Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA80-095 BEGINNING OF FILE FILE TITIF\``se/%' Olt ' 65 -311 MIC :1 :LFILMED OF R� ©. .�, ,._ o THE CITY OF RENTON Y MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR 0 PARKS and RECREATION o-53 A�q co�� JOHN E. WEBLEY - DIRECTOR -4T6.0 SEPTEM� 235-2560 February 6, 1981 Raymond S. Wiltshire 320 Andover Park E. , Suite 260 Tukwila, WA. 98188 Dear Mr. Wiltshire: After reviewing the recreational amenities proposed in the Homecraft Short Plat Preliminary Plan, it would appear that you are attempting to meet on-site recreational needs in a number of ways. I do have some difficulty in assessing the plan without benefit of the final topographic plan or a scale to apply to the facilities. Final land- scaping plans would also help as would projected demographics as the facilities should reflect the needs of the residents. I realize that as the plan goes forward there are likely to be other changes that affect the recreational elements, however, I would recommend that where possible you consolidate the usable active recreation space (lawns) to maximize potential uses. The stream, for example tends to divide usable space up. The elements you are programming in are generally those which receive considerable use in our parks, however it would be nice to see a combination tennis/basketball court on-site. I look forward to seeing your final plans at which time I will make some definitive recommendations to you. Thank you for the opportunity to comment at this time. Sincerely, i „, ice ' v John E. Webley Director Parks & Recreation RECEIVE® JEW:mc CITY HE4RoG �ER��O� EXAMINER AM FE81 11981 PM 718i0d0d1112 S I c A.ia.tl � � � Exhibit 7-A. (74- O . HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. 2600 SOUTH LOOP WEST, SUITE 650 • HOUSTON, TEXAS 77O54 • 6713) 666.3939 HAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 20147, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77025 320 Andover Park East, Suite 260 Tukwila, Washington 98188 SOUTH TEXAS- NEW MEXICO - RAYMOND S.WILTSHIRE,JR. AND OKLAHOMA REGION VICEPRESIDENT-MANAGER January 23, 1981 Mr. John Webley Director, Parks and Recreation The City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Homecraft Short Plat Preliminary' Site Plan Dear Mr. Webley: Thank you for your expeditious review of our preliminary site plan. Upon final review of our site plan and your letter of January 15, 1981, it has been decided that the recreational amenities to be included in our multi-family development located between Northeast Third and Northeast Fourth Streets directly west of the proposed Edmonds Avenue will be: a. Swimming Pool b. Bathhouse with Recreation Room c. Jacuzzi - adjoining the Bathhouse and Recreation Room d. Half-size Basketball Court e. Volleyball Court (on grass) f. Childrens Play Area g. On-site Pathway System h. Picnic Tables and Barbecue Grills. RECEIVED HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & 3RA2f Exhibit 7 . JAN 2 9 1981 I Ate PM 67o8.9110,11sI2s1s2s8 15I6 • Mr. John Webley • January 23, 1981 Page Two We have decided to eliminate the tennis court in favor of the half-size basketball court and volleyball court so as to maximize our recreation potential within our largest open area. - - Your comments regarding these proposed facilities would be greatly appreciated. Si ely, /441 I� lr` ,.,//ir F,a nd S. ltshire, Jr. RSW:dn within the existing street system without undue stress. Improvements could be made from the methods suggested in the TRANSPO study with regard to the AM and PM congestion (around the intersection of I-5 and NE 3rd) could allow for greater east-west operating efficiency (see Exhibit 6) . Based on the analysis, it is concluded that construction of Edmonds Avenue NE from NE Fourth to NE Third Street is not warranted at this time and is not advisable until east-west traffic circulation patterns can be modified to reduce anticipated congestion at key intersections. Although the conclusions reached in the TRANSPO study indicate that Edmonds Avenue NE is not necessary as a circulation link to accommodate the anticipated traffic from the project, the applicant agrees to construct Edmonds as half street to serve the site. The pavement width is adequate to service anticipated traffic and construction of a full width ,road is not required by traffic generated by this proposal. The project is not anticipated to generate any significant traffic and circulation impact, and with the implementation of the recommendations the anticipated impact may possibly be reduced. 14._ Public Services. The City of Renton Fire Department provides fire protection to the project site. The closest station within the vicinity is located at NE Ninth Street and Harrington Avenue NE, approximately 3/4 of a mile from the ��/di e0A/newl/a / b !7' $',e21q6V/eLt) -�- 16G1 //S/, v 2 1/26/81 2717A NR 22 s,' 6 �ovQ Al project site. Water is available to the site providing adequate fire flow to meet the requirements of the project. Police protection is provided by the City of Renton. The proposed addition of 280 units or a popula- tion of about 560 may necessitate an additional officer given the 1. 7 officers per 1000 population (present) standard (Renton Police Department, telephone conversa- tion, 1/15/81) . However, police officer utilization may reduce this. Additionally, increased property taxes will mitigate any added costs. The site is situated within the RenIton School District No. 403. Potential students generated by the project would attend the Highlands Elementary School, McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School. Currently, these schools are experiencing a declining enrollment and as such have the capacity to meet the projected enroll- ment. (Renton School District, telephone conversation 1/5/81. ) No closures are anticipated for all' three schools. Both passive and active recreation facilities are planned for the project. The recreational amenities are designed to fulfill the neds of the residents, which include a swimming pool, bath house with Jacuzzi, grass, tot lot, a sidewalk pathway system and picnic tables interspersed through the central area. There is a nominal impact anticipated on surrounding parks due to the amount of recreational amenities and open space area to be provided on-site. Comments from the preliminary review of the site by Mr. John Webley, Director of the Renton Park Department, are contained in his letter, Exhibit 7-A. 1/26/81 2717A NR 23 rowo AaP a car•St /N VIE SE 4 OP THE SE% OF SEC. /7, 71YP ES ly., RGE. S E., /Y•AL, RXAw COa[ MN iv ux ! RENTON; K/NO COUNTY, W4SN/NOTON TR A7.7/lld0i5l __ N__Oft4'r•PLAT 11 N•• - N/'d'd'E rK97./7'MCA! - 7; AtNAO 1'.I'[AC. MIL // /011'baCU1�, -�`--., t Itl.K i-L117 KRA/.�llllOSOli/ PF /1A 57 { I 000•RAT "x;y r Q IStte' i16 AVE. J.E. ;7- L IN .3, �M (�,575M' 3 6.ta' .1 4,) .AA•R'. bdr/(4e ( . i (. l le-5" Iv �(�� k S Y '' �cYe fj - '^ 8 LEGAL DESCRIPTION , I N G D -��f� / - ti'r Ot GI o PARCEL A 47 N I.OI'03 W 2 486 ^O 455.93' THE EAST 242 FEET, AS MEASURED PARALLEL TO THE EAST LiNE OF THE NORTH 400 FEET AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID EAST LINE, OF THAT PORTION '�. AOF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, M.M., IN KING COUNTY, ':./.* WASHINGTON. LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 174 AND EASTERLY OF ?,�, �L79 • THE PUGET SOUND POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY. 1" " , K 8 . N L ED • PARCEL B 8J?bb r9 X.OJ Q Nt1'41pi"Wit` R� THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF Y.(, W IS 0i �A SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.N., IN KING COUNTY, 8N lye 6v' WASHINGTON, AND OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF •i ' t CC. SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANGE 5 EAST. N.M., IN KiNG COUNTY, A. .^ 3� ER WASHiNGTON, LYING SOUTHERLY OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 174 "S.E. 128TH STREET". ,, 0, PpVI EAST OF THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF TIME RIGHT-OF-WAY DEEDED TO PUGET SOUND POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 2500774, AND '� �A� ���1•'�•C01C M"'I NORTH OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE MORE NORTHERLY OF THE STRIPS OF LAND C.O\, ; X� .,1 ,{ T1A DEEDED TO CITY OF RENTON FOR STREET BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING tiftt • ? A q .r"G`•AF 1 EXCEPTO. BTHAT•PORTION THEREOF DEEDED TO FIRST NATIONAL ASSOCIATES BY P. St 6 r6 DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NOS. 6320179 AND 6553042 AND DESCRIBED 4 AS FOLLOWS: mi L • CERTIFICATE THE EAST 242 FEET. AS MEASURED PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTH i HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE OWNER IN 400 FEET, AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAiD EAST LiNE, OF THAT PORTION z FEE SIMPLE OF THE LAND HEREBY PLATTED IN THIS SHORT PLAT. OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF 'pY 4 • SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY. 6 g a WASHINGTON, LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 174 AND EASTERLY OF • PUGET SOUND POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY; ., • AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN THE EAST 30.00 FEET OF SAID SUBDIVISION AND NORTH OF THE THIRD AVENUE NORTH EXTENSION DEEDED 30' TO CITY OF RENTON BY DEED$RECOROED UNDER RECORDING N0. 7111050330{7111050531 NOTES: BOTH SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KiNG• STATE OF WASHINGTON. • /RAT 11;YAV01Pr /5/7ERRM t07 CURNCRS '1 5ET W?N•4,Peer /CAP AURRCO CONTAINING 8.4059 ACRES OF LAND. MORE OR LESS b1A L5 n1e9. ACKNOWLEDGMENT 7e5/S or DTitK/AG /5 IXNr/C4L W/TN THE STATE OF WASHING70R1 .�\\ PLAT OF N%A•OSoe N/LLS AOD/770N. 3 SS . I? \ COUNTY OF KING APPROVALS • 7440 qa \\\ THiS 15 TO CERTIFY]' THAT ON THIS DAY OF A,D.• 19 __ EIWIRIEO AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF— A.D.• 19._____ \, BEFORE If THE UN04.'RSIGNED A NOTAffYI'UULIC PERSONOIIPATFAREO • 6.,,;:"•\ TO HE KNOWN TO BE THE 1NDIVIDIREIR1b SIGNED THE ,�:,�s\ maw CERTiFICATE WLrOO ACKNO b TO ME THAT SIGNED THE SAME AS A FREE AND DIRECTOR, DEPT:Or PUBLTI:liDitKS q, VOLUNTARY ACT AND DEED. WITNESS MY IIA110 AND OFFICIAL SEAL 711E DAY AND YEAR FIRST EXAMINED ANDAPPROVED THIS DAY OF A.D.. 19 y d 3 ABOVE WRITTEN. ___ _-- _ s g^ \ TRAFFIC ENGINEER` 4.1 ` \ OOTARr NUULIC iN AND FOR THE"STATE OF . 1. v III \ �o'Sy C.N.l• �� WAS11111G70N, RESIDING AT EXAMINED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF -_ A.O., 19 _� R 01° g ,. +•g PLAN N�N iA��REL-IMINARY s �� /, 1.04 CCMC M UNRECORDED COPY s EXAMINED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF A.D.• 19 1 19607•MLtl BRAT 44 lIM Mc COUNTY ASSESSOIa _—SE 15198 RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE :mews CIITIFICUIF RECORD OF SURVEY PREPARED er: STEPAN 0 ASSOC., INC. This was ewrwlry rgrnwts.rarwT wads is aM w velar w NW fa mewl Ibis lay a.. ..... ...II.. ..al. .. ..a FOR 950 SOUTH 386'„ STREET is iM N it Foe al tit d Iirteliw is ewbrarwo wIb lb. npm•wl. al II. Isms ®,1 �• LAND FEDER4L WAY, W4. 98003 RANOALL C NAYCON NOMECRAIC twWial so H IN, nsmt al llOMECRAFT LAND 06Y. ./Nc, ;:DEVELOPMEAIT INC. ... . .... ... i. . . . .11 Lot IT I tn I Na PL -. /zf., ac_4_G.,++.. .C,,, Rc•H• E7 A . /9B0 6556-0/7 " ' RENTON PROJECT CM ITT SCALE SIM __ . --_-." — .-_..,:__._ ._ /7669 Af A,,' AI IA/ACuu/nrnu -- - . OF Re� A • - o THE CITY OF RENTON U 40 .; Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 o m- ° BARBARA' Y. SHINPOCH. MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9,o `o. FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 O,940SEPI°6°Q . March 10, 1981 Mr. Joel Haggard 1530 Bank of California Center Seattle, WA 98164 RE: File No. Short Plat 095-80; Homecraft Land Development, Inc. Dear Mr. Haggard: The appeal period which was established upon publication of the Examiner's decision in the above referenced matter has now expired. This application will be finalized upon submission of the short plat mylar which will be filed with King County. If you require information regarding preparation of the mylar, please contact staff in the Planning Department, 235-2550. Sincerely, Ar%4A6L4Alre Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Planning Department City Clerk / r _ 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 23rd day of February , 19 81 , affiant deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Subscribed and sworn this Z5 —day of t2\atu2,ty , 19 4 1 • HOC _ \o(iSW Notary Public in and for thA State of - Washington, residing at CotA Application, Petition or Case: Homecraft Land Development Co. ; Sh. P1 . 095-80 (The mLnutu contain a Ust 06 the paAti.a.s 04 neeond. ) February 23, 1981 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION, APPLICANT: Homecraft Land Development, Inc. FILE NO. SH. PL. 095-80, W-096-80 LOCATION: West side of Edmonds Avenue N.E. (extended) between N.E. 3rd and N.E. 4th Streets. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The public hearing was reopened in response to a request for reconsideration, dated November 24, 1980, from the applicant for the limited purpose of presenting testimony relating to the recreational needs of future residents upon ultimate development of the subject property. The public hearing date was established upon receipt of site plans from the applicant. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Planning Department Recommendation: Deferral of the matter to review of the site approval request by the Examiner. Hearing Examiner Decision: Approval of the short plat with deletion of the condition relating to recreational needs. PUBLIC HEARING: The Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was reopened on February 17, 1981 at 9:20 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The Examiner advised that the hearing had been reopened at the request of the applicant to review recreational requirements of the development. Roger Blaylock, Associate Planner, indicated that following the applicant's request to reopen the public hearing, the Planning Department had discovered that the site had originally been reviewed under a special permit for fill and grade which requires subsequent site plan review by the Hearing Examiner in accordance with Section 4-2303(2) (C) of the Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance. Therefore, the applicant has since submitted site plans which will be reviewed at a public hearing in the near future, and concerns regarding recreational requirements should be discussed at that time. Mr. Blaylock advised the Planning Department recommendation that the condition regarding recreational requirements be deleted from the short plat decision. The Examiner requested testimony by the applicant. Responding was: Joel Haggard 1530 Bank of California Center Seattle, WA 98164 Mr. Haggard indicated concurrence in the Planning Department recommendation to defer discussion of recreational needs until site plan review. He advised that the sole purpose of the short plat request had been to permit the first phase of the takedown to proceed, which had occurred on schedule upon securement of a minor lot line adjustment. Mr. Haggard indicated his opinion that improvement of Edmonds Avenue N.E. as well as provision of recreational facilities should not be conditions of the short plat approval but should be reviewed during site plan approval . The Examiner requested testimony by the Parks Director. Responding was: John Webley Parks Director Mr. Webley concurred with the Planning Department recommendation to defer the subject of recreational requirements until site plan review in the best interest of the city and the developer. The Examiner requested testimony in support or opposition to the matter. There was no response. Mr. Blaylock noted that discussion had been limited to recreational needs and all other requirements of the short plat for improvements would remain. Sh. . 095-80 Page Two The Examiner requested further comments. Since there were none, the hearing regarding File No. Short Plat 095-80 and W-096-80 was closed by the Examiner at 9:26 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1 . The original hearing was held on October 21 , 1980. The decision was issued on October 29, 1980, and two separate requests for reconsideration were received. A request for. reconsideration was received from Malka Fricks representing the Vantage Point Condominium Owners Association on November 12, 1980. That request was to include site plan review in the decision. The request was denied on November 19, 1980. The other request for reconsideration was from the applicant, and that one was received on November 10, 1980. That request asked that the hearing be reopened to consider solely the issue of the recreational needs of the potential residents of a proposed but still conceptual multifamily apartment complex as that question related to a condition of approval . That condition read as follows: ". . .The execution of a contract to provide for the recreational needs of the future residents of the subject property, such needs to include but not be limited to open space, ball fields, play fields, as outlined in the Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan. That total provision shall be based on a pro rata amount using 1 ,000 residents as the base figure, the adjustment up or down accordingly." 2. A site plan for the proposed apartment complex will be required pursuant to a special permit which was issued to fill and grade the subject site (File No. SP-876-76) . 3. Both the Parks Department and the Planning Department indicated that a more appropriate juncture in which to review the required recreational needs of potential residents would be after submittal of site plans for the subject property. 4. Preliminary plans and discussions have occurred with the applicant which indicate that the applicant intends to provide on-site recreational resources for the complex. Complete assessment of the needs of the complex will occur during formal review of the proposal during both the environmental review process and during the site plan review. 5. The short plat was initiated to expedite financial arrangements for the properties. CONCLUSIONS: 1 . Sections 9-1105 and 9-1106(E) permit a determination of whether the public use and interest is to be served by a proposed subdivision of land and whether the public needs are being provided for in the proposal . Uses other than single family uses present a situation where the specific population, if residential , or employment base if otherwise, cannot be immediately determined; and therefore, what provisions for parks, schools, roads, etc. should be made is difficult, if not purely conjectural . 