97/9 Tendon Qos ties 371 J yasads Ove. N . /ifrs Lorry @ Vjewehel! Lodo CULL LL BO/A2 Jy Les E22. 02. VER. BER Prades Pre HW horde Wr é ra S ors ] THE CITY OF RENTON 5 ie - MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON. WASH. 98055 j=) 2 wl = CHARLES J. DELAURENT!, MAYOR @ PLANNING DEPARTMENT % al 235-2550 "ED sepve™ September 12, 1977 Mr. Ernest R. Coleman 222 Williams Ave. So. Renton, WA 98055 RE: NOTICE OF APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR APPLICATION FCR 3-LOT SHORT PLAT APPROVAL, EXCEPTICN TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REGARDING ACCESS, AND ¥IAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, Files No. 078-77, E-079-77, and i-080-77; property located along the west side of Meadow Ave. No. between No. 38th St. and No. 36th St. Dear Mr. Coleman: The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on September 6, 1977 . A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for September 27, 1977,at 9:00 a.m. Representatives of the applicant are asked to be present. All interested persons are invited to attend the hearing. If you have any further questions, please call the Renton Planning Department, 235-2550. Very truly yours, Gordon Y. Ericksen Planning Director / web oy: LYS Li g7 Michael L. Smith Associate Planner MLS:wr cc: Kenneth J. Oyler > PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION 235-2540 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 September 12, 1977 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR TO: Planning Department FROM: Jim Hanson, Building Division SUBJECT: Coleman Short Plat Following are our comments concerning the Short Plat and Waiver: 1. It appears that five lots are created by this Short Plat 2. A precedent would be established if the private road is allowed. 3. If the private road is allowed, minimum standards should be set for improvements and maintenance. a / an JCH/mp PLANM MING IDEPT Gs ®& | ~ fe: iv, 7 AA Ke sSart ip by EN UNE Na DES BA == ret: Vaal Lolerat arte short p/ap / fe Short plat eppheatrors: pony a pits in = Zz. Weary tr, ak Poe Lert ribs skne ty te Qro.usclea! chactt eid 2s Seemed, hoad necro t Be Rad eS. pxproued aig LY2L 42: steudlardes Lé. Paning’, a lpete Cat al sie aos a me n othe On ce. shorn Lege cor de a ae LOD ¢ hf Ze Cece Lf red, 2, Sve apt pars fo Sth a wiszd 2s Ord undiabée Tac 12.0 L222 Spt Cx Fal po the. 20 LAO wie pprcer2oScch gota? (ite privet. roadutitad L2LEL ry: with ze. JP fated KP GH ILN S LB oe Cpa ts Zz fe phe ae tu asl ( Protas ‘ Tbr e. won th. /2,6 an pa odin arbre the Zest ee Alex4 A. ot saehils 3 pele. 2 Ge vA ea &. as Bropetuly 7 wdAr ek, er sudscy, eee we pyred v / Bre am Lut weak that he proposed 22.8 BA rbtdulens {3 Leracte gst aie. Lave LHO OBS diawoal Lngress , need Seve ee P02 iz, AT arene al 73 jorirs lolech, H2.. pi sa sist . CA piadnelies Pi AE Don onstage Pee ofl xxi ne @ we Bo tt Ten, When. Lg oy Loe RES ¥ fs li ON [S \ & ae MEMORANDUM DATE: September 21, 1977 TO: Planning Department - Mike Smith FROM: Traffic Engineering Division SUBJECT: E. Coleman Short Plat To bring the proposed plat into acceptable limits from the standard, keeping public safety and general welfare of the city upmost in our mind, we would recommend the proposed area be divided into two lots and the proposed roadway and adjacent roadway to the north be developed jointly to a minimum 32 foot width with a sidewalk on the south side. A division into two lots would be consistent with other property divisions in the vicinity. einwee CEM: ad SS | @ Be MEMORANDUM FROM THE DESK OF: FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU | - AY 9/22/77 RENTON FIRE DEPARTMENT wr ¢ ae OX EK IX Kb be XE x “4 TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: E. COLEMAN SHORT PLAT a. AN APPROVED WATER SUPPLY CAPABLE OF SUPPLYING REQUIRED FIRE FLOW FOR FIRE PROTECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED TO ALL PREMISES UPON WHICH BUILD NGS OR PORTIONS OF BUILDINGS ARE HEREAFTER CONSTRUCTED. WHEN ANY PORTION OF THE BUILDING PROTECTED 1S IN EXCESS OF 750" FROM A WATER SUPPLY ON A UBLIC STREET, THERE SHALL BE PRO- VIDED ON SITE FIRE HYDRANTS AND MAINS CAPABLE OF SUPPLYING THE REQUIRED FIRE FLOW. 2. EVERY BUILDING HEREAFTER CONSTRUCTED SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE TO FIRE DEPARTMENT APPARATUS BY WAY OF ACCESS ROADWAY WITH ALL WEATHER DRIVING SURFACE OF NOT LESS THAN 20' OF UNOBSTRUCTED WIDTH WITH ADEQUATE ROADWAY TURNING RADIUS CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING THE IMPOSED LOADS OF FIRE APPARATUS AND del id 4 MINIMUM OF 4 6" OF VERTICLE CLEARANCE. Z th E.V. WOOTON, URey FIRE Perea | € Se INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW REQUEST TOE DUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR BUILDING DIVISI ENGINEERING DIVISION > TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION-™\ ee SNS UTILITIES DIVISION > cee comments on mah — = ca 7 FIRE DEPAETBERT HEALTH DEPARTMENT FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mictace SMITH Contact Person RE: E. COLEMAN SHoeT ~ray ft o77-77 Please review the attached information regarding the subject proposal and return it to the Planning Department by gl [77 with your written recommendation. Your response will be included as part of the staff report to the Hearing Examiner. Thank you, PLANNING DEPARTMENT Date ofs[2 OP 2n f 1 P7 0 I S Lé 5 7 Ea Fw y eS ae : wl te oT ‘ S S K : l e f LE P A S AM C M C A I T A T , LG H T M e La e H e IN E T O D tw aa =, —/ , . » a. al e tl y j ME L A S NQ L I V T Y $7 3 7D 2W U A O £ HL I V N I Y E G E 2 Z XC D Od ay y w e v d 2 Y V O m o o v a w o l wy Jo n OL we r e N VY AU y ) Le z s ) go r w i s ! 29 a ay “V Y wi NI B NI T wa y ¥ yr s w s 4 3 0 5 /$ ) a u W A 1 3 0 5 / pi 08 6 HL 0 0 S BH L SO .0 8 LS V R FH L LA B I K S ‘ B O N TI G N# O 9 49 NF I T I V D NO L G I N I H S CL F 4 0 7 SH I I T T A L O D ' D SO A 66 LI 0 I L SO , P I E LS O F BL NO I L A V A D S A G Lx a = (SE 74 ol GL VV GAR SUCICTIN G O O C Y T I S O I S O C A C H Fad : SS <a Co p o r i d d ) LI C . : ’ : i 4 | fo u s FU T Fr i a OA ‘> wv ha n aa a = vs co n d : , YG q ‘ or ae SS 4 s a, A Po wi t Vf ai l , fe SW 2A Hse &e Ce INTERDEPARTNENTAL FEVIEW REQUEST TO: PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR BUILDING DIVISION > ENGINEERING DIVISION CE 9 CARAFFIC ENGINEERING Divisio : ile ISTON > De, UTILITIES DIVISION MO Common T y = se = pei ad inn DEPARTMENT HEALTH DEPARTMENT FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Aficotag Sei Contact Person REE (=. COLEMAN ; IEACEpTieb? Te WED sion) OCDINAIE Fee PeivAns sTReErT tess THAW REQUIRED So Fer wo WipTH. FIER E-079-727 Please review the attached information regarding the subject proposal and return it to the Planning Department by G/1-/77 with your written 7 recommendation. Your response will be included as part of the staff report to the Hearing Examiner. Thank you, PLANNING DEPARTMENT ee Whe L Pee pres. l , t, ‘ O' ‘ id N\ BX SEE ON, fe kone EN i) f- io <9 £2 tot! i Date Z Zi Z2 i Spr ee 7 i y \e anennennna sense Pod < ei \ J A AN a pe € @ INTERDEPARTNENTAL PEVIEW REQUEST so ty PUBLIC WORKS DIREC 103 UTILITIES DIVISLON ~~ NO ComagnT FIRE DEPARTMENT _/ : HEALTH DEPARTMENT FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT (As 4Ak c SiMITH. ontact Person RE: EG, CeusMAn. WwAWE? ve OFF-SITE LM PRL EM ENTE, - : ra Five at W— of6-77 Please review the attached information regarding the subject proposal and return it to the Planning Department by 4/yi/22 with your written recommendati6n. “Your response will be included as part of the staff report to the Hearing Examiner. i Thank you, PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mifld. aed ed Date shy) 2 fr nae uM a FE “ad [LENT UT SHORT PLAT: EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE: WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROV E. COLEMAN; Appl. No. 078-77, Short Plat; E-079-77, Exception to sub- division ordinance; W-O080-77, Waiver of off-site improvements; property located west of Meadow Avenue North midway between North 36th Street and North 38th Street and east of Park Avenue North. APPLICANT ERNEST R. COLEMAN TOTAL AREA _+.6 Acres PRINCIPAL ACCESS Park Avenue North EXISTING ZONING G-7200 EXISTING USE Undeveloped PROPOSED USE Single Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Single Family Residential COMMENTS 12-60 seoff) x sf} g 8 stg > 3 ~ Rac S = pfegh wW S Xi 3 oa | O a | qo = Ca 0 SCALE 15 £00’ OP sussecr we BENEST &. COLEMAN SHORT At 078-77 w -080-77 £-0979-77 : i _ RECEIVED _ CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PLANNING DEPARTMENT nM SEP 2 71977 PM 181910111121112,3,445,6 é PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 27, 1977 KHIBIT NO. APPLICANT: E. COLEMAN ITEM NO. 4 27e 77 oem W- OFF <7 7 FILE NUMBER: 078-77, SHORT PLAT; E-079-77, EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE; W-O80-77, WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests approval of a proposed three (3) lot short plat, with approval of an exception to allow access to the short plat via a private easement road 12.5 feet in width, together with a waiver of the off-site improvement requirements to allow gravelled surfacing of the proposed access easement. Ba GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: E. COLEMAN 2. Applicant: E. COLEMAN 3. Location: Property located west of Meadow Avenue North midway between North 36th Street and North 38th Street and east of Park Avenue North. 4. Legal Description: A detailed legal description is avail- able on file in the Renton Planning Department. 5. Size of Property: Approximately .6 acres 6. Access: Proposed access is via 12.5 foot private easement road from Meadow Avenue North. /. Existing Zoning: G-7200; General Classification District Single Family Residence, minimum lot size 7200 square feet. 8. Existing Zoning in the Area: G-7200 9. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Single Family Residential 10. Notification: The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date. Notice was properly published in the Record- Chronicle and posted in three places on or near the site as required by City Ordinance. Gi. PURPOSE OF REQUEST: To allow subdivision of the subject site into three (3) single family residence lots for future development of single family residences. In order to allow such subdivision, the applicant also requests an exception from the minimum requirements for street design, together with a waiver of the off-site improvement requirements. | a Be PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1977 PAGE TWO RE: 078-77, SHORT PLAT; E-079-77, EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE; W-080-77, WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS Us HISTORY/BACKGROUND: The subject site was annexed into the City by Ordinance 2531 dated December 24, 1969. An existing 80 x 95 foot lot located directly east of the site fronting on Meadow Avenue North and containing a single family residence, was subdivided from the subject site in July 1970. There are single family residences located directly north of the subject site on lots of approx- imately 10,000 to 12,000 square feet in area, which gain access via an existing 17.5 foot gravel easement road. This subdivision was approved prior to annexation into the City of Renton. Bs PHYSICAL BACKGROUND: 1. Topography: The site gently slopes upward from east to west. 2. Soils: Indianola Loamy Fine Sand (InC) Permeability is rapid, runoff is slow to medium, and erosion hazard is slight to moderate. This soil is used for timber and urban development. 3. Vegetation: The site consists of various scrub brush and blackberries. 4. Wildlife: The existing vegetation on the site provides suitable habitat for birds and small mammals. 5. Water: No surface water or streams are apparent on the subject site. 6. Land Use: There is an existing single family residence located directly west of the subject site fronting on Meadow Avenue North. There is an existing single family residence located east of the subject site which gains access via an easement from Park Avenue North. There are existing single family residences located north of the subject site which gain access from Meadow Avenue North to Park Avenue North via an existing 17.5 foot gravel easement road. Access to the subject site is quite limited due to these existing subdivision and development patterns. F. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: The area is primarily single family residential in nature. G. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Water and Sewer: An existing substandard three (3) inch water main is located along Meadow Avenue North. There is an existing six (6) inch water main located along Park Avenue North west of the subject site. There is an existing eight (8) inch sewer along the north property line. Storm drainage mains are not available in the area. 2. Fire Protection: Provided by the Renton Fire Department as per Ordinance requirements. 3. Transit: Metro transit route 240 operates along Lake Washington Boulevard approximately one-half mile west of subject site. | % % PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1977 PAGE THREE RE: M. 078-77, SHORT PLAT; E-079-77, EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE; W-080-77, WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS 4. Schools: The subject site is located approximately one (1) mile north of Kennydale Elementary School, within two and one-half (24) miles of McKnight Middle School, and within five (5) miles of Hazen High School. 5. Parks: Kennydale Beach Park is located approximately one- half (4%) mile west of subject site and Lake Washington Beach Park is located approximately two (2) miles south of subject site. King County May Creek Park is located just east of the freeway approximately one-quarter (%) mile east of the subject site. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1. Section 4-729; G, General Classification District 2. Section 4-706; R-1, Residential Single Family APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENTS: 1. Subdivision Regulations, Section 9-1105, Plat Requirements for Short Subdivision. 2. Subdivision Regulations, Section 9-1109, Exceptions. 3. Land Use Report, 1965; pages 17 and 18, Objectives; and page 11, Residential. 4. Policy Statement, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, 1965, page 5, D, Subdivision of Land and page 6, E, Traffic- ways. IMPACTS ON THE NATURAL SYSTEMS: Development of the subject site will disturb soil and vegetation and increase water runoff. However, these impacts will be minor and can be mitigated through proper development controls. SOCIAL IMPACTS: Transition of the subject site from its undeveloped state to single family residential will create additional social interactions within the neighborhood. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the City of Renton Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended, RCW 43.21C, the subject proposal is exempt from the threshold determination and EIS requirements of SEPA. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: A vicinity map and site map are attached. AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED: City of Renton Building Division City of Renton Engineering Division City of Renton Utilities Division City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division City of Renton Fire Department OP w n — PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1977 PAGE FOUR RE: 078-77, SHORT PLAT; E-079-77, EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE W-080-77, WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS Ds PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance indicate single family residential land use for the subject site. 2. The existing zoning for the site and area is G-7200, Single Family Residential with a 7200 square foot minimum lot size requirement. The three (3) proposed lots consist of approx- imately 7400 square feet each. The applicant proposes to | provide a 12.5 foot private access road to the proposed lots, in lieu of the stnadard ordinance requirement of a fifty (50) foot public right-of-way. The applicant also proposes waiver of improvements along the 12.5 foot access road, providing gravel surface only, as opposed to permanent street surfacing, together with curb, gutter, and sidewalk. 3. Other lots north and west of the site, developed prior to the City's Subdivision Ordinance, are larger in size (average 10,000 to 12,000 square feet in area), and attain access via an existing 17.5 foot gravel easement road directly adjacent to the north property line of the proposed site. Said easement does not appear to pertain to or permit useage for access to the subject site. 4. A better alternative for access to the subject site does not appear to exist at the present time, because of the existing subdivision and development pattern in the area. Therefore, the subject site circumstances appear to be consistent with the requirements for exceptions outlined in section 9-1109. 5. An existing telephone pole is located in the area of the proposed access road along Meadow Avenue North. 6. An existing three (3) inch water main is located along Meadow Avenue North. The Utilities Division has indicated that this is not adequate for proper fire flow and service requirements. Extension of the six (6) inch main from Park Avenue North will be necessary. An existing eight (8) inch sewer main is located in an easement along the north property line. 7. Given the circumstances listed above, the proposed plat should be limited to two (2) lots, each approximately 10,000 square feet in area exclusive of the 12.5 foot access road, with requirements for paving of the access road, turn-around provision for fire, emergency, and service vehicles, and extension of suitable size water main and fire hydrants. Ps PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of a two (2) lot short plat for the subject site with granting of the exception to allow a private easement road and the waiver of certain improvements subject to: 1. The proposed 12.5 foot access road shall be permanently surfaced with asphalt pavement, abutting both lots. 2. Provision of a minimum thirty (30) foot by forty (40) foot paved turn-around at the westerly boundary of the subject site to allow for turn-around and maneuvering fire, emergency, service, and other vehicles. A reasonable alternative to the above recommendation would be approval of three lots with a minimum 40 foot improved street that would serve the approximately six lots (three existing; three pro- posed) that would ultimately be served by such a street. &> ® PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1977 PAGE FIVE RE: 078-77, SHORT PLAT; E-079-77, EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ‘ W-080-77, WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS 3. Provision of adequate sized water main to meet |I.S.0. fire flow and Utility Division requirements. 4. Provision of proper storm drainage facilities subject to Public Works Department requirements. 5. The approval of the waiver of the standard street improvements shall be subject to the filing of restrictive covenants run- ning with the land which state that the property owner shall participate in any future L.I.D. for such street dedication and improvements. The granting of such exception and waiver is considered reason- able given the existing circumstances and is consistant with the requirements of Section 9-1109 of the subdivision regulations. The two (2) lot alternative subdivision layout is also consid- ered reasonable given the less than standard access situation and the existing lot sizes in the area. ge CITY OF PLAT APPLICATION Y sHor T PLAT RENTON. short Fak OF8- 2: Lo - OYE YF j FILE NO L/ -Of0-9F —NAJOR PLAT oe DATE R3C'*D Pw -FF ___ TENTATIVE So FEE__$ xSo@* ____ PRELIMINARY fees baci RECEIPT NO. <2//G ___ FINAL “goer fiat 2 yo. SM NO. EXCapyiens = (00 PUD NO. (AB WER. & oo APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 7: l. Plat Name & Location LE. COLE LAS 6. Sy ee (LaF ? EIEN, fox OC, ~- LU Spe Lie ADI Aro 1 No. Lots 3 Total Acreage zoning @- 7200 Owner Phone 2Yy(- aia Address /1O0 Af =. 