HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA00-009 r CI
'GOOF RENTON
..ih Planning/Building/Public Works Department
Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator
January 5, 2000
Robert West
Hi-Point LLC
2903 Powerhouse Road
Yakima,WA 98902
Subject: Modification Request
Teri Place Short Plat (LUA-99-183)
Dear Mr.West;
We have reviewed your request for a modification of the restriction of four landlocked parcels on
a single dead-end private street. After review of your letter, the proposed site plan and the City
Code; we have determined that this modification cannot be approved. The short plat must be
revised to comply with City Code, including the restriction to the number of lots served by a
single private street.
The short plat proposal under review, and subject of this modification request is for a seven-lot
subdivision of a 1.01 acre (44,299 sq.ft.) located at 3906 Park Av N. The parcel is rectangular in
shape, with 103 feet of frontage along Park Av N, and 427 feet in depth. The parcel is regular in
shape, and similar to other parcels in the vicinity. The allowable density range for this short plat
(after deduction of the pipestem area for parcel 2) is four to seven lots. It should be noted that if
the area from the private street were removed from the density calculations, the short plat would
be limited to six parcels. Pending code revisions would delete the private street area from density
calculations in the future. These provisions do not apply to this specific proposal, but it does
indicate staff's concern with using the area of the private street toward density calculations, when
public streets are not included for density calculations.
Private streets are allowed in limited circumstances. A key limitation is the number of parcels,
which can be served by a private street. The City Code states that"Private streets are allowed for
access to six (6) or less lots, with no more than four (4) of the lots not abutting a public right-of-
way." It was the City's decision in adopting this restriction that any street serving more than four
landlocked parcels would be required to be a public street, built to normal street width, including
sidewalks.
Your request states that a modification is warranted in order to create the maximum seven
parcels, without creating a separate shared driveway to two of the parcels.
The City under certain circumstances can modify provisions of the Street Improvement
Ordinance, including private street development standards. The Street Improvement Ordinances
states: "Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this
Section, the Administrator may grant modifications for individual cases provided she/he shall
first find that a special individual reason makes the strict letter of this Ordinance impractical".
1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 //
C]R7ThicnnnnrrnnfnineRfl%rnru,.I d atnrinl )A ....�,,,... ..,,e, - .. L. �
•
January 5,2000
Page 2
Our determination on this request is that the inability to create a seventh parcel with a single
private street does not constitute a special individual reason that makes the strict letter of this
Ordinance impractical. The parcel is regularly shaped, and does not warrant special treatment
relative to other parcels in the City. While it may be desirable to create a seventh parcel, it is not
a Code requirement, or sufficient reason to approve a special modification request to this design
requirement.
There are at least two viable means of complying with the private street design requirements.
The short plat could be revised to six lots, which is well within the allowable density range for
this zoning. A second alternative involves accessing proposed Lots 2 and 3 from a separate
shared driveway along the southerly portion of the short plat. This second option would allow for
creation of the seven-lot configuration, while limiting the use of the private street to four
landlocked parcels.
If you have further questions regarding this modification request, please call me at (425)-430-
7278.
Sincerely,
AJ€U1OdZY
a
Neil Watts
Plan Review Supervisor
Development Services Division
cc: Peter Rosen
15 SOUTH GRADY WAY
•
• SUITE 400
•
RENTON, WA 98055
• 425-204-8182
•
• FAX:425-235-6044
•
CASEY ENGINEERING
January 25, 2000
City of Renton
Hearing Examineer
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
REF: Proposed Teri Short Plat
SUB): Lot Access Exhibit Narrative
The Lot Access Exhibit— attached to this narrative shows two separate access
configurations. Option "A" is the option preferred by the applicant. Option "B" is the option
that would satisfy current City Code. This Narrative provides information to justify the
Appeal of Administrative Decision. The City staff has denied the request for Modification of
Code to allow 5 lots to be served by the Private Access Easement.
1. Option "B"— City Alternative - Will Create Three (3) Double Fronted Lots
This does not make any sense in light of the fact that the City Planning Department has
a policy to discourage the creation of double fronted lots.
2. Option "B"— City Alternative - Will Create Three (3) driveways within an 80'.
3. Option "B"— City Alternative - Will Create A Conflict With The Existing Garage to the
South.
The Lot Access Exhibit— Option "B"shows the field surveyed location of the existing
garage to the south of proposed Lot 2. The north side of this Garage is approximately
2.3' south of the south property line of the site. The creation of a driveway in close
proximity of this Garage may create a safety hazard.
STORMWATER HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN
LAND PLANNING
C ���
January 25,2000
Page 2
4. Option "B"—City Alternative - Will Create Three (3) Lots with configurations that are
not in the Public Interest.
Lots 1 through 3 will have reduce building envelopes, and reduced available yard
areas.
5. Option"B"— City Alternative -Will Require the Relocation of an Additional Power Pole.
If an additional access easement is designed along the south side of the site as shown
on Option "B", the existing power�ole at the south west corner of the site will need to
be relocated as it would be appro$imately 5'from the edge of the driveway paved
surface—thus creating a"roadside"hazard.
6. Option"B"—City Alternative - Will Create an additional 2066 square feet of unnecessary
impervious area subject to vehicular traffic.
The topography of the site, and the location of the City Alternative access at the south
side of the property, results in a situation wherein the stormwater runoff from the
southern access will not be able to be directed into the stormwater detention facility
designed to be located within the northern access road. The high point on the access
would be near the southeast corner of lot 1. A low point will be midway along the
southern portion of lot 3. The other low point will be at the frontage at the existing
ROW adjacent to Park Ave. N.
Based upon the arguments provided, it is my professional opinion that Option "A" is an
option that is in the best interest of the City.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
David W. Casey, P.E.
CASEY ENGINEERING
C:/99013/Ddocuments/Lot Access Exhibit Narrative.Doc
HEARIN EXAMINER'S REPORT
-
February 14,2000
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT and DECISION
APPELLANT: Robert West
Appeal of Administrative Determination
Re Teri Place Short Plat
File No.: LUA00-009,AAD
APPLICANT: Robert West
Teri Place Short Plat
File No.LUA99-183,ShP1-H
LOCATION: 3906 Park Avenue N
SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeal administrative decision regarding private street access
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To subdivide 1.02 acre parcel into seven lots intended for
single-family residences.
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing
and examining the available information on file,the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
M 0 TES: APPEAL
The following minutes are a summary of the January 25, 2000 appeal hearing.