2. Under the current short plat proposal , the land is zoned R-4, which could permit a population of approximately 1 ,100 residents. But until specific plans are reviewed this is speculative and the population could vary to considerably less than maximum. While it is specious to claim the land is being divided solely for division sake, it is difficult to assess the needs of the public at this early stage. Therefore, since site plan review is required and environmental determinations are yet to be made, the execution of a contract to provide for as yet unknown recreational needs at this stage is unncessary. 3. The preliminary discussions with the applicant indicate that at least certain on- site recreational facilities will be provided. The total recreational needs of the projected population will not be known until final submission and review of the actual proposal , and, therefore, the condition to which the approval of the short plat was subject should be dissolved. DECISION: The short plat represented by Exhibit /{2 is approved. There is no change to the original decision to deny the requested waiver. I Sh. Pi . 095-80 Page Three ORDERED THIS 23rd day of February, 1981 . Fred J. Ka man Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 23rd day of February, 1981 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: • Joel Haggard, 1530 Bank of California Center, Seattle WA 98164 John Webley, Parks Director TRANSMITTED THIS 23rd day of February, 1981 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Counciman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Acting Public Works Director David Clemens, Acting Planning Director Michael Porter, Planning Commission Chairman Barbara Schellert, Planning Commissioner Ron Nelson, Building Official Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before March 9, 1981 . Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgnent, 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 (l4) 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 Finance Department, first floor of City Hall , or same may be purchased at cost in said department. 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 FEBRUARY 17 , 1981 , AT 9 :00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: 1 . RAINIER SAND AND GRAVEL COMPANY Continued from December 23 , 1980 : application for special permit to fill and grade 1 . 6 million cubic yards over life of project , file SP-099-80; property located approximately 370 feet south of N.E. 3rd Street on hill east of Mt. Olivet Cemetery. 2 . HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. Reopening of the public hearing by the Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner for consideration of the recreational element of the proposal : application for three lot short plat approval in R-4 zone, file Short Plat 095-80 , and waiver of off-site improvements, W-096-80; property located on the west side of Edmonds Avenue N.E. (extended) between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street. 3. RENTON VILLAGE VETERINARY SUPPLY COMPANY Applications for rezone, file R-137-80, from GS-1 and R-4 to B-1 to allow parking for commercial business and variance, file V-007-81 , for reduction of required setback from 20 feet to 10 feet, relocation of required 5 foot landscaping requirement to portion of right-of-way of SR-515 , and lease of 20 foot strip of SR-515 right-of-way for relocated 5 foot landscaping strip; property located on the east side of Talbot Road South, south of FAI-405 and north of Puget Drive South. 4 . DURWOOD E. BLOOD Application for rezone, file R-001-81 , from R-1 to R-2 to permit future construction of ten townhouse condominium units ; property located on the south side of N.E. 14th Street approximately 130 feet west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. Legal descriptions of files noted above are on file in the Renton Planning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON FEBRUARY 17 , 1981 , AT 9 :00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. PUBLISHED: February 1 , 1981 DAVID R. CLEMENS ACTING PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION I , ROGER BLAYLOCK, 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 me, a Notary Public , in and for the State of Washington residing in King County, on the 30th ;day of January, 1 981 . SIGNED: ' �._._ t i `i" o • • , o. GENERAL LOC, ;TION: AND, OR ADDRESS: PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF EDMONDS AVENUE N .E . (EXTENDED) BETWEEN N .E . 3RD AND N .E . 4TH STREETS LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON FILE IN. THE RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT • • ' I S POSTED TAI NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS • F A '' G TO BE HELD IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, MUNICIPAL BUILDING ON FEBRUARY 17, 1981 BEGINNING AT :00 A.M. �I P.M. C *NCERNNG ITEM . a•'. ENE • E SPECIA PERiT U SITE :t PP w i VAL . •• VV ,A, • SH • REUY; E '‘ NAGEMENT PER IT THREE: LOT SHORT PLAT APPROVAL IN R-4 ZONE, FILE NO . . SHORT Apr*, PLAT 095-80 , AND AN WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, FILE N Y; THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE RECREATIONAL ELEMENT OF THE PROPOSAL ) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL 235 2550 THIS NOTICE .NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT PROOER AUTHORIZATION OF R4,4 �y © THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 n BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT °90 235- 2550 0,9gT SEPSE�ge' February 2 , 1981 U.S . Home Corporation 677 Strander, Suite A-C Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re : Application for three lot short plat approval in R-4 zone, file no . Short Plat 095-80, and waiver of off-site improvements, W-096-80 ; property located on the west side of Edmonds Avenue N . E . (extended ) between N .E . 3rd Street and N.E . 4th Street . Gentlemen : The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on *(SEE BELOW) . A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for February 17, 1981 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 , Roger J. Blaylock, Associate Planner RJB :yb cc : Kent J . Stepan, P .E . Stepan & Associates , Inc . 930 South 336th Street , Suite A Federal Way , WA 98003 * Reopening of the public hearing by the Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner for consideration of the recreational element of the proposal . / r U' :: ' • 0 ,/ ,,.. 4 roc' .•ci- .,, Pt4..- 4 1 , 5 , i h'}. .04.;i' I . +,`r h. v.t, ' tit . ,,y e �. # q ., �h to � ‘: '', t +ggr 1 , 4. ' , : i'r.. ..' , ' ^!¢ ^• S 1 r P t 2 ySSt..a. i F Wk; 5: i,;, x rt .i a y a u'k 111 r J e '� s.. . R ,.4� ✓ ' RCS,P` . Y*. 'y .;rt ; ;`a '"Sr • GENERAL LOCATION: AND, OR ADDRESS: PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF EDMONDSVAVENUE N.E. (EXTENDED) BETWEEN N.E. 3RD AND. N.E. 4TH STREETS • LEGAL DESCRIPTION: • • LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON FILE IN THE RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT I S POSTED TO NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS OF i 6 1 5 ,y t ` 4'1 TO BE HELD IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, MUNICIPAL BUILDING rN FEBRUARY 10 . 1981 BEGINNING xiT Mena A.M. • P.M. CO' :C ;:' ."! 1 iN . f . EM z 4 ... •:: • St I1 Ell SPECA.. . . 4 E : MF1 '` U APROV? L . ili WAIVER ., „. , . 8SFuiOREjk :E .- .. ` '.tix• Ai A:ry .•fix 5 ;,."lti '?l b '' PERPIO 'r THREE-LOT SHORT .PLAT APPROVAL IN R-4 ZONE, FILE' NO. SHORT PLAT 095-80 •' °< AND AN WAIVER OF. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS; FILE NO. W-096-80 i FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Ci LL 235 2550 THIS NOTICE NOT T 0 BE RE, ,,,VED WIn9OUT PROPER AU IZA11ON, - OF I THE CITY OF RENTON z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH. MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 09� co- 235- 2550 (P 0,917. kD SEPSE�O MEMORANDUM February 5, 1981 TO: File FROM: Dave Clemens , Acting Planning Director Dick Houghton, Acting Public Works Director RE: HOMECRAFT SHORT PLAT ERADCO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RAINIER SAND & GRAVEL MINING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT RE: EDMONDS AVENUE N.E. AND N.E. 3RD INTERSECTION Following a discussion on Friday, January 30th, the Planning and Public Works Departments have concluded the following as it relates to the intersection of Edmonds Avenue N.E. and N.E. 3rd Street. As of this date we have proposals from Homecraft for approximately 280 multiple family dwelling units and from ERADCO for approximately 425 multiple family units. The net effect of these two developments is to increase traffic flows on N.E. 3rd by in excess of 400 vehicles during peak hours , and 4500 vehicles per day. As a result, it is the conclusion of these departments that access from these two developments to N.E. 3rd Street must be in the form of a public street right-of-way developed to normal City street standards. These improvements should minimize or eliminate the impact of additional traffic on Bronson Way N.E. from the Homecraft development, and provide for access of the ERADCO project into the traffic stream on N.E. 3rd. GENERAL STANDARDS OF DESIGN Edmonds Avenue N.E. north of N.E. 3rd shall be constructed as part of the Homecraft Short Plat and multiple family develop- ment to include intersection improvements on N.E. 3rd providing for 5-lane street section with left turn channelization and a traffic signal providing for left turn movements at this intersection. The ERADCO PUD shall provide for the connection of Edmonds Avenue N.E. to N.E. 3rd Street, provide for 5-lane N.E. 3rd Street channelization including left turn lanes, and signalize the intersection. Likewise, the Rainier Sand & Gravel mining , excavation and grading permit shall provide Memorandum to File February 5, 1981 Page -2- for the dedication of the extension of Edmonds Avenue N.E. from N.E. 3rd to the ERADCO property. Since no development is proposed at this time in this grading permit application, only the right-of-way dedication will be required at this time. Future development of Edmonds Avenue N.E. extending southerly to Maple Valley Highway will be considered at a later time. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES Since both the Homecraft and ERADCO multiple family developments will be required to install the public street linkage of Edmonds Avenue N.E. to N.E. 3rd, it is suggested that this intersection be a 4-way intersection located at the southerly terminus of the existing Edmonds Avenue right-of-way at N.E. 3rd. This will ensure the minimum widening, channelization and left turn lanes in N.E. 3rd. This proposal will also only require one traffic signal to be constructed. Both Homecraft and ERADCO should discuss distribution of the costs related to the intersection improvements and traffic signal installation. The ERADCO portion of the Edmonds Avenue extension would be constructed over the right-of-way provided by Rainier Sand & Gravel in its permit. Should the two applicants be unable to mutually agree to the necessary improvements at Edmonds and N.E. 3rd, two traffic signals located at approxi- mately 350 foot centers appears to be an acceptable alternative, although considerably more costly. MAPLE VALLEY EXTENSION OF EDMONDS AVENUE N.E. As a part of any development proposal for the Rainier Sand & Gravel Co. site, extension of Edmonds Avenue N.E. southerly to provide connection to the Maple Valley Highway in the vicinity of the existing Gull gasoline service station should be provided. The alignment of this street right-of-way should be such that properties in the immediate vicinity can access to this street in order to provide access to Maple Valley Highway rather than the requirement to connect to the N.E. 3rd and_ N.E. 4th street corridors.- - cc : Dick Houghton Don Monaghan Gary Norris Ron Olsen Mayor Mike Parness Planning Department Staff DRC:yb OF R4, •► o THE CITY OF RENTON v 4 �/ '.Y as NEw+ Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 smow.Z o o a BARBARA". Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR ® LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 90 `O FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 0,9ltEO SEP1 /' December 4, 1980 Mr. Joel Haggard Attorneys & Counselors at Law 1530 Bank of California Center 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98164 RE; File No. Short Plat 095.-80, W-096-80; Homecraft Land Development Company. Dear Mr. Haggard: I have reviewed your letter of November 24, 1980. As you are aware, the appeal period established for this matter expired on December 3, 1980. However, the only appeal which could have been accepted by this office would pertain to the decision to reopen the hearing pending the submission of specific development plans to allow the sole issue of recreational needs to be adequately addressed by all parties. If staff in this office can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, ALL-0Qti VOA,. Fred J . Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Planning Department City Clerk r 4 HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 1530 BANK OF CALIFORNIA CENTER RUSSELL F. TOUSLEY 900 FOURTH AVENUE JOEL E.HAGGARD SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98164 TELEPHONE ' CHRISTOPHER I. BRAIN (206) 682-1005 WILLIAM N.SNELL November 24, 1980 Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner The City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue So. Renton, Washington 98055 RE : File No. Short Plat 095-80, W-096-80 ; Homecraft Land Development Company Dear Mr. Kaufman: We understand that you have granted our request for reconsideration limited solely to the purpose of presenting testimony relating to the. recreational needs of residents which are generated by the ultimate development on the subject property. However , since the client and its engineers are currently examining and developing their specific plans for the proposed action, we would suggest that a hearing not be scheduled at this time but be con- tinued on call pending the development of those plans and appropriate communications between our client and staff in order to assure a timely response with adequate information and materials available to you. We also note that the matter with respect to the request for reconsideration by Malk Fricks, of the Vantage Point Conominium Owners Association, was denied with a new appeal period to expire on December 3, 1980. We would suggest that it may be more appropriate to start the appeal period on their request for reconsideration after the date of your report on the reopened hearing, for it certainly does not seem expeditious to have a partial appeal going to the City Council while the matter is still pending before the Hearing Examiner. Sincerely yours, HAGGARD, OU1S EY & BRAIN Jore`l a Bard RECEIVED JH:.ew cc: Mr. Ray Wilshire CITY OF RENTON Homecraft Land Development HEARING EXAMINER Mr. C. J. Hopper NOV2 51980 U. S. Home Corporation PM OF • �► THE CITY OF RENTON tip. MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 Z o BARBARA'. Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9,0 `O . FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 0 �P 9�TFD SEP- ° November 19, 1980 Mrs. Malka Fricks, President Vantage Point Condominium Owners Association 2611 N.E. 4th Street, #234 Renton, WA 98055 RE: File No. Short Plat 095-80, W-096-80; Homecraft Land Development Co. Dear Mrs. Fricks: I have reviewed your request for reconsideration and the request for reconsideration by the applicant. While the hearing has been reopened for a specific purpose, there is no reason to modify the result to include site plan review at this juncture as you requested. The applicant has applied for a short plat and has proposed no specific development densities for any of the three resultant lots. During the short plat proceeding the issues generally revolve around whether or not the proposed division of land will serve the public use and interest and whether or not the public health, safety and welfare would be served by approval . It is during this stage that the issues of access, utility availability and dedications of land to the public are determined. The intensity of development and therefore the issues of site plans are more appropriately questioned at the time the applicant applies for a building permit with specific site objectives. At that time the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) , a city agency charged with environmental determination, determines whether or not the proposal or proposals have an impact on the quality of the environment. The issues you have raised will be addressed when specific development plans are submitted to the city for review. Depending on its determination and the nature of the proposal , the ERC could require site plan review. Regarding your request for timely notification, the city publishes and posts property as required by ordinance, but not all actions require such notification. Therefore, it is incumbent upon interested parties to keep themselves apprised of matters in which they are concerned. As you will note in the enclosed response to the applicant 's request for reconsideration, the item has been reopened solely for the presentation of information related to the issue of recreational needs. After submission of formal plans, the potential impact of the proposal on neighborhood recreational facilities and on-site mitigation of same may be more definitely determined. Malka Fricks Page Two November 19, 1980 • A new appeal period has now been established for the referenced application. to expire on December 3, 1980. Very truly yours, am Fred J. Ka fman Hearing Examiner cc: Parties of Record RECEIVED )'` Y OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER N0V 121980 2611 N.E. 4 Street #234 AM "h Renton, Was . 