74! feks Fort HLS _ FZ0E F Engineer Phone Address Underground Utilities: Yes No Not Installed Telephone _ __ _ Electric _ a _ Street Lights _ _—— _ Natural Gas __ __ — TV Cable __ — _—— Sanitation & Water: /*7 City Water Jf Sanitary Sewers /_/ Water District No. /_/ Dry Sewers /_/ Septic Tanks Vicinity and plat maps as required by Subdivision Ordinance DATE REFERRED TO: ENGINEERING PARKS BUILDING HEALTH TRAFFIC ENG. STATE HIGHWAY FIRE COUNTY PLANNING BD. PUBLIC WORKS OTHER STAFF ACTION: _SHORT PLAT APPROVED __ DENIED _ TENTATIVE PLAT APPEALED EXPIRED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: ___ PRELIMINARY PLAT , APPROVED DENIED ___FINAL PLAT APPEALED EXPIRED CIvy COUNCIL ACTION: ___ PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED DENIED ___ FINAL PLAT APPEALED EXPIRED DEFERRED IMPROVEMENTS: DATE DATE BOND NO. & TYPE GRANTED EXPIRES AMOUNT Planning Dept. Rev. 12/71 AFFIDAVIT ty FR. Coleman , being duly sworn, declare that I am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Subscribed and sworn before me this sy day of Cdtcgy. gt , 1977 ‘] Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at oo s F (Sha bbe U cars. ’ & (Name of Notary Public) / Signature of Owner 2o¢d¢e YY Gua LE. RAZ LMA kere Clee (Address) (Address) Lytleze. S/R (City) a (State) KkXC“ 6 YES (Telephone) (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify that- fhe foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been found to be’ ‘tharough and complete in every particular and to conform to the rules- and, regulations of the Renton Planning Department governing the filing of such application. Date Received - , L@Y By: Renton Planning Dept. a) a 4 COLEMAN & MATTAINI & Ernest R. Coleman 222 Williams Ave. South Renton, Washington 98055 (206) 226-6462 HO August 30, 1977 # To Renton Planning Department, L, ais Ca ty Hal ] > Q r Renton, Wa. 98055 ING phe See Gentlemen: In reference to the short plat application I am submitting to you I wish to bring the following to your attention: Many years ago at the time C. D. Hillman had this area platted his reason for laying out these 600 foot narrow strips of land was to impress potential buyers with the 1-1/2 acre size as well as cutting way down on his expenses for streets. Since that time conditions have changed and it would be questionable whether such platting would be encouraged or allowed today. Present day regulations as set up in your department do not make exceptions to these conditions in older plats thus allowing for a reasonable approach to breaking them up into more reas- Onable residential sites. It is difficult to find good building lots close in which have sanitary sewers and other necessary util- ities available. Also, the price of land and taxes has inc- reased to a point one cannot afford to continue ownership for more than the area necessary for a residence. The pre- sent day families prefer to spend most of their free time at recreation rather than on yard upkeep etc. Tne sewer easement was granted to the city over the north 12 feet of this property. There were three outlets installed and my assessment was $4,300.00. The lots are larger than that required for the area. Access to these lots will be over 30 feet of semi- private drive thus eliminating vehicular speed which would endanger the lives of growing children. There are homes on the north side of this access. They have been occupied for several years by the same people and they Reve “oe iy ome We ledge voiced no objection. Real Estate - Commercial - Industrial - Vacant Land e August 30, 1977 2--cont. Coleman to Planning Dept., Because of the conditions stated I thereforeAsk for exceptions to the platting ordinance requiring twehty feet access to a public street, not to exceed 150 feet for each Ort I am also asking for a waiver of off-site improvements Since there is no similar improvements in the area. I hope your department will grant the above request. I will be available for taking representatives of your group to the site if you wish. ay) Zz Ke Crbgreetee Coleman 2 "iti dens Ave. So., Renton, Wa. 226-6462 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING Se! ee Margeret..Harkhaugpnn.. being first duly swornon oath, deposes and says that ..8. Ne isthe ....... Chief... Clerk........ of THE RENTON RECORD-CHRONICLE, a newspaper published four (4) times a week. That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as a news- paper published four (4) times a week in Kent, King County, Washington, and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the Renton Record-Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the County in which it is published, to-wit, King County, Washington. That the annexedisa Notice.of..Publien.. So rT gS aha semeremeane Tecicoarompenetan as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period OF eceseoseeeed A Saceaid saa ee NESE EME SNENEETIAG ES consecutive issues, commencing on the 16... day of.. sept OMROK oe. ,19..11..., and ending the ereeeenes GAYE pc-cneasameepaanassnamesemerarmeerorss tenes se aoeeg | Shorsexesg DOUMOALES inclusive, a that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $3 ».7.{which has been paid in fullatthe rateof per folio of one hundred words for the first insertion and _ per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent insertion. Masgascth elites L, nO] eh = he ON -b Subscribed and sworn to before me this................. 16 oroests oa ema atar day of .. September.., 19..7-7. C2 9 LOL 4 (ee) AEG Notary Public in and for the. State of face a residing at Kent, King Cgunty. — Passed by the Legislature, 1955, known as Senate Bill 281, effective June 9th, 1955S. — Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. V.P.C. Form No. 87 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAM- BERS, CITY HALL, REN- TON, WASHINGTON, ON SEPTEMBER 27, 1977, AT 9:00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETI- TIONS: 1.S.C.S. AND STIR- SKEY HOLDINGS, REZONE FROM SR- 1 TO R-2, File No. R-077-77; property lo- cated on south side of Puget Drive south of Rolling Hills Dr. bet- ween the powerline right-of-way and the Parkwood single fami- ly residence subdivi- sion. 2. ERNEST R. COL- EMAN, APPLICA- TIONS FOR THREE- LOT SHORT PLAT APPROVAL, EX- CEPTION TO SUB- DIVISION ORDI- NANCE REGARD- ING ACCESS, AND WAIVER OF OFF- SITE IMPROVE- MENTS; Files No. 078-77, E-079-77, and W-080-77; prop- erty located along the west side of Meadow Ave. No. between No. 38th St. and No. 36th St. 3. HILL-ROWE IN- VESTMENT Co., REZONE FROM G TO M-P, File No. R- 081-77; property lo- cated on east side of W. Valley Rd. and north of S.W. 43rd St. diteétty south of ; rere Hobby and Tey Do. “y Legal descriptions of ap- * plieditions noted above — on file in the Rertton i Department ALL ERESTED § PER- BONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRE- SENT AY. igs Mi PUBLIC + Bigpier arama AT 9:00 AM. THER OF GORDON Y. ERICKSEN SINTON PLANNING . Pubtehed in The Renton BOSH piticle Sep- eenbet 46, 9977, aAS5S 4 — ee gy <3 OR pets > & S S73 . THE CITY OF RENTON > srentiast? - MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 f=) e wll 2 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR @© PLANNING DEPARTMENT % © 235-2550 2, om "ay ve £0 seprt September 12, 1977 Mr. Ernest R. Coleman 222 Williams Ave. So. Renton, WA 98055 RE: NOTICE OF APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR APPLICATION FCR 3-LOT SHORT PLAT APPROVAL, EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REGARDING ACCESS, AND WAIVER OF ae SITE IMPROVEMENTS, Files No. 078-77, E-079-77, and \-080-77; property located along the west side of eadaw Ave. No. between No. 38th St. and No. 36th St. Dear Mr. Coleman: The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on September 6, 1977 . A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for September 27, 1977, at 9:00 a.m. Representatives of the applicant are asked to be present. All interested persons are invited to attend the hearing. If you have any further questions, please call the Renton Planning Department, 235-2550. Very truly yours, Gordon Y. Ericksen Planning Director » GYYL Ve, Michael CL. see JS Associate Planner MLS:wr cc: Kenneth J. Oyler NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON SEPTEMBER 27 » 19 77 _, AT 9:00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: 1. $.C.S. AND STIRSKEY HOLDINGS, REZONE FROM SR-1 TO R-2, File No. R-077-773; property located on south side of Puget Drive south of Rolling Hills Dr. between the powerline right-of-way and the Parkwood single family residence subdivision. 2. ERNEST R. COLEMAN, APPLICATIONS FOR THREE-LOT SHORT PLAT APPROVAL, EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REGARDING ACCESS, AND WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVE- MENTS; Files No. 078-77, E-079-77, and W-080-77; property located along the west side of Meadow Ave. No. between No. 38th St. and No. 36th St. 3. HILL-ROWE INVESTMENT CO., REZONE FROM G TO M-P, File No. R-081-77; property located on east side of W. Valley Rd. and north of S.W. 43rd St. directly south of Northwest Hobby and Toy Co. Legal descriptions of applications noted above are on file in the Renton Planning Department. INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT ALL INTERESTED PERSONS 10 E ‘i AT 9:00 A.M. TO 5 THE PUBLIC HEARING ON s EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. GORDON Y. ERICKSEN PUBLISHED September 16, 1977 RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION I, Michael L. Smith » HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before ies a Notary Public, on the \\ day of Seclewhar 1944 _. ~ SIGNED / \ oxi. mie Waaud MEMORANDUM DATE: September 21, 1977 TO: Planning Department - Mike Smith FROM: Traffic Engineering Division SUBJECT: E. Coleman Short Plat To bring the proposed plat into acceptable limits from the standard, keeping public safety and general welfare of the city upmost in our mind, we would recommend the proposed area be divided into two lots and the proposed roadway and adjacent roadway to the north be developed jointly to a minimum 32 foot width with a sidewalk on the south side. A division into two lots would be consistent with other property divisions in the vicinity. ainiwee CEM: ad SS Q» MEMORANDUM FROM THE DESK OF: FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU ~ - — ‘AN 9/22/77 RENTON FIRE DEPARTMENT “2 aot OWEKI X MKS ok EK x TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: E. COLEMAN SHORT PLAT QO. AN APPROVED WATER SUPPLY CAPABLE OF SUPPLYING REQUIRED FIRE FLOW FOR FIRE PROTECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED TO ALL PREMISES UPON WHICH BUILD NGS OR PORTIONS OF BUILDINGS ARE HEREAFTER CONSTRUCTED. WHEN ANY PORTION OF THE BUILDING PROTECTED 1S IN EXCESS OF 150' FROM A WATER SUPPLY ON A UBLIC STREET, THERE SHALL BE PRO- VIDED ON SITE FIRE HYDRANTS AND MAINS CAPABLE OF SUPPLYING THE REQUIRED FIRE FLOW. 2. EVERY BUILDING HEREAFTER CONSTRUCTED SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE TO FIRE DEPARTMENT APPARATUS BY WAY OF ACCESS ROADWAY WITH ALL WEATHER DRIVING SURFACE OF NOT LESS THAN 20' OF UNOBSTRUCTED WIDTH WITH ADEQUATE ROADWAY TURNING RADIUS CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING THE IMPOSED LOADS OF FIRE APPARATUS AND HAVING ~ MINIMUM OF Y 6" we) OF VERTICLE CLEARANCE. | z a / J é th E.V. WOOTON, JURey FIRE SPEnTOn 3 INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW REQUEST UBLIC WORKS DIRECTO BUILDING DIVISI ENGINEERING DIVISION 6.) CURAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION ( CUTILITIES DIVISION > ces Comments on mal oe eanianenten- — 2-CFIRE DEPARTMENT HEALTH DEPARTMENT TOR FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Micijast s#itid Contact Person RE: EB. CoremAn sHovT yay dt 077-77 Please review the attached information regarding the subject proposal and return it to the Planning Department by 4 Iino with your written recommendation. Your response will be included as part of the staff report to the Hearing Examiner. Thank you, PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 i Webel hac f ° Y. Pr-asletii AVE, f OE S ge s sa r e ‘ | | | 7 W) w Ex , SA w , Sl t t J tt e _— oe ot e tt ? eq i t i e s _ te s /' S = BI T (P r i v a t e ) = a | My , 4 ~ ~ AS - PZ O M W O S E D F2 L O A O VE DR : 78 ° 73 " 7E ° a” \ I ~< | Wy x As Se . | NP C EC a a | | 81 4 ‘ lw oS | | = % i ae A XS se 1 0 f \* t i j ~ : ) [ 78 28 zl 7g f" S 5 BS S V = 23 d : ja we n AE S gf f F if y “O N a A je s Se e sk i IG tM Le a 1 ie ! oh 4 / ts ro 7F \\ . SE P 2 18 7 7 | DE S C R I P T I O M . | TH E EA S T BI d ' OF TR A C T 99 CF C. L F U U L A E IG S ia e/ LA K E PV O A S H I N M E T O N GA L D E M H OF ED E N DI A N @, Uy , ee / EX C E P T TH E EA S T 80 ° OF FH E SO U T H 9S . ! ' QS DE R E E Y 1¢ /S Q F t Fu r wa t e r - — - 1¢ / SQ e T Fu r Se n e t . . KE N N E T H S OY L E R , CE EL S 29 5 - 3 0 4 0 . . | FO 0 . G o x 22 5 8 RE M T O W M VA S 98 0 5 S A Wa t e r bi n S' s OI , wA e Ha v e TO GE IM S Ta s t G B FF i 2 0 n } yy : 44 > <a es an ee e ta y r e r - >. Pa n e pJ G N Tr e n To oT Bm OR A Gy " Fa r r fa r k b- BE L MS A OS KE I T H OF PR O I R L E C To “o R w W w Sr o f r Le e Lm ! £, / 2 CO L E M A N 22 6 - b d o r FE Z bh a i AV E S , BS T C bi s GI E S MA L 2B . 1¢ 7 7 : | JO E Ne Sc A z e : (" = Z o ’ | 7 ft A l 7 RDEPARTNCNTAL FEVIEW REQUEST 10% ih, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Se BUILDING DIVISION — ENGINEERING DIVISION = et TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION ~ - —— 260, CUTILITIES DIVISION No common mie AATF IRE DEPARTMENT / HEALTH DEPARTMENT FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAtcase Sur Contact Person RE: i=. COLEMAN , IEACEPTIeD To SvBpiision) CYCDINAMCE Fee preivAne sTReET Ue ss THAW REQUIRED So Peer wo wipts. Fi £-079-77 Please review the attached information regarding the subject proposal and return it to the Planning Department by Gle/22 with your written recommendatios. Your response will be included as part of the staff report to the Hearing Examiner. Thank you, PLANNING DEPARTMENT an ; ; = v> ~y aN CWE On Jd oStNEd oN ix * \\ G " Date 7% 922 sep 22 tet | — \ “= o = | \ *, ese & i tf ee XS VIN per ee INTERDEPARTMENTAL FEVIEW REQUEST PUBLIC WORKS DIREC BUILDING DIVISION TO: CEN RAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISJON UTIL LULES DIVISION NO CommigneT FIRE DEPARTMENT HEALTH DEPARTMENT FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SNe _ spore 0 ntact Person 7 RE: GE. Ceusmand. WwAWee of OFF-SITE LMPPEv MENTE , . x Fis at Wi Of0-77 Please review the attached information regarding the subject proposal and return it to the Planning Department by GL l22 with your written recommendation. Your response will be included as part of the staff report to the Hearing Examiner. H Thank you, PLANNING DEPARTMENT i) } ae VA A ZL A. or A = rs - = z nf INE ARS = ? i\ iw : BN a a ‘ \ \ | b y U. \ 5 > Ua te a L \ i cop 82 4977 Date cA 1] ve { Dr! bute Lt ( \ J \ Kit / \e pnecnenennemennanenen® o a % Ay XS “ING Dt oh” PLAIN MING IDEPT re a Ke. Sat be _ . sale EN Gun EE le) la@ PDEs ga ae al be ps =. 22a, CPIL pte short pap f LSA oat pola a Byop irc bres a a <7) w ex 3 h u / Weary ta, of! 2 Ye Z ee. Ler fe rhetbdgtt Cin Tos Pros sdlect hone lat 28 Appraised, poad mersed £2-€ / LY (2 ¥ 10 pA eed toe LDA 42: ste wcltved att, L &, Pan ing’ ay ee sed adn Load den Ler a aa Oe ss 12. aha ess Lire dts é de Ln Lf /o-p i tOD ¢ wa Ze. fe Lf tree é “a f / : Coe, Caf27 [Dare fp TZ th al WISLE tet tore since poe , i yolad (ee potuadl. LA ahead, OAL Carte tat wth. Zs Crtan f ane eth ILA pence {2 tbe Fits aft / Thc. (7? ke C2? < Te Lo Lhe. Moree wgeosch aff i Prsnka we, PREC. wad te /2,% fe pobsan tf Cor etre Z Juz 2 sty 2.2 C994 Cy ttlen 9 Spe. a le std 3 sid €. A Abe Sede ; 7 ee 7 + We a Jus 5 cub. So a Oat Pie Lx piced. / a ue os Lm tut Lee Ses that Hz [PLE Pes sod [2 L fbaAduiIary {5 fr; 20l pst waite oz LYLE Bat if bngress ig Cspecutlly Src KYO fea. Att. A+ 3 73 jae “atd tele, i . ( - oe =r = ee ae ~ Teen Lens Gp Llitc ss a —~ io fis fein STOP STOP STOP’ STOP STOP! DOCUMENTS UNDER THIS NOTICE HAVE BEEN MICROFILMED. DO NOT REMOVE NOTICE FROM FILE. NEW FILING SHOULD BE ADDED ON TOP OF NOTICE. PAGES REMOVED UNDER THE NOTICE FOR COPYING MUST BE RETURNED TO THE SAME PLACE UNDER THE NOTICE. eee oT OP! STOP STOP STOP_ STOP 2h: SP 079-77 rad a + ay To; Members of the Renton City Council Res Appeal of Land Use Gxaminer's Decision, dtd, 10/5/77 Short Plat 078-77, &mest Coleman Dear Council Memberss On December 2/, 19/7, we the undersigned submitted a letter to the council with the required $25.00 fee to appeal the Land Use Hearing Baminer's decision listed above.e However, since we are in concurrence with the Hearing Examiner's reconsideration decision (dtd. 1/25/76 and sent to Mr. & Mrs. Sherwood Martin and Parties of Record) approving a Short Plat of two single family lots, there is no reason to pursue the appeal. Therefore, if the reconsideration is upheld by the council we withdraw our appeal. pale, Mea dowe iAV Ge Ne Ren ton 5713 Meadow Ave. Ne Ren ton anes Ce Baker Z 5709 Meadow. Ave. Ne Ren ton 5709 Meadow Ave. Ne Joan Le Moffatt fen ton Se <li fat Cente ¥ al fier oo # Renton City Council 3/6/78 Page 5 Correspondence and Current Business - Continued Open Space to King County. The letter explained the application request for Application current use taxation status for certain greenbelt/open space areas Continued within the existing Victoria Park Subdivision, being owned by the (OSC- 108-77) Victoria Park Homeowner's Association. Ericksen's letter explained state law requires the application be reviewed and acted upon by a joint committee of three City Council persons and three County Council persons. The letter further stated the Planning Department concurred in the City Attorney's opinion that the subject application is not an appropriate open space request and should be denied. Dennis Stremick, 2532 Smithers Ave. S., Renton, used a wall map and explained areas for which open space status was requested: Children's Park and greenbelt, both classed as recreational; three path areas providing access to Talbot Hill Elementary School, the greenbelt and City park. Mr. Stremick explained no fences or restrictions and area open; explaining City Park Comprehensive Plan description of private open spaces in the Talbot area. Stremick asked that the Council grant the open space classification. MOVED BY PERRY, SECONDED BY SHANE, COUNCIL REFER THE REQUEST TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMIT- TEE FOR REVIEW AND REPORT BACK. CARRIED. Appeal Withdrawn= Letter from James C. and Charmaine C. Baker, 3713 Meadow Ave. N., re SP 078-77 >and Robert L. and Joan L. Moffatt, 3709 Meadow Ave. N., withdrew Examiner's appeal of Hear Examiner's decision of 10/5/77 regarding the Ernest Reconsideration S Coleman Short Plat 078-77, on the condition that the reconsideration decision by the Hearing Examiner (1/25/78) be upheld by the City Council. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE REQUEST AND GRANT REFUND OF THE $25 FILING FEE. CARRIED. Public Use Areas Letter from Kenneth and Helga Karinen, 2705 NE 6th Place, requested Renton Highlands clean up of the Public Use Area located in Block 19, Lot 2, Renton Highlands, suggesting either clean up by the City or adjacent prop- erty owners. The letter noted hazardous conditions to small children warrant immediate action. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHANE, REFER THE MATTER TO THE ADMINISTRATION. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Councilman Stredicke called attention to State Highway Department State Hwy. Dept. meeting (see schedule), requesting the State be advised to reverse Re I-405 priorities and give first consideration to I-405 from No. 30th to Tukwila. Mayor Delaurenti advised he plans attendance at meeting. Meeting Extended The scheduled Ae | time of 11:00 p.m. having arrived, it was MOVED BY CLYMER, SECUNDED THORPE, COUNCIL CONTINUE MEETING. CARRIED. S. 7th Street Upon inquiry by Councilman Stredicke re S. 7th St. at Grady Way, Pub- at Grady Way lic Works Director Gonnason advised street closure due to building Opened project by Milmanco, that only 30 ft. right-of-way exists, that with the opening of the Talbot Road Extension that portion of S. 7th needed for local access only. MOVED BY SHANE, SECOND STREDICKE, STREET BE OPENED. CARRIED. Board of MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND THORPE, THE ORDINANCE CREATING THE BOARD OF Public Works PUBLIC WORKS BE REFERRED TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW AND REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL. CARRIED. Executive Session MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL HOLD EXECUTIVE SESSION RE LAND ACQUISITION. CARRIED. Council went into Executive Session at 11:20 p.m. and ended the session at 11:30. Roll Call: All Council Members present as previously shown. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND PERRY, MEETING ADJOURN. CARRIED. 11:30 p.m. Libor 4. Delores A. Mead, City Clerk OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK BID OPENING DEMOLITION OF OLD EARLINGTON SCHOOL March 1, 1978 s+ ee & March 6, 1978 Contractor BB AA Base Bid Alternate Bid Tine EEO W/O ST W/O ST Center Dozing, Inc. X XxX $7,500.00 $6,500.00 10 days 2117 S.W. 114th X Seattle, WA 98146 Iconco XX $6,000.00 $8,380.00 30 days 800 S. Kenyon St. X Seattle, WA 98108 Meridian Excavating & Wrecking X X $6,890.00 $11,800.00 15 days 911 North 141st cc; xX Seattle, WA 98133 R. W. Rhine, Inc. X xX $7,800.00 No Bid 10 days 1124 E. 112th St. X Tacoma, WA 98445 Base Bid: disposal at the contractor's discretion. Demolish the Old Earlington School retaining all salvageable material for Alternate Bid: Demolish the Old Earlington School disposing of all salvageable materials with the exception of the brick which will be piled in a uniform pile on the site for the future use of the owner. ——OFEICE OF THE CITY CLERK Marcn:-6, 1978 BID TABULATION SHEET PRO JECT * Lind Ave, - LID #302, Grading & Earthwork DATE * Pebruary 28, 1978 Eng. Estimate $810,000.00 BIODEFR BB EE Bio x Scarsella Bros., Inc. X XI] Sched. I $661,123.00 P.O. Box 08388 Seattle, Wa, 98188 ‘ Sched. II $545,443.00 h | | - x M. A. Segale, Inc. X | Sched, I $770,998.20 P.O. Box 88050 ! 1 lukwila. wa 921828 Sched. II $607 , 813.20 ~A, > . THE CITY OF RENTON - MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 he CHARLES J. DELAURENT! , MAYOR e DELORES A. MEAD ¢ CITY CLERK March 7, 1978 Mr. Robert L. Moffatt 3709 Meadow Ave. N. Renton, WA 98055 Re: Rebate of Appeal Fee, Hearing Examiner's Decision, 10/5/77, Coleman Short Plat 078-77 Dear Mr. Moffatt: The Renton City Council, at its regular meeting of March 6, 1978, concurred in your request to withdraw appeal, and authorized rebate of the appeal fee as above-referenced. City of Renton Treasurer's Check No. 1204 in sum of $25.00 is enclosed. Please sign acknowledgement of receipt on second copy of this letter and return in the enclosed self-addressed envelope. Thanks for your transmittal courtesies. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON Delores A. Mead City Clerk DAM: jt Enclosure I hereby acknowledge receipt of City of Renton Treasurer's Check in Sum of Twenty-Five Dollars ($25.00) Missdifil 22D hod (Geant): INTER-OFFICE MEMO DA_. March 7, 1978 TO: Finance Department FROM: Del Mead, City Clerk Re: Rebate of Appeal Fee, Hearing Examiner's Decision, 10/5/77, Coleman Short Plat The Renton City Council, at fits regular meeting of March 6, 1978, authorized rebate of the fee for the above-captioned appeal. Please make out check to Robert Moffatt for $25.00 and give to the City Clerk's Office for transmittal. tp A % THE CITY OF RENTON 3S MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 2 CHARLES J. DELAURENT! , MAYOR ° DELORES A. MEAD & CITY CLERK March 7, 1978 Mr. Robert L. Moffatt 3709 Meadow Ave. N. Renton, WA 98055 Re: Rebate of Appeal Fee, Hearing Examiner's Decision, 10/5/77, Coleman Short Plat 078-77 Dear Mr. Moffatt: The Renton City Council, at its regular meeting of March 6, 1978, concurred in your request to withdraw appeal, and authorized rebate of the appeal fee as above-referenced. City of Renton Treasurer's Check No. 1204 in sum of $25.00 is enclosed. Please sign acknowledgement of receipt on second copy of this letter and return in the enclosed self-addressed envelope. Thanks for your transmittal courtesies. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON Delores A. Mead City Clerk DAM: jt Enclosure . I hereby acknowledge receipt of City C cat : of Renton Treasurer's Check in Sum of Gl (Parry Twenty-Five Dollars ($25.00) . Dyarer’/ _ Robert Moffatt TO: Finance Department INTER-OFFICE MEMO && March 7, 1978 FROM: Del Mead, City Clerk Rebate of Appeal Fee, Hearing Examiner's Decision, 10/5/77, Coleman Short Plat Re: The Renton City Council, at its regular meeting of March 6, 1978, authorized rebate of the fee for the above-captioned appeal. Please make out check to Robert Moffatt for $25.00 and give to the City Clerk's Office for transmittal. aNt4 ya. LM ee " arr “CO Dye 2 on aoe os . ; aS ® O D\ io; Mewbers of the Renton City Council [2 a, XV @ 20 ~ Go SOS fo 5 sme woe aie ieee i eee 1 OO SLE Res Appeal of Land Jse Axaminer's Decision, utd. 10/5/7/ es <> SHS Snort Plat 075-77, &mest Coleman VELL GU be oar “s! COL! ti ay Ay wear Council Memberss eee On Cccemver 2/, 19//, we toe undersigned submitted a ietter w We council with the required $25.00 fee to appeal the Land Use dAearing pauiner's decision listed above. However, since we ure in concurrence wits Wwe Hearing a@saminer's recocsideration decision (uid. 1/24/76 ang sent to Mr. & Mrs. Gherwood Martin and Parties of Record) approving a Short Plat of two single family lots, there is no reason to pursue tie appeale : Moecoiorey if the reconsideration is upheld by the council we witndraw )Ur ACR CALS 57135 Meadows AVee Ne Ren ton 5715 Meadow ave. Ne Ren ton 2({09 Meadow. Ave. Ne Ren ton 2109 Meadow Ave. Ne Joan Le. Mofiatt gen ton aan x. Ss . March 3, 1978 Mr. Ernest R. Coleman 222 Williams Ave. So. Renton, WA 98055 Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Reconsideration Decision dated January 25, 1978, Appeal Fee of $25.00 Filed Dear Mr. Coleman: Enclosed is City of Renton Treasurer's Check #1203 in sum of $25.00 which constitutes rebate of above appeal fee, the City Council direct- ing return of the fee and dismissal of appeal in view of timing fac- tor. We attach, for your further information, excerpt of Minutes of the proceedings of the Renton City Council Meeting of rekware 27, 1978 concerning the matter. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON Delores A. Mead City Clerk DAM: jt Enclosures SAD Pay % . THE CITY OF RENTON o MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 [) wall & CHARLES J. DELAURENT! , MAYOR e DELORES A. MEAD a CITY CLERK s "ED sepre™ INTER-OFFICE MEMO TO: Finance Department DATE March 3, 1978» FROM: Del Mead, City Clerk The Renton City Council, at its meeting of February 27, 1978, authorize the return of the appeal fee of $25.00 to Ernest Coleman - SP 078-77. Please issue the check to the Clerk's Office for transmittal. RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting February 27, 1978 Municipal Building Monday, 8:00 P. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL ROLL CALL OF STAFF MINUTE APPROVAL Introduction AUDIENCE COMMENT Undergrounding of Utilities in Monterey Terrace Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision Ernest Coleman Short Plat 078-77 E-079-77 and W-080-77 Appeal Dismissed M. Council Chambers MINUTES Mayor Charles Delaurenti led the Pledge of Allegiance and called the regular meeting of the Renton City Council to order. EARL CLYMER, Council President; GEORGE J. PERRY, PATRICIA M. SEYMOUR-THORPE, RICHARD M. STREDICKE, BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, CHARLES SHANE AND THOMAS W. TRIMM. C. J. DELAURENTI, Mayor; GWEN MARSHALL, Finance Director; DEL MEAD, City Clerk; LAWRENCE WARREN, Acting City Attorney; GORDON Y. ERICKSEN, Planning Director; WARREN GONNASON, Public Works Director; RICHARD GEISSLER, Fire Chief; CAPT. BOURASA, Police Rep., DONALD CUSTER, Administrative Assistant. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND PERRY, COUNCIL APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 1978 AND FEBRUARY 6, 1978 AS WRITTEN AND MAILED. CARRIED. Mayor Delaurenti introduced Superior Court Judge G. M. Shellan. Logan Garrison, 75 Monterey Drive NE, called attention to petition on Consent Agenda against formation of undergrounding L.I.D. in Monterey Terrace. Mr. Garrison reported a petition favoring the formation of a Local Improvement District had been filed with the Clerk 2/24, but was too late for this evening's agenda. Mr. Garrison submitted copies of four letterswithdrawing names from the petition against the LID and originals attached to petition for the LID which will be submitted to Council 3/6/78. Councilman Stredicke made in- quiry re 2/16/78 meeting held in the Renton Library, being advised the meeting consisted of Monterey Terrace residents moderated by Mike Schultz, President of Monterey Terrace Community Club, with no City participation. Randy Rockhill, 116 Capri NE, favored the LID and submitted letter to that effect. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND THORPE, MATTER OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING IN MONTEREY TERRACE BE REFERRED TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE FOR RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING AND ALL OTHER MATTERS TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. CARRIED. (See later petition - Consent Agenda. ) Attorney C.P. Curran, representing Ernest R. Coleman, Short Plat 078-77, Exception 079-77 and Waiver 080-77 asked the matter of Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Coleman Short Plat be removed from the agenda for consideration. Mr. Curran objected to the reopening of appeal period by the Examiner after Mr. Coleman had been advised that the short plat was granted and matter not appealed. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL SUSPEND RULES AND ADVANCE THE APPEAL ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION AT THIS TIME ALONG WITH THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning and Development Committee Chairman Perry presented committee report noting review of the Examiner's written decision, findings and conclusions of 1/25/78 regarding reconsideration deci- sion of the Examiner. The report explained the 14-day appeal period; that the appellant's Notice of Appeal dated 2/7/78 was not accom- panied by the fee of $25 required by Section 4-3016. The committee report concluded and recommended that the Council conclude that appel- lant has failed to perfect his appeal as required by Section 4-3016. The committee report recommended that the Council dismiss the appeal for failure to perfect the appeal in a timely fashion; also that the Council direct the City Clerk to refund the appeal fee. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. * Discussion ensued; Charmaine Baker explained 12/23/77 appeal of Examiner's decision filed by Mr. & Mrs. J. Baker and Mr. and Mrs. R. Moffat. *ROLL CALL: 5-AYE: CLYMER, PERRY, THORPE, SHINPOCH, TRIMM; 2-NO: STREDICKE AND SHANE. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING Springbrook Annexation This being the date set and proper notices having been published and posted according to law, Mayor Delaurenti opened the public hearing to consider the 75% petition for annexation of 231.8 acres to the City. Renton City Council 2/27/78 Page 2 Public Hearing - Continued Springbrook Annexation Continued Continued Continued Springbrook area located in the vicinity South of S.W. 43rd/Carr Road and East of SR-167 and North of S. 192nd St. Letter from the City Clerk explained the 75% petition had been presented to Council 1/9/78 and public hearing date set; that the petition has been certified valid by the Planning Department and contains signatures representing ownership of 75.6% of the total assessed valuation, at least 75% being required by law. The letter explained that at preliminary meeting held 12/20/76, the Council authorized circulation of the petition, at which time the owners agreed to accept: (1) the City's Comprehensive Plan; (2) the proposed zoning; and (3) any pre- existing bonded indebtedness of the City. The letter noted Council's responsibility to determine whether to accept the annexation as petitioned, that if accepted the Planning Department should be authorized to file Notice of Intent with the King County Boundary Review Board. Planning Director Ericksen noted maps and other data sheets available to the public, showed slides and explained data of the area, i.e. population 75, approximately 25 properties, King County Zoning SR and RM-900, Renton Comprehensive Plan single family and low and medium density multi-family; reasons for annexa- tion - obtain utilities to allow development and County permit process bogged down. Planning Director Ericksen explained that the annexation will create a County island of the Valley freeway between SW 43rd and SE 192nd Ave. due to annexation by the City of Kent to the Valley freeway, therefore, a resolution has been requested to annex that property. Ericksen noted the Boundary Review Board has advised the municipal method of annexation as there are no residents of the freeway area and both annexations can be incorporated into one notice of intent. Upon inquiry, Planning Director Ericksen advised Renton water and sewer franchises in northern half of annexation. Persons present making inquiries: Jeffery Larson, 19040 106th SE, inquired of eastern boundary. Roy Fournier, 18404 Springbrook Rd., advised being one ofinitiators and that eastern boundary was Section line. Robert Wilson, 9920 S. 192nd, inquired re greenbelt designa- tion of hillside, being advised intent to preserve as natural buffer due to severe topography, that low density or open space allowed. Grover Shedgrudd, 18216 Talbot Rd.S., opposed annexation. Warren Diamond, 18624 Springbrook Rd., expressed concern of commercial devel- opment. Mrs. Hayes, 19006 Springbrook Rd., inquired re size of green- belt area lots, being advised 220'x 220'. rs. Hayes also inquired of water pressure and was advised by Public Works Director Gonnason of need for installation of pumping station which would be installed at homeowners expense. OQwen Bing, 19034 Talbot Rd.S., inquired re fire hydrants and electric fences, being advised of fire truck tank capa- city, that hydrants would be installed on LID basis, also of Fire District mutual aid agreements. The question of valid petition was raised by Grover Shegrudd, and upon further inquiry, Planning Director Ericksen reported certification of petition as those on tax records as required by law. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND CLYMER, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. * Councilwoman Thorpe requested inclusion of comments to her inquiry re fire and safety: Fire Chief Geissler reported mutual aid with Fire District 40 until area growth requires building of fire station to the South of Benson or hospital area; Police Capt. Bourasa advised no increase in staff would be required at the present time for coverage of area. Upon further Thorpe inquiry re State pit area, Planning Director Ericksen advised the State does not have to comply with City zoning, however, Erickson noted the pit area may be sold and new owner would have to comply with City regulations. *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND STREDICKE, COUNCIL AUCEPT ANNEXATION AND REFER MATTER TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR PREPARATION OF PROPER RECORDS AND FILING WITH THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD. Councilman Shane opposed annexation pending determination that services to the area will not be at the expense of present taxpayers. Councilwoman Thorpe requested inclusion of her inquiries for the record, that though the people in area would like to see it remain in present rural state, both Staff report and Comprehensive Plan show the area will develop; that the connection to City water will not improve pressure without pump station é OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY e RENTON,WASHINGTON POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING © RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 255-8678 LAWRENCE J.WARREN, city attorney DANIEL KELLOGG, assistant city ATTORNEY February 27, 1978 MEMORANDUM TO: COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE RE: File No. Short Plat 078-77, Exception 079-77, and Waiver 080-77: Ernest R. Coleman Appeal of Examiner's Reconsideration Decision dated January 25, 1978 The Planning and Development Committee has examined the records and Hearing Examiner's Written Decision, Findings and Conclusions dated January 25, 1978 regarding the above appeal. I. COMMITTEE FINDINGS: The Committee finds and recommends that the City Council find as follows: 1. The reconsideration decision of the Hearing Examiner was rendered on January 25, 1978. 2. The period of time allowed by Section 4-3016 for submittal of a Notice of Appeal from that decision expired with the close of business on February 8, 1978. 3. The appellant's Notice of Appeal dated February 7, 1978 was received by the Office of the Hearing Examiner on February 8, 1978. The Notice of Appeal was not accompanied by the appeal fee of $25.00 required by Section 4-3016. II. COMMITTEE CONCLUSIONS : The Committee concludes, and recommends that the City Council conclude, based upon the above findings, that the appellant has failed to perfect his appeal as required by Section 4-3016. é @ IIL. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS : The Committee recommends that the City Council dismiss the appeal for failure to perfect the appeal in a timely fashion. The Committee also recommends that the City Council direct the City Clerk to refund the appeal fee. George Perry Barbara Shinpoch Patricia Seymour-Thorpe _. © So of Rey A ’ fo) THE CITY OF RENTON bold z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 fa) worn = CHARLES J. DELAURENTL, MAYOR @ LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER : pare e GAO 7S L. RICK BEELER, 235-2593 > we ae “QB ED septt 7 February 15, 1978 ee cc Members, Renton City Council \ c® Renton, Washington rw © ERS RE: Appeal of Examiner's Deciskon; /Frngat-n. Coleman, Short Plat #078-77, E-079-77, and W-080-77. —— Dear Council Members: The attached letter of appeal regarding the referenced application, the Examiner's Report and Decision, and all correspondence relating to the subject request are being forwarded for your review and are listed in chronological order as follows: 1. Examiner's Report and Decision, dated October 5, 1977, recommending approval of a three-lot configuration, approval of the exception request, and disapproval of the waiver of off-site improvement of paving. The date of October 19, 1977 was established for expiration of the appeal period. 2. Letter to Mr. Ernest Coleman from the Examiner, dated October 20, 1977; notification of transmittal of unappealed application to the City Clerk for final filing. 3. Letter to Mr. Coleman and parties of record from the Examiner, dated December 12, 1977; notification that due to the necessity for clarification of Decision No. 1 due to a discrepancy in referencing Exhibit #3, and upon advice of the City Attorney, a new appeal period for the application was being established to expire on December 27, 1977. 4. Letter to the Examiner from Mr. & Mrs. James Baker and Mr. & Mrs. Robert Moffatt, dated December 23, 1977; appeal of the Examiner's decision. 5. Letter to the Examiner from Mr. & Mrs. Sherwood Martin, dated December 27, 1977; request for reconsideration by the Examiner. 6. Letter to Mr. & Mrs. Sherwood Martin from the Examiner, dated January 6, 1978; notification of acceptance of request for reconsideration, and intent to obtain additional pertinent information from the Traffic Engineering Division. 7. Letter to the Examiner from Mr. Ernest Coleman, dated January 13, 1978; objection to reopening appeal period. 8. Letter to Mr. & Mrs. Sherwood Martin from the Examiner, dated January 25, 1978; findings of reconsideration including recommendation for a two-lot configuration and access revisions accompanied by attached memoranda from the Examiner, dated January 6, 1978, and Public Works Department, dated January 19, 1978. . & Members, Renton City Council Page Two February 15, 1978 oi. Letter to the Examiner from Mr. Ernest Coleman, dated February 7, 1978; request for reconsideration or appeal. 10. Letter to Mr. Coleman from the Examiner, dated February 8, 1978; request for clarification of applicant's intent to appeal or request reconsideration. al Letter to the Examiner from law firm of Curran, Kleweno, Johnson & Curran, representing Mr. Ernest Coleman, dated February 13, 1978; appeal to the City Council. The attached letters and report are correspondingly numbered to the previously listed chronology for reference. If you require additional information or assistance regarding this matter, please contact the undersigned. Res, fi A L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: Planning Department City Clerk Attachments (11) RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting February 27, 1978 Municipal Building Monday, 8:00 P. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL ROLL CALL OF STAFF MINUTE APPROVAL Introduction AUDIENCE COMMENT Undergrounding of Utilities in Monterey Terrace Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision Ernest Coleman Short Plat 078-77 E-079-77 and W-080-77 Appeal Dismissed PUBLIC HEARING Springbrook Annexation M. Council Chambers MINUTES Mayor Charles Delaurenti led the Pledge of Allegiance and called the regular meeting of the Renton City Council to order. EARL CLYMER, Council President; GEORGE J. PERRY, PATRICIA M. SEYMOUR-THORPE, RICHARD M. STREDICKE, BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, CHARLES SHANE AND THOMAS W. TRIMM. C. J. DELAURENTI, Mayor; GWEN MARSHALL, Finance Director; DEL MEAD, City Clerk; LAWRENCE WARREN, Acting City Attorney; GORDON Y. ERICKSEN, Planning Director; WARREN GONNASON, Public Works Director; RICHARD GEISSLER, Fire Chief; CAPT. BOURASA, Police Rep., DONALD CUSTER, Administrative Assistant. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND PERRY, COUNCIL APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 1978 AND FEBRUARY 6, 1978 AS WRITTEN AND MAILED. CARRIED. Mayor Delaurenti introduced Superior Court Judge G. M. Shellan. Logan Garrison, 75 Monterey Drive NE, called attention to petition on Consent Agenda against formation of undergrounding L.1.D. in Monterey Terrace. Mr. Garrison reported a petition favoring the formation of a Local Improvement District had been filed with the Clerk 2/24, but was too late for this evening's agenda. Mr. Garrison submitted copies of four letterswithdrawing names from the petition against the LID and originals attached to petition for the LID which will be submitted to Council 3/6/78. Councilman Stredicke made in- quiry re 2/16/78 meeting held in the Renton Library, being advised the meeting consisted of Monterey Terrace residents moderated by Mike Schultz, President of Monterey Terrace Community Club, with no City participation. Randy Rockhill, 116 Capri NE, favored the LID and submitted letter to that effect. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND THORPE, MATTER OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING IN MONTEREY TERRACE BE REFERRED TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE FOR RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING AND ALL OTHER MATTERS TO THE PUBLIC oo DEPARTMENT. CARRIED. (See later petition - Consent Agenda. Attorney C.P. Curran, representing Ernest R. Coleman, Short Plat 078-77, Exception 079-77 and Waiver 080-77 asked the matter of Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Coleman Short Plat be removed from the agenda for consideration. Mr. Curran objected to the reopening of appeal period by the Examiner after Mr. Coleman had been advised that the short plat was granted and matter not appealed. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL SUSPEND RULES AND ADVANCE THE APPEAL ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION AT THIS TIME ALONG WITH THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning and Development Committee Chairman Perry presented committee report noting review of the Examiner's written decision, findings and conclusions of 1/25/78 regarding reconsideration deci- sion of the Examiner. The report explained the 14-day appeal period; that the appellant's Notice of Appeal dated 2/7/78 was not accom- panied by the fee of $25 required by Section 4-3016. The committee report concluded and recommended that the Council conclude that appel- lant nas failed to perfect his appeal as required by Section 4-3016. The committee report recommended that the Council dismiss the appeal for failure to perfect the appeal in a timely fashion; also that the Council direct the City Clerk to refund the appeal fee. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. * Discussion ensued; Charmaine Baker explained 12/23/77 appeal of Examiner's decision filed by Mr. & Mrs. J. Baker and Mr. and Mrs. R. Moffat. *ROLL CALL: 5-AYE: CLYMER, PERRY, THORPE, SHINPOCH, TRIMM; 2-NO: STREDICKE AND SHANE. MOTION CARRIED. This being the date set and proper notices having been published and posted according to law, Mayor Delaurenti opened the public hearing to consider the 75% petition for annexation of 231.8 acres to the City. Renton City Council 2/27/78 Page 2 Public Hearing - Continued Springbrook Annexation Continued Continued Continued Springbrook area located in the vicinity South of S.W. 43rd/Carr Road and East of SR-167 and North of S. 192nd St. Letter from the City Clerk explained the 75% petition had been presented to Council 1/9/78 and public hearing date set; that the petition has been certified valid by the Planning Department and contains signatures representing ownership of 75.6% of the total assessed valuation, at least 75% being required by law. The letter explained that at preliminary meeting held 12/20/76, the Council authorized circulation of the petition, at which time the owners agreed to accept: (1) the City's Comprehensive Plan; (2) the proposed zoning; and (3) any pre- existing bonded indebtedness of the City. The letter noted Council's responsibility to determine whether to accept the annexation as petitioned, that if accepted the Planning Department should be authorized to file Notice of Intent with the King County Boundary Review Board. Planning Director Ericksen noted maps and other data sheets available to the public, showed slides and explained data of the area, i.e. population 75, approximately 25 properties, King County Zoning SR and RM-900, Renton Comprehensive Plan single family and low and medium density multi-family; reasons for annexa- tion - obtain utilities to allow development and County permit process bogged down. Planning Director Ericksen explained that the annexation will create a County island of the Valley freeway between SW 43rd and SE 192nd Ave. due to annexation by the City of Kent to the Valley freeway, therefore, a resolution has been requested to annex that property. Ericksen noted the Boundary Review Board has advised the municipal method of annexation as there are no residents of the freeway area and both annexations can be incorporated into one notice of intent. Upon inquiry, Planning Director Ericksen advised Renton water and sewer franchises in northern half of annexation. Persons present making inquiries: Jeffery Larson, 19040 106th SE, inquired of eastern boundary. Roy Fournier, 18404 Springbrook Rd., advised being one ofinitiators and that eastern boundary was Section line. Robert Wilson, 9920 S. 192nd, inquired re greenbelt designa- tion of hillside, being advised intent to preserve as natural buffer due to severe topography, that low density or open space allowed. Grover Shedgrudd, 18216 Talbot Rd.S., opposed annexation. Warren Diamond, 18624 Springbrook Rd., expressed concern of commercial devel- opment. Mrs. Hayes, 19006 Springbrook Rd., inquired re size of green- belt area lots, being advised 220'x 220'. ‘irs. Hayes also inquired of water pressure and was advised by Public Works Director Gonnason of need for installation of pumping station which would be installed at homeowners expense. Owen Bing, 19034 Talbot Rd.S., inquired re fire hydrants and electric fences, being advised of fire truck tank capa- city, that hydrants would be installed on LID basis, also of Fire District mutual aid agreements. The question of valid petition was raised by Grover Shegrudd, and upon further inquiry, Planning Director Ericksen reported certification of petition as those on tax records as required by law. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND CLYMER, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. * Councilwoman Thorpe requested inclusion of comments to her inquiry re fire and safety: Fire Chief Geissler reported mutual aid with Fire District 40 until area growth requires building of fire station to the South of Benson or hospital area; Police Capt. Bourasa advised no increase in staff would be required at the present time for coverage of area. Upon further Thorpe inquiry re State pit area, Planning Director Ericksen advised the State does not have to comply with City zoning, however, Erickson noted the pit area may be sold and new owner would have to comply with City regulations. *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND STREDICKE, COUNCIL ACCEPT ANNEXATION AND REFER MATTER TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR PREPARATION OF PROPER RECORDS AND FILING WITH THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD. Councilman Shane opposed annexation pending determination that services to the area will not be at the expense of present taxpayers. Councilwoman Thorpe requested inclusion of her inquiries for the record, that though the people in area would like to see it remain in present rural state, both Staff report and Comprehensive Plan show the area will develop; that the connection to City water will not improve pressure without pump station OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY o RENTON,WASHINGTON POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING @ RENTON. WASHINGTON 98055 255-8678 LAWRENCE J.WARREN, city attorney DANIEL KELLOGG, assistant city ATTORNEY February 27, 1978 MEMORAN DU M TO: COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE RE: File No. Short Plat 078-77, Exception 079-77, and Waiver 080-77: Ernest R. Coleman Appeal of Examiner's Reconsideration Decision dated January 25, 1978 The Planning and Development Committee has examined the records and Hearing Examiner's Written Decision, Findings and Conclusions dated January 25, 1978 regarding the above appeal. I. COMMITTEE FINDINGS: The Committee finds and recommends that the City Council find as follows: l. The reconsideration decision of the Hearing Examiner was rendered on January 25, 1978. 2. The period of time allowed by Section 4-3016 for submittal of a Notice of Appeal from that decision expired with the close of business on February 8, 1978. 3. The appellant's Notice of Appeal dated February 7, 1978 was received by the Office of the Hearing Examiner on February 8, 1978. The Notice of Appeal was not accompanied by the appeal fee of $25.00 required by Section 4-3016. II. COMMITTEE CONCLUSIONS: The Committee concludes, and recommends that the City Council conclude, based upon the above findings, that the appellant has failed to perfect his appeal as required by Section 4-3016. III. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS : The Committee recommends that the City Council dismiss the appeal for failure to perfect the appeal in a timely fashion. Committee also recommends that the City Council direct the City Clerk to refund the appeal fee. George Perry The Barbara Shinpoch Patricia Seymour-Thorpe JAMES P. CURRAN CHARLES PETER CURRAN MELVIN L. KLEWENO, JR. STEPHEN L. JOHNSON THOMAS O. McELMEEL February 24, 1978 RE: LAW OFFICES Curran, Kleweno., elohnson 6 Curran 213 424 AVENUE SOUTH TELEPHONES POST OFFICE BOX 26 (206) 852-2345 (206) 852-2346 Kent, Washington 95021 Renton City Council Members Charles J. Delaurenti, Mayor, City of Renton L. Rich Beeler, Hearing Examiner, City of Renton Del Mead, City Clerk, City of Renton pa E..R. Coleman, Short Plat Ladies and Gentlemen: Enclosed find a copy of a memorandum of law prepared by my research assistant on the above matter. CPC:mb ENG. Yours truly, CURRAN, FLEWENO, JOHNSON & CURRAN By Chon S? Capsan Charles Peter Curran LOR Peter Curran FROM: Pat Curran, Legal Intern RE: E. R. Coleman, Short Plat - City of Renton DATE: 2/23/78 You have asked me to examine the law of the State of Washington to determine whether the actions taken by the City of Renton with respect to the E. R. Coleman Short Plat have been done in accordance with the law of the State of Washington. State of Washington. I have read entirely the writings and documents prepared by both Mr. Coleman as well as the City of Renton Hearing Examiner and City Clerk. JI have reviewed the ruling of the Hearing Examiner dated Oct. 5th as well as his letter of October 20th, 1977, declaring the matter to be final. City of Renton Ordinance 4-3010 states as follows, "Duties of Hearing Examiner - Applications, the Examiner shall receive and examine available information... prepare a record thereof, and enter findings of fact and conclusions based upon those facts, which conclusions shall represent the final action on the application unless appealed...for the following types of application: (1) short plats." I have underlined the words final action on the application unless appealed because I believe the words final action are especially pertinent to this research. I believe that such powers given to the Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner places him in the very same position aS various City and State Departments which have been given by statute or ordinance both original and exclusive jurisdiction to consider and make final decisions on matters that come before them pursuant to such statutes or ordinances. Our court has considered similar cases on three(3) occasions as ‘near as I can determine. On each occasion they have denied the right of the Department to arbitrarily re-open a proceeding after the appeal time has expired. In Abraham v. Dept. of Labor and Industries the Department had entered its final order awarding a pension to the plaintiff. Later, after the appeal time expired the Department discovered law which seemed to make their final order erroneous. Page 1 The Department re-opened the matter and entered an order denying the pension. In reversing the act of the Department, our Court ruled: "Since the Department is the original and sole tribunal with power to so determine the facts, and its findings are reviewable only on appeal, it must follow that a judgment by it,...is final and ‘conclusive upon the Department and upon the claimant unless set aside on an appeal authorized by the statute, or unless fraud, or something of like nature, which equity recognizes as sufficient to vacate a judgment has intervened." Abraham v. Dept. of Labor and Industries, 178 Wn. 160. While the case seems to give some right to the Department to re-open in the event of fraud or where equity requires it, the facts of the Coleman case do not seem to offer that opportunity. Here, Exhibit 3 is specifically referred to in the ruling. Exhibit 3 calls for a three lot subdivision and the Examiner says he intended to approve a three lot subdivision in his letter of Dec. 12, 1977. Fraud or equity do not seem to arise. Certainly under no circumstances does it appear that the City can conjure up a set of rules which permit 3rd parties appeal rights after the appeal rights have expired. In the case of Knestis vs. Unemployment Comp. Division, 16 Wn. 2d 577 (1943), the Department made a final ruling finding that Knestis was not required to contribute to the Unemployment Comp. Fund. Again, after the appeal time had expired the Department discovered law which made it clear that the contributions were due. They re-opened and ordered payment of the funds. The Superior Court Judge ruled that when the statute plainly said that the decision was final 30 days after date of notification or mailing, in the absence of an appeal during that time, then the Department cannot set aside that final order. The Supreme Court dealing with the Department's appeal said: "The question is not one of appealability but of finality of the Commissioners decision...The determinative factor is not whether the Commissioner has the right to appeal, but is instead if and when the...decision becomes final. The Department cannot appeal from its own decision. Their determination... is final and (they) are without power to set aside that decision." [Emphasis added. ] Obviously then, it is not appropriate for the City Council to step into the matter. Lastly, in the case of Shannon v. Sponburgh, 66° Wn.2d 135 (1965), a final order was entered by the Liquor Board authorizing the relocation of a tavern on Magnolia Hill. Page 2 And, again, like in this case, after the appeal time expired, disgruntled neighbors began pressuring the Liquor Board on the matter. The Liquor Board re-opened the case and revoked its prior permit. Our Court in that case quoted directly from our statute and New York and Conneticut cases, as follows: "Once the Board's decision was made to give its consent and it had conveyed the same in writing to the relator, the only remaining act to be done (apart from inspecting the premises to see that remodeling conformed to the furnished sketch) was the purely ministerial act of typing a different address on a piece of paper. R.C.W. 66.08.150 quoted above provides inter alia: Save as in this title otherwise provided the action, order or decision of the board as to any permit or license shall be final. - . . . (Italics ours.) As is said in People ex rel. Finnegan v. McBride, 226 N.Y. 252, 123 N.E. 374, Public officers or agents who exercise judgment and discretion in the performance of their duties may not revoke their determin- ations nor review their own orders once properly and finally made, however much they may have erred in judgment on the facts, even though injustice is the result. A mere change of mind is , insufficient. Or, aS is said in St. Patrick's Church Corp v. Daniels, 113 Conn. 132, 154 Atl. 343, The situation here presented is not that which has most frequently been subjected to question in the courts - a reconsideration and reversal of decision upon the same application or appeal. As to this, it appears to be well established that a zoning board of appeals or adjustment should not ordinarily be permitted to review its own decisions and revoke action once duly taken. Otherwise there would be'no finality to the proceeding; the result would be subject to change at the whim of members or due to the effect of influence exerted upon them, or other undesirable elements tending to uncertainty and impermanence." [Emphasis added] Shannon v. Sponburg, 66 Wn.2d 135 (1966) at Page 141. The Renton City Ordinance, 4.3010 just as R.C.W. 66.08.150 used the word final when they say "shall represent the final action." If the City persists with their action, it would be appropriate to file an action in Superior Court requesting that the City's acts be set aside. Page 3 LA W OF F I C E S Cu r r a n , Kl e w e n o , go h n s o n & Cu r r a n 21 3 4T H AV E N U E SO U T H PO S T OF F I C E BO X 26 Ke n t , Wa s h i n g t o n 95 0 5 1 De l Me a d Ci t y Cl e r k Ci t y of Re n t o n 20 0 Mi l l Av e n u e So u t h Re n t o n , Wa 98 0 5 5 jo-t. oe 2-27-78 LAW OFFICES Curran, Kleweno, dohnson & Curran JAMES P. CURRAN 213 4TH AVENUE SOUTH TELEPHONES CHARLES PETER CURRAN (206) 852-2345 POST OFFICE BOX 26 MELVIN L. KLEWENO, JR. (206) 852-2346 SuerHes iden Noes Kent, Washington 95021 THOMAS O. McELMEEL February 13, 1978 TO: City Council, City of Renton Charles J. Delaurenti, Mayor, City of Renton L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner Del Mead, City Clerk RE: E. R. COLEMAN Approved Short Plat #078-77 Ladies and Gentlemen: We are attorneys assisting Mr. Coleman in regard to the above referenced plat. We have concluded that the steps now being taken by the City with reference to the plat are contrary to your City Ordinances. We believe that Mr. Coleman is fully entitled to have building permits issued pursuant to that approved short plat at this time. We are prepared to initiate a Superior Court action to enforce that right if necessary. In the hopes of avoiding the expense to all parties of such an action, we are submitting this writing to you to persuade the City Council to promptly discharge any further action so that building permits can be issued. The following is the history of this short plat request: September 27, 1977 Public hearing held October 5, 1977 Decision by hearing examiner to approve the short plat per exhibit #3 (see exhibit #3 attached to this letter) October 20, 1977 Hearing examiner states in letter to E. R. Coleman: "Dear Mr. Coleman: This is to nofity you that the above referenced requests, which were approved subject to conditions as noted on the Examiner's report of October 5, 1977, have not been appealed within the time period set by ordinance, and there- fore, this application is considered final and is being submitted to the City Clerk effective this date for permanent filing. Signed: L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner" Page Two February 13, 1978 Renton City Ordinances, Sec. 4.3015 and 3016 limit rights to request reconsideration or to appeal to 14 days with regard to final action of the hearing examiner on short plats. (Copy of ordinance attached). December 12, 1977 Hearing examiner states in letter that Exhibit 3 depicts 3 lots and that "my intention was to approve 3 lots on the subject property as requested". (Emphasis added). He then goes on to say that he is reopening the matter because there is confusion. (One might inquire as to who is confused - Mr. Coleman's application requested 3 lots, the exhibit #3 is taken from the short plat application and clearly depicts 3 lots, A, B, and C and the examiner states that he intended to approve 3 lots). (Copy of letter attached). December 27, 1977 Notice is sent by the City of Renton to Mr. Coleman that the City Council will consider an appeal filed December 27, 1977 and that the appeal will be heard on January 16, 1978. January 9, 1978 At the Council Meeting of January 9, 1978, the Council acts on a recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee. Mr. Coleman had no notice or chance to be heard at either any committee meeting or at this counsel meeting. He first heard of these various actions when he came to the council meeting of January 16, 1978. (Notice of City attached). January 6, 1978 The Examiner advises the appellants by letter that he is going to reconsider the application based upon adequacy of the 30 foot street by requesting the Traffic Engineer to re-examine the approved plat. Page Three February 13, 1978 January 19, 1978 The Traffic Department sends a written memo saying the 30 foot street is entirely adequate. (See memo attached). January 25, 1978 Hearing Examiner concludes that Mr. Coleman's approved plat shall be reduced to 2 lots. February 7, 1978 Mr. Coleman filed notice of appeal of the Examiner's action of January 25, 1978. Your actions to date are contrary to the requirements of Sec. 4 -3001, et seq., which does not permit review of approved plats after the expiraticn of 14 days and Section 9-1101 et seq., which does not provide for any City Council intervention into previously approved short plats once the 14 day period has expired. We will look to the City to pay the damages and legal expenses suffered by Mr. Coleman by reason of the City interfering with a short plat already declared final. ' Will you kindly give this office notice of any further committee meetings or public hearings on this matter. We would particularly appreciate the chance to review this entire matter with the City Council. Yours very truly, (O, JOHNSON & CURRAN By Charles Peter Curran CPC:mb Attachments ce: Sherwood Martin . a es fo ~ ft . QO Wai ZL Bomb Ee D o ~ % a r wer ED septt Mr. Ernest Coleman 222 Williams Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Coleman: This is to notify you that the approved subject. to conditions October 5, 1977, have not been ordinance, and therefore, this THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI ,;MAYOR @® LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER kL. RICK BEELER « 235-2593 oll z 5 if A ¢ iG ofr ee C , j RE: File No. Short Plat 078-77 E-O79-77 W-080-77 above referenced requests, which were as noted on the Examiner's report of appealed within the time period set by application is considered final and is being submitted to the City Clerk effective this date for permanent filing. Sincerely,. L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner LRB:mp cc: Del Mead, City Clerk Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director 7 7yY | pe rs i Het pes / (/ 14) (\- y ls y “ ff oD < ne x XN ») f La e . , ig i IS LA Y , TO L ) FE io , a fi t ped ~ NM . i { -4 st uh Q ween 7 SS Ny ~ > ein if : fe 73 ° & JE \) 4 NV) = \ ~ Qu i ~ G a S| ny » OR ke 4, \) s > y \ uy ) 1S) 5 8 73 ° FE (P T V OW Cc ; 3 = f Ky a \3 Re x NX on LH EN Se Pi A DE OQ SY IN ‘ CX ty a Le ¥ | NJ \w Rs \ ba ae Uy ho ~~ yo MG x Cae A ae ‘let " Lo “, vt 4 — <i ~ Mo ~~ S ees N “Sy Mi Koy 44 YY SAG? 3S bee — 4—3014 4--3016 (A) That substantial evidence was presented demonstrating the subject reclasstfica- tion appears not to have been specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; or (B) That the property is potentially zoned for the reclassification being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and conditions have been met which would indicate the change is appropriate; or (C) That since the last previous land use analysis of the area and area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private develop- ment or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. Within fourteen (14) calendar days of the conclusion of a hearing, the Examiner shall render a written decision, including findings and conclusions, and shall transmit a copy of such decision by regular mail, postage prepaid, to the applicant and other parties of record in the case requesting same. The person mailing such decision, together with the supporting documents, shall prepare an affidavit of mailing, in standard form, and such affidavit shall become a part of the record of such proceedings. In the case of applications requiring Council approval as set forth in Section 4—3010(B)2, the Examiner shall file a decision with the City Council at the expiration of the fourteen (14) day period provided for a rehearing, or within five (5) days of the conclusion of a rehearing, if one is conducted. Thereupon the City Council shall cause to be prepared the appropriate legislation. 4—3015, as amended: RECONSIDERATION: Any aggrieved party feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on an 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 after the written decision of the Examiner has been rendered. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such ap- pellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. 