The officia record is recorded on tape.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, January 25,2000,at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor
of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
The following exhibits were entered into the record for the appeal:
Exhibit No. 1: Yellow appeal file No. LUA00 i009, Exhibit No.2: Yellow file No. LUA99-183,ShPl-H,
AAD,containing the appeal, proof of posting and containing the original application,proof of posting
publication,and other documentation pertinent to the and publication,and other documentation pertinent to
appeal. I the file(by reference)
Exhibit No.3: Letter from Mr.Watts dated 1/5/00 Exhibit No.4: Plan of 7-lot plat dated 10/23/99
Exhibit No.5: Letter and drawing from Mr. Casey
Robert West
Appeal and Short Plat Hearings
File Nos.: LUA00-009,AAD
LUA99-183, ShPI-H
February 14, 2000
Page 2
Parties present: Robert West,Appellant Representing City of Renton
2903 Powerhouse Road : Peter Rosen
Yakima, WA 98902 1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
The Examiner explained that the appeal was an administrative appeal held pursuant to Ordinance 3071 and was
the only administrative review to occur on the matter. The matter may be submitted back to the Examiner for
reconsideration if the parties are not satisfied with the decision. He stated that the appellant had the burden of
demonstrating that the City's action was erroneous,and would have to show clear and convincing evidence that
the City's determination was incorrect. At that point the City could respond, if they chose to do so.
Robert West, appellant herein, stated that in October 1999, a pre-application meeting was held with the City
staff regarding the proposed Teri Place Short Plat. In that proposal appellant asked to be allowed to develop 7
lots within approximately 1.02 acres. City code provides that you can access up to 6 lots with a private street or
easement. Appellant proposed to access 5 lots with the private street, Lot 2 being accessed from a pipestem,
and Lot 1 being accessed from Park Avenue. There is a private access street running parallel to the north
boundary of the property,with a hammerhead turnaround on the east end of the property that straddles Lots 5, 7
and 6. The code further states that no more than four of the lots cannot be abutting a public right-of-way.
Appellant proposes five not abutting a public right-of-way. Under the modification procedures in the code, a
modification can be granted if it is first found that a specific reason makes the strict letter of the code
impractical and that the modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the code. Appellant
believes the specific reason for modification is that this lot is 428 feet in length,and is the longest parcel in the
Kennydale region that does not have either an existing or a potential for another access from a public right-of-
way. The City had responded that it was similar to other parcels,but appellant disputed that finding. The City
also presented an alternative suggestion to achieve access to the seven lots. Appellant,however, felt there were
flaws in the City's suggestion and enumerated several of them.
On November 23, 1999, appellant officially requested a modification.Appellant also discussed options
available to them such as using a shared driveway or eliminating a lot,but restated their preference for a
modification which would allow them to proceed with the 7-lot short plat. Mr. West also noted that they had
support from surrounding property owners to their requested 7-lot short plat. In summary,Mr. West concluded
that their proposal conformed to the City's standards pertaining to zoning, density, lot sizes, setback
requirements and number of lots allowed to be accessed from a private street. Their request for a modification
was to allow five lots which would not be abutting a public right of way.
David Casey, 15 S Grady Way,#400, Renton, Washington 98055, appellant's engineering representative herein,
gave a brief history on the discussions with the City and the alternative options presented. He reiterated the
problems with the City's suggested alternative such as increased grading,additional impervious surface, and the
location of a garage just south of the south boundary line.He questioned the arbitrary nature of the number of
lots not to be abutting a public right of way as four,not five,not three. Mr. Casey concluded that granting their
appeal would be for the benefit of the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Christopher Brown, 9688 Rainier Avenue S, Seattle, Washington 98188, appellant's traffic engineer, discussed
the advantages of the applicant's proposal with the seven lots such as increased tax revenue and enhanced
Robert West
Appeal and Short Plat Hearings
File Nos.: LUA00-009,AAD
LUA99-183, ShP1-H
February 14,2000
Page 3 •
population density. After consulting with the City's street maintenance department, it was thought that the
applicant's proposal also reduced impervious surface with less water runoff. The post office,fire and police
departments would also only have one street to locate. Mr.Brown also discussed the parking, backing out and
traffic flow of the proposals.
Mr. West clarified the type of street improvements that applicant proposes for the site.
Neil Watts,Plan Review Supervisor,Development Services Division, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way,
Renton, Washington 98055 testified for the City. He clarified that the City's letter to appellant dated January
21,2000,was not an analysis of alternatives,liut a statement of what the code would allow. It was not an
indication of staffs support of an alternative option. Mr. Watts further explained the density calculation
process,as well as street improvement standards.
Peter Rosen clarified that Mr. Watts' letter of January 21,2000,was in response to Mr. Brown's letter of
January 19. He further explained that an applicant must meet all the development standards, and not meeting
one does not justify a modification of one of the standards.
Closing'arguments were given by the parties and their comments reiterated their previous statements.
The Examiner called for further testimony re arding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The
hearing closed at 10:25 a.m.
FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &DECISIO
Having reviewed the record in this matter,the xaminer now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. The appellant, Robert West for Hi-Point LLC, filed an appeal of an administrative determination that
allowing five interior lots to be accessed by a private road was not permitted.
2. The appellant owns an approximately I1.02 acre parcel of property located at 3906 Park Avenue North.
The subject site is located on the east side of Park Avenue two parcels south of N 40th Street.
3. The subject site is zoned R-8(Single amily; Lot size-4,500 sq. ft).
4. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as
suitable for the development of single family use,but does not mandate such development without
Consideration of other policies of the Plan.
5. The subject site is approximately 427.34 feet deep(east to west)by approximately 103.39 feet wide.
The 103 foot dimension is the site's frontage along Park Avenue N.
6. The appellant proposed dividing the s bject site into seven(7) lots.
Robert West
Appeal and Short Plat Hearings
File Nos.: LUA00-009,AAD
LUA99-183, ShPI-H
February 14,2000
Page 4
7. Proposed Lots 1 to 5 would be arrayed one after another from Park eastward into the site. Generally,
Proposed Lots 1 to 5 would be located along the south boundary of the subject site. Proposed Lots 6
and 7 would be stacked at the eastern boundary of the site with Proposed Lot 6 in the northeast corner
of the site and Proposed Lot 7 in the southeast corner of the site.
8. Proposed Lot 1 would abut Park Avenue and would take approximately 77.4 feet of the frontage along
Park Avenue. The remainder of the Park frontage,approximately 26 feet,would be a pipestem
extension of Proposed Lot 2. Therefore,Proposed Lot 2 would have a 26 foot wide extension that
abuts Park Avenue immediately north of Proposed Lot 1. In this case,by definition(legally), both
Proposed Lots 1 and 2 directly touch, abut or are located on a public street,Park Avenue North--
Proposed Lot 1 because its western property line coincides with the street,while Proposed Lot 2
connects by way of its 26 foot wide pipestem or tentacle that extends approximately 70 feet west from
its main section.
9. The remaining five lots, Proposed Lots 3 through 7,would be located on the interior of the site and
none of them would have a property line that abuts Park Avenue North. Their access, as proposed by
the applicant,would be over a private easement roadway that passes from Park, across the pipestem for
Proposed Lot 2,and then traverses along the north side of Proposed Lots 3 and 4 and ends in a
hammerhead turnaround located in parts on Proposed Lots 5, 6 and 7. The roadway would be 26 feet.
wide which corresponds with the width of the pipestem,and approximately 360 feet long.
10. The hammerhead turnaround would accommodate vehicle maneuvering and allow them to turn around
and exit the site without having to back up the length of the roadway.