98055 7181%1001020 i2a.37V%ii6 &c aber--103-r98O November 10, 1980 Fred J. Kaufman Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Wash. 98055 Re: Homecraft Land Devel- opment, Inc . File No . Sh.Pl. 095-80, W. 096-80 Dear Mr. Kaufman, Having spoken at length on 11/6/80 with Marilyn Petersen of your office, I am writing this letter on behalf of the Vantage Point Condominium Owners Association with respect to the potential development of land presently owned by the above named applicant. The V.P.C.O.A. believes that the applicant 's present develop- ment plans would cause major negative impact to us and other home- owners in the immediate vicinity as follows : 1. Devaluation of our property due to high density development immediately to the west of Vantage Point Condominium 2 . Impaired traffic flow resulting in severe and con- tinual congestion as a result of high density dev- elopment 3.Lack of adequate park facilities I have obtained from the Planning Department a copy of the Preliminary Report to Hearing Examiner (10/21/80) and the Report and Decision issued by your office (10/29/80) . With reference to my concern about potential property deval- uation, please note: in the Preliminary Report, Page Four, section four, mention is made of the potential development of 200 to 300 units ; whereas the Report and Decision, Page Two, paragraph five, mentions an increase in population of from 600 to 1,100 people. In consulting with various real estate professionals and our attorney in the past week, I have ascertained that there is an in- verse ratio between population density and property value in any given neighborhood. Considering the fact that the remaining adjacent community, Highbury Park and Windsor Hills, are both Single Family Residen- tial, it would appear that property values of those developments would certainly be negatively affected as well. Page Two I am sure you are well aware, Mr. Kaufman, that Vantage Point, although zoned for High Density Multifamily Residential, was in fact built as Medium Density. Vantage Point is a complex of ninety-six units ; a complex utilizing its usable area to maximum capacity as constructed. (Vantage Point has 198 on-site parking stalls ; 182 re- served for owners, the remaining 16 are guest stalls . We therefore, find ourselves continually utilizing on-street parking both for own- ers as well as guests .) With respect to the impact on traffic flow, we are cognizant of the fact that linking N.E. 3rd and N.E. 4th via an extension of Edmonds Ave. N.E. will relieve, somewhat, a possible congestion sit- uation of North-South flow, BUT - we still project severe problems . As you are aware, the new Highbury Park Development consists of approximately 90 lots, all with ingress/egress via Edmonds Ave. N.E. Assuming an average of two vehicles per home, 180 cars will be added to daily traffic flow. Our experience at Vantage Point indic- ates that the majority of vehicles used daily travel east-west along N.E. 3rd and N.E. 4th as their most often traveled routes . Therefore, although an extension of Edmonds Ave. N.E. will indeed become a necessity, it will not relieve the east-west congestion. Although Vantage Point, Highbury Park and. Windsor Hills traff- ic appear to be the primary consideration in examining this con- cern, one should also bear in mind that additional traffic several blocks to the east should be of concern also. Renton Vocational- Technical School receives most of its traffic (both day and eve- ning session students)from an east-west direction. Also, If I am coreect, approval by the City of Renton has been given for resid- ential development in the vicinity of Monroe Ave. and N.E. 3rd St. This influx of population, coupled with the already developed 3811 Court Complex on N.E. 3rd seems to predict an impact that thus far has not been considered. In terms of park facilities and open space, the V.P.C .O.A. is of the opinion that if Homecraft Land Development does not pro- vide adequate recreational facilities and open space (by decreasing the number of units to be built) , the immediate neighborhood would be severely impacted. The V.P.C.O.A. does not wish to prevent the development of this property, nor could it properly do so. However, we are concerned,for the aforementioned reasons, and are requesting the City of Renton to consider urging the lower figure of 200 units be constructed. Therefore, Mr. Kaufman, we are also requesting that the V.P.C.O.A. be apprised of all action taken by the City of Renton as is timely. We further request site plan approval by the Hearing Examiner and all pertinent data with respect to traffic, landscape buffering, height limitation and density. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, Malka Fricks, President Vantage Point Condominium Owners Association RECEIVED r..Y OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER NOV 121980 PM 2611 N.E. 4 Street #234 AM Renton, Was . 98055 718,911011111211123141516 ec- ober-l0;-r980 November 10, 1980 Fred J. Kaufman Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Wash. 98055 Re: Homecraft Land Devel- opment, Inc . File No . Sh.Pl. 095-80, W. 096-80 Dear Mr. Kaufman, Having spoken at length on 11/6/80 with Marilyn Petersen of your office, I am writing this letter on behalf of the Vantage Point Condominium Owners Association with respect to the potential development of land presently owned by the above named applicant. The V.P.C.O.A. believes that the applicant's present develop- ment plans would cause major negative impact to us and other home- owners in the immediate vicinity as follows : 1. Devaluation of our property due to high density development immediately to the west of Vantage Point Condominium 2. Impaired traffic flow resulting in severe and con- tinual congestion as a result of high density dev- elopment 3.Lack of adequate park facilities I have obtained from the Planning Department a copy of the" Preliminary Report to Hearing Examiner (10/21/80) and the Report and Decision issued by your office (10/29/80) . With reference to my concern about potential property deval- uation, please note: in the Preliminary Report, Page Four, section four, mention is made of the potential development of 200 to 300 units; whereas the Report and Decision, Page Two, paragraph five, mentions an increase in population of from 600 to 1,100 people. In consulting with various real estate professionals and our attorney in the past week, I have ascertained that there is an in- verse ratio between population density and property value in any given neighborhood. Considering the fact that the remaining adjacent community, Highbury Park and Windsor Hills, are both Single Family Residen- tial, it would appear that property values of those developments would certainly be negatively affected as well. Page Two I am sure you are well aware, Mr. Kaufman, that Vantage Point, although zoned for High Density Multifamily Residential, was in fact built as Medium Density. Vantage Point is a complex of ninety-six units ; a complex utilizing its usable area to maximum capacity as constructed. (Vantage Point' has 198 on-site parking stalls ; 182 re- served for owners, the remaining 16 are guest stalls. We therefore, find ourselves continually utilizing on-street parking both for own- ers as well as guests . ) With respect to the impact on traffic flow, we are cognizant of the fact that linking N.E. 3rd and N.E. 4th via an extension of Edmonds Ave. N.E. will relieve, somewhat, a possible congestion sit- uation of North-South flow, BUT - we still project severe problems . As you are aware, the new Highbury Park Development consists of approximately 90 lots, all with ingress/egress via Edmonds Ave. N.E. Assuming an average of two vehicles per home, 180 cars will be added to daily traffic flow. Our experience at Vantage Point indic- ates that the majority of vehicles used daily travel east-west along N.E. 3rd and N.E. 4th as their most often traveled routes . Therefore, although an extension of Edmonds Ave. N.E. will indeed become a necessity, it will not relieve the east-west congestion. Although Vantage Point, Highbury Park and Windsor Hills traff- ic appear to be the primary consideration in examining this con- cern, one should also bear in mind that additional traffic several blocks to the east should be of concern. also. Renton Vocational- Technical School receives most of its traffic (both day and eve- ning session students)from an east-west direction. Also, If I am coreect, approval by the City of Renton has been given for resid- ential development in the vicinity of Monroe Ave. and N.E. 3rd St. This influx of population, coupled with the already developed 3811 Court Complex on N.E. 3rd seems to predict an impact that thus far has not been considered. In terms of park facilities and open space, the V.P.C.O.A. is of the opinion that if Homecraft Land Development does not pro- vide adequate recreational facilities and open space (by decreasing the number of units to be built) , the immediate neighborhood would be severely impacted. The V.P.C.O.A. does not wish to prevent the development of this property, nor could it properly do so. However, we are concerned,for the aforementioned reasons , and are requesting the City of Renton to consider urging the lower figure of 200 units be constructed. Therefore, Mr. Kaufman, we are also requesting that the V.P.C.O.A. be apprised of all action taken by the City of Renton as is timely. We further request site plan approval by the Hearing Examiner and all pertinent data with respect to traffic, landscape buffering, height limitation and density. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, Malka Pricks, President Vantage Point Condominium Owners Association ® J OF R4, 0 THE CITY OF RENTON CJr` 4544 . Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 ..1 ; 0 BARBARA'. Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR o LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER ,0 co- . FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 0 91 1.$0 SEP- MO�P November 19, 1980 Mr. Joel Haggard Haggard, Tousley & Brain, Attorneys 1530 Bank of California Center Seattle, WA 98164 RE: File No. Short Plat 095-80, W-096-80; Homecraft Land Development Company. Dear Mr. Haggard: I have reviewed your request for reconsideration in the above entitled matter and have determined that your request to reopen the hearing on the matter is justified. While it may be possible to draft an agreement to provide for the recreational needs of the potential residents of the subject site at this time, you are correct in that drafting an agreement for a specific proposal or proposals would be easier for all parties . Therefore, the item will be reopened for the limited purpose of presenting testimony relating to the recreational needs of residents which are generated by the ultimate development on the subject property. You will also note that a separate request for reconsideration was received from Malka Fricks, President of the Vantage Point Condominium Owners Association, and the response to that request is enclosed. A new appeal period has now been established for the referenced application to expire on December 3, 1980. Very truly yours, Fred J . Kau man Hearing Examiner cc: Parties of Record e HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW • 1530 BANK OF CALIFORNIA CENTER RUSSELL F. TOUSLEY 900 FOURTH AVENUE JOEL E. HAGGARD SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98164 TELEPHONE CHRISTOPHER 1. BRAIN WILLIAM N. SNELL (206) 682-1005 • November 7, 1980 Hon. Fred J. Kaufman fl)V Land Use Hearing Examiner City of Renton �r`'.z';r, �Jl,r.•• `1 sr, Renton City Hall Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Request for Reconsideration - Sh. Pl. 095-80, W-096-80 Dear Mr. Kaufman: On behalf of the applicant, we request reconsider- ation of your decision conditioning short plat approval upon execution of a contract to provide for recreational needs of future residents in accord with a rigid, specific Comprehensive Plan Policy. At the short plat hearing a representative of the Park Department appeared and indicated that park needs for residents would have to he considered. We did not disa- gree and presumed that this would be addressed during the development approval process. The Comprehensive Plan Policy requiring ten acres of parks per 1,000 residents is a policy (or objective) not yet implemented by ordinance in the City of Renton. Renton is currently considering an ordinance imposing a development change, but it is yet to be adopted and accordingly does not apply as a matter of law. There is a serious legal question as to whether the Plan' s policy applies through the Renton Development Guidelines Ordi- nance to short plats as distinguished from long plats. Imposition of the standard strictly on a popu- lation basis is contrary to existing administrative practice. As we understand it, the standard is flexibly interpreted with credit given for on-site recreational facilities after an examination is made to determine 0' 4 Hon. Fred J. Kaufman November 7 , 1980 Page 2 • specific need for additional recreational and park facili- ties. As our client is just developing site plans, the number of people to be located on the property, the amount of on-site recreational facilities, and the demand on off-site facilities are uncertain. Accordingly, the specific recreational requirements for this development cannot yet be ascertained in accord with existing adminis- trative practice. We intend to meet and discuss this with representa- tives of the Parks Department. After such discussions, we would anticipate presenting appropriate information to the record so that a reasonable condition may be formulated. Therefore, we request that your decision be reconsidered and the matter continued on call for a reopened hearing limited to the issue of recreational needs. Respectfully submitted, HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN Joel Haggard , JH: ew cc: Mr . Kent Stepan Stepan & Associates Mr. Ray Wilshire U. S. Home Corporation HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 1530 BANK OF CALIFORNIA CENTER RUSSELL F.. TOUSLEY 900 FOURTH AVENUE JOEL E. HAGGARD SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98164 TELEPHONE CHRISTOPHER I. BRAIN WILLIAM N. SNELL (206) 682-1005 November 7, 1980REC E° ivFD t-tE k.!iNG E'a;.P.^i1N1;I3 Hon. Fred J. Kaufman NO yj 198Q Land Use Hearing Examiner l4A� City of Renton ' 1 dJ o�a�s3 ;I � Renton City Hall- Renton, Washington 98055 Q RE: Request for Reconsideration - Sh. Pl. 095-80, W-096-80 Dear Mr. Kaufman: On behalf of the applicant, we request reconsider- ation of your decision conditioning short plat approval upon execution of a contract to provide for recreational needs of future residents in accord with a rigid, specific Comprehensive Plan Policy. At the short plat hearing a representative of the Park Department appeared and indicated that park needs for residents would have to be considered. We did not disa- gree and presumed that this would be addressed during the development approval process. The Comprehensive Plan Policy requiring ten acres of parks per 1,000 residents is a policy (or objective) not yet implemented by ordinance in the City of Renton. Renton is currently considering an ordinance imposing a development change, but it is yet to be adopted and accordingly does not apply as a matter of law. There is a serious legal question as to whether the Plan' s policy applies through the Renton Development Guidelines Ordi- nance to short plats as distinguished from long plats. Imposition of the standard strictly on a popu- lation basis is contrary to existing administrative practice. As we understand it, the standard is flexibly interpreted with credit given for on-site recreational facilities after an examination is made to determine I_y a. ='ram F w Hon. Fred J. Kaufman November 7 , 1980 Page 2 specific need for additional recreational and park facili- ties. As our client is just developing site plans, the number of people to be located on the property, the amount of on-site recreational facilities, and the demand on off-site facilities are uncertain. Accordingly, the specific recreational requirements for this development cannot yet be ascertained in accord with existing adminis- trative practice. We intend to meet and discuss this with representa- tives of the Parks Department. After such discussions, we would anticipate presenting appropriate information to the record so that a reasonable condition may be formulated. Therefore, we request that your decision be reconsidered and the matter continued on call for a reopened hearing limited to the issue of recreational needs. Respectfully submitted, HAGGARD, TOOSLEY & BRAIN ( .'77/1 // ..,,.4Ari J el Ha gardj JH:ew cc: Mr . Kent Stepan Stepan & Associates Mr. Ray Wilshire U. S. Home Corporation • 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 �9th day of October , 19 80 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. Air Subscribed and sworn this 2q �' day of Od e_f 19 e40 . Notary Public in and for the State • of Washington, residing at. Renton Application, Petition or Case: SH. PL. 095-80; Homecraft Land Development (The minutes contain, a Zia. og the pan.#,iea og• necond) { October 29, 1980 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION , APPLICANT: Homecraft Land Development, Inc. FILE NO. Sh. Pl . 095-80, W-096-80 LOCATION: West side of Edmonds Avenue N.E. (extended) between N.E. 3rd and N.E.. 4th Streets. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a three-lot short plat together . with a waiver of the required off-site improvements. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Planning Department Recommendation: Approval of the short plat with conditions; Denial of the waiver. Hearing Examiner Decision: Approval of the short plat with conditions; Denial of the waiver. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department preliminary report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on October 15, 1980. 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 October 21 , 1980 at 9:25 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the Planning Department report. Legal counsel for the applicant introduced himself as follows , and submitted a legal brief for the record: Joel Haggard 1530 Bank of California Center 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98164 Mr. Haggard advised that the sole purpose for proposing the subject three-lot short plat is to facilitate land purchase and financing since the purchase agreement provides for take-down in three parcels. He noted that because development is not proposed at this time, the two conditions recommended by the Planning Department--Planned Unit Development approval by the Hearing Examiner, and full width .construction of Edmonds Avenue N.E.