4--3016, asamended: APPEAL OF EXAMINER’S DECISION: Any party to the proceedings and aggrieved by the Examiner’s decision may submit an appeal in writing to the City Council, by filing same with the City Clerk, within four- teen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written decision, requesting a review of same. Such appeal shall be accompanied by a fee of twenty five dollars ' ($25.00) paid to the City Clerk. Thereupon the Examiner shall cause to be forwarded to the members of the City Coun- cil all of the pertinent documents, including his written decision, findings, conclusions and notice of appeal. If, after the examination of such record, the Council determines 1176;577 it co ai ? ie 7 eN riyyg ae O The CITY OF RENTON v =e z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 Zz a o : e — 2 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR © LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER D © Op, < L. RICK BEELER, 235-2593 “Wey seere™ December 12, 1977 Mr. Ernest R. Coleman ‘ RE: e No. Short Plat 078-77 1100 North 36th Ernest R. Coleman Renton, WA 98055 & Parties of Record Dear Mr. Coleman & Parties of Record: It recently was brought to my attention that the decision of October 5, 1977 regarding this application was confusing as to whether two or three lots were approved in the report. the short plat per Exhibit #3." was unclear. The decision on page six was to "approve However, what constituted Exhibit #3 Upon review of the record it should be clarified that Exhibit #3 depicted the 3-lot short plat request originally submitted by the applicant and that this exhibit was not revised to a 2-lot configuration. My intention was to approve three lots on the subject property as requested. Since this clarification may have affected your response to the October 5, 1977 written decision and upon advice of the City Attorney, the period for requesting reconsideration by the Examiner or appeal to the City Council is opened as of the date of this letter, and will expire on December 27, 1977. If you require additional information regarding procedures for requesting reconsideration or notice of appeal to the City Council, please refer to: Section 4-3015 and 4-3016, Code of General Ordinances, available in the City Clerk's office. \ I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused in this matter. ee bee a Cvan at 7 Tiss ‘Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director \. re . & i“ : 2 & BES? - TH? CIPY OF RENTON oo. ‘ resin dont 7 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE SO. RENTON, WASH, 98055 Z sad fs) O wll — a CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR 9 DELORES A. MEAD %, a CITY CLERK C .) ED sepre™ December 27, 1977 APPEAL FILED BY James C. Aiken, Charmaine C. Baker, Robert L. Moffatt and Joan L. Moffatt Re: Appeal of Land Use Examiner's Decision, dtd. 10/5/77 Short Plat 078-77, Ernest Coleman To Parties of Record: Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's decision has been filed with the City Clerk's Office this date, along with the proper fee of $25.00, pursuant to Title 4, Ch. 30, City Code, as amended. The City Code requires the appeal must be set forth in writing. The written appeal and all other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. Please contact the Council Secretary, 235-2586, for date and time of the committee meetings if so desired. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above-referenced appeal will be considered by the Renton City Council at its regular meeting of January 16, 1978 at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Second Floor, Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Ave. S. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON Ps ar: Sa a 2 ( % . wl é = eae a . Maxine E. Motor Deputy City Clerk MEM:gt MEMOR AW DUM January 19 LOTS TO: RICK BEELER Hearing Examiner FROM: DEL BENNETT Deputy Director of Public Works RE? SHORT PLAT 078-77 Ernest R. Coleman ‘In response to your memo dated January 6, 1978, we have again reviewed the proposed Short Plat #078-77 submitted by Ernest R. Coleman. The response to the questionS raised in your memo are as follows: 1) According to the 1976 Trip Generation Manual prepared by the Institute of Traffic Engineers for residential areas, there would be 10 trips per day per lot. If the proposed ‘short plat were two lots, then there would be 20 trips per day, or three lots would produce the average of 30 trips per day. The additional traffic that would occur as a result of the three additional single family lots would not be significant. Tt would appear that the existing easements could accommodate the additional traffic without any difficulty. 2) The existing traffic utilizing the 17.6-foot easement: for through vehicular traffic between Meadow Avenue North and Park Avenue North has not resulted in any unusual traffic problems. We have no recorded accidents or complaints regarding the use of this easement. The width of the proposed easement, which is 30 feet, would be adequate for single family development, aud in our opinion the easement road would not endanger the public welfare or other affected properties. 3) The City's Arterial Street Plan does not concern itself with easements, private roads, etc. Much of the development in the older neighborhoods has occurred many, many years ago and a number of nonconforming access roads were developed which have not caused any serious difficulties. When possible, we would Ltke the development to adhere to our ordinances, but many times it is not a very practical or. feasible solution. I hope the response to your questions will help in making vour decision. RECEIVED a CITY OF RENTON \ of il, HEARING EXAMINER Y )- Sa RT ea DCBrcah JAN 2 01978 L AM PR TSO Mla M284 GS a meena = A % S THE CITY OF RENTON 2 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 — = CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR @ DELORES A. MEAD - CITY CLERK 7ED sepre™ February 16, 1978 APPEAL FILED BY CURRAN, KLEWENO, JOHNSON & CURRAN, LAW OFFICES ON BEHALF OF ERNEST R. COLEMAN Re: Appeal of Examiner's Reconsideration Decision dated January 25, 1978, Ernest R. Coleman Short Plat 078-77, Exception 079-77 & Waiver 080-77 To Parties of Record: Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's reconsideration decision has been filed with the City Clerk's office, along with the proper fee of $25.00, pursuant to Title 4, Ch. 30, City Code, as amended. The City Code requires the appeal must be set forth in writing. The written appeal and all other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. Please contact the Council Secretary, 235-2586, after 12:00 noon for date and time of the committee meetings if so desired. All meetings are open to the public. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above-referenced appeal will be considered by the Renton City Council at its regular meeting of February 27, 1978 at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Second Floor, Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Ave. S. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON alors A. Tpead Delores A. Mead City Clerk DAM: jt cc: Mayor Planning Director Planning & Development Committee and City Council Members Public Works Director Land Use Hearing Examiner Finance Director Building Division October 5, 1977. OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, APPLICANT: Ernest Coleman FILE NO. Sh.Pl. 078-77. E-079=77 W-080-77 LOCATION: Property located west of Meadow Avenue North midway between North 36th Street and North 38th Street and east of Park Avenue North. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests approval of a proposed three (3) lot short plat, with approval of an exception to allow access to the short plat via a private easement road 12.5 feet in width, together with a waiver of the off-site improvement requirements to allow gravelled surfacing of the proposed access easement. SUMMARY OF Planning Department Recommendation: Approval with conditions. ACTION: Hearing Examiner Decision: Approval of Short Plat and Exception; Denial of Waiver. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on September 21, 1977. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on September 27, 1977 at 10:40 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were sworn. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the Planning Department report, and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. Michael Smith, Planning Department, reviewed Exhibit #1, and entered the following additional exhibits into the record: Exhibit #2: King County Assessor's Map Exhibit #3: Plat Map Exhibit #4: Planning Department Plat Configuration Mr. Smith reported the inadequacy of an existing water main and indicated that installation of a 6 to 8-inch main had been recommended adjacent to the subject site. The Examiner noted that the 17.5-foot easement and the 12.5-foot easement served only two lots according to the King County Assessor's map; however, Exhibit #3 indicated that the easement extension was longer. Mr. Smith advised that because the assessor's Map may not always designate recorded easements, a title search would be required. The Examiner asked a representative from the Traffic Engineering Division to comment regarding the easement roadway. Responding was: Paul Lumbert Traffic Engineering Division In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the establishment of a 32-foot easement as recommended in a memorandum from the Traffic Engineering Division, dated September 21, 1977, attached to Exhibit #1, Mr. Lumbert indicated that a joint project comprised of property owners on the northern 17.5-foot existing easement as well as the southern 12.5-foot existing easement could provide a 30-foot roadway. The Examiner asked Mr. Lumbert if joint development of this nature would set a precedent for future proposals and inquired about the possibility of installation of a fence to border the 12.5-foot easement. Mr. Lumbert stated that under normal circumstances, an equal amount of property would be designated on both sides of the easement and indicated that although such fencelines had not been allowed on city property, King County had allowed the procedure. The Examiner referred to a letter attached to Exhibit #1 from Don Monaghan, Engineering ® 7. * Sh. Pl. 078-77 Page Two E-079-77 W-080-77 Design Division, which recommended denial of the request for exception to the Subdivision Ordinance because of inadequacy of the proposed 12.5-foot roadway for proper ingress and egress and suitable turnaround area. Mr. Lumbert reported that the easement originally was a temporary construction easement which has not been converted into a permanent easement possibly at the request of the property owner. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the desirability of the proposed 30-foot wide easement from Meadow Avenue North to Park Avenue North, Mr. Lumbert reported that the roadway would provide improved access through the area. The Examiner asked the applicant if he concurred in Exhibit #1. Responding was: Ernest Coleman 1100 North 36th Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Coleman indicated that he did not concur with the report with regard to access and limited number of lots. He objected to Item #P.1. of Exhibit #1 regarding proposed access and suggested an alternative of adding the 17.5-foot easement to allow a 30-foot roadway access to serve the proposed three-lot subdivision. Mr. Coleman advised that because of the location of existing power poles in the access roadway, paving should be delayed until the improvements were completed and the poles removed or relocated. He indicated that three sewer stubs had been installed on the property at considerable expense when subdivision into three lots had been anticipated. He reported that the size of the proposed lots was compatible with existing residential lots in the area and felt that low maintenance and taxes were factors to consider in subdividing the plat into three parcels. The Examiner asked for testimony in favor of the application. There was no response. The Examiner entered a letter signed by four residents on Park Avenue North in opposition to construction of three houses on the subject property and granting permission to build a substandard width easement with substandard paving. The letter was labeled Exhibit #5 by the Examiner. The Examiner asked for testimony in opposition to the application. Responding was: Charmaine Baker 3713 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Baker submitted a letter containing 12 signatures from residents on Meadow Avenue North which she read into the record. The letter was labeled Exhibit #6. The residents opposed the application because of nonconformance with size and standards of surrounding developed property, degradation of appearance of neighborhood as a result of previous short-platting in the area, and inadequacy of the existing easement. She inquired about Item #0.6. of Exhibit #1 relating to extension of a 6-inch water main from Park Avenue North to accommodate fire flow and service requirements and asked if the existing easement would be restored to its original condition following the project. Mr. Smith advised that the applicant would maintain the responsibility for restoration of the roadway. She questioned previous testimony relating to installation of a fence between the 12.5-foot easement and the 17.5-foot easement separating the paved portion from the existing roadway. Mr. Smith advised that a fence would not be installed. In response to Mrs. Baker's inquiry regarding width of the improved right-of-way in relation to a 3-lot short plat, Mr. Smith indicated that the easement would not meet city minimum requirements. She also inquired about material proposed for the easement and reported that crushed rock minimized dust and was preferable to gravel. Mrs. Baker further objected to the applicant's statement that lots of lesser size require less maintenance and advised that homes in the area are well-maintained by residents who desired comparable maintenance by new residents. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the possibility of formation of an L.I.D. for improvement of the existing easement, Mrs. Baker reported that the potential expense had precluded the project in the past. Responding was: Sherwood Martin 3728 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Martin objected to a three-lot plat configuration because of incompatibility with existing standards and size of surrounding property and reported favorable real estate appraisal of his own property due to large lots and country-like setting in the surrounding area. He also objected to increased traffic on the existing inadequate easement which he felt would produce an increase in dust, noise and deterioration of Sh. Pl. 078-77 Page Three E-079-77 W-080-77 the roadway. He stated that reduction in the size or quality of the 12.5-foot easement would encourage traffic to utilize the 17.5-foot easement causing an increase in noise, dust and traffic hazards. He stated that dust levels are intolerable at the present time due to heavy traffic on the unimproved easement and maintenance responsibilities would be imposed on existing property owners with the construction of three new homes. He also suggested that a speed deterrent be imposed in the area. The Examiner asked Mr. Martin if consideration had been given to oiling the roadway to reduce dust levels. Mr. Martin indicated that cooperation had not been successful in the past to ease the problem. The Examiner noted that the easement had been utilized as a public right-of- way for 18 years and expressed a concern that it currently would be considered a public street. Mr. Martin reported that the width of the roadway prevented it from being utilized as a public right-of-way. Responding was: Luanna Martin 3728 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Martin indicated a desire to close the easement as a solution to the existing access problems. In response to previous discussion regarding oiling of the easement she noted that extreme expense of oil prices in prior years had precluded the procedure and residents had installed crushed rock to curtail the problem. She indicated that a problem presently exists with ownership of 110 feet of the access roadway east of Park Avenue North. Responding was: Jim Baker 3713 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Baker indicated that access had been assured to homeowners on the easement and had been utilized since his residency in 1961. He reported the problem of dust and indicated that fencing separating the proposed easement from Mr. Coleman's property would cause an increase of traffic from Park Avenue. Responding was: : Joan Moffatt 3709 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Moffatt expressed concerns regarding fire protection if the access were closed noting that her residence exists 1,000 feet from the nearest fire hydrant. She also expressed objection to a three-lot plat. Mr. Coleman indicated his concurrence with subdividing the property into a two-lot configuration. He reported his intent to pave the street and remove the poles when improvements were installed but now is also required to extend a 6-inch main from Park Avenue, and he indicated his cooperation in contributing to the improvements. Mr. Martin expressed the desire to coordinate a mutually satisfactory agreement with the applicant prior to revisions in the access easement. The Examiner asked Mr. Smith for additions, corrections or modifications to Exhibit #1. Mr. Smith indicated his preference for a continuation of the hearing to allow the applicant and residents utilizing the easement to discuss alternatives for solution of access problems. He also advised that questions relating to the proposed water main should be directed to the Utilities Division of the Public Works Department. The Examiner asked the applicant if he favored a continuation of the hearing for the purpose of resolving problems relating to the easement and improved circulation to reduce future impact. Mr. Coleman objected to possible delay and potential expense in retaining an attorney during negotiations with property owners and restated his intent to improve the roadway. He objected to continuation of the hearing for those reasons. The Examiner stated that sufficient justification did not exist to require the applicant to negotiate a mutual agreement regarding access and for that reason he would not grant a continuance of the hearing. Mr. Coleman reported contacting the King County tax department regarding ownership of the easement east of Park Avenue North and the department had been unable to supply records to dispute that the portion of the 17.5-foot easement was not included. Mr. Martin subsequently withdrew his request to continue the hearing. t a Sh. Pl. 078-77 Page Four E-079-77 W-080-77 Mr. Smith advised that if the hearing were not continued, the Planning Department wished to submit several comments at this time including protection of the slope by rockery on the 12.5-foot easement on the southern portion abutting the property facing Meadow Avenue North and removal or relocation of the existing power poles between the two easements. He indicated concurrence with Traffic Engineering recommendations to develop the 12.5-foot easement at this time with development and improvement of the 17.5-foot easement the responsibility of the abutting property owners. He corrected the width of the easement stated in Exhibit #1 to 30 feet. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding requirements for paving rather than crushed rock, Mr. Smith reported that a 10-foot paved driveway is required on a pipestem lot by city ordinance. The Examiner asked for further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on Item # Short Plat 078-77, E-079-77 and W-080-77 was closed by the Examiner at 12:15 p.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS : 1. The request is for approval of a three-lot short plat, an Exception from Chapter 11 to allow access via a 12.5~foot easement, and a Waiver of off-site improvements. 2. The Planning Department report accurately sets forth the issues, applicable policies and provisions, findings of fact, and departmental recommendations in this matter, and is hereby attached as Exhibit #1 and incorporated in this report by reference as set forth in full therein. 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended by R.C.W. 43.21.C., Gordon Y. Ericksen, responsible official, determined that the proposal is exempt from the threshold determination and EIS requirements. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. All existing utilities are available and in close proximity. 6. The proposal is compatible with the required setbacks, lot coverage and height requirements of Section 4-706 (R-1), Title IV, Code of General Ordinances. 7. A 17.5-foot access easement abuts the north boundary of the proposed 12.5-foot easement. This 17.5-foot easement was created approximately 18 years ago, has never been closed to use by the general public, and was specified for use by properties along the north boundary of the easement. Residents of the area generally were not opposed to the applicant using the easement, but were concerned about the existing nuisance of dust that would be increased by additional traffic on the easement. 8. The dust problem in the existing 17.5-foot easement was not a matter for consideration by the Examiner, except in evaluation of the requested waiver of off-site improvements. 9. Upon consideration of the testimony, the applicant revised the request to a short plat of two lots. 10. The Traffic Engineering Division testified that approval of the proposed 12.5-foot easement would be unprecedented since the city has not allowed such small easements in the past. Some small easements had been approved under the King County administration. Joining of the 17.5-foot and 12.5-foot easements was considered most desirable, acceptable and precedented. No other points of access appear available to the property. Evidence was not submitted to indicate that the applicant attempted to join the easements. ll. The Utilities Division found that the existing 3-inch water line in Meadow Avenue North was of insufficient capacity and recommended that a 6-inch water line be brought from Park Avenue North to the site. The applicant protested the recommendation because of the costs involved. 12. Two utility poles exist between the two easements which may require relocation due to access interference. 