11. Section 4-6-060(J)(1)provides the following regulations governing the development and use of private
roads:
1. When Permitted: Private streets are allowed for access to six(6)or less lots,with no
more than four(4)of the lots not abutting a public right-of-way. Private streets will
only be permitted if the proposed private street is not anticipated by the Department to
be necessary for existing or future traffic and/or pedestrian circulation through the
subdivision or to serve adjacent property.
12. In other words,code may permit not more than four(4) interior lots that do not have any property line
in common with a public street to be served by a private or easement street. In this case the appellant
has proposed that the private road serve five fully interior lots,one more than permitted by Code.
Therefore,the appellant applied for a modification under the following provisions:
Section 4-9-250(D)
MODIFICATION PROCEDURES:
1. Application Time and Decision Authority: Modification from standards,either
in whole or in part, shall be subject to review and decision by the
Planning/Building/Public Works Department upon submittal in writing of
•
Robert West
Appeal and Short Plat Hearings
File Nos.: LUA00-009,AAD
LUA99-183, ShPI-H
February'14, 2000
• Page 5
jurisdiction(sic,proba a ly should read "justification")for such modification.
(Amd. Ord. 4777,4-191-1999.)
2. Decision Criteria: Wh!never there are practical difficulties involved in
carrying out the provisions of this Title,the Department Administrator may
grant modifications foil individual cases provided he/she shall first find that a
specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical, and that the
modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Code, and that
such modification:
a. will meet the Objectives and safety,function, appearance,
environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code
requirements, based urion sound engineering judgment; and
b. Will not be injurious to other property(s) in the vicinity; and
c. Conform to th intent and purpose of the Code; and
d. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation
intended; and
e. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity.
(Ord. 4517, 5-8-1995)
13. It appears that there were a number of eetings, correspondence and discussions regarding the
proposal. On November 23, 1999 the dppellant submitted its formal request for a modification. The
appellant claimed that the modification was necessary to create the maximum number of lots, seven(7)
lots,permitted by the underlying zoning and density regulations.
14. The City denied the modification on January 5,2000. It was noted that the density provisions would
allow a density that ranges between 4 and 7(after reducing the acreage of the pipestem)and that
creating seven lots as proposed by the appellant was not mandatory. Staff did not believe that this
reduction of one lot created an impractical outcome.
15. The appeal was filed on January 18,2000 and was timely filed. Its main points are that the option to
provide a second pipestem access along the south side of the plat would:
a. Create three "double-fronted" lots,
b. Three access points within 80 feet, and
c. 2,700 square feet of additional impervious surface.
16. The appellant claims the proposed pri late road that serves five fully interior lots is appropriate. The
appellant noted the approval of the modification does not create any undue harm, is engineeringly
Robert West -
Appeal and Short Plat Hearings
File Nos.: LUA00-009,AAD
LUA99-183, ShPI-H
February 14, 2000
Page 6
sound and discourages parking. The appellant also noted that the subject lot is longer than other lots in
the immediate vicinity and serving the five lots that can be carved from the rear of the subject site
requires the modification. Further, a modification allows the appellant to provide one additional lot
which meets the City's density guidelines and the Growth Management goals.
17. The City maintains that the more homes served by a private road,the more complex the ownership and
maintenance issues. Staff also noted there are more pedestrians including students relegated to walking
in the road instead of walking on an established sidewalk that would be required as part of a public
street. There are more parking problems since there is no room along a private road to support guest or
resident parking.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision was either in error, or was otherwise
contrary to law or constitutional provisions,or was arbitrary and capricious(Section 4-8-11(B)(4). The
appellant has failed to demonstrate that the action of the City should be modified or reversed. The
decision of the City is affirmed.
2. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the
facts and circumstances. A decision,when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts
and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious(Northern Pacific Transport Co.v Washington Utilities
and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn.2d 255,259(1969).
3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing
body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255,259(1969).
4. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the decision was founded upon anything but a fair review
of the application as it pertains to the proposed private road. The appellant has failed to demonstrate
with cogent evidence that a mistake was made.
5. Since the burden of demonstrating error is on the appellant,this office can reach no other conclusion
but that staff made the correct determination. The proposed modification is not appropriate and cannot
be approved administratively. The decision below must be affirmed.
6. Looking at the immediate intent of the Modification provisions wherein it states:
"Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions..."
it appears that there is no reason to approve a modification. There do not appear to be any practical
difficulties in developing the roadway as required by Code. There are no topographic difficulties in
providing access to only but not more than four lots that do not abut a public roadway. There are no
length or width constraints to providing a road that meets the requirements of providing access to only
four lots that do not abut a public roadway. The depth or length of the lot is not a practical difficulty to
road building. The code provision is aimed at the number of lots to be served by a private road. Code
Robert West
Appeal and Short Plat Hearings
File Nos.: LUA00-009,AAD
LUA99-183, ShP1-H
February 14,2000
Page 7
draws a clear limitation at four lots. Code does not allow a private road to provide access to five lots
where all five lots are interior and none of them abut any portion of a public street. If five completely
interior lots are to be served then at that point the Code requires that a public road be created to provide
access to the five or more lots. As staff noted, if five lots are allowed by this determination,why not
six or seven the next time someone wants to develop interior lots. There is no reason to diverge from
the stated standard.
7. It is clear that there is no practical difficulty in providing access. There are two solutions. One would
be to reduce the total number of lots to six which would make not more than four interior lots
accessible by the private road. A second solution would be to provide a public half street.
8. One other option was a suggestion that a second pipestem be created along the south boundary of the
subject site that connects interior Lot 3 directly to the street. The appellant responded to this possible
option in their appeal letter where they stated:
"We feel that his suggestion runs so counter to sound engineering, and good planning
that it could not possibly serve the public health, safety, or welfare."
9. The only issue is whether the site can be developed as a seven lot plat as opposed to being limited to
being developed as a six lot plat. That does not appear to be a practical difficulty. The access to this
additional interior lot violates a code limitation. Botha six-lot plat or a seven-lot plat meet the density
requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. Therefore,the modification is not
necessary to meet the minimum requirements of density found in the City regulations.
10. The provision requires the Administrator to find "that a specific reason makes the strict letter of this
Code impractical." It appears that the Administrator did not find any specific reason why five interior
lots should be served by private road.
11. As a matter of fact, it appears that staf1has taken liberties in allowing one interior lot to use a pipestem
where the narrow pipestem's end abuts a public roadway and then allowing four(4)more interior lots to
cross the pipestem as an easement driveway. While it may meet the letter of the law its effect is to
allow what the code otherwise attempts to avoid-complicated ownership and maintenance,parking
restrictions and pedestrian safety. It certainly pushes the definitions of"private road" and pipestems
and the number of permitted interior kits.
12. The determination below must be upheld since there was nothing in the record to allow this office to
conclude the decision below was either clearly erroneous or arbitrary and capricious.
DECISION:
The appeal is denied.
*****************x********************************
•
Robert West
Appeal and Short Plat Hearings
File Nos.: LUA00-009,AAD
LUA99-183, ShPI-H
February 14,2000
Page 8
MINUTES: TERI PLACE SHORT PLAT
The following minutes are a summary of the January 25,2000 major amendment hearing.