-- should be deleted, and a substitute condition imposed to state: "Traffic and storm water retention system improvements if . required to service Lots 1 , 2 or 3 shall be determined in accordance with applicable ordinances at the time a development approval application is submitted to the city for any such lot." Mr. Haggard indicated that the applicant is requesting a conditional waiver to delay installation of appropriate improvements until the time of actual development of the site. Responding to the Examiner's request' to proceed with the Planning Department presentation, Roger Blaylock, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report, and entered the following exhibits into the record: Exhibit #1 : Application File containing Planning Department report and other pertinent documents Exhibit #2: Short Plat Map Exhibit #3: Vicinity Map with staff comments Responding to Mr. Haggard's request for clarification of the Planning Department's position .. that in order to protect the city a waiver should not be anything other than conditional as long as development does not occur. Mr. Blaylock advised that two options are available, either approval of a conditional waiver or approval of a deferral for no longer than two years. However, because development of Edmonds Avenue N.E. is imminent, the department would prefer deferral of the right-of-way. Mr. Haggard _stated that because • location and cost of improving the roadway and the extent of storm .water improvements are unknown at this time, he supported approval of the condition contained in the legal brief. _ P'- i Sh. P1 . 095-80 Page Two The Examiner advised that he is constrained by ordinance to grant only an outright waiver of improvements. Mr. Haggard felt that it is within the Examiner's purview to recommend a conditional waiver if it is deemed desirable; and because the sole purpose of the short plat request is to expedite financing, and cost and location of improvements are uncertain, _ a deferral would be inappropriate. He indicated that two options would be available to the applicant of either withdrawing the application or proceeding with a requirement that cannot be enforced because of uncertainty of improvement requirements. Mr. Haggard also advised that procedures in King County allow short platting to proceed with a non- building designation until certain improvements are installed. Responding to the Examiner's comment that once the property is sold, three separate owners would be required to follow through on installation of a portion of the improvements, Mr. Haggard stated that storm water retention/detention would be required for each lot and the property owners who benefit from the roadway would be required to participate in improving it or join in an LID for the project. Responding for the applicant was: .. ' Ray Wiltshire Homecraft Land Development 2600 S. Loop. West, Suite 650 Houston, Texas 77054 Mr. Wiltshire advised the purpose of the short plat application to assist in the financing of the acquisition of the subject property, and until definite development plans are formulated, a waiver of improvements is requested. Responding for the applicant was: Kent Stepan 930 S. 336th Street Federal Way, WA 98003 Mr. Stepan, engineer for the project', agreed that improvements should be required upon development relating to traffic circulation, location of access, sight distance, grades to existing streets, development of Edmonds Avenue N.E. , and storm drainage facilities. However, he supported delaying 'the :improvements to a later date when specific costs and design configurations are established. The Examiner requested:'testimony In support or opposition to the application. There was no response. He then requested comments from the Park Director. Responding was: John Webley, Park Director City of Renton Mr. Webley was affirmed by the Examiner. Mr. Webley discussed the potential impacts to the city's park system through ultimate development of the subject site. 'He advised'- that the city's Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan addresses the lack of available land for park development in the vicinity of the subject site, and although Highlands Park, in designated Neighborhood Park #9, exists to. the north, it is presently at its use capacity. In view of the projected increase in population of from 600 'to 1 , 100 people resulting from ultimate development of the site, Mr. Webley felt that some on-site recreational amenities should be provided as well as off-site dedication or a fee in lieu of dedication to meet the city standard of 10 acres per 1 ,000 people. He noted that the city's number one acquisition priority, Neighborhood Park #8, is located to the east of the subject site to compensate for a lack of recreational facilities in that vicinity. , 'The Examiner requested further testimony by the Planning Department. Mr. Blaylock inquired regarding the timing of development of the subject site. Mr. Wiltshire indicated that timing is uncertain, potential plans and use of' the .property are currently under review, but upon development all city requirements would be met. Mr. Haggard expressed appreciation for the comments from the Park. Director to alert the developer of anticipated city requirements; however, no development is being proposed and the purpose of the short plat request is for acquisition and financing 'requirements. The Examiner noted that during the short plat process the Examiner and the city may require dedication or fees for land acquisition to provide for services. Mr. Haggard stated that the city has the full range of discretion and authority to impose conditions upon development, and it is not appropriate to restrict the applicant by prohibiting alternative use of a processing scheme by which the applicant can pursue development. He stated that upon development, all city requirements-' would be imposed and met by the applicant, and it would not be possible to post a bond for improvements when all details are yet unknown. The Examiner advised that the option of - issuance of a conditional waiver would be reviewed with the City Attorney, but if the waiver is denied after review of the matter, the option Sh. Pl . J95-80 Page Three • to request a deferral would still be available to the applicant. Since there were no further comments, the hearing regarding Short Plat 095-80 and W-096-80 was closed by the Examiner at 9:55 a.m. • FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:. FINDINGS: 1 . The request is for approval of a three-lot short plat together with a request for waiver of the required off-site improvements. 2. The application file containing the application, SEPA documentation, the Planning Department report, and other pertinent documents was entered into the record as Exhibit #1 . 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton`s Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , R.C.W. 43.21 .C. , as amended, the subject proposal has been determined exempt from the threshold. determination by the Environmental Review Committee, responsible official . 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. The subject property. is located on the west side of Edmonds Avenue N.E. (as it would be extended) between_N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street and the Puget Power Transmission Line .:forms the western boundary. 6. The total area of the subject property is approximately 8.4 acres. The parcel. is trapezoidally shaped with the narrow end' pointing ,south. The site slopes downward from the northeast to the southwest at grades varying between 52 to 16.5%. The vegetation on the site is mainly scrubbrush' and weeds. The site is currently undeveloped. 7. The subject site was annexed into the city in June of 1956. The property was rezoned from R-1 (Single Family Residential ; Minimum lot size -. 7,200 square feet) to R-4 (High Density Multifamily) in' 1963. 8. The applicant proposed dividing the subject property into three lots each of which would contain approximately 2.8 acres. Parcel A is located on the northeast corner of the trapezoid on N.E. 4th and its intersection with Edmonds Avenue N.E. (as extended) . Parcel B .is located at the northwest corner of the subject parcel along N.E. 4th Street. The remaining Parcel , C, 'is located at the southern end of the subject parcel and is bounded by Edmonds Avenue N.E. (as extended) , N.E. 3rd Street and the Puget Power Transmission Line. 9. The applicant has also requested a waiver of the required off-site improvements pursuant to Section 9-1105(6) (B) . This request was modified. to a request for a conditional waiver because of uncertainties relating .to road alignments (See Finding No. 13 below) . 10. The subject property is currently zoned R-4 (High Density Multifamily Residential) . East of the subject property are large tracts zoned GS-1 (General ; Single Family Residential ; Minimum' lot size' - 35,000 square feet) , SR-1 (Single Family Residential ; Minimum lot size - 7,500 square feet) -and a large R-1 zone (Single Family Residential ; Minimum lot size- 7,200 square feet) to the north. 11 . There are a variety of land uses in the area. East of the subject site is the . Vantage Point Condominiun 'development and undeveloped state-owned property. The • Puget Power Transmission Line is west of the subject site. Windsor Hills Subdivision and the recently approved .Highbury Park plat are located north of the subject property and the,Windsor Hills Park is northeast. 12. The Arterials and Streets Element of the Comprehensive Plan indicate that N.E. 3rd Street is designated as a major arterial/parkway, while N.E. 4th Street is a major arterial . 13. The Public Works Department and the Traffic Engineering Division have indicated that full improvements be installed along the Edmonds Avenue N.E. extension. No specific configuration has been determined for the alignment of that roadway. The Traffic Engineering Division is not certain of the time frame for construction. 14. The Director of the Parks Department indicated that under the current R-4 zoning Sh. Fi . 095-80 Page Four the subject site .could potentially contain units housing between 600 and 1 ,100 people. The city standards provide 10 acres per 1 ,000 persons to meet the recreational needs of its residents. The subject site is located within the immediate area of three "neighborhoods" defined by the Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan. These neighborhoods are numbers 6, 8 and 9, respectively. Neighborhood Number 9 has approximately 14 acres of city parks, Number 6 has about 30 acres, a large portion is the Cedar River Park/Trail , ,and' Number 8 has no developed park; the Parks Department considers this area a number one priority. Highlands Park is at capacity. 15. The Planning Department indicated that a PUD be submitted for the site at the time of development to provide consistent development of the site. 16. As indicated in Finding No. 9, the applicant has requested a conditional waiver. The term "waiver" is ordinarily defined as the act of intentionally relinquishing or abandoning a known right, claim or privilege, or dispenses with the performance , of something which the grantor is entitled to exact, and no act of the party receiving it is necessary to complete the waiver. CONCLUSIONS: 1 . The short plat, as conditioned below, appears to serve the public use and interest. Each lot will be approximately 2.8 acres in size and is capable of providing sufficient land area to develop housing compatible with the R-4 zoning designation of the subject property. 2. The applicant has currently no demonstrated development plans for the subject property, and therefore the issue of what specific provision should be made in connection with recreational amenities cannot be -dE-Eurately'determined. The city has a Park and Recreational Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Plan, which provides guidance for appropriate reservations of land--10 acres of land for each one thousand residents,. The subject property has the potential carrying capacity of approximately 1 , 100 residents given maximum development under the R-4 zoning. Under these conditions, that is, maximum development, the subject property must make appropriate provision of up to 10 acres to satisfy the needs of these potential 1 ,000 or more people as outlined in the Parks Plan. While 1 ,100 people appear to be the maximum, such numbers may not be reached; therefore, the applicant shall be required to provide a pro rata share for each 100 residents which the ultimate development may generate. 3. The Planning Department has not adequately indicated why the subject property should be developed as a PUD. The owner of the property retains the right to sell off each lot and no justification was presented which should limit the ultimate development method. Such limitations, if appropriate, may be imposed in subsequent actions by the city. 4. Sections 9-1105(4) , (6) and (7) require that the improvements required by ordinance be installed. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the requested waiver should be granted. The Hearing Examiner is not empowered to grant a conditional waiver. The proper method of delaying the installation of required improvements is by means of a deferral (Section 9-1.105(6) (A)).. A. deferral may be granted for a two-year period and this time period may prove to be sufficient for the city to determine the alignment of roadways and storm systems in the area. By definition, a waiver is unconditional , and therefore, a conditional waiver is not appropriate in this instance. The applicant is not without remedy and may, as indicated above, apply to the Board of Public Works for a deferral for up to two 'years, and if that is not sufficient, the applicant`"may petition to have the ordinance changed to reflect the situation as it may, then exist. 5. Pursuant to Sections 9-1105(4) , (6) and (7) , improvements must be installed to full city standards prior to the plat receiving the necessary official signatures. DECISION: Exhibit #2 is approved subject to the execution of a contract to provide for the recreational needs of the future residents of the subject property, such needs to include but. not be limited to open space, ball fields, play-fields, as outlined in the Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan. The total provision shall be based on a pro rata amount using 1 ,000 residents as the base figure, the adjustment to be up or down accordingly. The waiver is denied. • Sh. . 095-80 Page Five ORDERED THIS 29th day of October, 1980. Fred J. K fman Land Use earing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 29th day of October, 1980 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Joel Haggard, 1530 Bank of California Center, 900 4th Ave. , Seattle,. WA . 98164 Ray Wiltshire, Homecraft. Land Development, 2600 S. Loop West, Suite 650, Houston, Texas 77054 Kent Stepan, 930 S. 336th Street, Federal Way, WA 98003 John Webley, Park Director, City of Renton TRANSMITTED THIS 29th day of October, 1980 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Warren .C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericks.en, Planning Director Michael Porter, Planning Commission Chairman Ron Nelson, Building Division. Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before November 12, 1980. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment of 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 Finance Department, first floor of City Hall , or same may be purchased at cost in said department. RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON 1 HEARING EXAMNc_-.R OCT 21 1.9GO 2 AM PM 4 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON 5 6 REGARDING SHORT PLAT ) NO . 095-80 and W-096-80 APPLICATION BY HOMECRAFT ) 7 LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC . ) APPLICANT ' S STATEMENT OF POSITION 8 9 This three lot short plat has been proposed solely for 10 purposes of facilitating land purchase and financing . The 11. purchase agreement provides for take-down in three parcels and 12 but for this requirement no short plat would necessarily be 13 required. Development plans have not ye.t been established and 14 that is why a waiver of off-site improvements has been 15 requested . In short , this short plat application is solely a 16 procedural step to facilitate land purchase and not site 17 development ( See Planning Analysis , Para . L .3) . 18 RESTRICTION ON SITE APPROVAL PROCESSES. • 19 With totally uncertain plans for site development , the 20 Planning Department noted in Paragraph L .6 that either a site 21 plan approval or a PUD with master plan process should precede 22 development . The reasoning was that the public should know how 23 the entire site is to be developed and that the developments should be coordinated . Then the Staff recommended limiting 25 site development solely to a PUD master plan process 26 (Para. M . 1) . 27 28 APPLICANT' S STATEMENT OF POSITION - 1 HAGGARD, TOUSLEY &BRAIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW 1530 BANK OF CALIFORNIA CENTER 900 FOURTH AVENUE SEATTLE,WA 88164 682-1005 • 1 We disagree with ..Staff' s recommendation First ,, a PUD 2 process is not legally available: if site development is for 3 . . less than four acres. Second , a Master. Plan process is not 4 legally available when the total site is less than ten acres. 5 Third , the Staff recommendation is more restrictive than the 6 comment in ,Paragraph L .,6 without a basis .for making it more 7 restrictive: If in fact the "public" needs coordination and 8 consistency , we do not understand why this cannot necessarily 9 result by application of all conventional , presently applicable 10 development approval processes . Assuming the property is short 11 platted , the applicant has the same right as all property 12 owners in Renton to utilize any applicable choice in the code 13 when pursuing site aevelopment . There is no legal basis in the 14 Renton short plat ordinance upon which an applicant can be 15 denied the right to apply for a subdivision or a PUD or 16 , whatever. ,.The Examiner is, without authority to restrict under 17 the short plat ordinance the development approval process to be 18 followed later. . 19 ROAD IMPROVEMENT IS AN UNREASONABLE CONDITION . 20 The other Staff condition would require the applicant 21 to install a full-width public road even though no development 22 is now proposed requiring such road . This condition in 23 Paragraph M-2 is inconsistent with and contrary to the 24 reasoning on utilities set out in Paragraph L. S. , There the 25. Department of Public Works specifically indicated that storm 26 water' utility' u.pgr,ading: (if required) "would be specifically .27 . 28 APPLICANT' S STATEMENT OF POSITION 2 1 addressed at the time of actual construction of the individual 2 projects . " The same analysis and construction is applicable to 3 that portion of the road improvement related to applicant ' s 4 property . The concern regarding the effect of improving 5 Edmonds on the proposed ERADCO project discussed in Paragraph 6 L .4 specifically requires a conclusion that construction of 7 Edmonds now in the proposed location is premature . 