13. The grading of the 12.5-foot easement will probably produce a bank along the south portion of the easement and abutting the property facing Meadow Avenue North. This Sh. Pl. 078-77 Page Five E-079-77 W-080-77 bank may require stabilization. CONCLUSIONS : ds The short plat conforms to the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning requirements. Since the 17.5-foot easement abutting the site has existed unrestricted for many years, it is a reasonable conclusion that public use of the easement can continue uninterrupted. The applicant can use the easement which was not contested but agreed to by parties at the hearing. Therefore, access exists between Meadow Avenue North and Park Avenue North. Similar to existing properties adjoining the 17.5-foot easement, individual driveways can extend to the easement. A turnaround facility is not needed. The dust problem resulting from use of the graveled 17.5-foot easement apparently has become significant. The application before the Examiner does not include solution of this problem. However, the impacted residents were appraised of possible alternatives to solving this mutual concern. The applicant expressed a willingness to participate in and contribute to the solution. Joining of the two easements is a reasonable solution to the access needs of the properties along both easements. Based upon available testimony it appears that the applicant may unrestrictedly use the 17.5-foot easement which does not provide sufficient width for adequate improvements. Adding the proposed 12.5-foot easement will provide a total of 30 feet of easement for improvements, thereby becoming more acceptable for access and circulation while retaining the status of primarily a private easement/street. This will require relocation of the two existing utility poles. Improvement (paving) of the 17.5-foot easement remains to be resolved by the parties abutting the easement since improvements were not required under King County jurisdiction. On the other hand, the applicant is seeking division of his land under city jurisdiction which requires pavement of the proposed 12.5-foot easement unless a waiver is granted. In the Examiner's review of the waiver application, the most applicable criteria for evaluation of the request are: a. "...absence of such improvements located within a reasonable distance." (Section 9-1105.6.B. | b. "That there are special physical circumstances or conditions affecting said property such that the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use or development of his land." (Section 9-1109.1.A) c. "That the exception is necessary to insure such property the rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under similar circumstances." (Section 9-1109.1.B) d. "That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity." (Section 9-1109.1.C.) It is clear that the existing abutting 17.5-foot easement is only graveled and that the applicant has requested to be able to improve his proposed 12.5-foot easement in the same manner. The easement will be slightly more than 300 feet in length which constitutes a large sum of money for pavement and may prevent development of his land. Putting gravel or crushed rock on the 12.5-foot easement will probably contribute to the dust problem that exists, consequently adversely impacting people and properties in the area. Paving this easement will not produce this impact but would be the applicant's contribution to improvement of the total of 30-foot easement. It would then be up to the remaining property owners to follow suit in eliminating the dust problem. a a) ~ w 5 i Sh. Pl. 078-77 Page Six E-079-77 W-080-77 6. The capacity of the water line in Meadow Avenue North appears to be inadequate to serve the needs of the neighborhood as well as the applicant's proposal. Since it has not been shown that the applicant is significantly adding to the existing overload situation, it is unreasonable to require the applicant to install at his expense a new 6-inch water line from Park Avenue North to serve only his proposed three lots. It is reasonable to assume that such a new line will serve other properties as well or to reduce the overload on the undersized line in Meadow Avenue North. Therefore, it is apparent that others will benefit from such an installation. In fact this improvement may be extremely difficult to construct since the applicant does not possess a utility easement from his property to Park Avenue North. The L.I.D. process is the logical and reasonable solution to providing this recommended water line. DECISION: Based upon the record, testimony, findings and conclusions, it is the Examiner's decision to: 1. Approve the short plat per Exhibit #3. 2. Approve the Exception to allow a 12.5-foot access easement provided such easement includes all parties having access to or abutting the adjacent 17.5-foot easement. 3. Disapproval of the Waiver of the off-site improvement of paving. All utility poles and obstructions between the 12.5-foot and 17.5-foot easements shall be removed. Any exposed banks shall be stabilized to prevent erosion and sluffing. This decision is further conditioned upon review by the Planning Department for compliance with these conditions. ORDERED THIS 5th day of October, 1977. ) L. Rick Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of October, 1977 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Paul Lumbert Ernest Coleman Charmaine Baker Sherwood Martin Luanna Martin Jim Baker Joan Moffatt TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of October, 1977 to the following: Charles J. Delaurenti Council President George J. Perry Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Ron Nelson, Building Division Gerard M. Shellan, City Attorney Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before October 19, 1977. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV. Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying a filing fee of $25.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection in the City Clerk's office, first floor of City Hall, or same may be purchased at cost in said office. “4 a & ’ fe) THE CITY OF RENTON : baked Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 fo) 3 — ba CHARLES J. DELAURENT!, MAYOR @ LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER % & L. RICK BEELER, 235-2593 February 8, 1978 Mr. Ernest R. Coleman 222 Williams Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Notice of Appeal dated February 7, 1978, to L. Rick Beeler from E. R. Coleman, regarding Short Plat #078-77. + Dear Mr. Coleman: Your letter of February 7, 1978, is not clear as to whether you are appealing my decision regarding the above to the City Council (per Section 4-3016) or whether you are requesting my reconsideration of my decision (per Section 4-3015). References were made to both processes. It seems that you may be requesting reconsideration. If so, your letter does not "...set forth the specific errors relied upon..." (Section 4-3015) in making your request. This information is necessary for me to respond to your letter if, in fact, you seek reconsideration. Otherwise, an appeal must be directed to the City Clerk. L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Del Mead, City Clerk In o COLEMAN & MATTAINI f Ernest R. Coleman 222 Williams Ave. South Renton, Washington 98055. (206) 226-6462 February 7, 1978 Land Use Hearing Examiner L Rick Beeler, Municipal Building 200 Mill Ave. So., Renton, WA. 98055 tir. Beeler: . This letter is in protest, AND NOTICE OF APPEAL Of your right-about~face decision re: Ernest Coleman Short Plat # 078-77. These changes of your original decision were spelled out in your letter to a Mr. & Mrs. Sherwwod B. Martin under date of Jan. 25, 1978. I received a copy of this letter on Jan. 27, 1978. My appeal is based on the right of an applicant, covered under Title IV, Sec. 4-3015, City Code of Renton. I would ask that you notify me immediately as to your plans in handling this appeal. cc: Honorable Mayor Delaurenti RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER FEB 81978 J 81 Dy Welds 2120341556 AM Real Estate - Commercial - Industrial - Vacant Land > % : THE CITY OF RENTON a _ MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 — = CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR e DELORES A. MEAD g CITY CLERK 7ED sepve™ February 16, 1978 APPEAL FILED BY CURRAN, KLEWENO, JOHNSON & CURRAN, LAW OFFICES ON BEHALF OF ERNEST R. COLEMAN Re: Appeal of Examiner's Reconsideration Decision dated January 25, 1978, Ernest R. Coleman Short Plat 078-77, Exception 079-77 & Waiver 080-77 To Parties of Record: Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's reconsideration decision has been filed with the City Clerk's office, along with the proper fee of $25.00, pursuant to Title 4, Ch. 30, City Code, as amended. The City Code requires the appeal must be set forth in writing. The written appeal and all other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. Please contact the Council Secretary, 235-2586, after 12:00 noon for date and time of the committee meetings if so desired. All meetings are open to the public. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above-referenced appeal will be considered by the Renton City Council at its regular meeting of February 27, 1978 at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Second Floor, Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Ave. S. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON Alors Q. Tyead Delores A. Mead City Clerk DAM: jt cc: Mayor Planning Director Planning & Development Committee and City Council Members Public Works Director Land Use Hearing Examiner Finance Director Building Division “% % ef THE CITY OF RENTON - MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 — pa CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR e DELORES A. MEAD “ CITY CLERK 7ED sepv™ February 16, 1978 APPEAL FILED BY CURRAN, KLEWENO, JOHNSON & CURRAN, LAW OFFICES ON BEHALF OF ERNEST R. COLEMAN Re: Appeal of Examiner's Reconsideration Decision dated January 25, 1978, Ernest R. Coleman Short Plat 078-77, Exception 079-77 & Waiver 080-77 To Parties of Record: Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's reconsideration decision has been filed with the City Clerk's office, along with the proper fee of $25.00, pursuant to Title 4, Ch. 30, City Code, as amended. The City Code requires the appeal must be set forth in writing. The written appeal and all other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. Please contact the Council Secretary, 235-2586, after 12:00 noon for date and time of the committee meetings if so desired. All meetings are open to the public. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above-referenced appeal will be considered by the Renton City Council at its regular meeting of February 27, 1978 at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Second Floor, Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Ave. S. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON alors A. Tpead Delores A. Mead City Clerk DAM: jt cc: Mayor Planning Director Planning & Development Committee and City Council Members Public Works Director Land Use Hearing Examiner Finance Director Building Division > 3 . THE CITY OF RENTON - MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 — Pad CHARLES J. DELAURENT! , MAYOR © DELORES A. MEAD e CITY CLERK 7€0 sepre™ February 16, 1978 APPEAL FILED BY CURRAN, KLEWENO, JOHNSON & CURRAN, LAW OFFICES ON BEHALF OF ERNEST R. COLEMAN Re: Appeal of Examiner's Reconsideration Decision dated January 25, 1978, Ernest R. Coleman Short Plat 078-77, Exception 079-77 & Waiver 080-77 To Parties of Record: Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's reconsideration decision has been filed with the City Clerk's office, along with the proper fee of $25.00, pursuant to Title 4, Ch. 30, City Code, as amended. The City Code requires the appeal must be set forth in writing. The written appeal and al] other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. Please contact the Council Secretary, 235-2586, after 12:00 noon for date and time of the committee meetings if so desired. All meetings are open to the public. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above-referenced appeal will be considered by the Renton City Council at its regular meeting of February 27, 1978 at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Second Floor, Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Ave. S. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON bores A. Typed Delores A. Mead City Clerk DAM: jt cc: Mayor Planning Director Planning & Development Committee and City Council Members Public Works Director Land Use Hearing Examiner Finance Director Building Division Mr. & Mrs. er d B. Martin 3728 Park Ave. Renton, WA 98055 Ms. May Dodge 3724 Park Ave. North Renton, WA 98055 Ms. Verna A. Amick 3720 Park Ave. N. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. & Mrs. James C. Baker 3713 Meadow Avenue N. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. & Mrs. Robert L. Moffatt 3709 Meadow Ave. N. Renton, WA 98055 Ms. Sharon Zimmerman 3701 Meadow Ave. N. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. & Mrs. Hal E. Clausen 3705 Meadow Ave. N. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. & Mrs. Jay H. Ross 3719 Meadow Ave. N. Renton, WA 98055 Ms. Lois Savage 3704 Meadow Ave. N. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. & Mrs. Gordon C. Mitchel] 3613 Meadow Ave. N. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Ernest R. Coleman 222 Williams Ave. S. Renton, WA 98055 Curran, Kleweno, Johnson & Curran Law Offices 213 - 4th Ave. S. Kent, WA 98031 ; 2 eo LAW OFFICES Curran, Kleweno, dohnson 6 Curran JAMES P. CURRAN 213 4TH AVENUE SOUTH TELEPHONES CHARLES PETER CURRAN (206} 852-2345 POST OFFICE BOX 26 MELVIN L. KLEWENO, JR (206) 852-2346 STEPHEN £. Jan aso8 Kent, Washington 95021 THOMAS O. McELMEEL February 13, 1978 TO: City Council, City of Renton Charles J. Delaurenti, Mayor, City of Renton lL. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner Del Mead, City Clerk RE: E. 2. COLEMAN Approved Short Plat #078-77 Ladies and Gentlemen: We are attorneys assisting Mr. Coleman in regard to the above referenced plat. We have concluded that the steps now being taken by the City with reference to the plat are contrary to your City Ordinances. We believe that Mr. Coleman is fully entitled to have building permits issued pursuant to that approved short plat at this time. We are prepared to initiate a Superior Court action to enforce that right if necessary. In the hopes of avoiding the expense to all parties of such an action, we are submitting this writing to you to persuade the City Council to promptly discharge any further action so that building permits can be issued. The following is the history of this short plat request: September 27, 1977 Public hearing held October 5, 1977 Decision by hearing examiner to approve the short plat per exhibit #3 (see exhibit #3 attached to this letter) October 20, 1977 Hearing examiner states in letter to E. R. Coleman: "Dear Mr. Coleman: This is to nofity you that the above referenced requests, which were approved subject to conditions as noted on the Examiner's report of October 5, 1977, have not been appealed within the time period set by ordinance, and there- fore, this application is considered final and is beirg submitted to the City Clerk effective this date for permanent filing. Signed: L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner" Page Two February 13, 1978 Renton City Ordinances, Sec. 4.3015 and 3016 limit rights to request reconsideration or to appeal to 14 days with regard to final action of the hearing examiner on short plats. (Copy of ordinance attached). December 12, 1977 Hearing examiner states in letter that Exhibit 3 depicts 3 lots and that "my intention was to approve 3 lots on the subject property as requested". (Emphasis added). He then goes on to say that he is reopening the matter because there is confusion. (One might inquire as to who is confused - Mr. Coleman's application requested 3 lots, the exhibit #3 is taken from the short plat application and clearly depicts 3 lots, A, B, and C and the examiner states that he intended to approve 3 lots). (Copy of letter attached). December 27, 1977 Notice is sent by the City of Renton to Mr. Coleman that the City Council will consider an appeal filed December 27, 1977 and that the appeal will be heard on January 16, 1978. January 9, 1978 At the Council Meeting of January 9, 1978, the Council acts on a recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee. Mr. Coleman had no notice or chance to be heard at either any committee meeting or at this counsel meeting. He first heard of these various actions when he came to the council meeting of January 16, 1978. (Notice of City attached). January 6, 1978 The Examiner advises the appellants by letter that he is going to reconsider the application based upon adequacy of the 30 foot street by requesting the Traffic Engineer to re-examine the approved plat. Page Three February 13, 1978 January 19, 1978 The Traffic Department sends a written memo saying the 30 foot street is entirely adequate. (See memo attached). January 25, 1978 Hearing Examiner concludes that Mr. Coleman's approved plat shall be reduced to 2 lots. February 7, 1978 Mr. Coleman filed notice of appeal of the Examiner's action of January 25, 1978. Your actions to date are contrary to the requirements of Sec. 4 -3001, et seq., which does not permit review of approved plats after the expiraticn of 14 days and Section 9-1101 et seq., which does not provide for any City Council intervention into previously approved short plats once the 14 day period has expired. We will look to the City to pay the damages and legal expenses suffered by Mr. Coleman by reason of the City interfering with a short plat already declared final. Will you kindly give this office notice of any further committee meetings or public hearings on this matter. We would particularly appreciate the chance to review this entire matter with the City Council. Yours very truly, (OO, JOHNSON & CURRAN . Ot Cop ne Charles Peter Curran CPC:mb Attachments cc: Sherwood Martin Mr. Prnest a as i YN Renton, te ve nN CHARLES J. Coleman Williams Ave QA9 O55 THE CITY MUNICIPAL BUILDING DELAURENTI, MAYOR @® LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER RE: 200 MILL AVE. SO. OF RHNTON RENTON, WASH. 98055 Lk. RICK BEELER. 235-2593 P oe of A. Ea F747 , ¢ ! Short Plat 078-77 B-O79-77 W-080-77 File No. Dear Mr. Coleman: his is to netify you that the above referenced requests, which were 39) ad subject to conditions as noted on the Examiner's report ¢ tober 5, 1977, have not been appealed within the time period set dinance, and therefore, this application 1s considered final and is beina submitted to the City Clerk effective this date for permanen fidir OL eroly ’ el i -j a ‘7 ts ni re St i Fiece.d “ Ri Beeler Hearing Examiner RRem Ho: | Mead, City Clerk Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director OF F hi s s ey es fi Je i l e ; t D4 \ —“ Ur *S \ ty ne y = +2 ve e , ay if gi d fe H ue ~ ki ae as SS ~ — ae —— oe aS oe Re eo ~ ~ f a Se mery pam Treats pom ga wg SUSE, od | yiat ss Vy i | <6 SS) ~\ Ry iN J < iS an suo AY S/O y \ <* if A G Up DS (\ AV hoe ie aa “yy Se eee Q |: X\ ofa me Ree Nae 9) s : x1 ee. + 2 ee oe - Sn ee eae Vy : \o. Q) x a Ve > ity 1 My | 4 iQ 2 j ~ BP I LE S be - oO . , Ne) ag S i i to e Y Oe ce ) : Fo w s s i 24 77 f° f~ ze ot Ss/ (‘Gh 5 S S T E E L L O S o C , ,oLOl LY E ri e ae = Cc 5 a ; el . ' * % S WN . “ ty Jeg | M ~. ; | we a Ss cy es loa al ae Ss ry ly es i eee, N} \ | . 5 aT eee ‘s aa —-_ eae ~ SE OS 13 yy “ — . i a) FX I B77 D "PG PT GA daa! a ne ? 0 ony OF RENTUt.N No.. 3938 FINANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 __ ot - DP 1g We RECEIVED oF CA. G40 yoy pp nn J i2f) £4 _ ied Ag j? ) ¥ ZL! TOTAL es ee GWEN E. MARSHALL, .FINANCE DIRECTOR BY Oa ( Le fi wa MN Pay O° THE CITY OF RENTON be MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 So & CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR @ LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER & L. RICK BEELER, 235-2593 February 8, 1978 Mr. Ernest R. Coleman 222 Williams Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Notice of Appeal dated February 7, 1978, to L. Rick Beeler from E. R. Coleman, regarding Short Plat #078-77. Dear Mr. Coleman: Your letter of February 7, 1978, is not clear as to whether you are appealing my decision regarding the above to the City Council (per Section 4-3016) or whether you are requesting my reconsideration of my decision (per Section 4-3015). References were made to both processes. It seems that you may be requesting reconsideration. If so, your letter does not "...set forth the specific errors relied upon..." (Section 4-3015) in making your request. This information is necessary for me to respond to your letter if, in fact, you seek reconsideration. Otherwise, an appeal must be directed to the City Clerk. L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti pel Mead, City Clerk PECLIER A 4 a eZ ae 4 a fo a ) a FEB 1878 O\ ee RECEIVED & ee a) CITY of RE Pal | Ernest R. Coleman, File No. Short Plat 078-77, E-079-77, W-0O80-77; Appeal of Examiner's Decision. Parties of Record: Mr. & Mrs. Sherwood B. Martin 3728 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Ms. May Dodge 3724 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Ms. Verna A. Amick 3720 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mr. & Mrs. James C. Baker 3713 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mr. & Mrs. Robert L. Moffatt 3709 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Ms. Sharon Zimmerman 3701 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mr. & Mrs. Hal E. Clausen 3705 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mr. & Mrs. Jay H. Ross 3719 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Ms. Lois Savage 3704 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mr. & Mrs. Gordon C. Mitchell 3613 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Ernest R. Coleman 222 Williams Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 ee ea to CITY OF REN1_N ; FINANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 om sue : en bi ve a ae pe at ‘ recErveo of CA. OU S jo pepe TOTAL GWEN E.. MARSHALL, .FINANCE DIRECTOR ie @ ge Renton City Council 1/9/78 Page 4 OLD BUSINESS Committee on Council President Clymer presented Committee on Committees report Committees Report recommended change in committee structure to six committees and the matter be referred to the Ways and Means Committee for incorp- Council Committees oration of ordinance changes. Committee assignments were also re- for 1978 ported (first name listed being chairperson): COMMUNITY SERVICES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Patricia Seymour- Thorpe George Perry Richard Stredicke Barbara Shinpoch Thomas Trimm Patricia Seymour- Thorpe WAYS AND MEANS PUBLIC SAFETY Richard Stredicke Thomas Trimm George Perry Charles Shane Barbara Shinpoch Patricia Seymour-Thorpe TRANSPORTATION UTILITIES Barbara Shinpoch Charles Shane Charles Shane Thomas Trimm Richard Stredicke George Perry MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES. CARRIED. Council Agenda Committee on Committees report made recommendation to the Committee of the Whole that the Council Agenda be established on Wednesday by 5:00 P.M. and the Council packet and Staff report be placed on each Council Member's desk by Friday, 12:00 noon. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Commit tee The Committee on Committees report recommended that the referrals Referrals to the Public Services Committee still remaining from 1977, be separated and referred back to the appropriate committee: Public Safety Committee 11/3/75 = Tow Truck Rates 3/22/76 Taxi Regulations 10/25/76 Fire Protection Master Plan 9/19/77 Ambulance and Aid Car Fees Utilities Committee 8/29/77. Talbot Crest Dr.S. Residents' request - Surface Water 10/3/77. ‘Ray Brown request for latecomer's agreement T1/7/77 McElroy sewer connection request 11/21/7. Miller/Cline request to connect to City sewer 12/5/77. ~—Loveless/Powell request water/sewer latecomer's agrmt. Transportation Committee 4/11/77 Talbot roadway construction overrun 6/20/77 Monitoring 6-Year Street Construction Program 9/19/77 Amtrak Passenger service information 11/7/77. Brown/Strand petition for alley vacation in Kennydale 11/14/7. South Renton Park & Ride Facility - Review/Report back 12/19/7 ~=Renton Center traffic signals MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES RECOMMENDATION REGARDING SEPARATION OF REFERRALS. CARRIED. Ways & Means The Ways and Means Committee concurred in the Mayor's reappoint- Committee Report ment of Peggy Ziebarth to the Municipal Arts Commission for three Appointment year term expiring 12/31/80. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND THORPE, COUN- Peggy Ziebarth CIL CONCUR IN COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning and Planning and Development Committee Chairman Perry presented com- Development mittee report noting review of the request for reconsideration Committee Report | and request for appeal, filed by separate parties, regarding the E.Coleman Sp-o7g | Ernest Coleman Short Plat No. 078-77 and recommended that the — Sarr i dorad matter of reconsideration be remanded back to the Hearing Examiner for review and response. The committee further recommended that Council action on the appeal request be postponed until the com- pletion of the Hearing Examiner's reconsideration review. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND PERRY, COUNCIL CONCUR IN COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. | Renton City Council 1/9/78 Page 3 %., ty — - Correspondence and Current Business - Continued Transamerica Court Case Continued Appeal of SCS & Stirskey Holdings R-091-77 Rezone Denied. Hearing Examiner Denial Upheld Appeal of Examiner's Reconsideration R. P. Ross et ux Short Plat 088-77 and Exception 089 Human Rights Introductions records for review by the Court. Trial date to be given, Attorney Warren anticipating early date. The letter noted the Attorney would be going back to the Court to obtain clarification as wording would prevent the City from taking any action on Renton Hill and the Attorney was of the opinion the intent was to limit the City's right to act strictly to the Transamerica property. Councilman Perry inquired of Planning Director Ericksen re P.U.D. application, being advised that consultant working for Mr. Farrell had indicated intent to present plans for P.U.D. but plans have not been received. Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision was filed by Roger E. Berg re SCS & Stirskey Holdings Rezone 091-77 from R-2 to R-3 for property located north of the Seattle Pipeline R/W just south of SW 2nd St. and between the City limits and Hardie Ave. SW. Land Use Hearing Examiner recommendation: Denial. The appeal alleged Examiner was not logical and decision not based on facts and testimony and claimed error in judgment. The Planning and Development Committee report submitted by Chairman Perry reported examination of the record and the Examiner's decision, findings and conclusions pursuant to Section 4-3017, and recommended that the City Council concur in the recommendation of the Hearing Exami- ner for denial of the rezone request of R-2 to R-3.and refer to the Ways and Means Committee. MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECOND THORPE, LOUNCIL CONCUR IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOP- MENT COMMITTEE, CONCUR IN EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL OF REZONE. CARRIED. Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's reconsideration decision dated 12/9/77 was filed by Richard and Arlene Ross for Short Plat 088-77 and Exception 089-77, property located in the vicinity of 516 SW 3rd Pl. along the north side of SW 3rd Pl. approximately midway between Earlington Ave. SW and Stevens Ave. SW. The appli- cant had requested approval of a two-lot short plat and approval of exception allowing access to one of the two lots via existing 20 ft. easement road in lieu of standard frontage on a dedicated public right-of-way. The appeal charged error in judgment or law and explained being owners of the property for 13 yrs.; prior to change in ordinance in 1971 owner had right to short plat and build on the lot; noting three adjoining owners have developed their property using the easement road in the manner now being denied and without request to furnish 40 ft. r/w. Planning and Develop- ment Committee report was presented by Chairman Perry noting review of record according to City Code and recommended that the Council concur in the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner for denial of the short plat and exception and refer the item to the Ways and Means Committee for proper resolution or ordinance. Moved by Shinpoch, Second Perry, Council concur in the committee report. Councilwoman Thorpe inquired regarding dedication of the right-of-way. Councilman Perry used map showing area and discus- sion ensued regarding access to the subject property. Mr. Ross, being present, advised perpetual 20 ft. easement providing ingress and egress and utilities had been submitted with the application. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND THORPE, THE ROSS APPEAL MATTER BE REFERRED BACK TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FOR ONE WEEK. CARRIED. Letter from Y.W.C.A. President Sharon Wylie, Committee of Manage- ment of the East Valley YWCA, complimented the City for continu- ing interest in human rights for the community. The letter noted emphasis on the goal by the YWCA to eliminate prejudice and in- justice and went on record supporting the adoption of the revised Human Rights Commission ordinance. Mayor Delaurenti introduced newly appointed State Senator "Bud" Shinpoch and State Representative Avery Garrett. RENTON CITY COUNCIL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT January 9, 1978 TO: Council Members FROM: Planning and Development Committee RE: E. COLEMAN SHORT PLAT NO. 078-77 REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL Upon review of the request for reconsideration and the request for appeal, filed by separate parties, the committee recommends that the matter of recon- sideration be remanded back to the Hearing Examiner for review and response. The committee further recommends that Council action on the appeal request be nostnoned until the completion of the Hearing Examiner's reconsideration review. sof ne = / Pa oot wg BN: |. = scaplinanatien GOS fag - George Perry, Chairman —_) “Butsancy och. ‘bara Shinpoch, Member = tredicke, Member THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 January 6, 1978 Mr. and Mrs. Sherwood B. Martin 3728 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 RE: Short Plat No. 078-77, Ernest R. Coleman; Request for Reconsideration. : Dear Mr. and Mrs. Martin: Pursuant to your letter of December 27, 1977, I have reviewed the record of this application. Section 4-3015 (the rules governing reconsideration) specifies that "...errors of law or fact, error in judgment..." may constitute grounds for reconsideration. My review of the record indicated that my decision of October 5, 1977, should be reconsidered. Specifically, I am going to take a second look at the number of lots that were approved and request further analysis by the Traffic Engineering Division of the adequacy of a 30-foot easement/ road. Another public hearing will not be held, but you and the other parties of record will be mailed copies of all correspondence and/or evidence that is utilized in my forthcoming decision. May I also mention that an appeal of the original decision was also filed. The reconsideration decision will temporarily suspend the appeal until after my decision is rendered. Respectfully jours, L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Chairman, City Council Planning & Development Committee Larry Warren, City Attorney Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director el Mead, City Clerk Del Bennett, Deputy Public Works Director Ernest R. Coleman Parties of Record CHARLES J. DELAURENT! , MAYOR @ LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER Bs JAMES L. MAGSTADT, 235-2593 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Larry Warren, Acting City Attorney patre:; |'/3/78 FROM: Del Mead, City Clerk SUBJECT: Appeal of Land Use Examiner's Decision - S.C.S. & Stirsky Holdings, Rezone 091-77; Ernest Coleman, Short Plat 078-77; and Richard & Arlene Ross, Short Plat 088-77 and Exception 089-77 The above appeals will be discussed at the Planning & Development Committee meeting to be held Wednesday, January 4, 1978, at 4:30 p.m. Chairman Perry has requested that you be present. Attached are copies of the Appeals and the letters that were sent to the parties of record. aA =. THE CITY OF RENTON Z. MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 & CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR e DELORES A. MEAD = CITY CLERK & December 27, 1977 APPEAL FILED BY James C. Aiken, Charmaine C. Baker, Robert L. Moffatt and Joan L. Moffatt Re: Appeal of Land Use Examiner's Decision, dtd. 10/5/77 Short Plat 078-77, Ernest Coleman To Parties of Record: Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's decision has been filed with the City Clerk's Office this date, along with the proper fee of $25.00, pursuant to Title 4, Ch. 30, City Code, as amended. The City Code requires the appeal must be set forth in writing. The written appeal and all other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. Please contact the Council Secretary, 235-2586, for date and time of the committee meetings if so desired. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above-referenced appeal will be considered by the Renton City Council at its regular meeting of January 16, 1978 at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Second Floor, Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Ave. S. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON FS eet & W726 LO* Maxine E. Motor Deputy City Clerk MEM: jt cc: Mayor Planning & Development Committee (3) Planning Director Public Works Director Land Use Hearing Examiner Finance Director Ron Nelson, Building Div. wT er n a EO I , Paul Lumbert an Traffic Engineering Division Ernest Coleman 1100 North 36th St. Renton, WA 98055 Charmaine Baker/Jim Baker 3713 Meadow Ave. No. Renton, WA 98055 Sherwood Martin/Luana Martin 3728 Park Ave. N. Renton, WA 98055 Robert L. Moffatt/-Joan Moffatt 3709 Meadow Ave. N. Renton, WA 98055 3728 Park Avenue North Renton. .. Washington 98055 '. December: 27, 1977, Mr, L Rick. Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner The city of Renton Municipal Building | Renton, washington Dear Mr. Becler: I wish to request. econsideration of the heari Pat O7B— 77 applied for by. Ernest 2, Coleman, 2) The (cape approved by your office would have an adverse affect on local property values, I question the value of holding a hearing providing for residents te present their points and then categorically denying all requests even though the applicant himself was agreeable to our major request which was to reduce the number of Lots to two, The roadway is also a serious issue to which no consideration was given in spite of the fact that Mr, Coleman knowingly cut himself off from his own property, forcing himself to either abandon its use or to make an impact on the other pels Ee owners by use of the roadway which we must now maintain for the benefit cf his proffit, The decision handed down by your office was the first statemnet by a public agency establishing the roadway: on which we pay property taxes as a public though- rofareé. ours,truly, boar & Pal Sherwood B, Martin {and Luanna T. Martin’?o. 3728 Park Avenue North <.. SIREN foo (& fain A\, 1 Washington 98055 7 Decenber 27, 19 Mr. L Rick Beeler ae Land Use Heariny Examiner fey ; ; - ye The city of xenton IN ao ia ‘i if Municipal Building ee ; , ne XR Renton, Washington cS. wish to request a reconsideration of the hearing regarding Short 8-77? applied Cor. by crasst &,. Coleman, fs? The tree lots approved bv your office would have an adverse affect on local property values, 7 question the value of holding a he providing for residents.to present their points and then categorically denying all requests even though the applicant himself was agreeable toe cur major request which was to reduce the number ot Lots to two, arang The roadway is alSo a Serious issue to which no consideraticn was given in spite of the fact ‘that Mr. Coleman knowingly cut himself off from his own property, jorcing himself tw either abandon its us : to make an impact on the other property owners by use of the roadwa which we must now maintain for the benefit of his proffit, The decision handed down by your office was the first statenmnet by a public agen establishing the roadway on which we pay preperty taxes as a public though- ro! ares ‘Oursytyuly, £ ao oe g ee Ps Sherwood B. Martin and Euanna T, Martin. 1726 Park \enue North ) A December 4, 1977 ADL EIR BELO EOD. BS, og, 8D Mr. George Perry, President los Re O19> ea Renton City Council i Gy Gey CS Municipal Building (2 Un! Fp FG rol 200 Mill Ave. So. Ye be ey, SD co Renton, Washington 98055 Sn, Fp! 7 oy Guwcalbe £1 016 BY Dear Mr. Perrys Mclosed is a copy of a letter sent to Mre Le Rick Beeler, Land Use Hearing Examiner as a result of a Public Hearing conducted on September 2/th and the resulting minutes and findings which were sent to Use We are formally appealing the Examiner's decision (City Codes Title IV, Section 3016). «& check for $25.00 accompanies this letter to be paid to the City Clerk. Our strongest objection to Mr. Coleman's request had to do with building three houses in an area designed for two. During the process of the hearing Mr. Coleman revised his request and concurred with subdividing the property into a two-lot configuration. (See Page Three of Public Hearing minutes dated October 5, 1977, Paragraph 5.) His concurrence was reiterated on page four of the minutes under Findings, Item number 9, Since we had no objections to Mre Goleman developing the property into a two~lot configuration, there was no appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision. By accident we discovered Mr. Coleman was proceeding with plans to develop a three~lot configuration and that the Hearing Examiner con- curred in this development ‘The minutes were not clear on this decision and it was only because of a phone call to the Hearing Examiner by Mrs. Baker that the Examiner realized the discrepancy that appeared in the minutes. He consulted the City Attorney and the enclosed letter, dated December 12, 1977 to Mr. Ernest Re Coleman and Parties of Records, subject File Noe Short Plat 076-77, Ermest Re Coleman was the result of that conversations As we said in our letter to Mr. Beeler, we feel that he has been less than straight foreward in this matter and we feel that it has bee handled in a very underhanded mannere We therefore request that the City Council examine all pertinent docummts on record as a result of this public hearing, plus the written decision, findings and conclusions. We feel there is substantial error in factor law existing in the record and we ask that the property continue to be zoned as a two~lot configuration. Gincerely, } cc Charles J. Delaurenti, Mayor CO: Blemens & atevelygmead Com. Mite CO Dabew GY Ie < Vy AL, 7 ron, “ru A_— @ city oF RENT No, 3416 FINANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 44 -a 7 19 77 RECEIVED OF - feted se ee tropa _Btdkge CrHe 2 So y i a Lo Ke bcali tg cevtasierttg Ae hee hadian 2 20 f d/ / d iat. Psrinm =? SP OTE - TOTAL 25120 GWEN E. wa Ape e. DIRECTOR @ @ December 3, 1977 Mr. Le Rick Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner Municipal Building 200 Mill ave. So. Renton, Washington 968055 - References (a) File No. Short Plat 078.77, Emest R. Coleman (b) Public Hearing minutes dated October 5, 1977 (Public Hearing conducted September 27, 1977 at 10:45 a.M. in the council chambers of Renton Municipal Building). (c) Letter dated December 12, 1977, L. Rick Beeler to Mr. Bmest R. Coleman and Parties of Record, subject File No. Short Plat 078-77 Emest R. Coleman. Dear Sirs As outlined in your letter dated December 12, 1977 (Reference c) thisis a formal request to reopen the public hearing on File No. Short Plat 078-77, Emest R. Coleman and is in compliance with City Codes Title IV, Sections 3015 and 3016, The parties of record feel that your decision to allow the Short Plat 078-77 three (3) lot configuration is not in the best interest of the aggreived adjacent property owmers. The concems expressed in the Public Hearing conducted on September 14, 1977 (reference b) have not changed. In our opinion the conduct of your office in this matter has been anything but straight forward. any person who reviews your minutes of the September 14, 1977 Public Hearing would conclude that Mr. Coleman gave his concurrence with subdividing the property into a two (2) lot configuration. By granting the time extension to December 2/, 1977 to respond to your decision the Renton City attomey obviously agrees with us. To preclude any further misunderstanding by the tax paying property owners involved it is our intention to be represented by legal council in any further matters involving File No. Short Plat 078-77. Your early response in the matter will be appreciated, ss Yo urs truly, Bm. Chih . Yates Det MAY iitedy J Hi ~y When be Mice pe tr - ° THE CITY OF RENTON Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON. WASH. 98055 f=) < CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR @ LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER e L. RICK BEELER, 235-2593 December 12, 1977 Mr. Ernest R. Coleman RE: File No. Short Plat 078-77 1100 North 36th Ernest R. Coleman Renton, WA 98055 & Parties of Record Dear Mr. Coleman & Parties of Record: It recently was brought to my attention that the decision of October 5, 1977 regarding this application was confusing as to whether two or three lots were approved in the report. The decision on page six was to “approve the short plat per Exhibit #3." However, what constituted Exhibit #3 was unclear. Upon review of the record it should be clarified that Exhibit #3 depicted the 3-lot short plat request originally submitted by the applicant and that this exhibit was not revised to a 2-lot configuration. My intention was to approve three lots on the subject property as requested. Since this clarification may have affected your response to the October 5, 1977 written decision and upon advice of the City Attorney, the period for requesting reconsideration by the Examiner or appeal to the City Council is opened as of the date of this letter, and will expire on December 27, 1977. If you require additional information regarding procedures for requesting reconsideration or notice of appeal to the City Council, please refer to Section 4-3015 and 4-3016, Code of General Ordinances, available in the City Clerk's office. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused in this matter. Respectfully yours, ( tI GA | L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director October 5, 1977 an OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, APPLICANT: Ernest Coleman FILE NO. Sh. Pl. 078-77 E-079-77 W-080-77 LOCATION: Property located west of Meadow Avenue North midway between North 36th Street and North 38th Street and east of Park Avenue North. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests approval of a proposed three (3) lot short plat, with approval of an exception to allow access to the short plat via a private easement road 12.5 feet in width, together with a waiver of the off-site improvement requirements to allow gravelled surfacing of the proposed access easement. SUMMARY OF Planning Department Recommendation: Approval with conditions. ACTION: Hearing Examiner Decision: Approval of Short Plat and Exception; Denial of Waiver. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on September 21, 1977. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on September 27, 1977 at 10:40 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were sworn. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the Planning Department report, and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. Michael Smith, Planning Department, reviewed Exhibit #1, and entered the following additional exhibits into the record: Exhibit #2: King County Assessor's Map Exhibit #3: Plat Map Exhibit #4: Planning Department Plat Configuration Mr. Smith reported the inadequacy of an existing water main and indicated that installation of a 6 to 8-inch main had been recommended adjacent to the subject site. The Examiner noted that the 17.5-foot easement and the 12.5-foot easement served only two_lots according to the King County Assessor's map; however, Exhibit #3 indicated that the easement extension was longer. Mr. Smith advised that because the assessor's map may not always designate recorded easements, a title search would be required. The Examiner asked a representative from the Traffic Engineering Division to comment regarding the easement roadway. Responding was: Paul Lumbert Traffic Engineering Division In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the establishment of a 32-foot easement as recommended in a memorandum from the Traffic Engineering Division, dated September 21, 1977, attached to Exhibit #1, Mr. Lumbert indicated that a joint project comprised of property owners on the northern 17.5-foot existing easement as well as the southern 12.5-foot existing easement could provide a 30-foot roadway. The Examiner asked Mr. Lumbert if joint development of this nature would set a precedent for future proposals and inquired about the possibility of installation of a fence to border the 12.5-foot easement. Mr. Lumbert stated that under normal circumstances, an equal amount of property would be designated on both sides of the easement and indicated that although such fencelines had not been allowed on city property, King County had allowed the procedure. The Examiner referred to a letter attached to Exhibit #1 from Don Monaghan, Engineering Sh. Pl. 078-77 Page Two E-079-77 | W-080-77 Design Division, which recommended denial of the request for exception to the Subdivision Ordinance because of inadequacy of the proposed 12.5-foot roadway for proper ingress and egress and suitable turnaround area. Mr. Lumbert reported that the easement originally was a temporary construction easement which has not been converted into a permanent easement possibly at the request of the property owner. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the desirability of the proposed 30-foot wide easement from Meadow Avenue North to Park Avenue North, Mr. Lumbert reported that the roadway would provide improved access through the area. The Examiner asked the applicant if he concurred in Exhibit #1. Responding was: Ernest Coleman 1100 North 36th Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Coleman indicated that he did not concur with the report with regard to access and limited number of lots. He objected to Item #P.1. of Exhibit #1 regarding proposed access and suggested an alternative of adding the 17.5-foot easement to allow a 30-foot roadway access to serve the proposed three-lot subdivision. Mr. Coleman advised that because of the location of existing power poles in the access roadway, paving should be delayed until the improvements were completed and the poles removed or relocated. He indicated that three sewer stubs had been installed on the property at considerable expense when subdivision into three lots had been anticipated. He reported that the size of the proposed lots was compatible with existing residential lots in the area and felt that low maintenance and taxes were factors to consider in subdividing the plat into three parcels. The Examiner asked for testimony in favor of the application. There was no response. The Examiner entered a letter signed by four residents on Park Avenue North in opposition to construction of three houses on the subject property and granting permission to build a substandard width easement with substandard paving. The letter was labeled Exhibit #5 by the Examiner. The Examiner asked for testimony in opposition to the application. Responding was: Charmaine Baker 3713 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Baker submitted a letter containing 12 signatures from residents on Meadow Avenue North which she read into the record. The letter was labeled Exhibit #6. The residents opposed the application because of nonconformance with size and standards of surrounding developed property, degradation of appearance of neighborhood as a result of previous short-platting in the area, and inadequacy of the existing easement. She inquired about Item #0.6. of Exhibit #1 relating to extension of a 6-inch water main from Park Avenue North to accommodate fire flow and service requirements and asked if the existing easement would be restored to its original condition following the project. Mr. Smith advised that the applicant would maintain the responsibility for restoration of the roadway. She questioned previous testimony relating to installation of a fence between the 12.5-foot easement and the 17.5-foot easement separating the paved portion from the existing roadway. Mr. Smith advised that a fence would not be installed. In response to Mrs. Baker's inquiry regarding width of the improved right-of-way in relation to a 3-lot short plat, Mr. Smith indicated that the easement would not meet city minimum requirements. She also inquired about material proposed for the easement and reported that crushed rock minimized dust and was preferable to gravel. Mrs. Baker further objected to the applicant's statement that lots of lesser size require less maintenance and advised that homes in the area are well-maintained by residents who desired comparable maintenance by new residents. In response to the Examiner's. inquiry regarding the possibility of formation of an L.I.D. for improvement of the existing easement, Mrs. Baker reported that the potential expense had precluded the project in the past. Responding was: Sherwood Martin 3728 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Martin objected to a three-lot plat configuration because of incompatibility with existing standards and size of surrounding property and reported favorable real estate appraisal of his own property due to large lots and country-like setting in the surrounding area. He also objected to increased traffic on the existing inadequate easement which he felt would produce an increase in dust, noise and deterioration of Sh. Pl. 078-77 Page Three E-079-77 W-080-77 the roadway. He stated that reduction in the size or quality of the 12.5-foot easement would encourage traffic to utilize the 17.5-foot easement causing an increase in noise, dust and traffic hazards. He stated that dust levels are intolerable at the present time due to heavy traffic on the unimproved easement and maintenance responsibilities would be imposed on existing property owners with the construction of three new homes. He also suggested that a speed deterrent be imposed in the area. The Examiner asked Mr. Martin if consideration had been given to oiling the roadway to reduce dust levels. Mr. Martin indicated that cooperation had not been successful in the past to ease the problem. The Examiner noted that the easement had been utilized as a public right-of- way for 18 years and expressed a concern that it currently would be considered a public street. Mr. Martin reported that the width of the roadway prevented it from being utilized as a public right-of-way. Responding was: Luanna Martin 3728 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Martin indicated a desire to close the easement as a solution to the existing access problems. In response to previous discussion regarding oiling of the easement she noted that extreme expense of oil prices in prior years had precluded the procedure and residents had installed crushed rock to curtail the problem. She indicated that a problem presently exists with ownership of 110 feet of the access roadway east of Park Avenue North. Responding was: Jim Baker 3713 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Baker indicated that access had been assured to homeowners on the easement and had been utilized since his residency in 1961. He reported the problem of dust and indicated that fencing separating the proposed easement from Mr. Coleman's property would cause an increase of traffic from Park Avenue. Responding was: Joan Moffatt 3709 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Moffatt expressed concerns regarding fire protection if the access were closed noting that her residence exists 1,000 feet from the nearest fire hydrant. She also expressed objection to a three-lot plat. Mr. Coleman indicated his concurrence with subdividing the property into a two-lot configuration. He reported his intent to pave the street and remove the poles when improvements were installed but now is also required to extend a 6-inch main from Park Avenue, and he indicated his cooperation in contributing to the improvements. Mr. Martin expressed the desire to coordinate a mutually satisfactory agreement with the applicant prior to revisions in the access easement. The Examiner asked Mr. Smith for additions, corrections or modifications to Exhibit #1. Mr. Smith indicated his preference for a continuation of the hearing to allow the applicant and residents utilizing the easement to discuss alternatives for solution of access problems. He also advised that questions relating to the proposed water main should be directed to the Utilities Division of the Public Works Department. The Examiner asked the applicant if he favored a continuation of the hearing for the purpose of resolving problems relating to the easement and improved circulation to reduce future impact. Mr. Coleman objected to possible delay and potential expense in retaining an attorney during negotiations with property owners and restated his intent to improve the roadway. He objected to continuation of the hearing for those reasons. The Examiner stated that sufficient justification did not exist to require the applicant to negotiate a mutual agreement regarding access and for that reason he would not grant a continuance of the hearing. Mr. Coleman reported contacting the King County tax department regarding ownership of the easement east of Park Avenue North and the department had been unable to supply records to dispute that the portion of the 17.5-foot easement was not included. Mr. Martin subsequently withdrew his request to continue the hearing. Sh. Pl. 078-77 Page Four E-079-77 W-080-77 Mr. Smith advised that if the hearing were not continued, the Planning Department wished to submit several comments at this time including protection of the slope by rockery on the 12.5-foot easement on the southern portion abutting the property facing Meadow Avenue North and removal or relocation of the existing power poles between the two easements. He indicated concurrence with Traffic Engineering recommendations to develop the 12.5-foot easement at this time with development and improvement of the 17.5-foot easement the responsibility of the abutting property owners. He corrected the width of the easement stated in Exhibit #1 to 20 feet. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding requirements for paving rather than crushed rock, Mr. Smith reported that a 10-foot paved driveway is required on a pipestem lot by city ordinance. The Examiner asked for further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on Item # Short Plat 078-77, E-079-77 and W-080-77 was closed by the Examiner at 12:15 p.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The request is for approval of a three-lot short plat, an Exception from Chapter 11 to allow access via a 12.5-foot easement, and a Waiver of off-site improvements. 2. The Planning Department report accurately sets forth the issues, applicable policies and provisions, findings of fact, and departmental recommendations in this matter, and is hereby attached as Exhibit #1 and incorporated in this report by reference as set forth in full therein. 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended by R.C.W. 43.21.C., Gordon Y. Ericksen, responsible official, determined that the proposal is exempt from the threshold determination and EIS requirements. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. All existing utilities are available and in close proximity. 6. The proposal is compatible with the required setbacks, lot coverage and height requirements of Section 4-706 (R-1), Title IV, Code of General Ordinances. 7. A 17.5-foot access easement abuts the north boundary of the proposed 12.5-foot easement. This 17.5-foot easement was created approximately 18 years ago, has never been closed to use by the general public, and was specified for use by properties along the north boundary of the easement. Residents of the area generally were not opposed to the applicant using the easement, but were concerned about the existing nuisance of dust that would be increased by additional traffic on the easement. 8. The dust problem in the existing 17.5-foot easement was not a matter for consideration by the Examiner, except in evaluation of the requested waiver of off-site improvements. (9. | Upon consideration of the testimony, the applicant revised the request to a “ short plat of two lots. 10. The Traffic Engineering Division testified that approval of the proposed 12.5-foot easement would be unprecedented since the city has not allowed such small easements in the past. Some small easements had been approved under the King County administration. Joining of the 17.5-foot and 12.5-foot easements was considered most desirable, acceptable and precedented. No other points of access appear available to the property. Evidence was not submitted to indicate that the applicant attempted to join the easements. ll. The Utilities Division found that the existing 3-inch water line in Meadow Avenue North was of insufficient capacity and recommended that a 6-inch water line be brought from Park Avenue North to the site. The applicant protested the recommendation because of the costs involved. 12. Two utility poles exist between the two easements which may require relocation due to access interference. 13. The grading of the 12.5-foot easement will probably produce a bank along the south portion of the easement and abutting the property facing Meadow Avenue North. This Sh. Pl. 078-77 Page Five E-079-77 W-080-77 bank may require stabilization. CONCLUSIONS : 1. The short plat conforms to the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning requirements. 2. Since the 17.5-foot easement abutting the site has existed unrestricted for many years, it is a reasonable conclusion that public use of the easement can continue uninterrupted. The applicant can use the easement which was not contested but agreed to by parties at the hearing. Therefore, access exists between Meadow Avenue North and Park Avenue North. Similar to existing properties adjoining the 17.5-foot easement, individual driveways can extend to the easement. A turnaround facility is not needed. The dust problem resulting from use of the graveled 17.5-foot easement apparently has become significant. The application before the Examiner does not include solution of this problem. However, the impacted residents were appraised of possible alternatives to solving this mutual concern. The applicant expressed a willingness to participate in and contribute to the solution. 4. Joining of the two easements is a reasonable solution to the access needs of the Properties along both easements. Based upon available testimony it appears that the applicant may unrestrictedly use the 17.5-foot easement which does not provide sufficient width for adequate improvements. Adding the proposed 12.5-foot easement will provide a total of 30 feet of easement for improvements, thereby becoming more acceptable for access and circulation while retaining the status of primarily a private easement/street. This will require relocation of the two existing utility poles. 5. Improvement (paving) of the 17.5-foot easement remains to be resolved by the parties abutting the easement since improvements were not required under King County jurisdiction. On the other hand, the applicant is seeking division of his land under city jurisdiction which requires pavement of the proposed 12.5-foot easement unless a waiver is granted. In the Examiner's review of the waiver application, the most applicable criteria for evaluation of the request are: a. "...absence of such improvements located within a reasonable distance." (Section 9-1105.6.B. b. "That there are special physical circumstances or conditions affecting said property such that the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use or development of his land." (Section 9-1109.1.A) c. "That the exception is necessary to insure such property the rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under similar circumstances." (Section 9-1109.1.B) da. “That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity." (Section 9-1109.1.Cc.) It is clear that the existing abutting 17.5-foot easement is only graveled and that the applicant has requested to be able to improve his proposed 12.5-foot easement in the same manner. The easement will be slightly more than 300 feet in length which constitutes a large sum of money for pavement and may prevent development of his land. Putting gravel or crushed rock on the 12.5-foot easement will probably contribute to the dust problem that exists, consequently adversely impacting people and properties in the area. Paving this easement will not produce this impact but would be the applicant's contribution to improvement of the total of 30-foot easement. It would then be up to the remaining property owners to follow suit in eliminating the dust problem. Sh. Pl. 078-77 Page Six E-079-77 W-080-77 6. The capacity of the water line in Meadow Avenue North appears to be inadequate to serve the needs of the neighborhood as well as the applicant's proposal. Since it has not been shown that the applicant is significantly adding to the existing overload situation, it is unreasonable to require the applicant to install at his expense a new 6-inch water line from Park Avenue North to serve only his proposed three lots. It is reasonable to assume that such a new line will serve other properties as well or to reduce the overload on the undersized line in Meadow Avenue North. Therefore, it is apparent that others will benefit from such an installation. In fact this improvement may be extremely difficult to construct since the applicant does not possess a utility easement from his property to Park Avenue North. The L.I.D. process is the logical and reasonable solution to providing this recommenced water line. DECISION: Based upon the record, testimony, findings and conclusions, it is the Examiner's decision to: 1. Approve the short plat per Exhibit #3. 2. Approve the Exception to allow a 12.5-foot access easement provided such easement includes all parties having access to or abutting the adjacent 17.5-foot easement. 3. Disapproval of the Waiver of the off-site improvement of paving. All utility poles and obstructions between the 12.5-foot and 17.5-foot easements shall be removed. Any exposed banks shall be stabilized to prevent erosion and sluffing. This decision is further conditioned upon review by the Planning Department for compliance with these conditions. ORDERED THIS 5th day of October, 1977. ) L. Rick Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of October, 1977 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Paul Lumbert Ernest Coleman Charmaine Baker Sherwood Martin Luanna Martin Jim Baker . Joan Moffatt TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of October, 1977 to the following: Charles J. Delaurenti Council President George J. Perry Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Ron Nelson, Building Division Gerard M. Shellan, City Attorney Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before October 19, 1977. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth. the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV. Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying a filing fee of $25.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection in the City Clerk's office, first floor of City Hall, or same may be purchased at cost in said office. oF Re, > Se Q THE CITY OF RENTON 0 nls z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON. WASH. 98055 So 4 alt é CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR @ LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER %, e L. RICK BEELER, 235-2593 Veo sepv™ (_ KA TBR December 12, 1977 Mr. Ernest R. Coleman RE: File No. Short Plat 078-77 1100 North 36th Ernest R. Coleman Renton, WA 98055 & Parties of Record Dear Mr. Coleman & Parties of Record: It recently was brought to my attention that the decision of October 5, 1977 regarding this application was confusing as to whether two or three lots were approved in the report. The decision on page six was to "approve the short plat per Exhibit #3." However, what constituted Exhibit #3 was unclear. Upon review of the record it should be clarified that Exhibit #3 depicted the 3-lot short plat request originally submitted by the applicant and that this exhibit was not revised to a 2-lot configuration. My intention was to approve three lots on the subject property as requested. Since this clarification may have affected your response to the October 5, 1977 written decision and upon advice of the City Attorney, the period for requesting reconsideration by the Examiner or appeal to the City Council is opened as of the date of this letter, and will expire on December 27, 1977. If you require additional information regarding procedures for requesting reconsideration or notice of appeal to the City Council, please refer to Section 4-3015 and 4-3016, Code of General Ordinances, available in the City Clerk's office. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused in this matter. keene yours, L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director ENDING OF FILE hott — O16-77 |