The legal record is recorded on tape.
The hearing opened on Tuesday,January 25,2000, at 10:35 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor
of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Vicinity map
application, proof of posting, proof of publication and
other documentation pertinent to this request.
Exhibit No,3: Short plat map Exhibit No.4: Utilities and road plan
Exhibit No. 5: Appeal file LUA00-009,AAD(by
reference)
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by PETER ROSEN,Project Manager,Development
Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton, Washington 98055. Applicant requests approval to
subdivide 1.02 acres into seven lots for single family development. The proposed lots range in size from 5,409
to 7,813 square feet, for a net density of 6.86 dwelling units per acre. There are existing structures on the site
which will be demolished as part of the proposal. The site topography slopes slightly toward the east.
The Comprehensive Plan(CP)designation for this site is Residential Single Family, and is intended to promote
and enhance single family neighborhoods. The proposal is consistent with its designation in that it would
provide for construction of single family homes and promotes goals of infill. It also meets lot size and density,
and is consistent with recent subdivisions in the vicinity of the site. The site is zoned R-8,Residential- 8
dwelling units per acre. The minimum lot size is 4,500 square feet. The R-8 zone allows for a density range of
a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 8 dwelling units per acre. The proposal of a private street with six lots or a
public street with five lots will also meet the density requirements. The proposed lots meet the lot dimension
requirements, as well as the setback and height limits of the R-8 zone. The proposed private street exceeds 300
feet in length. City staff has recommended that residences on Lots 5, 6 and 7 have sprinkler systems, and that
the hammerhead turnaround meet the Fire Department standards and be clearly marked for no parking.
Police and Fire departments have indicated sufficient resources exist to provide service to this proposed
development. This project is expected to have an impact on City services,and staff is recommending payment
of fire,parks and traffic mitigation fees. The Renton School District is not expected to be adversely impacted
by the 3 to 4 school age children from this development.
A storm water detention tank is proposed to be located under the private street at the north end of the property.
Water and sanitary sewer utilities are available to serve the proposal. Regarding street improvements, if a
private street is approved then the applicant will be required to create a homeowners association with a
Robert West
Appeal and Short Plat Hearings
File Nos.: LUA00-009,AAD
' LUA99-183, ShPI-H
February 14,2000
Page 9
maintenance agreement to maintain the private street and other common improvements on the site. The
applicant is required to improve the site frontage along Park Avenue N with sidewalks, curb,gutter and street
lighting.
Staff made an error in terms of recommending approval of the short plat as proposed. As proposed it does not
meet street standards. It would with the granting of a modification or with a revision of the plat. The issue of
access needs to be resolved prior to approval of the short plat. At this point staff is recommending the two
alternatives outlined in Mr. Watts' letter of January 21,2000,which is either six lots with a private street, or a
half street with public street improvement which would result in five lots. Further staff recommendations are:
(1)applicant demolish the existing structures on the site prior to recording of the short plat; (2)applicant
provide a minimum of five feet of landscaping between the private street and the north property line; (3)
payment of fire, parks and traffic mitigation fees; and(4)applicant shall create a homeowners association or
maintenance agreement to maintain the private street and other common improvements on site.
Robert West,2903 Powerhouse Road,Yakima,Washington 98902,applicant herein, suggested that the
landscaping required at the north property line be reduced to three feet.
David Casey 15 S Grady Way,#400,Renton, Washington 98055, applicant representative herein, stated that
they were not in support of the five lots with a public street. If their appeal was denied,they wanted to keep the
option of six lots with a private street. He also questioned whether a 6 foot high solid fence on the north
property line would be acceptable instead of the required 5 foot landscaping. Mr. Rosen responded that a 3-
foot landscape buffer allows only a ground co'er;that a 5-foot strip provides space for a mid-size shrub that
would provide a buffer.
Sam Robbins,3900 Park Avenue N,Renton, Washington 98056,an adjacent property owner to the south, stated
that any driveway on the south boundary would be a waste of land when there is a private road on the north
boundary to serve the site.
Olga Lissman,3930 Park Avenue N,Renton, Washington 98056, an adjacent property owner to the north,
stated she was in favor of the access drive on t e north and none to the south.
Mr. West responded regarding the two option proposed,one for a driveway only on the north side, and the
other for a driveway on both the south and north boundaries. There was discussion among the parties regarding .
the timing of the reports and recommendations'by staff and responses by the applicant.
Neil Watts, Plan Review Supervisor,Development Services Division, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton, Washington
98055,explained the pre-application process regarding this proposal and the suggestions made to make this
application comply with code. He further detailed the street improvements already in place on Park Avenue.
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak,and
no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 11:20 a.m.
FINDINGS:
1. The applicant, Robert West for Hi-Point LLC, filed a request for a 7-lot short plat together with a
modification to allow five(5) interior lots to be accessed by a private road.
Robert West
Appeal and Short Plat Hearings
File Nos.:LUA00-009,AAD
LUA99-183, ShPI-H
February 14,2000
Page 10
2. The yellow file containing the staff report,the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)documentation
and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit#1.
3. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official,determined that the
proposal is exempt from an environmental assessment.
4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter.
5. The subject site is located at 3906 Park Avenue North. The subject site is located on the east side of
Park Avenue two parcels south of N 40th Street.
6. The subject site is an approximately 1.02 acre parcel. The subject site is approximately 427.34 feet
deep(east to west)by approximately 103.39 feet wide. The 103 foot dimension is the site's frontage
along Park Avenue N.
7. The subject site is zoned R-8 (Single Family; Lot size-4,500 sq.ft).
8. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as
suitable for the development of single family use, but does not mandate such development without
consideration of other policies of the Plan.
9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 2531 enacted in December
1969.
10. The subject site is fairly level.
11. The appellant proposed dividing the subject site into seven lots. That would have required a
modification from the private road standards since a private road may not serve five interior lots. (For
purposes of this discussion, "interior lot" shall mean a lot or lots that do not have any property line that
abuts or is coincident with a public road.) Staff issued an administrative determination that the
proposed private road could not serve five interior lots and denied the requested modification.
12. An appeal hearing was held concurrent with the land use hearing for this short plat. An administrative
determination which accompanies this decision affirmed the denial of the modification. Therefore,the
proposed private road may not be created to serve five interior lots.
13. The seven-lot configuration will be discussed although the modification required for its approval has
been denied. This is because the applicant requested that if the proposed private road were not
permitted,that other alternatives to creating a seven-lot plat be considered. These options would
require either a public roadway into the plat(aligned in the same location as Proposed Lot 2's pipestem
and the proposed private road)or an option that would create a separate pipestem to serve Proposed Lot
3 (see Exhibit 5 showing Option B).
14. Proposed Lots 1 to 5 would be arrayed one after another from Park eastward into the site. Generally,
Robert West
Appeal and Short Plat Hearings
File Nos.: LUA00-009,AAD
LUA99-183, ShPI-H
February'14, 2000
Page 11
Proposed Lots 1 to 5 would be located along the south boundary of the subject site.. Proposed Lots 6
and.7 would be stacked at the eastern Boundary of the site with Proposed Lot 6 in the northeast corner
of the site and Proposed Lot 7 in the southeast corner of the site.