8 As a fundamental principle of due process , the 9 applicant for a short plat application is not required to make 10 improvements not reasonably related to its proposal . See Gerla 11 v . City of Tacoma , 12 Wn .App . 883 ( 1975) (copy enclosed) . We do 12 not object to the proposition that a City can require off-site 13 improvements of a property owner when seeking a special use 14 permit . But it should be recognized in this case (unlike 15 Gerla) that applicant is not here seeking any special use 16 permit; it is only seeking to short plat a parcel for purposes 17 of acquisition, not of use . Thus , the requirement to construct 18 a major improvement like Edmonds bears no reasonable 19 relationshipto the purpose of the short plat approval . Each 20 lot in the short plat property has access directly to an 21 already constructed street. Assuming that Staff 's assumption 22 in Paragraph L .3 is correct , i . e . , that the State won ' t improve 23 that portion of Edmonds abutting it because it has access to 24 3rd , then byequal force of logic , q applicant should not be 25 forced either to improve Edmonds , since all short plats have 26 direct access to improved roadways . 27 28 APPLICANT ' S STATEMENT OF POSITION - 3 1 Applicant ' s position, however, is not that Edmonds 2 should not be improved , but only that it need not be developed 3 now, and when it is applicant should only pay its proportionate 4 share of the cost . This brings us back to the Gerla case and 5 the issue of what constitutes an unreasonable and hence illegal 6 condition. The first Gerla criterion involves the relative 7 benefit flowing to the applicant from the permitted activity . 8 There is no benefit at all as a result of the short plat; 9 benefit will only flow to applicant if and when development is 10 proposed . There is no need for Edmonds to be improved now as a 11 result of the procedural approval of a short plat. When 12 applicant ' s property is developed , Edmonds may have to be 13 improved. At that time Edmonds will serve properties on both 14 sides of it as well as general traffic in the area . Thus , 15 applicant 's share of the road cost should be proportionate to 16 applicant 's benefit . If applicant is required to pay 100% of 17 the cost , the cost is unreasonably in excess of its relative 18 benefit . The second Gerla criterion relates to the City ' s 19 ability to accomplish the improvement of Edmonds in other 20 ways. To the extent that applicant can reasonably be required 21 to improve Edmonds , the City has the ability to require this 22 when the applicant seeks a special use permit to develop its 23 property . Thus, improvement of Edmonds is not now required . 24 Further, the City can have Edmonds improved by an LID and can 25 require applicant through the short plat to not object to an 26 LID formation. We would so agree . The third Gerla criterion 27 28 APPLICANT ' S STATEMENT OF POSITION - 4 1 is that the proposed action must reasonably be the cause for 2 the condition to be imposed . The short plat approval will not 3' itself cause any demand on existing or projected street street systems 4 since No Development Is Proposed . Thus the proposed condition 5 of requiring applicant to improve ' Edmonds ' in this short plat 6 approval violates all the Gerla criteria.. Not only is such a 7 condition illegal but it is premature . 8 Condition M.2 for this short plat approval should be 9 deleted on the basis of being an unreasonable condition not 10 resulting from applicant 's short plat approval and beyond the. 11 . explicit and implied authority of Renton under its short plat 12 ordinance. 13 SUMMARY . 14 . Assuming this short plat is approved without the two 15 conditions recommended by Staff, the apparent objective of 16 staff to consider area-wide relationships , if one lot were 17 developed apart from the other two, can still be satisfied . 18 The manner of doing this rests upon the finding ( if applicable) 19 that the one lot 's developmentis functionally y related to the 20 other two lots or to the area transportation system. Thus 21 there is not need to force now a legal issue over the two 22 conditions when the objective can be examined when uses are 23 actually proposed. 24 To assure that all parties understand that storm water 25 and/or traffic. improvements. may be required when a use is proposed, we recommend that the. two conditions in the Staff 27 . 28 APPLICANT ''S STATEMENT, OF POSITION - 5 • 1 report be deleted and that the following condition be 2 substituted in their place: 3 "Traffic and storm water retention system improvements if required to service Lots 1, 4 2 or 3 shall be determined in accordance with applicable ordinances at the time a 5 development approval application is sub- mitted to the City for any such lot . " 6 7 DATED this 20th day of October, 1980. 8 Respectfully submitted , 9 HAGGARD..,_ TOUSLEY & BRAIN 10 -2 , 11 ! 12 t'-"Joel Haggarp/ 13 14 . 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 APPLICANT ' S STATEMENT OF POSITION - 6 , I ,. r I 1 $82 HYSTAD v. RHAY [Mar. 1975 i Mar.1975] • GERLA v. TACOMA 883 , 12 Wn.App. 872,533 P.2d 409 12 Wn.App. 883,533 P.2d 416 qq granted a reasonable time within which to challenge the [No. 1083-2. Division Two. March 11, 1975.] ' 4' extradition by means of a writ of habeas'corpus. j JoiN G. GERLA, Respondent, v. THE CITY OF TACOMA, Although the proceedings under e''Extradition Act and s Appellant. $ the Detainer Act are different, ae differences are not so f [1] Evidence—Absence of Objection—Effect. Evidence which is not i fundamentally unfair as to deprive plaintiff of equal pro- objected to is properly before the trier of fact for consideration. •1 f tection and due process of'aw. The fact that a prisoner ` [2] Administrative Law and Procedure—Judicial Review—Scope. Judi- ' may be sought under the Extradition Act as opposed to the cial review of administrative actions taken under proper authoriza- ii tion is limited to determining whether or not such actions were Detainer Act, does of violate plaintiff's right to equal pro- �4 i conducted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, i.e., done in a. 1i tection of the la-A All prisoners are given notice, the sine ," willful and unreasoning fashion without consideration and in disre- i i qua non of d process, and reasonable access to the courts. gard of facts and circumstances. Belief by the reviewing court that a preponderance of the evidence is against the action is, standing i i; Judgm t of the trial court is affirmed. alone, immaterial. ' i G and MUNSON, JJ., concur. [3] Zoning—Special Use Permit—Standards—In General. The issuance or denial of permits regarding special uses of land must be done in etition for rehearing denied April 10, 1975. accordance with adequate standards. ; i Review denied by Supreme Court May 20, 1975. [4] Zoning—Special Use Permit—Conditions—Validity. Municipalities possess inherent powers to impose reasonable conditions upon the '4 issuance of special use permits, without reliance upon specific ,9. standards,provided such conditions are not contrary to any provision , , of the zoning ordinance, do not require the recipient to engage in 1 illegal conduct and are not unnecessarily burdensome to him, are in the public interest, and are reasonably intended to achieve some legitimate objective of the ordinance. A comprehensive development f"' plan meeting this test may be utilized to guide the imposition of ;li! .onditions upon special use permits. . a [5] Zoning—Special Use Permit—Conditions—Judicial Review. Judicial i!', review of the imposition of conditions upon the issuance of a 11 • t " special use permit is limited to determining if the exercise of i 1' administrative discretion was abusive. it [See 58 Am. Jur. (1st ed.) Zoning § 231.] ,,�. [6] Zoning—Special Use Permit—Conditions—Grant of Property—Va- lidity. Issuance of a special use permit dependent upon a dedication I.4 of realty to public purposes is valid when such a condition appears to be in furtherance of the purpose of the zoning plan or ordinance s and not unnecessarily burdensome. :s [7] Administrative Law and Procedure—Arbitrary and Capricious— ?,{ Debatable Question. A conclusion reached by an agency which ;! appears to be at least debatable is one upon which reasonable men ;'', might differ and is not arbitrary and capricious. ' [8] Zoning—Special Use Permit—Conditions—Grant of Property--Con- siderations. A condition that a property owner dedicate certain realty to a public purpose-in exchange for a special use permit " ' )11 884 GERLA v. TACOMA [Mar. 1975 1; Mar. 1975] GERLA v. TACOMA 885 1 if 12 Wn.App.883,533 P.2d 416 I12 Wn.App.883,533 P.2d 4]6 i may be made upon considering the relative benefit to such owner !, The facts giving rise to the controversy may be summa- r flowing from the permitted activity, the relative ability of the ,e municipality or the owner to accomplish the public purpose, and rized as follows. Plaintiff owned a parcel of real property a the cause for such purpose arising. on the southwest corner of East 72nd Street and Portland ist k,. ! U. [9] Zoning—Special Use Permit—Standards—Burdensome. Imposition Avenue in the city of Tacoma. He negotiated a lease with Mobil Oil Cor oration for the latter to erect and o erate a of a condition on a special use permit upon conflicting evidence as {r p p to its burdensome effect upon the permittee, may not be denomi- 1 gasoline service station. The trial court found that plaintiff ' i';; nated as unnecessarily burdensome on review. was aware that before the City would allow construction of ` , Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce a service station at that location it would probably require '. l': County, No. 210429, James V. Ramsdell, J., entered April a dedication to the City of 6 feet of the property abutting it , 23, 1973. Reversed. South 72nd for a length of 138 feet and another strip 12 `i feet in width for a length of 124 feet abuttingk t-. Action to review a zoning decision. The defendant ap- g on Portland from a judgment in favor of theplaintiff. Avenue. The required dedication would permit the widen- t a; pealsj g �' � �; ing of both major arterial streets to accommodate antici- Robert R. Hamilton, City Attorney, and William J. Bar- ` pated increases in the volume of traffic, would allow for the 4`3 ker and F. H. Chapin,Jr., Assistants,for appellant. addition of right and left turn lanes at the intersection, and f'., Alan Rasmussen,for respondent. ;. would also provide space for the construction of sidewalks il .� '.i and curbs. ill, PEARSON, J.—The City of Tacoma appeals an adverse `;1 Plaintiff was aware of the probability of these require- : judgment in a suit brought by plaintiff, John G. Gerla, ;, ments, since the Planning Commission, of which he was a ,`;' claiming inverse condemnation arising out of an action by member, had imposed like conditions upon other service '3, the City's Planning Commission.' stations in other areas as well as upon other businesses in ! fo The primary issue raised on appeal is whether or not aft the area involved. The preliminary lease with Mobil Oil 1'i condition attached to the issuance of a special use permit `.i Corporation took into account the probability of this type granted to plaintiff's tenant, Mobil Oil Corporation, was a of condition. :�;'; valid exercise of the City's police power. The property involved was located within a C-2 (corn- valid br141...4','' ' Answer to the primary issue necessitates a consideration mercial zone) and consequently eligible under Tacoma's k ' of the following questions: zoning ordinance for use as an automobile service station. C f (1) Did the City have statutory authority to impose the However, because of the hazardous nature of this type �`''of , ,, condition? business, another city ordinance (No. 18628) required a i li> (2) Did the City's ordinance authorize imposition of the ,; prospective applicant to obtain a special use permit and to ;i`f condition? comply with detailed development standards. Section D(1) ' a: (3) From a factual standpoint, was the condition reason- {. of Tacoma Ordinance No. 18628 is part of a provision set- 41a ably necessaryto accomplish the legislative purpose, or on ting standards for service station development, and that !.ar j=y p g p p section itselfprovides for a minimum lot size for service the other hand, was it unreasonably burdensome to the l+ • plaintiff under the circumstances? stations "after dedication of all required street right of way." 'Plaintiff was at all.times a member of the Planning Commission of Mobil Oil Corporation's representative formallyapplied .,, Tacoma, but took no official parts in the actions ofthat commission pp which are at issue in this case. to the Planning Commission for the special use permit. , r8 y Mar.1975] GERLA v. TACOMA 't 886 GERLA V. TACOMA [Mar. 1975 887 y 12 Wn.App. 883,533 P.2d 416 12 Wn.App.883,533 P.2d 416 °I in its oral decision. Obviously these observations were {6 Following a hearing in which testimony was taken, the � used bythe court in concludingthat the service station had ' commission determined to issue the permit on the condi- tion, among several others not in controversy, that plaintiff not caused an "immediate danger of congestion." i Had normal appellate utilized, ;-J dedicate the two strips of property so that the two streets [1] pp llate review been the could be widened and sidewalks and curbs installed. 1 court could properly consider only the evidence put before s 1 ,1 At this point the plaintiff entered into an oral stipulation the Planning Commission. Such evidence could not have to included more than expectations of congestion, or the lack 11 with the City which departed from the normal procedure of thereof, generating from the new service station. While it '. 4' appealing the condition to the City Council and from there E: seems unfair to the City to allow its administrative actions to the superior court. The City Attorney advises us that to plaintiff in his desire to proceed with de- 1. to be reviewed by independent and "after the fact" evi- accommodate i1. '' velopment of the service station and to accommodate a test ( dence, in the absence of an objection, we must assume that case on the validity of the condition, plaintiff was allowed j. this evidence was properly considered. to deed the properties to the City in compliance with the [2] The second departure from normal review procedure ti', condition attached to issuance of the permit, and still re- involves the scope of review, and poses a much more seri- serve his right to collaterally attack the Planning Commis- ous problem. The trial court obviously made an indepen- i dent review of the factual issues and applied a " re onder- sion's action. In this regard, the trial court found that ;.1 ante of the evidence" test in arrivingatp is decision, rather ;, plaintiff complied with the condition while at the same time "reserving his right to question the authority of the than an "arbitrary and capricious" standard normally re- ;, . quired in judicial review of administrative actions. It is City to require the dedication of the said property." In the ,q meantime, the deeds have been recorded, the streets wi- axiomatic that administrative actions, if properly author- P dened the sidewalks installed, and the service station has ized under zoning ordinances, may be interfered with by ' the courts only if they are conducted in an arbitrary and been erected and is in operation. capricious manner. Evergreen State Builders, Inc. v. Pierce �'� The "test case" then took the form of an inverse condem- �: County, 9 Wn. App. 973, 516 P.2d 775 (1973). Applying any i •:} nation action,' in which plaintiff sought compensation for1.s. other standard for review of the decision of the Planning the two strips of land which he had dedicated to the City. Commission would, we think, defeat the The form of this action caused two departures from estab- i° purpose of the 4i; lished procedures for judicial review of administrative ac- • action as stipulated by the parties, i.e., to test the validity �' of the condition imposed in connection with the granting of ;,' tions. First, evidence was allowed and considered which was clearly not before the Planning Commission. Plaintiff • the permit. Accordingly, we believe that in order to reverse ' the Planning Commission's factual determination of the • who had not been a witness before the Planning Co -rnneed for the condition, the trial court would have to find :I mission, testified at length concerning traffic conditions as ,1 • that the imposition of the condition, as applied to the evi- they existed both before and after the service station dence before it, was willful and unreasoning, without con- commenced, operation. Also, the court made two visits to sideration and in disregard of facts and circumstances. Ev the scene and commented at length upon the traffic flow ' ergreen State Builders,Inc, v. Pierce County, supra. • 'A declaratory judgment action would have been more appropriate It was noted in Evergreen that where there is room for for the purposes. The stipulation appears to have obligated the City to two opinions, action is not arbitrary or capricious when pay for the dedicated property in the event of an adverse ruling on the . test case. . ,, exercised honestly and upon due consideration, even f i i` 888 GERLA v. TACOMA [Mar.1975 Mar.1975] GERLA v. TACOMA 889 .° e.; 1•1 12 Wn.App. 883,533 P.2d 416 �' 12 Wn.App.883,533 P.2d 416 though the court might believe that an erroneous conclu- I [4] More importantly for our purposes, the Supreme q r sion was reached by the Planning Commission. Lillions V. Court in State ex rel. Standard Mining & Dev. Corp. v. j Gibbs, 47 Wn.2d 629, 289 P.2d 203 (1955); State ex rel. Auburn, supra, held that cities have inherent power to t 'y Cosmopolis Consol. School Dist. 99 v. Bruno, 59 Wn.2d 366, impose reasonable conditions and restrictions on the issu- , 1 367 P.2d 995 (1962). ance of special use permits, even though the imposition of For these reasons, if the Planning Commission's factual such conditions is not guided by specific standards. 3 R. .. l' determination was not "arbitrary and capricious" when ap- }'; Anderson, American Law of Zoning § 15.29 (1968). To be 1t i plied to the facts, the trial court was in error in its conclu- valid, such conditions must (1) not offend any provision of sion, even though the result might be proper by application � the zoning ordinance, (2) not require illegal conduct on the ; +t'. I. of a "preponderance of the evidence" test. See Shaming- part of the permittee, (3) be in the public interest, (4) be • ! i; iiil house v. Bellingham, 4 Wn. App. 198, 480 P.2d 233 (1971). reasonably calculated to achieve some legitimate objective ,� The trial court's ruling against the City was based of the zoning ordinance, and (5) not be unnecessarily bur- largely upon three grounds, two legal and one factual: (1) ;. densome or onerous to the landowner. State ex rel. Stan- 1;{ that the City acted "without authority in law" in imposing dard Mining&Dev. Corp.v.Auburn, supra. 