15. Proposed Lot 1 would abut Park Aven a and would be approximately 77.4 feet of the frontage along
Park Avenue. The remainder of the Pak frontage,approximately 26 feet,would be a pipestem
extension of Proposed Lot 2. ThereforrI ,Proposed Lot 2 would have a 26 foot wide extension that
abuts Park Avenue immediately north of Proposed Lot 1. In this case,by definition(legally),both
Proposed Lots 1 and 2 directly touch, but or are located on a public street, Park Avenue North--
Proposed Lot 1 because its western property line coincides with the street,while Proposed Lot 2
connects by way of its 26 foot wide pipestem or tentacle that extends approximately 70 feet west from
its main section.
16. The remaining five lots,Proposed Lots 3 through 7,would be located on the interior of the site and
none of them would have a property line that abuts Park Avenue North. The access by private road has
been rejected in an administrative appal so the applicant would have to create a public road or half
roadway in its place.
17. The applicant opposed creating a public road as it would be wider,provide parking and therefore
encourage additional car ownership and car usage. The public road would eliminate the Lot 2
pipestem.
18. There would have to be an improved a-id approved turnaround for emergency vehicles. This would
accommodate vehicle maneuvering and allow them to turn around and exit the site without having to
back up the length of the roadway.
19. The other alternative would be to create a second pipestem along the south boundary of the subject site
to Proposed Lot 3. This would reduce the lots served by the northern private road to a permissible four
with Proposed Lot 3 served separately This would create three lots that have roadways along both the
north and south boundaries of those re pective lots as well as having Proposed Lot I have a road along
three sides. As the applicant stated in its appeal:
"We feel that his suggestion runs so counter to sound engineering, and good planning
that it could not possibly served the public health, safety,or welfare."
At the hearing the applicant also called the Option B"convoluted."
20. The proposed lots would vary in size from approximately 5,409 square feet to approximately 7,813
square feet. The lots are all sized greater than the 4,500 square feet required in the R-8 Zone.
21. The development of six lots would generate approximately 60 vehicle trips per day. Roads in the area
appear capable of handling this load. The development of seven lots would generate approximately 10
additional trips per lot or approximate y 70.
22. The development of the site will generate approximately 3 or 4 school age children. These students
Robert West
Appeal and Short Plat Hearings
File Nos.: LUA00-009,AAD
LUA99-183, ShP1-H
February 14,2000
Page 12 ,
would be assigned to schools in the Renton School District on a space available basis.
23. Staff altered the recommendation that appeared in the staff report to a denial since the private road was
not acceptable.
24. The City has adopted a mitigation fee standard for residential development as all development has an
impact on roads, parks and fire services. The mitigation program imposes fees based on a per unit
charge. This fee is generally imposed as part of the City's environmental review process and short plats
are exempt from that review. That does not mean that the development of additional housing will not
have impacts on those same services. The development of the subject site will have impacts on a
variety of public services including surrounding streets, emergency services and City parks.
25. The applicant will be responsible for the improvement of the Park Avenue frontage.
26. The development of a private or public roadway along the north property line will have a much
different impact on the adjoining lot than a driveway serving a single family home. Depending on the
ultimate development pattern, instead of approximately 10 trips per day,there could be up to 60 or 70
trips per day.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. In the main, a proposal to subdivide the subject site appears to serve the public use and interest. It
appears that the most reasonable development of the subject site would be as a six-lot short plat. This
would meet the density demands of the code without taxing the surrounding properties. It would also
be an appropriate planning solution.
2. The proposed Option B was rejected by most parties including the applicant and staff as a convoluted
plan. It would create double-fronted lots that deprive the affected home of any real privacy. It would
also reduce substantially the useable lot area creating more pavement than useful yard.
3. Any public road would carve additional property from the remaining parcels. It does not appear
practical and is unnecessary to achieve a density that is not needed by code.
4. The plat provides for lots that are somewhat larger than the 4,500 minimum thereby providing lots for
those who want somewhat larger parcels.
5. The parcels are rectangular with lots lines at right angles to the street. The lots all comply with the
requirements of the Zoning Code for the R-8 zone.
6. The slightly larger lots provide a good transition to the existing development patterns. The lots are
compatible with the Comprehensive Plan.
7. The additional lots and resulting new homes actually should not adversely impact the City's services.
The mitigation fees will help offset what impacts there are on the roads, parks and fire services.
Development of the site increases the tax base of the City.
Robert West
Appeal and Short Plat Hearings
File NosL: LUA00-009,AAD
LUA99-183, ShPI-H
February 14,2000
Page 13
8. The use of the easement and pipestem by five homes could have an adverse impact on the adjoining
single family home. Therefore,the roaldway shall be located as far as possible from the neighboring
property and the non-road area shall be landscaped and fencing be erected to screen the adjoining
parcel.
9. Since no plat design was submitted for la reduced lot count,the applicant may redesign the plat by
1.
either widening the lots of the east to lest tier of lots or removing the stacked lots at the eastern edge
of the plat. The design shall be reviewed by staff and its review submitted back to the Hearing
Examiner for review and approval. The applicant shall resubmit its design in an expeditious manner
but not later than 2 months from the date of decision.
10. In conclusion,the proposed plat appears to meet standards,will add to the tax base of the City and will
riot unduly burden City systems.
DECISION:
The Short Plat is approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall demolish the existing house, garage and barn prior to recording the short plat. The
applicant shall provide proof of the final demolition permit approval prior to the recording of the short
plat.
2. The applicant shall provide landscaping between the private street and the north property line to
ameliorate impacts of the private street'on adjacent residents to the north. The landscaping shall be a
minimum width of five feet. Maintenance of the landscaping shall be included in the homeowners
agreement for maintenance of the private street.
3. Applicant shall pay a fire mitigation fee equal to$488 per new single family lot,payable prior to
recording the short plat.
4. The applicant shall pay a parks mitigation fee of$530.76 per new single family lot,payable prior to
recording the short plat.
5. The applicant shall pay a traffic mitigation fee of$75 per new average daily trip generated by the
project. The proposal is expected to generate 9.55 average daily trips per new single family residential
lot. The traffic mitigation fee shall be playable prior to recording the short plat.
6. The applicant shall create a homeowners association or maintenance agreement to maintain the private
street and other common improvements on the site.
7. The applicant shall resubmit its design in an expeditious manner but not later than 2 months from the
date of decision. The design shall be re'tfiewed by staff and its review submitted back to the Hearing
Examiner for review and approval.
1��
Robert West
Appeal and Short Plat Hearings
File Nos.: LUA00-009,AAD
LUA99-183, ShP1-H
February 14, 2000
Page 14
ORDERED THIS 14th day of February,2000.