'il the condition upon grant of the permit; (2) that the Ta- Furthermore, the court held in Standard that the City i . 1 coma City Code, Sec. 13.06.376, did not expressly authorize may rely upon its comprehensive plan of development as Ili, the dedication of such property; and (3) since the City guidance for the imposition of reasonable conditions on the failed to establish that the service station would pose an granting of special permits. ' ''i "immediate danger" of traffic congestion, the condition im- [5] The function of the reviewing court in considering 'j! osed was "without basis in fact." `"' p the validity of such conditions was discussed in State ex '1; [3] For the reasons stated below, in our view these rel. Standard Mining & Dev. Corp. v. Auburn, supra at 332: ,, ° rulings were in error. We first consider the general author- >; If the conditions imposed were reasonably calculated to i.1: ity of the City to impose the type of condition involved. We 'I achieve the purposes set forth in the comprehensive plan ,j'„ note that the trial court was without the benefit of State ex ! and were not unnecessarily burdensome, the court should rel. Standard Mining & Dev. Corp. v. Auburn, 82 Wn.2d i not set them aside. '" 01 321, 510 P.2d 647 (1973).3 That case discusses the general , :!'1, statutes through which cities are allowed to regulate and See Chestnut Hill Co. v. Snohomish, 76 Wn.2d 741, 458 P.2d ) • 9' impose restrictions upon the use of land. It would be un- 891 (1969). o necessarily repetitious to review the Supreme Court's care- 1 [6] Before analyzing Tacoma's ordinance in light of the ';i above test,analysis of the statutory power of cities to delegate to "" we must consider the nature of the condition at ��; planning commissions the authority to require permits for issue, since it required a contribution of portions of plain- ! special uses of land. The principal requirement for the issu- r tiff's property, i.e., a dedication of land. The principle that a '' ,,!1 ance of such permits is that they be guided by adequate ; property owner may be compelled to contribute financially standards. Durocher v. King County, 80 Wn.2d 139, 492 1 to street or other improvements as a prerequisite to obtain- „ P.2d 547 (1972). l ing some beneficial use of his property is not new to the 10 1 law of zoning. It is recognized by RCW 35.44.020, as it ;" •, °The opinion in State ex rel. Standard Mining & Dev. Corp. v. _ pertains to local improvement assessments, and it is recog- 's, Auburn, 82 Wn.2d 321, 510 P.2d 647 (1973), was filed May 31, 1973, after the case at bench was tried. nized by case law with respect.to concomitant agreements. 1. • F 890 GERLA v. TACOMA [Mar.1975 Mar.1975] GERLA v. TACOMA 891 ? ; �s 12 Wn.App.883,533 P.2d 416, 12 Wn.App. 883,533 P.2d 416 if : fr State ex rel. Myhre v. Spokane, 70 Wn.2d 207, 422 P.2d 790 the police power. The business of storing and handling !` (1967). gasoline at automobile service stations within a devel- i, In State ex rel. Myhre v. Spokane, the Supreme Court oped area is attended with a peculiar degree of danger to p life and property, due to its flammable and explosive `' stated at page 216: • propensities. It is further found that noxious odors, noise, i; Widening streets and installing electrical controls for and traffic hazards emanating from the conduct of such a ' the safety of both pedestrians and vehicular traffic are business are such to make the regulation of its location ' " regulatory measures which are within the proper exer- necessary and reasonable to promote the public health, ';1 cise of the city's police power. When the city requires safety, and general welfare. "m 1 that the cost of such safety measures be borne by the 4 a' company, it is not bargaining awayits regulatory police The first development standard in Subsection D(1) im- : 1i g g g YAa. power but, rather, determining that the cost should be plicitly recognizes the possibility that dedication of prop- xo, borne by the persons who created the necessity for the ` erty may be required to assure that the general purpose of • If expenditure of such funds, instead of by the city gener- the ordinance is fulfilled: ;t ally. The service station site shall have a minimum width of . • 'p, See a discussion of this principle in the dissenting opinion t 120 feet and a minimum area of 15,000 square feet after of Justice Marshall Neill in Chrobuck v. Snohomish dedication of all required street right of way. i,} County, 78 Wn.2d 858,480 P.2d 489 (1971). � (Italics ours.) ' 11 We see no reason to differentiate this case from the anal- ;.; In passing upon application for permits to operate service 'i;!l ogous situations concerning concomitant agreements, so stations, Subsection E of the ordinance directs the Planning ''-�'i: long as requirements discussed in State ex rel. Standard Commission to be guided by the following criteria: ;,' Mining & Dev. Corp. v. Auburn, supra are fulfilled. Here, it 1. The proximity of other service stations or other t `� was the application for the special use permit that, at least businesses' storing or handling flammable liquids or Ti y3' in the view of the City, created the necessity for the wider materials;") a i � streets, pedestrian walkways, and so forth. If that view is 2. The proximity to residences, schools, hospitals, ;!'kr factuallysupported, thenplaintiff, rather than the City, churches, theaters, parks, and other places of public •!ft?: pp Y� assembly;t5 ,it should bear the costs of such improvements as in State ex { ; ;J.,s rel.Myhre v. Spokane, supra. 3. Any adverse effect that the proposed use would . have on traffic on the abutting streets and highways, !+:z; We turn next to the City's ordinance and the Planning including, but not limited to, congestion, turning move- i t' Commission's ruling to determine whether the aforemen- - ments, and dangers to pedestrians.16' tioned requirements of, State ex rel. Standard Mining & (Italics ours.) s, Dev. Corp.v. Auburn,supra, were met. It is clear to us that the above ordinance satisfied the Tacoma City Ordinance No. 18628 includes Sec. 13.06.376, a t; which contains detailed development standards for the con- 'There were two other service stations on the intersection in ques- tion. ::, struction and operation of automobile service stations. , 'To the south of plaintiff's service station was a large K-Mart Subsection A of 13.06.376 provides: shopping center with a heavy volume of automobile and pedestrian , It is found and declared that the location and operation l traffic. Across the street from the potential service station site was a of automobile service stations in the City of Tacoma are bank. necessary to our modern way of life, but the public inter- °Two major arterial streets formed the intersection of East 72nd . est requires that they shall be subject to regulation under j Street and Portland Avenue. ' , ` 1 7 4 0 892 GERLA v. TACOMA [Mar. 1975 Mar.1975] GERLA v. TACOMA 893 '.; 12 Wn.App. 883,533 P.2d 416 12 Wn.App. 883,533 P.2d 416 L I requirements of State ex rel. Standard Mining & Dev. connection with other commercial development on both fl Corp. v. Auburn, supra, for the imposition of the condition • major arterials would, according to these experts, require 'ti that the two strips of land be dedicated, provided that that both arterials be widened, particularly at the intersec- i` Ili when applied to the facts, the condition was not unneces- tions where turning movements must be accommodated. A.11 sarily burdensome and was reasonably calculated to alle- Both streets are major arterials, one feeding into Interstate jl; viate any adverse effects which the new service station 5 to the west and the other serving Interstate 5 to the 'a . might have on any of the three criteria set forth above. south. i t. The zoning ordinance involved is not only compatible [7] With the safety factors and traffic control problems !•i , with the type of condition imposed, it appears to be specifi- (right and left turn lanes) and the potential future conges- M tally contemplated to promote one of the stated purposes of tion, the City's action in requiring the permit was at the ! i4 the ordinance, i.e., safety. Furthermore, the criteria, in our very least debatable—and clearly not arbitrary and capri- if'<.i 0 pi view, afford sufficient standards for the granting or denial cious. !`4,,. of the permit in question. [8] The City's witnesses also testified that under the I i';' For these reasons it was error for the trial court to con- projected overall plan for arterial development there would ` 5"A Pod elude that the City acted without authority of law in im- be insufficient funds for several years, because of other F, posing the condition in the grant of the permit. We con- higher priority problems, to condemn property sufficient to ' `; elude that the condition was within the City's police power widen the streets. The trial court also stated this fact was 1 I and was authorized by both state law and by its own ordi- not material to the issue. But this is inconsistent with the .s' nance. view expressed in State ex rel. Standard Mining & Dev. We now turn to the question of whether or not imposi- Corp. v. Auburn, supra, that the comprehensive plan may tion of the condition was arbitrary and capricious. In re- be considered in determining the reasonableness of the con- e viewing the findings of the trial court as explained by its dition. It seems to us that whether a condition which oral decision, it is obvious that the court considered only requires a landowner to bear part of the cost of a necessary one facet of the testimony, i.e., the plaintiff's testimony that street improvement is reasonable depends, in part at least, s in fact less traffic was generated by the service station than 'upon the City's ability to provide the improvements in by the preexisting businesses which had previously oper- some other way, particularly where the property owner's �`. ated on the property. projected use of the property creates in a substantial way The court expressly rejected the detailed testimony of the necessity for the improvements. the City's witnesses as it pertained to pedestrian safety, as [9] Likewise, we are not persuaded that the condition well as to the question of traffic control. The City's chief as proposed was unnecessarily burdensome. One expert, engineer and the City traffic engineer specifically testified called by the City, testified that in his opinion the addi- that the strips of land were needed to provide ample space tional benefits to plaintiff's land from the improvements for sidewalks and curbs so that pedestrians would be di- offset any loss in value caused by the decreased size of the . . rected away from the traffic lanes when they crossed the property. While this testimony was disputed by plaintiff's two wide entrances and exit driveways required on each own opinion as to his loss, it was not disputed that an street side of the service station. Furthermore, even though automobile service station was the highest and best use for the immediate impact may not have resulted in increased the property. Furthermore, no representatives of Mobil Oil congestion, the long-range impact of this service station in Corporation testified that the smaller size of the lot was \' • t — . f` 894 INTERNATIONAL SALES V. SEVEN BAR [Mar.1975 Mar.1975] INTERNATIONAL SALES v. SEVEN BAR 895 , ,; 12 Wn.App.894,533 P.2d 445 12 Wn.App.894,533 P.2d 445 unduly restrictive upon their operations. At the very least, /. u for the collection of a check issued by the respondent in the ill the decision was debatable and made upon conflicting evi- sum of $3,024, on which the latter stopped payment. The , dence. As such, it is not subject to judicial interference. to respondent, by special appearance, moved to quash/the ;a; Sharninghouse v. Bellingham, 4 Wn. App. 198, 480 P.2d 233 risummons and dismiss the action on the grounds that the (1971). court lacked jurisdiction under the long-arm statute, RCW I Reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss the ( 4.28.185. The court granted the motion and entered an '_'? action. order of dismissal. This appeal is from that order. tAH ¢; ARMSTRONG, C.J.;and PETRIE, J., concur. The facts are as follows. The respondent (Seven Bar) is r +1,' Petition for rehearing denied April 24, 1975. a New Mexico corporation with its principal place of busi- ness in Albuquerque, and the a ellant" Review denied by Supreme Court June 24, 1975. pp (International { Sales) is a Washington corporation with its principal place u f of business in Tacoma. Seven Bar contracted in New Mex- ; `'adli [No. 1284-2. Division Two. March 11, 1975.] / ;3 Ill ico to buy an aircraft from one Jack Mills, then a resident INTERNATIONAL SALES AND LEASE, INC., Appellant, v. SEVEN r of New Mexico. The aircraft was in:the possession of Tide + 'a • BAR FLYING SERVICE, INC., Resp dent. i Air, Inc., a Washington corporation, and the respondent •,, ; ,; [1] Courts—Jurisdiction—Nonresidents—Long-arm Statute—Due rro- { agreed to take delivery at Tacoma Industrial Airport. As ' cess. Due process concepts, as applied to the long-arm statute (RCW ! / k 4.28.185), do not require that the act or transaction in this state out f•, part of the consideration for the purchase, the respondent `i ; i agreed to pay Tide Air for the repairs which the latter had of which the action has arisen be either extensive or physical. It is l� only necessary that there be substance to the contact within this made to the aircraft. Mills represented to the respondent I :I,': state, and that the impact within"the state of the nonresidents f that the amount owing for repairs was approximately ';;iil activity is foreseeable. / 6 $1,200. Seven Bar sent its p a • ilot, armed with blank check, ` [2] Courts—Jurisdiction—Forum,Non Conveniens. In exercising its dis- i .�,f, to Tacoma to pick up the/aircraft. On his arrival, the ilot S. '`` cretionary power to dismiss/an action in favor of foreign jurisdic- • tion, a court may impose/conditions upon a dismissal in order to { was told by Tide Air that the amount owed by Mills was '' r''A insure fair treatment to All parties. i $3,024. The pilot unsuccessfully attempted to locate the '1.;3i;'; A,[See Ann. 32 A.L. , s. 48 A.L.R.2d 800; 20 Am. Jun2d, Courts president of Seven Bar Flying Service, Inc. Believing that '''t''. A § 175.] he should return to New Mexico as soon as possible, `'4Appeal from a)udgment of the Superior Court for Pierce pilot completed/the check for the amount of 3,024, re- . 'i':I County, No. 22067, Stanley W. Worswick, J., entered De- , ceived the plane from Tide Air, and flew it back to New cember 6, 19723. Reversed. Mexico. Whe�i Seven Bar learned of these events, it ,,. 'i Action t- collect a check. The plaintiff appeals from a stopped payment of the check. It contends that the addi- =' i judgmentof dismissal. tional amount claimed by Tide Air represents debts owed Jam/cis J. Mason,for appellant. by Mill which are unrelated to the repair of the aircraft. "' ' This c ntention is somewhat confirmed by the record and '1 R-chard J.Dolack (of Comfort,Dolack,Hansler, Hulscher, b: the admissions during argument. It is not disputed that at ''i R senow & Burrows), for respondent. the/time time Seven Bar took possession of the aircraft, Jack JOHNSON, J.*—This action was brought by the appellant 3ry Mills had clear.title to it and there were no liens of record •'Judge Bertil E. Johnson is serving as a judge pro tempore ofil ,,i •the Court of Appeals pursuant to Laws of 1973, ch. 114. • OF I • �► o THE CITY OF RENTON ..ter"•,, w._ MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o • ® _' BARBARA'. Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR ' LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9A `� FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 0 11'E1) SEP�� MEMO RAN DUM • • October 16, 1980 TO: John Webley, Parks Director Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director FROM: Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner RE: File No. Short Plat 095-80, W-096-80; Homecraft • Land Development, Inc. A proposal has been received to subdivide approximately 8.4 acres of property which is currently zoned R-4 (High Density Multifamily) into three parcels, each approximately 2.4 acres in size. The above entitled matter will be heard by the Examiner on Tuesday, October 21 , 1980 at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers. The current zoning of the property would allow a potential development of approximately 340 units with a combined population of anywhere from 612 to about 1100 people. Therefore, I will want your respective departments to address the impacts of such populations on the current capacity of the water and sewer lines in the area and the park facilities. The information contained within the preliminary report lists existing sewer and water facilities but omits the current use and total carrying capacity of these facilities. In order to fully determine the effects of the proposal on the public welfare and what, if any, further dedications or improvements are necessary, I will require this information at the public hearing. At the same time, the applicant will also have the opportunity to address these issues and question your responses. cc: Planning Department Mayor Shinpoch • S. 11011 PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT T T® TIME HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 21 , 1980 • APPLICANT : HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT , INC . FILE NUMBER : SHORT PLAT 095-80 and W-096-80 A . SUMMARY & PURPOSE OF REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a three-lot short plat together with a waiver of the required off-site improvements . B . GENERAL INFORMATION: 1 . Owner of Record: U .S . HOME CORPORATION 2 . Applicant : HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC . 3 . Location : (Vicinity Map Attached) West side of Edmonds Avenue N . E. ( extended) between N .E . 3rd and N . E . 4th Streets . 4. Legal Description : A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning Department. 5 . Size of Property : +8 .4 acres . 6 . Access : Via N.E . 3rd Street. and N .E . 4th Street . 7 . Existing Zoning: R-4, Residence Multiple Family ; minimum lot size 5 , 000 sq . ft . 8 . Existing Zoning in the Area : R-4 , Residence Multiple Family, minimum lot size 5 , 000 sq . ft . ; • R-1 , Residence Single Family, minimum lot size 7200 sq . ft . ; L-1 , , Light Industrial District . 9 . Comprehensive Land Use Plan: High Density Multiple Family 10 . Notification : The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date . Notice was properly published in the Seattle Times on October 8 , 1980 , and posted in three places on or near the site as required by City ordinance on October 10 , 1980 . C . IHIIST®RY/aALCKG OUN®: The subject site was annexed into the City by Ordinance 1549 of June 14 , 1956. It was rezoned from R-1 to R-4 by Ordinance 2029 of May 13 , 1963 . 410 00 • PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC . OCTOBER 21, 1980 PAGE TWO D . PHYSICAL C tGRBU 1D: • 1 . Topography: The subject site slopes downward from northeast to southwest at grades between 5 and 16 . 5%. 2 . Soils : Everett gravelly sandy loam, 15-30% slopes (EvD) . Runoff is medium to rapid , and the erosion hazard is moderate to severe. Most of the acreage is used for timber . Urban Land (Ur) is soil that has been modified by disturbance of the natural layers with additions of fill material several feet thick to accommodate large industrial and housing installations . The erosion hazard is slight to moderate . A gravel pit operation covers a portion of the easterly section of the site . 3 . Vegetation : The site consists principally of scrub brush and weeds overlayering a sand and gravel. surface with a few short to medium growth deciduous shrubs and trees present. 4. Wildlife : The existing vegetation may provide some habitat for birds and small mammals . 5 . Water : No surface water was observed on the subject site (October 10 , 1980 ) . 6 . Land. Use : The subject site is undeveloped at this time . To the east are the Vantage Point Condominiums and some undeveloped State property , while to the south the property is also vacant . The Puget Power transmission line right-of-way is adjacent to the west , while to the north is the approved Highbury Park final plat . E . I E]IMIB®9 HOUD CHARACTERISTICS : The surrounding properties are a mixture of undeveloped, multiple family, and single family uses . F . rUDILg1C SERVICES : 1 . Water and Sewer : Sixteen inch ( 16") water mains run north-south on Edmonds Avenue N . E. and east-west on N .E . 3rd Street adjacent to the subject site , while an 8" sanitary sewer extends northeast-southwest on Bronson Way N . E . within 1000 feet to the southwest . 2 . Fire Protection : Provided by the City of Renton as per ordinance requirements . 3 . Transit : Metro Transit Route 107 operates along N .E . 4th Street within 3/4 of a mile to the northeast of the subject site . 4. Schools : The Highlands Elementary School is within 3/4 mile to the north of the subject site , while McKnight Middle School is approximately 11/4 miles north and Hazen High School is within 20 miles to the northeast . Renton Vocational Technical School is within 1/2 mile to the east . 5. Recreation : Windor Hills Park is within a mile to the north of the site, while Cedar River and Liberty Parks are within 3/4 mile to the southwest . ®• S. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT , INC . OCTOBER 21, 1980 PAGE THREE G . APPLICA3 LE SECTIONS OF TFIE ZONING CODE : 1 . Section 4-709B, Residence Multiple Family H . APPLICANLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIPL CITY DOCUMENT : 1 . Subdivision Ordinance, Section 9-1105 ; Short Subdivisions. 2 . Subdivision ordinance, Section 9-1105 (6 ) (B) Waived Improvements . I . IMPACT OF THE NATURAL OR HUMAN ENNIIN®NMENT : 1 . Natural Systems : Minor . 2 . Population/Employment : Minor . 3 . Schools : Minor . 4. Social : Minor. _ 5 . Traffic : Minor . J . ENJI'UIRH➢N'°El TAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION : Pursuant to the City of Renton ' s Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , as amended, RCW 43-21C , the subject proposal is exempt from the ' threshold determ ination of environmental significance . K . AGENCIES/DEPART"ENITS CONTACTED : 1 . City of Renton Building Division 2. City of Renton Engineering Division 3. City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division 4. City of Renton Utilities Division 5 . City of Renton Fire Department L . PLANNING DEPARTMENT '•,NIALY'S'S : 1 . The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of High Density Multi-family and the R-4 Residence Multiple Family zoning of the subject site . 2 . The subject site is bordered by N .E . 3rd Street on the south, Edmonds Avenue. N .E . on the east and N.E. 4th Street on the north . Both N .E. 3rd and N .E . 4th Streets are constructed, while Edmonds Avenue N .E . is not constructed. In 1979 , the City acquired the necessary. right-of-way for the construction of Edmonds Avenue N . E . Thirty feet was acquired from this property , and thirty feet was obtained from the State of Washington, which is adjacent to this parcel on the east . It is unlikely that the State of Washington will ever need to develop or utilize Edmonds Avenue N .E . because its primary accesses are presently on N .E. 4th Street . imp •® PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC . OCTOBER 21 , 1980 PAGE FOUR • 3 . The site plan proposes dividing the existing 8 .4 acres into three parcels of approximately the same size . It is unknown whether this is to allow division of one project into three financial stages for the construction of three separate projects . Therefore, we must assume that with the short platting of this project, the three projects could be constructed separately of one another . This suggests a time delay in improvements to the area , if the waiver is granted. Both the Traffic Engineering and the Public Works Department have stated that this delay would create serious impacts , and the improvements should be required. (Please see attached comments . ) The Planning Department would concur in this statement and go one point further in the assumption that the State will not improve the east half of Edmonds Avenue N .E . so the short subdivision should improve the entire street as a requirement . 4. The right-of-way for Edmonds Avenue N .E . was obtained in 1979 with the knowledge that this parcel could be developed with an ultimate potential of two hundred to three hundred dwelling units on site to allow an access which could be controlled onto N .E . 3rd Street . Also, in 1979, the Public Works Department approved the construction of a roadway entering onto N .E. 3rd Street from the south that is offset from the true alignment of Edmonds Avenue N .E . This could result in serious impacts on the traffic circulation system. There appears to be a separation of approximately three hundred feet . The access from the south was to allow ingress and egress to the proposed ERADCO project . That project must be reviewed in the future by the Hearing Examiner to consider the impacts and also the allowable access under the zoning imposed on that parcel . The action of improving Edmonds Avenue N .E . would appear to limit the reasonable location of the access from the. proposed ERADCO to the south of N .E . 3rd Street . 5. The Public Works Department has stated in their review that there will be ultimate storm water detention systems required and possible upgrading of utilities downstream from the development . Those concerns would be specifically addressed at the time of actual construction of the individual projects . It should be anticipated that the scope of this project is similar to the ERADCO project and to the Earlington Woods project , which have been required to provide environmental impact statements for their total development . 6 . The 8 .4 acres can potentially be developed in three separate projects; to assure coordination and -consistency between between the three possible projects, the public should be aware of the design proposals and potential impacts resulting from the development of the short plat . Therefore, the site plan approval of any development on the site should be required as a condition of the short plat . The alternative would be to require planned unit development approval including a master plan on the entire site . •• N PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT , INC OCTOBER 21 , 1980 PAGE FIVE M. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS : Based on the foregoing analysis, it is recommended that the Hearing Examiner approve the request , Short Plat 095-80 , as submitted and deny the request for Waiver of Off-site Improvements, file W-096-80 , subject to the following conditions : 1 . Planned Unit Development approval by the Hearing Examiner . 2 . Full width construction of Edmonds Avenue N .E . � . o ' ^ , . . ; . . , , ' ILI Ib Ann ig is 5A or z fill or ball I 4C IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN' 44 an ft rja in I MW04 ,31 twW B-1 021 RV. ell mrouvEr !0 NRk an rw IWO rim W" WWI -19W nm B1111 IBM fiff /��) Orr / ^���� �___~ . | 9-�^ . . | . , � ' ' ' II ]MECR&FT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC, ' Short Plat 095-00 , W-098-80 ' ' ^ ' ' | APPLICANT HOM[CRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT TN�l}TAL AREA 8 1 acra� /. . ^ ' ' [ � ^ i ' PRINCIPAL ACCESS Via N.E . 3rd and N .E . 4th Streefp � � ' � ! EXISTING ZONING R-4, Residence Multiple Family ` ` EXISTING USE Undeveloped � | , � PROPOSED USE / � . � COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Hiqh 'Density Multiple Family COMMENTS Cj ' | � | . ~ ^ -•0*•,•:*••1r. '114,7*.rif',.7.WAT.••••'..".@%,•3...,,.i.,..1„iy.k..(,,,-,..7,T.,,,,.... c..;:!.ie.;,-,, ,", •...- . f.. .;• 4.1.1; '' '"I'lkY-tTafq?{;OVV;i1:F9W.eqi,t;40.rarOuri•k,,,:,410,,i,•4:,A.0•4t,,,,,,,o,,,.... .4,.., ,. . . , z .....z „4,4,,,).•ii,,,."?/,',,,.,:,,,,,: ac,..„-,"... ..,,,•,.....,,,.::..,..4„. .,:,„:r.,.,,,..,4.:,,:., tigiik'm4i'AilWi4FP''''N•il '1,)",..LNIf0,14,F,W4V,Ydg.41,0,00-,..c. -9 - ..,..„ E.:/.,..ii..14,14....431F.' 1.:,M?.!,1,.,,,,,4? ;-e•,,..,3,c;:o0,0,,,4:rA,j4„,v ..9•0A-,::,.: 11.c.?:: .,.,,,,,,.'..•i.,:'-oN\ I ' . N-....,.,. '-m ', ', i :,:'...,3,4..tnIVi9'1'..•'•• ..,imr F.-,, ,,",..,IA 7.,,, lik..,,?3?-54.,,,":,;-11V..5,5:;,fiti:15•1:i; ,.4.,,e,Xisi..,i'„1:',....;:'-41,,Y.,...,"•,.'...,• . • :. '" '..;,,-., .1 '‘,.., ' '' ' '''' N E ^ ." - •' .. .`': .1 . s ittne, 1 ,---'c. „,,,;:44,,, •m!,:„,,., tigi-.--,r5',34;•13W ..4,.,;A::,.,..:,-.271i.f. ..::1 ,• ,• _„(3. • ••• • 3 ' 1 1 OT H OE-I .... •....,,,.-...•/ 'ri ‘('Ilef.1%:4(. ;.;:',•;',!t.• -• .,;.F.,-;;V,..7 4 .s...5 • ...:;.:••I' „.. ..f,...:-.`',,L. 1:,,A. i '17 -, \\:51E'k. 4/ .ii.'1.,t:.; ;;:•';''Y , ..,),,,,,..,,s .....--.s.,., -.?.. • " 1 ".t.',Ai,' .•7, .7' i-,,, ,L" .1.'1,,1,-`).:., .e..., .,@-.,,,I,e,,,r. •..4-r, • "•••'-'.,2.S.:' 1 i 7 ,70 ; ..., i i N E 10TH ST i • ''' '. '''--:'''''',..,,, '" .-,?. '..A''.4-1,''c."-“,/:•"••',-"i4;:o.r.: :'4.' 0"1".'''' • , lk.d. .rr"C.1- 'cyrir•;"; ' . .t . , ".i;1,14''' '.;•-!,,,,'' I•;'.,A..z,,," ,•, " i* ,..„' . I m r e., 13 1, 7..7i,. ,' .74Y/135''•'q'' ''''''i k .....`4'W ' • . i 1'4 E;;' • pl*N• ,,,-'4d:-Y Ai • .t::4;•,:•-•,..- -, . k ' 6:'RA' , .. . .. • . • i.-a ' • .... ,,,,,. Pt„,,,s,„.i,:i.,1 •.... -,,,, A 9TH - ., ,s. . t,,- - , . .1. 1 41? 4,- ,.;,i W • .40 .0 1.%.,.,,,.. ,;,-. 1'4 't fr,.„:)A X Z • 1 liNlel. Ir';',1}0,7.,,W•?,,,:,;. ,,, . , L 1-4/,',Vt1;fW',...:'• . k. p . tL4 i ti...1.0.,'....;,i,'-,, ... , ,.,...., '''',4,14...,,, ';4'4,1, r-`•"•-•. S•'.4.1-4'. Z t 4f:1;•CP; cl,i, ftrAts. •, .. *-.. \\ ST t f 1 iti 4 0 z'. i 4 j• Sta'.:.,,VN.•[....i;; ! Z 91 t4 .‘ ST.3 *.•4<73q.1,7'....:,,, •••• 1 1-, tZ • ,(1,i,..;.r.....f '' ' 7,i,1! •.„ r 1 S. :.‘.3.5446 ' ":1,'.;,,,,',',',: .„....,.,•—'0. , . ..*, .. • .,P...$A' e.1 4,004 1 Z ' • ,,.,..,,) ' lig • W ., .. -'Itt... ii,.‘4.1 lliF ,f,,Itkfol'.4-.-•' Z"'' '''''' ' • ' Li e W ‘'l 0, a T 14 Pi. X :::*. n, .,: 1•4'..,:. ,;•„,kg •2:,.., ,„...,-.„ . ,,._,.,,,,.., --..'''',i' i ..r. A Q.,6.4',Vg.1.-.'.r7c7, 34 ' ;' ' '• ,:...6. ' ' • i P:':7. 4 . 4'4: ' J.:;,',....t,.:'a i, •Z•'r "''.,:',.: :. ,.i„ st Ca L.. I W 0 1 D tg 60661':'.:1:41 1 •''+''.'-''''‘. ' . i> k> ..." VA,44;• . '''''iii W ' ' - V g > 4 '. • '. ';'•• Lt 1 tO • (,.., , ,. ,,..0.., ,tp.L:!:.i"cz it A2 E • tit,0 • '', • 411C •''' i 4 4" ' rt.1 . • , -,40.4,,,,.,...> '-,-,'-i' Lat':`s---- i s• •bl,is ' , ,, ,'\i:If 0 •'.—ottjt4Yeht, les ' < l' ... •,, 1 t4 -oz.*: w ST ', 1 it.!". .., i'''':;1.'i'. ..,-.'.W h.;;,..,'!*:'''.r A''..„..c r•1,6''.:; ' • ' i "4 :,,,,,,,,,,..--,,,e'',4 . , I•tit 4,it.,:, xi",4-1. •via •,.• ,,.=!.. ;:.; .,••,.._ • •• :,''•,•• • .. 1 ,,k . ....- , er r 2 -, 01 His orttr.,-eiti • vy-, 11*-.-,..---- . ., ,-,' ,. > N.4 i •.-,...----.--,-„ „mi... 4..r4r,•.„,,.. ,,,,.. rf? fi,,,10'..1 i ,'4.4 ',` ',.. •...r Ang. 0 1 'A r14, • ,,,,q,' ''''',0!°. '(tC ,Astli,Aci,10-,'';','ff.?:';,li ',,4.0.' -,.r....k,o, 341.', N '''W 4', ''1(7'''',';•3"'......4.',..* ....,,,,,'.A.,74,,"'''':-' i re"''.;'''.1 11.**,' '.61 1:4, M '::7 vo,..6--kjei,K NI •I4.'441 r " ' :' ''''':.1.''''.:lit'100,6 0,.. ,i'4 ,,s, t.,i,...„, ;„,,,,,k'4,0,c.„,;.i:),„,,,,,-, ,,,,, .,,.„• a .,. ••'',.•„ „I.,„,,.,.. t ,,,•-•-,..0 ' --A ft.A.,,,,.at i 4 .,,., .',, .r.4,,,,,5,,,.!:..7.,.., .141,,,,;,q,.- — .:15.,,, '- --.••, •- - - - - • .-. •••"7 . b' ''''' 3.. 3 ,,„,,-.' A A 'A''.''r'''...''' 1 W'''''''''+' ''.;'''• - :' :,' .. iY: '$3.di AA, ' 1 ',", ,t'es ,.r•4: at KA'9...1 40,:1$ 14,..L1•-;,..'••.•..* ^ • 1. " . •....: ' •, ' 3 o.1!... NI A 3`y1 1. 've. .--1, -,,t, 4 • ,,,,.,,,,,,,-,.,,....,.•••...,,.., . . ,,•....-'f .;,4-.1.1.4frf. ILA, . 1:',:e.:1"eN''.4•,1.,f,''....••,•,.'.L4/. • ' • ly,t1 - ' 't " ' VI E. • , '.t.j.ity•.,, •F,' %,.'!3',5,-:1'.•••_•••'''',"LiM.4".',i•-5.,'7.,t',4 rh'''';''',:i,.(i,=6"'..,"....-';';i2-r',":,:'."'..•.,..!:',11;77"...'".,---.,..,...1. ,--. . k41,-"..e.7,`?"'",..-.M.L,,,''''....: 0, L :, '.:.'--,--....-....--•...-I 1 r.•,. ,,,If ''.„,,K•, • ,.... ,,,,-..-, .,_ 6,7. .,. ,,,,,,..;. ......,,I. .-,..i!..:•.4.4.i.z....,.--.,-.4-44,1,&w.,.. -.. ",i 4"... ',I 4.q Ift". 11,91.jr 7 '•"'''''4,f-';• ", . . , ' .,-% :,•';,•''-'::,':' ; :-‘,"'4;:, 'g.4-', ...'''1' , ''.', . '4°°.• .•' ,.. 11, ,,, 0 a;'''. ,i'' '-' t 41&,' .,'t4,,,. '41-4•:.•'.• k 0--. "*--.•• ''.-!!:•' .•...;'••'t ' ..,,•';.. • - -..-- .41,i,' , ., • I.- ; .,, .,, u t. 1 ,.... 7 ,,., •'V ' l'okei, - ..--e,..`,1e4.•1.,„.,,,N•-;•1.',,i,. 4•*••••vt. .... .•'' • '.•,f.'*'-'' s4s- 4 4"`'4,,&-• • 'T. #h,,,,'- '': V 1 NE ''' •!"1:,444; .". . 47...,,,-,,,,,..:•; ,it-•,•••,;;;_._ 4......„„. -....;,!.....- ..i..:..;..,4,1') ' tv... 4,t,•' ' ..,-.Pop,„4, „„.„4„. •.,.. ,- .., .. ,• , V.AI: \ ‘ :.1w,-,-,,,,,,:,,, Atio. 7 .-c,) .,..;.:':,r.,:':' :a.• ':,.N, . ..1.-..`k.,'14.1/+;*' '.' **.f•V*1'•'''''''" ' 7' 1, - A:.3'.';:;?:.' lig F NF LiV'•:',O.%•vp•••• ..,?.....' i -(c--; ... ...4,,,,.4•,',/y a •„..„ro. ..., , ' .- I -1-#.71'et‘' kiy..:., :. A'41,, : ••%' • 1 :S' •Al'._.' ' 4 1 ..ir b.1, Pt. k•''' V.V 5 r•: - f,,,".1 '4',..7ros X ,rj,40.4e;-1 41.,..„,....r.;.,, • t•40 dr-,a.-,?' q...,A,,,1...$,,,5'. ',.-.......;r-,.'-`: , ,A . •.-'. .` '.;.' A . 4 V&;-,-A.i..0.v'-.v%l*,.1a•-I4 5,%,@'N—•,..mi•,.I..-1'„,„7'', .'f',f-i,.'•-r,',ts.r4",,.1,T,1,x;:4/,4:I,.',xJA.(„3-'.1•.0 1:1_t.:..q.ig.0.m',..,4..."4:'1,'WV,,i,oe..,,--,r,,5,.„.v,.i.l4:..v4,,,,,i,,,,..?,.t."e•'‘•`.,,.:.w4.,....-4A,..,,:h;l,z,,NEe..,-„l.z 4.E„..„.:,i:i'',''r,,1,,1..7,.4..-..17"1‘.4 1:i:+'z,O:.-i••v,-,.".5..,,t:. ,'lV''''t'S.-,.,.,.-.4.i*.„.1,.4,0)7,,...1V:,4,,‘.1.°'.,..1„?1,',1''.,,0 T...i.,.,'.1.:1Fg i ,1 „ k ^ a . A' oill•- ,r.VA.14i•:4•t--,.4 < , , 4.r.:'''., .0...‘,.,,:',.5,,(eP .,• ,b,,,,::'..'I ,,-:, ai". f . . , , • , 1 • , '', T i.','!;,,,-;,•:'fcrqi.1, „.„, 14 E..,,,,4,...,.;4,,,-,,,,.: -,.„4,.„. ,,,,,,,.•,..i,,--,-,:.. 74 t. 6-1-vi All 7.•'[., . ••-,.!..0k,e,,,,,,,v't..)4,•;•44 „..,„ ,,,,„ ...,,,,,,, ''. ": -4: /:••-.4 .:-:' ,-- ,,,-,;,:y,.. .,' k '..„. eg t.' i„,,'t.,-4,13,1 ?•44114,..'giVa.;.3`,N‹• .•''' ..1.,'''''•.3:;n:'747.*••34.-,1'• I .•?;%,..",,,'3.':,,Ca,• :''• • , 4R4e're,f,..3.,.,.4 te., , ....„..,,, , -. ,".....- .....:ty.-.,), 4:" 45,:'''‘..i''' 1•54.4,;,•,, rt N'-',..:t•-•, ,,,.:1.,...,,,,•;.;,::.;.,,,,, , .mi.,!:,,,i...`,A.,?.,,,7-...,), . :? ,,:,:j.;,, .„;.,,,r1,/,..,„.„.),.,: 6.„,........ -,11! ,,, _ez..le I.!' ;,,P•'41,t?'./-,`ii,',141'.',Awin 11.,Y.Iyi,l.:;'-,.',•'',..t'‘.:',"-',' 1.'.‘'I'M';".4,"?TiiN,:„4.;‘,1‘..'.',.'4,!',,-`1 ,-s,;:•:.4.,,` ;. 0 )'' I,2 1,". i ..., 4,..,ei n..'. LV,.'!!'el '..„—,'.-t,;\:ii,4r,n,.li„.4...... ,,..;%1 '''.71i'a''.4.'44-e.,kW144.414)i,,r,V.. .1. Z ty:'•-:.- /rn i • k.,,•' '..•'•:' ,,..'.•4,i..'''•7 i .it'v:";.544jN'ti.L1.-1,01:,,.,...PPA.4-•.(:,.. ,•,'4 : ,• . '1, •.',:', .., ':,,t4'3'.:•".;:' ','14,3.?, ''''/'..,Aff. a. 'a p1,4't, , ,'`' -0.• . :r •tA,,..•.,*a: '1.-4•INN ..',.1,•,,,,;,,;:.. ,1,,k,„!.,... , , . ,,... , .. ',* 'F'4 it .1 15 1,.., ,',...:71,10, {,t...1/44:0!404,..,,.112 it,(4), .1.,•..).-::_q,,:,,,,,,,,,..,.-,...,,,,,,..%,,,,..„.,...,2.`...'..„,,,.,,,":".3,11....m::IL',.:,t ..,2'4',,••,-•...,3',..f.•7.:,„n ';',!•": ..‘,..e.q•e#' 'h. ''',,',..,,,,,....:;!.:'. ... ' 1.11, .....ji6'''.i,,4'„,,..4 vz.,,,,:—.76.1,-;,,,••:...,,e,,,',v;v•1.1--i 4-i'-z.-1-:"•••7 .0:- ',,%•1,•''‘''''''.1.. 'i...'1' ; i 4:1 1 d_P''.?(17 0,.1*.;,'"'/,a11Pr•..4 di c:,'''•,,,,F.!...4:N, '.,,.,...z, .i ,,,,:a...d.r...:„..?.,,,,..,,,,,,,.....J ........„,,....,, ,.„,,.;,,,..••,,, jr,.,,,.... ..,:p41,,, I,... :',A. , . it.41,4.47.1'ot,i.,,,-*-.,ol.;.?,,,:t.: ;`;•:',,44'.•?,•;744-1....P.„%'41.'.17: k„,'1,14V,:i.fl....L"' '-,,,T"'i':';'::::••11,;;I't:1,,Act.49,:'ii9,..i'lr't.• .61:'-;•;'i',..:1',5:•.?I'17[Y:';',.....",...1. F3. re' fe .tr.4.4"iir7;e:t:-;:',.7.:......:::;0.':',„:;4.2)4,..,,,;.:'";;',73,,,...,*`,71::::;11:!::;:::.,''.,,,G,;:: it..'7:',.: :.:1,,,,,,i,:....,,,....;;;..;:,:;:-:..;l'iiii,:r.f.'- 'i,,;: t.',"`*::;i:...:,, :".:;:i:,,.,...,:,.;;::4..•.;:i15:i.,,,...,.:.;::Ti.L.,:'.:ilot. Itle`"'''Vrk 1 '' '''f•'''V''' ''';X' 4 ' '''''*‘'ti'.71'1P-g7 -‘..,..i.•'.,.;.•,...3„.,...,,,r.,r .y.'?.-..* , fil .7* •. .4.7.,),,r., ,....1.3,,I•e i IsiV. . ' ,..;''' .-,1:...,,N,-1011A .,,,-...1.11;;.„‘h.,h;•''''..," -$1.:. '''tr•''' .? ••.':',;'?1Vi•"-• .:'±',•.:.1.••--":)?-„:;i•c.;:•:''i;:-',4••,..,;:t1,...'1• I':41.• f•,.1„:''..1-', 1.not .,',. -, ••,'".'„?','i,,''',.?....?1,,';;',,: . 4,, S,v,!for. ,,--„,47::.,,i,y,,,v•A,•;,•',,,,,,,,,c,..;.4;„.../i4v•--,',,,-.44,4',;'f.:'.:;:,'. I ''•'.?...':,•':•'?..i,i,,'Sjii .0,.,,If-i.k5:1,‘V•'4•17,6-4-:i.'''.ir•I',--0, .'4/; ..-...:.',-",'-:'4.,''''''.--t''',4' .er . .,.,*w• ,...• 1...-I. 4,...(S6%-1,i.'r,'0,6,ft:' .e.;•4 t;•,,r.ti,.V•14., .. 4 ,'ta,t,--, i',' ',e•'-‘;f r)n,,.'.',;,••.•-•1;'--;iapt•''!";''',,,,li-.