—1-La iy
FRED J.KAUF
HEARING EXA INER
TRANSMITTED THIS 14th day of February,2000 to the parties of record:
Robert West Peter Rosen David Casey
2903 Powerhouse Road 1055 S Grady Way 15 S Grady Way, #400
Yakima, WA 98902 Renton, WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055
Christopher Brown Sam Robbins, Olga Lissman
9688 Rainier Avenue S 3900 Park Avenue N 3930 Park Avenue N
Seattle,WA 98188 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056
Neil Watts Matt Pool Cyrus McNeely
1055 S Grady Way 12203 62nd Avenue E 3810 Park Avenue N
Renton, WA 98055 Puyallup, WA 98373 Renton,WA 98056
TRANSMITTED THIS 14th day of February,2000 to the following:
Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Admin.
Members, Renton Planning Commission Jana Hanson,Development Services Director
Chuck Duffy, Fire Marshal Lawrence J. Warren,City Attorney
Larry Meckling,Building Official Transportation Systems Division
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division
Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Sue Carlson,Econ. Dev.Administrator
South County Journal Betty Nokes,Economic Dev. Director
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code,request for reconsideration must be filed in
writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,February 28,2000. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the
Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact,error in judgment,or the
discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written
request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This
request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered 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,Chapter 8, Section 16, which requires that such appeal
be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements.
Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City
Hall.
Robert West
Appeal and Short Plat Hearings
File Nos.': LUA00-009,AAD
LUA99-183, ShPI-H
February 14,2000
Page 15
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decison contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the
executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file.
You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may
occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not
communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use
process include both the Hearing Examiner an members of the City Council.
All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all
interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the
evidence! Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court.
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as
Appeals to the City Council.
II .
•
•
457W w 232-24-5 .RENTON NOTE nrolNeaeweconsLa1ron01p' iRecords
endFskaurms Twryreoroouesabr wMenceuee 4S3 W
I any and no saw%a up pb efeea or elee
e-44TH-•-8, _•— i1E-•-44T T
•
' , - to
li tl� �r ;G1ovt. Lot I
}I
.I. al
'gE&
J
J
•
NtIIRE 51T�• ro... •
' O• 1,,,.,
1 '
•
1 /%
M h t•' y.
'^ 1 M V •
�1? v' I.,
l Barbee Nan Co inSi von Abode Inc. a Ise °` a
' o
t, ill rr,r� I' ,/^z v;1 ..
NZ Cssa Fo.cett_rr$T'AN •Jill
1 U It 19 / ' Robert A. •
cdie 'yf.-.. M es:w. a '' .. owcett
lb
•
( Fred '-4
'.i'� tl ® , rr .F,' ..
Schaetler
@ I. q.
. �44 + 004, °tl—°N N i d '�s�C77 Us- 'dill N� W
/, ' e, ;I-7. _
N.
La -_ iee A.• •r' ye a coQ; • ' M. e
Q •/ov't Lot 2---:.`-! :' ., _ 89 ; 0 ,L81 pTi7• �I 1�19 I
J /32.00 Acres=--ri'' o'se w ,--r9't ,.. 1e+ aa% ? j
_..., •OJra 88 • iid) v• 121- 0)014/ 10$ • I
/. ---
-''.i 4.. Q`e Q is•a .n'1 1 I L. _7 ems_ SITE• - . :± .�
/r• -3 �'<� '87 ' �'' ° •I� '? IIO - al
�' yr.. ,�,5 Qta 104 'trg 1
/ --1 ij; .''y1Q u'1 " 1y n 11 w� a1 ` lea • eee -----t' . j W.
•
1, ]. 4 ; 1 9 : 1 e 1 NO. 1 z=-- 103 1 t WI
`u'd ISLEapND LAKE ,,,:,,.. °( pO° J° LAKE WAS i IN G TON
.0 .••, - Y-.'--.4--fl,�'1.'- le lof$ lea e0e j I
/' -- 1 1 EA �f O s _`1 �rPN 1: e s ] a 0= a Cl 102 W y _
• ` a g�. > __
/ t+ '••' ti>, a -ne. n I a,. e w l• a 11/e• .e1 a VS _� �I
�4 ; a N. 38TH F;.:e i, ____ - c: ,:s / d a
/ --=i,N+ In j»n is I,y, O,. 5 • w "ee - I.
-z, -; - 9 ; W) 101cw �.9. 9 ®•>`'B Q I �'' ' p,12 Imo: I•
-7P5CyIII 6
• / __ d_ • •w'�ss es S l �.: �+ .lo a g -cT_r'_�-rl .� ice{ l� -
•
/ _-�e.4�' '717 tz) lm ]�I� A ?EN -, o , '�, ;,a 1"m". p .JIpI��j• •2 115= i lI
to i sepzr-ee` _ », c- n ___` �__?_ ---- ----` .. t —e 1
--' .•4, I+p u..0 wig1'+. ,ept - tz)1, I n' �u E m sb 70- W 12 - 11Z • I
-- - .4. .._,....._.. __ \.181$ �„ .Se079'e7e III
F ao lAl t•
s .AU: - ---- . ''1s•''1•,. ; 8}��(J1 g 6�e1 S L A i�d: Y 98~ .=. - 117; Q 11
fa ,• Tell'z • ill.�•.i Fw-er- . $Y 1st, • Q �yC'o w we.'J ••.• ----- j V q 1
�., r +,r_ __+F=='= '^°. tea N. 37TH ST. n y..u..,t ae,.y., do1, 3 ,
` L! N � *•"" I Wit) +re �.It , '., ▪ 9 'e• l'• 118 I
V II
, '/ '!e 1..1s .sis n 1e 1. 3 C Il' 7TH t w 1. m a • j II
s i, • a "s a .1e '1 x ,rJ ., 96 0 119 a'w 1 i
Ss7: - It� 1e==--�==:�1._a. a F 36TH ST I
e1 ..i'i' er 1 ry u __
'' •.i, �_I ik llki1;1'e.iI,- t'!10I AI e� • +'tA',:.L...ii.' � l•'iy 11...P1.. L - N.
:,6TH4:f.. ? T t . \ .i)Z—a
..i �v i
r.
.�..
PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT OF:. PLACE '` A.
';Rom.: ENlilffiC CURD1a�r .: .. ,( .*',.' u,tY.w.�.
.44:1•
Pi NORTH 40TH STREET (SE 84TH_ SL) COMM "' a:
___ __I_•_ _ _ - _ — ____ __ ____ - - __ -A1 WV our COM •__ _ - __ ___ _ •,5.'.,, ,;••Y ,,
. 1 ( 9r mum.1u 11w nao U00 rr7-m ,`'CC• W90-"iT it
NEW PURCHASER DAM a 104 ;:1 • rf•' •
I
20'I 1/L 1..WA u M E RIbm(IDh•A -IM• ...:. . '•`�), .
�E TRACT • 10 7 OWNER: �A 1� r� s .
I I 711/IAAN AK a
I•c 1 Irma.4wmA �j"{ � Y!+ '
``\\''M AfiRA¢: wm>Io.n Im ae .i {
•
———�ti-L.r- _f 1 MISER OF LOT& 11011 •'..' '•'oro" ••I
7�Q. I T T •L _ AREA a SMALLEST LOT: 7tl0 sum no 0OT 7) '44.���•^^ >Zvhl�.
�. G• EXISTING ZONING •a ; !:•�`
'_++'o (i) I (2) I (3) I `` PROPOSED DENSITY: u m/0A ' i 2F.'(} i„`Rine f
• TRACT I E(1t t I ( EN ALLOWABLE OENSI M. AL IIMUL �1i', '� ",.%
.I�I1 I 106 10 lPNoat�1'I OF GO (4) I •PROPOSED USE Mux TNAYICDpI.L .' x ��• ,i•
• • Mil _ .. —— I Eta l T WATER: MY II 10001I, t
-J as•rursr.T09Lsa Aw IRm I 5 056� sANITA1iY SEMEIL Orr Or o1104
1.w rA_rr,O rL A1rL I r�RO
rnl Ilwrt a Lars R-a V OPEN SPACE fi Ip[ •Iil•
-• NBE3A'J0'W 427.54•
SCHOOL pS7PoCT, MISS WOOL MILT
•
. _ I ��f�,). 54. x o 6) •9 �� I FIRE DISTRICT: Ott Cr olral ••.
�' T_ j��.Nu r•_.., �- fr T I '�: TELEPHONE SERVICE: ILL SOT
+n
,� ——— — J / 1 ,;^ (3) W FEWER SERVICE: rl,:r raw MOT .:I ¢'
II Ip. , o r i t r---. 4. I / OP
' -��I i'µ® 1 1 i I I II. L ,r11 J IA I Ht 5209) I .:I 91E ADDRESS 7101 IAr1 AK N.MOM r N1 • ' ,I ♦ ,
1 1 I I 1 I 4 i ia^ 5 T\ ° �-� / .f►'C+16� 'I.(1s).4.I > 1 '.• '•3!',
' • MI/RI' L_1 L 2 J 13 1 1 -1 f I !b.D / (IA ¢ IEGN,DESaEPTIW: ILOT rG 105
ASO/Q RAFT fD N Wl [111 O RATS.PACE r MO PECHION rpMR,: 1'• �j Y
M - . L---- L�--� J.. 1 "" 7 • , A ro (2) I =I. vwI/murrTx.wauara: S:•r, ,,,+„
•
I I (-1 : EaaPT IN(EAST 190 FUT 1MQ01 •, 1 �_—`._.._• e 1`11 '•r1 Th. rr1 AL' ')• ..L • L- _•.r'=-a-',—[= O- -`•�: '( , i �AMr FRna OLIO"11N0_i0Y11OA�A_A_LxcR]O®A7_.J-_ 14,�L{
f•pJR ,t - w1 —NOD 51•JO'W I27.90 , J — (-f- I rw10w0 AT TTiE NTw=rna o nit SCAN MOO or IL MTN It(X • 4/: ' {
00 II T YM IT.)■01 D(FAST MO a Iwo AK IA(10101 AK 115 TIO0R " "A
NLIIIM 01.11•N•EAST AIb10 SAO CAST LK 31417 FEET 10 TIC IOW 'Ij'%. I'
N� Imo.. 6 cv• I c3) c2 I �:
L ( ) EO I ) I =I sr r o EAST
&M 0 1NL AS CO LD BY I.RO IOKL SOUe K;,:'
• -( c {''+ I y H 'D ZY EAOT FUTT SAD Lid E AS COULD BY AN OGSTMO IL ANL ..
` : / _ �\ ls�a�921 TRACT ' ----1�4y �H pOtR P I (') I O I A'DKIQ�/1'NNO'TMLIE'TO DIE T 'd NEST
1(1i1A0'IE11aoa MOM uo 1L Onm ' .pig
w` O A I ` I Z 000TO TO ANL romnal■04 Au uSM UTSU Iewn or VAX • F
p••u 111
14 N� 6{Ji I 1I• I W PL11 ALL(f NO L1MIA1W11 0 RECORD. G6L1OT 10 NO TOOEIA I f
NM All rASDnlrs mart Cr SSA moat or rAawoTa ��!
•
4( 1
•
2 THIS LINE DEFINED BY PROPERTY LNE 1 f) I`y ,�' : l
AGREEMENT REC.NO.9202201397. 0 ��?�tt
_ .[ N NOLL^^��• 64) .. NE BY. VERY IDESCRIPTIONGHT N SEE SURVEYCE FROM �W CT 0 I _ Ltr -PV•
TRACT 103 , GE 22. 1 , LL iii
.
�t 1 EN •
T S
I t P I BUILDING SETBACKS f - F
..:',':•;";',
, SYIOR "pl.: FRONT YARD _ 15 FEET ( 4 ,• •
':; ''_;' I ++s- TRACT 102 I REAR YARD •20 FEET •• ;
SIDE YARD S FEET SImGrY IMP Y')¢.}: •7
I PROPOSED AREAS hv;,.:,." ;t.,
I -—- - _--- 20'I LOT I 5409 50.IT. 1'Ai
''....1' --N� LOT 2 7tl13 50.FT. ,•.n~`JC 1xa,
NORTH 38TH STREET (SE 86TH ST.) LOT 3 6004 50.FT, f{
LOT I 6007 SO.FT. Z_
i • ' LOT 5 7037 SO.FT.
y.:�� LOT 6 62J0 50.FT. ,.K+4T\•••
..ail,,�...4.• LOT 7 5800 SO.FT. r.+.i5::1,'i;3.•.
la"f'
• •�'' PRIVATE STREET AREA • 1;1.::'
1: F. i, 9912 S0.FT..220 :•iRwr'!.I
'1;:lU're.,:'...., I. LEGEND -- -- -- ''-Sl�'..
k � "Y.li• EXISTING BLOCS. -- __ x,f1c;
:?-1-'''.'J.,_r q : EXISTING NOOSE.GARAGE. .r:i.:
E'1l _•... ANDREM OuO.UILDINOS TO BE -- -- -- .. t 't'•
�'' t�.+,�' ;gwiPEnc WAIL**• • ,1 W — `` '
N -•'! !'f �•.�•`f'�~• * T ' , o uc..m� 0 7 7 T7 . CASEY ENGINEERING HIGH POINT DEVELOPMENT INC., ,!40011
x1.
;i' 0 m `Y i}F ra JL,rIN aMLr rr-rlxrx too 1001 rOrIO01G11Y IO TADr,\1N rrLr
�7J�,..�`.: A� AZ 6ry mND'L r. r::: 74 A01-rru ero-aAr-trn !G *f,1 i
"$� ` , t rr 1e) £ V ��ii-i is
� '. 1�,,,;.,1',-;'�." '; —1....,. . TERI PLACE SHORT PLAT A.
��C]a _ a r ' r. CITY OF RENTON
SHORT FIAT/SUBDIVISION PLAN • ' R��
'`�z' �,y''� }•�iiya:;�,S1Ala„7: AL .Hl ',• .