^..4i'V..`'' '4 br ",,V.,...;•• 'I 3.tar ' . . ,I'''' , ''' 34 '..,'..*,,,tr..q1;,--.0,,, ,-'.,.... .;;.-.7.k,"`„,„'0',,Pq:44",,,' '.".r, -.i. Cl f•';n fis!e" • '3,4.V..-,1"P''',14,3`.a4t.,,....,..••;1,,X.., :,e..k.4*';"''.,,,'...`ft,':!•::'' :''1 ..4' ,i,* ..„.„) .3„,,,74 •',,,:r.33..!,7„'Ll,?".,,..c;i7'' ....Si; ,r,3'gp,,. *Ir. .r. • .I,.;...,,,...;;. •:...,.,...p.,.„,t...„„e4,,i,....,,.v.i„,r.,_„.1,,..1::,;1,,,,,,,,, ,,•,,,, ,., ....r.,.......s•. ,.. h. ,,,,,.„ 74"1:4•`.1.4::;'•;r•,'';...." ..k.7.•,. ,-,v,, ' ., m•:'.4.,-• ,qt..,..•,;•: 44. $.4-4,,4. •.i at.t,,,",-:L ',.."'...4":":.4'.4.,:;..',:i's-4i:.4::.-44'.'"4"." `"4- -,c4,''::-4.' " A... - ;„ • ••." r%t .%),,• ,,,..,i,,-, . ' s„-s.L.,. , ,. s.,:7 .'sr-th •#!');. . N T 1,%%,t,11:"9444% ,.....'re!i;:,,,.,,,..,:k.:-..41-,,,L1;.- 1 •,;',.,,,-,E.• z ti ro.,711,,,, i;:,A:,,.!...,::::,:. •:'. . i•:,t1,,,,w,,, . .,....,.. rt.1,...‘0......s..,,.,..,..,...,,.,,...,...,::),,,,,,..*,..,:•.,-.;,;,,,,,...k•...,4,....4...:-..ltjri..4.1ph'...':‘,', 140C !r . al- ee.4.4$g ..•,,-.‘4;,1,,!.'• ', Ct),,i •,'...ft vq..• .e•..,c-:, Mil.,:-1 4 r47,1".,e-;.4 - •oi''-.:4,••• ...Li.:i: 4-`;'!;'?i4'?•.',:.4.i',kr.S-741,AlaWg„.,-a d6 ',..^:',' -. •''. -''. • PUSER f .1 ,..1 •:!;!•,,, ,',F 3 ,t,b ill...t..,,„sz L ,., 1.1.t.N..f.?In;r..,,,.;:..-r.e.:4, :..,,k‘,:i::;4.:4 •,;4:`,0.0:t-;-:..i:o...4,":?!...;Q:•••"''''' 44.1. . AY ..7~,'-ri i...)...k,:,,, ..!z-,,;......„....,,t."....-.7,:.;',..'",-,.-.2.,'''.6.Titt51-;.„4"1,,p'.fl- 4,t,ti ., ,,....,,,',,, ..-:-.:.-.-s.‘,,,i.„,c,..,,,.. .:,:„?..9.1...-il:_.c1,,.„ok.,.,,:tv,.‹.„.;ssci.r.,...,,,,,z....,.;„, . N .a. kj..51f ',,,..., ",';i;:;;;•:,,),.;;;,,4'sr,,,..,-.,V.,="..,.4,11.4 3,64,._...,„4„ :3. .: a c.''''"'•;•'-,.,4"44c.,isAtt,*ki.,.•:..1', •,. .q;.'•`#.0- .., 1,,-"" •••.--.,•:-... imr,7 ,-- i,..4.,,,,. .-!..-... „.;.-;:..-,;.,-..-#., :. ,,,-. ,i.:::-.:,.. , ,, : ,,.,,,. ,-,.,..,:...-...-.:rtic,.-„,,,,,-,....,,;,:,..;:::;.. .'s.y-1:0,-, ..-,c,..:, ..,?.,..-.-..,.,..,.,-1 ,„ 4' Ct*,:'f v. ..,,,,,. ,,—v•;:.;,..'0. .•.,.. : - - *4„7,..--1.- .•...t -;',.;'-..,....,k4E,,....o.... ,,.._ , -- !,,,i Pe, -*it •f1•1.#.#4.:* :jr".'"'' , ‘./' .i1 t..i,.,,,,,7 ,,:,_ „„. tj, A.7,,,x.,:s'A:;.'itt ..0';',': .'..., .',':,:' -1,1,647...••;Ii.L744,,'''-'''''''.''''',-,1"..:104.„k..,-,'?'‘itIff''V'T',',*.14,-ira.''''°.,''..:..::.„.4.,'..,' . 1...,.... - -ION I,' .$ ,4:.-.,,.t.,„ t 1st 1,i:•.;- ,.- ;;.;,' • . -,.. ' -. - -.."-,...,, '7'IP/ , ..- '' Tr.1•241-."-t .....:'''''' ,.: ,,,' • .s. , :.• 4t," '44.* .1V;' ::,, —•.;.•.C-,''.:. •.". ,, ‘: .,1":P.,.,,,,,- t .. ' , .. 4,,, 3,'11'W.7:.4,..43,7,7. , ,•, ?I'•N'''AP'' '" " E NA' ,, .0,4.:.,-...,..;- '. t,•. it , 4, a tA,': . 4rtti7 al, ',Zfp: t.' ••-r a,,,....i.,;',-.7.,',','4' , . . ,, 4 j0. a ,.,. - - r, ,.,„. , - •"., st-t I- ' . 4,.,,pi ''., ‘.4s..4. ,rn:•:•., A r.,,, . . ... ''11,3VL:..,"•:'-':.,...e,1,...,;7 ,,,'3`,...." IF .3„ .-Pk., )r.r. '• t.' ',0 f 1.14''II ."; ,:'',--:'," ,•:,,, %,-- ',-3-,...- -, \ - ... - -• --- .o• , - . ,, i , ,, , •-„,, , ,,,,- ,-, „. 4,-. .,. , • .' . • '.• CP360' ,,,,-.0,3'.'a' •.3 4••,.. „ 4.0.....'' slas.,fr„,,. . ..,,,, , . p . • ,......, . .,34?"616 ,., t.,,,,•, .. ..- 47.4) 1}.., -' ,,' _ .wr' ,3 Arm Nbi.. - -. - •„!.'.••::,..:.1.;........;, ,, . .,..,. ,.....,„ . ‘..., ,..- c.2..:,:e. ?,,,, .1... ....-..c..;,.,.. „, .4,, ,-4 17., , -..o.'.. -.. 44-4 ..• .,.,-.., .,0, ,•-•,.... ' i ,-. q..„,„. ,,i ,\;•.t .1.3...:. .7.t,,,,:up .04ve / , 3.-....4,4„,, . ,..4_,,,...., ,... ..,,,.:, r . M'At/...,4 .4-14;Ah'-'1''C''.:C...:'' . "- ....-.,-,...-•--.::,. .p„.i. ...,„,,,,, , .. K"."-. . -.I. ..,... ,. -...474. ,,,r ,',10wit•it4 ',1,......;',..- ••:-.• ,,' '. ii, IlA .f ,, ... A, ,,,..,,,,,1 , -.4, . _ . •. 11,1,F .it',"ter- • ,r, O'''•;,!,,l''OP. "`L.,I Ft v. ..„.1 , 6 -i'• / ''A'''.44''' 'If..‹,.';'?..:''..-Ii.lyiet. LI N lc . ...0•- . .,-, . .SH0111.4:..--',-,. .."-i'...•' . ! .,'.;',1''Z'.V • / 09 I ..,'''' S',fr•T t''`,. I I I 4, ;r ,0.14 -,;.• ` ,,...,,,s.., ••••,;,;•.,,,y,,....# - .,....._ , ,.. , , ,,,„•..„4,,,,,,..,,,„..„3.,:„.",.,,,,,..•••..,...,0.;''''':*It ,,. 6p':... 'i` '''' ./. • ":,' 4..t1k., ,,4„...i;.'..:T.'4:.,;Ar.:-',,,.i'•• r,.• .i.t.:L.,..;r' 10.4.e. . ,:ig.h.,...,,, :.......‘,_,...,....„......,---- , lt, , .- ..- 1:•,„1...,?:,,ti‘''.14 l'4,Z!.1C41-A 0! 1 4.:`1:rit..:-A"''''''''',,lit/ 51 1 f r,li,in i ,. ". • ,:t1t.1.9 ,."• ..4.1 -",,go. r ,' „,... ,Ii.Nr,,a e a...4. •,.,..i.,`,...1`,..4,•;.,*., ,. i'. t ' --/ ,, ' .1,A rn7,4.,7.•%,-',:',":` i . , -. ' ,,.' • 4 1..?,.7`....'• a, • ,!.,:,,, , t,,,,P e •,,,•••:',,;fti;it'. ,-'•.•: -, .i,,....4, ..,.,../Vv.4.;...}. ql",e,'' lkti-'):;..':. :''•'...i,,',....e'-• ....'!" , • ' 1 ,;').,1-:=1,..,,,'•'..',.".1k ',.''"..• -:',"'.••.:::'••• . 0OP— . t '7;:"Y ... io•,.., 0 .''i • '&. , •• ..., .:- . -- ' i?P-''''`.,i''..,•.•WF,. ::".!'. 41'?‘, % 44.:1,*Taw.,i;,,,,r. ."..,' ;.. , p..,..,. ...-,...,...„, . .. ,, . ,,4„..;.111: L..I.A;.,,..,..1....,j7,.- ,:.,,,,,. ,...,,,,'17241. "4".1.:z ..,;:), s ,':•,....:4.,t:....•:': 2.I n s. fn, <12:11 '1,.14',L,F.:&..•,4.rrt,';7,,..',,.' ,i6 clip f' ,,,',,'.'• , •• . :,:'r'.:."1 • .. I LI 5 LAP A —AG-RICL-11-7fLIR LI — LIC7-1--1-i IKPLI51rRY 5E-.. ‘51qG--L FAMILY H i — i--IAVY I kIPL15-fRY Lp-LOW 17SM,511Y ML11; y Mr-M Aki,Li EA-rLi RIM& PARIt MP- NilfDILIM MNISIfY NALL1 C - C,ONAN/IKCflibc3/4L . H P-1-11W 17" -L1:31`rY MLIL1. • F/R-17ARK5/Rf&RAil011/4„,, PI i RI Ir. 7,---» IA c,i . PI !RI V . , w -4 -- ...� ..v-Q �. ���. , ••.,. s��.,, „vim. �- o., .�..+w, • ii,,a, taro AT ue(e sr 0 /N VIE d E 4 ®P THE 5E% OF SEC. /7, MR CON R;E- s E., pp Ai, 7' REN71DN, KMI COUNTY pVA5N/i§G N II_ ' PRAQ MC Apr IN CAM PER Y.77rILC053, a .awv 4,4 Cart tart ! Cesar 41R Nraratit•PtaT 4..• vr•�'Ls( BUM'ertAi n i $VM-NUS Jr PER 4P.7rrr05055/ nv (FS" - - l q(m•REAT. ; ��4 r /55Ar' �/6 AVE. J.E. n• �/ �, !b' �' siU m � R T,'.,64 AC 8 4 t8 AC. �a Y ?T `~ -`i) t w `. ee N Y3' ~ t'1 $ ew / �, P, . k S 4 .'A . !'' > tp s LEGAL DESCRIPTION _,/3 �:;` / ts •'; ., O2 PARCEL A ,•`'1 'i:•`%�' . 47. y Nr•Or05Ye (� '' �� 45595 1. THE EAST 242 FEET. AS MEASURED PARALLEL TO THE CAST*INrCif THE NORTH U"- 400 FEET AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID EAST LINE. OF THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER Of 1 SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST. Y.N., IN KING COUNTY. a ,.&* WASHINGTON, LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 174 AND EASTERLY OF A) 0 THE PUGET SOUND POWER d LIGHT COMPANY TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY• $^�'���° •5• •p PARCELS A�k �? r8 K • pn Al p9 CEO THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF y Y.� 1V 03 R� SECTION B. TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST. Y.N., IN KING COUNTY. 3 A WASHINGTON, AND OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF .1i L5• SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST. W.M., IN KING COUNTY, ti A A WASHINGTON, LYING SOUTHERLY OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 174 'S.E. 128TH STREET', .F`.U 6+15y1 I EAST OF THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE Of THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEEDED TO PUGET SOUND POWER d LIGHT COMPANY BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 2500771, AND 4 pA� rLwm c.�•cmc 'L NORTH Of THE NORTHERLY LINE of THE NOAE NORT1fERLY OT THE STRIPS OF LAND 1., - 114 DEEDED TO CITY OF RENTON FOR STREET BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING : al \3. /06G' ,TT' NO. 8: Y • ti •2 4 if EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF DEEDED TO FIRST NATIONAL ASSOCIATES 8Y A 71 AS FOLLOWS: PO • DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NOS. 6320179 AND 6553042 AND DESCRIBED - j CERTIFICATE THE EAST 242 FEET. AS MEASURED PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTH I H[REET CERTIFY THAT 400 FEET, AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID EAST LINE. OF THAT PORTION a FEE SUdLE OF THE LAND HEREBY N.ATTEO TN THIS SHORT PLAT. O'4NER IN OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF h� / SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANGE 5 EAST, W.M,. IN KING COUNTY. 4 A at LLLYYY WASHINGTON. LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 174 AND EASTERLY OF PUGET SOUND POWER G LIGHT COYPAMY TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY; �•Stg\ AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN THE EAST MOO FEET OF MOTES: ---.---- .--.--.---.--- SAID TYO OFY REIGN AND NORTH EOFC THE MADE AVENUE OR NORTH EXTENSION DEEDED 7I 1O TO CITY OF RENTON BY OEERiRECOROED TINDER RECORDING t10. 7111050310 t 7uK+yn97r t` BOTH SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING. STATE OF WASHINGTON. r 01/7 a1%VLdPT!Sr7£RA7.P LOT CORN(R9 SET 14/714.4 RUNR I CIF ACIRATO CONTAINING 8.4059 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS • 9P4 19 'Mr ACKNOWLEOOMENT `l ?ISMS OR LPARLAG n NXNTK4L WOW TN( STATE or WASHINGTNr11 . �`.,, FLAT Or N'/t'D5CK NLLL3 4001770N. 3 SS w 5 \ COUNTY OF KING APPROVALS " KO \ N' ,• THIS IS TO CERTIFI THAT ON THIS DAY Of __, A.D., 19 __ ()INURED AND APPROVED THIS `DAY OF — A.D.. 19____ 1111111 BEFORE ME THE UNI RSIFJIED A 1(TTAQ'T T•I�f1 I1C PERSONALLY APPEARED 4�•'. TO IA YINIWN TO BE THE IIIDIYIIG1AfT8T6 STONED THE — DIRECTOR. UtPT. 6r3UBllC UOQ� ram? ` �SY�CERTIF ICATC ACKNUi�Y6LYD TO NE THAT SIGHED THE SANE AS A FREE ANO ., VOLUNTARY ACT A110 DEED. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THE DAY AND YEAR FIRST EXAMITED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF A.D., 19 j 4 � ABOVE WRITTEN. .—�_-- .__re __ ., . TRAFFIC CNGIoiE E— ` .C'N4• kbTRfYDbfLIC IN AND FONT STATE or EXAMINED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF A.D.. 19 _ i�_• WASHINGTON. RESIDING AT ---- ---— ---- I + 2 1 DLANNING DIRE PRENMIWARY F. \�,� ,�,,,.�, (,�,„ , RECORDED COPY 1V� EXAMINED AND APPROVED THIS _ DAY OF A.D.. 19__ 'tec'• 14, `11.4' 41 IRA YIN YITI3 COUNTY ASSESSOR SEP 15198 sinners CIIYIIIITI RECORO OF 9URVEY r1etA4RED DY:RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE STEPAM ASSOC..PQSSO , /NC. Tbi e+twrsHll v+xarfi s srsa ratio q a I sal. q—- POR 950-SOUTH D9i^s SERE€T Y Mal s/. .... ..tt ls/5 --- sl'IG rnw- A _ 4iratlisa 1s nsesn,wsr .' ea nsalrseeals d Ile twnp FEDERAL WAY W4. 9L7003 .....acuoaLL C N4YQ7N.. .. ......... Rts.b 4 id n Ate mod sl HOMECZIFT MNa_o6v,/AC_ - - IIOMECR.4FT LIND_r,DEYELOPMENT__-/ABC. NiI n FEDERAL Iw w. t s...—•.... 4 . .10 - ' P�++rin C r=.44,,.. C.., - --- RRC.M I 27 AVG l9TiC LT5a6.0/T - -- 41- I ' iifg0 Plannin fs N 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application : shwa rikhr ®?s-ito ;b A 4'��prer UIO% 1 ) 6ErpD .I 1 _i or .fs. L o c a t i on : Sep p s 49� ; �. yam. oree di sa /d'eZ' ter, r A 1ican5 PP l�Irae' * alteanle TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : 40�/0 Police Department A,R,C, MEETING DATE : /tgaidre Public Works Department Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division Utilities. Engineering Fire Department . (Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING F! ' HE APPLICATION REV EW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON ®o . ,.; ,.. AT 9:UU A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. ' IF YOUR DEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC, PLEA E P' 'VIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY S:00 P .M. ON • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : . Approved. A' Approved with Conditions Not Approved ,., e 3-t-t s t- eice4 ' P1. cc/i/i ;,9&-7e AT4y d"C u#i Wo O;c;,.ES . 9/zd/1-.6 , Signature of Director or Authorized Repres - ntative Date IREVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved i , Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date .. ._— _ _�..�..... vim. . . „� ■ � ✓d ltdJd VIY � N •• X Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved p oved /'AA J ;.LL_.'t0 %/k/STY-1cC_.C_: I� Signat of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : POLICE XXX Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved Lt . D.R. Persson _ ` , 9/29/80 ' Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION ; ®e Oxig 40, ,W - jr/01 }. Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved dO? 803 � .• Datei Signature of Director or Authorized Representative REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved i • Signature of Director or Authorized Representative ' Dane 41111 OF J o THE CITY OF RENTON `v cp'' MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 n awn , :Y4 - • q BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR ® PLANNING DEPARTMENT °9A 235- 2550 94'FO SEPTE° October 2, 1980 U .S . Home Corporation 677 Strander , Suite A-C Tukwila , WA 98188 Re : Application for three lot short plat Approval in R74 zone , File Short 'Plat 095-.80 ;and waiver of off-site improvements, W-096-80 ; property located on the west side of Edmonds Avenue N .E. ( extended) between N .E . 3rd And N .E . 4th Streets . Gentlemen : The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on September 22, 1980 . A public hearing before the . City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for October 21, 1980 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 By : 1 YA #dog J. B1 ylock , Associate Planner RJB:yb cc : Kent J. Stepan, ,P.E, _ Stepan ;& Associates , Inc . 930 South 336th Street , Suite A Federal Way, WA 98003 ek ti THIS TY ell 1410 i No 'ry44 ;r1 -Y p 1. 0 1, l,. ^ t r i ' .1 ., C r! GENERAL LOCATION: AND, OR ADDRESS: PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF EDMONDS AVENUE N .E. (EXTENDED) BETWEEN N.E. 3RD AND N .E. 4TH STREETS . LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON FILE IN THE RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT I S POSTED TO NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS OF A PUBLIC HER�,4RING TO BE HELD IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, MUNICIPAL BUILDING ON OCTOBER 21 , 1980 BEGINNING AT 9 :00 A.M. P.M. CONCERNING ITEM rzi • REZONE II SPECIAL PERMIT • SITE APPROVAL Sir - WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS ; FILE # AIVER W_096_80 • SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT iiieSHORT PLAT APPROVAL (THREE LOT1IN. R_4 ZONE) ' FILE # SHORT PLAT 095_80 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL 236 2550 THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION 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 OCTOBER 21, 1980 , AT 9 :00 A .M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS : 1 . FRIENDS OF YOUTH, application for conditional use permit to allow use of a single family residence for a group home to house eight 16-17 year old boys to be trained in day-to-day living skills, file CU-093-80 ; property located in the vicinity of 2715 Talbot Road South. 2 . HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT , INC . , application for three lot short plat approval in R-4 zone, file Short Plat 095-80, and waiver of off-site improvements, file W-096-80 ; property located on the west side of Edmonds Avenue N .E . ( extended) between N .E . 3rd and N .E . 4th Streets . Legal descriptions of files noted above are on file in the Renton Planning Department . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 21 , 1980 , AT 9 :00 A .M . TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS . PUBLISHED : October 8, 1980 GORDON Y. ERICKSEN RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION I , STEVE MUNSON , 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 me , a Notary Public , in and for the State of Washington residing in King County , on the 2nd day of October . eSIGNED: A.1-E" r U (-yz...46 W J _E <94 J .� • ! El z STEPAN &ASSOCIATES, Inc. r . ENGINEERING A RT September 15, 1980 #6556-017 City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Wa. 98055 Reference: Short Plat Application - Homecraft, Inc. Gentlemen: We are writing this letter to request a waiver of improvements on the referenced short plat. The application for short plat is being made to divide the parcel into three (3) lots for the purpose of sale in the existing condition. No additional plans for site improvements are anticipated at this time. Therefore, no improvements will be made. Very truly yours, STEPAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. a2 sue Kent J. Stepan, P.E.vv President KJS/ggc • 930 South 336th Street,Suite A • Federal Way,Washington 98003 • Tacoma:927-7850,Seattle:682-4771 • • CITY OF RENTON 0,711r-,P0 fa �9 SHORT PLAT PLAT APPLICATION FILE NO. ��Q ^^"" MAJOR PLAT DATE REC' D„ dy TENTATIVE APPLICATIONFE0 r5-✓ ° PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FEE $ FINAL RECEIPT NO. SM NO. PUD NO. APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 7 : 1. Plat Name & Location Homecraft Land Development, Inc. Short Plat between P .E. 4th & N.E. 3rd Streets and west of 116th Avenue S.E. R-4 High Density 2 . No. Lots 3 Total Acreage 8.4 Zoning Resid ntia1 3 . Owner U.S. Home Corp. Phone 575-9110 Address 677 Strander, Suite A-C, Tukwila, Wa. 98188 5 . Underground Utilities : Yes No Not Installed Telephone ( ) ( X ) ( ) Electric ( ) ( X ) ( ) • Street Lights ( ) ( X ) ( ) Natural Gas ( X ) ( ) ( ) TV Cable ( ) ( X ) ( ) 6 . Sanitation & Water: . ( x ) City Water (X ) Sanitary Sewers ( ) Water District No . ( ) Dry Sewers ( ) Septic Tanks 7 . Vicinity and plat maps as required by Subdivision Ordinance. 8. DATE REFERRED TO: ENGINEERING PARKS BUILDING _ HEALTH TRAFFIC ENG. STATE HIGHWAY FIRE COUNTY PLANNING BD. PUBLIC WORKS OTHER 9 . STAFF ACTION: TENTATIVE PLAT APPROVED DENIED APPEALED EXPIRED 10. LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER'S ACTION: SHORT PLAT APPROVED DENIED_ PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED DENIED FINAL PLAT APPEALED EXPIRED 11 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED DENIED FINAL PLAT APPEALED EXPIRED 12. DEFERRED IMPROVEMENTS : DATE DATE BOND NO. AND TYPE GRANTED EXPIRES AMOUNT Planning Dept. Rev. 1/77 0 AFFIDAVIT c-`, \-V. . , I -- _ re-) Jrf�owEE — hIVISioW { 6.5i ►DinIT \ c 4- , I �I^��r sr Jisf Anl (�.S ME � �bein duly s for dec=1=`.a(that I am the owner of the property involved in this application°-an"c�_ hat 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 // 4 day of "'d , 19 , Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at 6;;7 dt,rio,-- . as. Cnz.p. ,cLu ,, A 0 ' (Name of Not y PublicA3 (Signa of wr}e .. 7�,� L n bay- )r. C?a' Aldo"- W 4"Al . 67 552ii.ibEk.I u i ri- A-.G (Address) (Address) fy Ktugli , GJ4. 9g egg (City) (State) Sr-7sq//o (Telephone) (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been found to be thorough 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 , 19 By: Renton Planning Dept . 2-73 ENDING% OF FILE FILE TITLE h fr/ O • T&O