.•r'"..SS, "'741 i t ., .• •' LOWS 0-11-01 �nGYV = i.AO' �{.a, p.Rl :� 7 i;
►'si. ••14Aii1 W1':.i•. >..F•• `'r-:').''j'a,0.l6.15•
::tii 2.,;:;
�.L
E-;, .Jt.
rE, ,ZZ
•
•
•
(: t
•
d G ;:
HIGH PONT E11V.122.21 • _1
N1ti1 POINT STA.2+5694 -
PSI STA-2+51.e4 •
'
PSI ELEV-122.52 PSI STA.3+25 f,
LOW POINT EIEV.117.09
• LOW POINT STA-1+1628 .A�.K I 1 PN FEEV.1It.09 I - ;�, iT. 1
PM STA-1+25 50.00'K - - �;
PSI EIEV.110.90 a n ^ h
12S a Y may N: ' n 8 al„ • - -.. .. • .125 •
'Y•` •
PN.STA-1+62.50 n = - A & Si o { .
A Y 1 PN ELEV.119.39 a r^,t C • ' •
[mrwr n aN[ LGJ / e
.+ S i noroa0 a LRAM - 3 M! i
• K]
•
i 120•
ri.:
o' 1r � T' I`
L
130' 48- CMP ®0.007. o y5e1L •
r " ° I' s;=�: !
(STORMWATER DETENTION FACILITY) µye-VI ' /�n.a[N[o we
its'•
i -- 1/3 1
ey_12 CPEP o.5 L PROPOSED CRP TIRE 1 a»' -1?
' STA 4+e0.70 2'LT '� ��},�
• Y AMMO OflNnl[R 7('•'J`.
CB/7 TINE 1 Rai¢ 119.7e ';��'
STA I+fe.73 S'LT YN(2 TIRE E-4r IE WT(N).1.7.92 I I,/3'COVACR9 D[AM x.
� CROSS SECTION A-A�Em 9[D swrAONO,Or aAA x J 5' l:
MU EL.117.0+ '\vT (( SOUO LOOItWO 110) ACCESS EASEMENT) \`a caolcrtn o[Pa . 'Irr•;
IE OUT((N)-17 e3 MHO EWE D-54- STA 3+30.25 S1T. i ( OnTB,[0 Su.Atwc 9A>s EDDY i w•^i•
IE W(E).11J.e5 ( SCUD LOCKING WED
_ �RIY IE.1xQ91 N.T.S. CRAWL..93 RECUR. ,• •tr'+'.. 6
•
IE IN(S)-11]-e] E CUT Je' W .114;27 , ',�'?'_•'V STA 2+00 SiT L) l t•. '
Mu IE-120.51 , SCALE: 1"=20' HORIZ is IN la'(E).114.27 i ;y. ;,,.
•
IE IN]e'(E)-114.27 I marsh a 4142 apt a n[vuol • '�+• 8.1
MOW A,T1' IE OUT t2'(9Q.•v4.n 1"=21 VERT \ /°� I;•s�Sv i�.:
.T ry 3 m T'Y.i{7y
3+00 4+00 5400 }5A,pT
ACCESS EASEMENT PROFILE • �:y;;;r;, .
SSYN 0 PROP. -RioST EDGE 0,PhN•I-E.sec i .• •
•
RIY-11fi.ex I� v I(
IE e'IN(E))103.40 J PROPOSED DETCN110N TANK " .p S '
IE e"IN(S)103.40 XISi fOG LMC-C SIDE
IJO'-4e'CYP -1'(1hv,^vi
IE e'OUT(N)105.30ill r I,�� Na,xc vR v. 1 ' i5'!.
To ec AnKARO •' 120 w Paar sr•lses4 re'gk'it'V i 1
[ns,v.o r STORY I �4 4. TIR t .' CYN/1 EWE X-54•I_I w Pawr Euv-In It YN/2 719E I-te-
��>r' PROP.N.(OP }1} q+
11 i A'1���w_���<����1'W '�sa�r_ _ «R TIRE I 4r.-. .1,t
[mTYO COIN ItiripilifarigrAisill
1 e�3/._J����'�r.i�% •-•--. �..����/ •
- `H; •r.:ll Idr _ N ,, • .
1 I PROP.S 1�•II Q� ' •b- p,JTd�'iIr PROPOSED •
•
'" Ifi'ACCESS(S'Y'T !f..vwEij=C,I[X WATER YCTER� • STUB/ ..WATER 4ERA' ' t l 1 '
I,1
. !IMMO e-STOW �w' pADC' ) PROPOSED e I ], ,� t •
„tU•
. C.f PVC[-1112] .'i' ANITARY SERER 4 x• - 7' ...Y•FJ
(wawa r amtN �IrI 2 Z OUR
u ,., •�'),
•O,P RFC[-NOu I I 3 PPOPOS• .A7ER SERNCC LINE _ r*1t•3 L
/ TO SERVE 5 Tr-ACTUAL SIl(10 -t,;(3V
ElelIH9.911Qt 111,II ••1 ' NI RI It NYIr+D IIT`4afr,. 7 . :i''',kt ,
;.1.�_
1 / on NNW OW Hu 7NWNEPNW2
•
EXnr EDGE a PNrT-W SIG[ I j
I / fir! ,`r, •/(t \ . 'S.: •
�'__ �}
EXIST TOO UNE-W DOE %NI!"
/ / I
y.{qj!'rr /
r� 'N 1 .
•
/ , ye"fi(L a SWIM CAMPY•..� .�ao .7!!G8 POINT DEVELOPMENT.NC '.i;l +
J. r, GRAPHIC SCALE 4,,- RCMP(sN R= 0.15)w4-eru ....
IRO To.wlwtt 10.m9-440.-27�» N NOW �. : .•{ .,,,i
W- •
CITY OF xmvmN TERI PLACE SHORT PLAT �y ¢
4 +[ -^ • �. .h•/•
•31Y grim)
r/rorii is`yyFA FILE No. UISLflY RUN t ACCESS PROFILE .',n �tf�
' ,1 •yr; DAM Y13-01 -arAsts' t.- �•Ta,1i014Y1 •• L-'
' r•
r
'Y ���,I5`,�jf"yf:
-`W'i
. •
- `•
�S:�;.
•
' �(Lj� ;
1Iflo•fy71r,."„„1M
V EXIST EDGE OFF 'T-E. SIDE 0 PTI ON 5H.* - - - - - J I
I . EXIST FOG LINE.—f SIDE
,�_. ,,' EXISTING P.P. • ,�20
v
TO BE RELOCATED
r '4 • I 55'
r PROP. N. EOP
!/11 / ' //j//+ / ////.j j// ,�, / /o _ _ SFr ,�o rr�
W r— - -lA_ _ ,_/.___(,p,/.)-. _
am I 6
I I r PROP. S. EOP\S./ /\1 - _ —
II I 1. r- �— — 2s'�CC.ES '''T — — — �/ I /
L!i
i1I, I I I �� i I I I . L
��� I L - - - - J I I q I I26. '
�� I I I I -J
I . • 5 l— _
I/,a - - - u 21� L - - - J 1 7
1, I / i / • , i / �
/ / // /':// i // ///i,
20. ACCESS E'S'M(T
I OFF-SITE EXIST I , I
•
EXISTING P.P. --__ GARAGE
I TO REMAIN -I
2.3' S. OF-PL
I (4)
(- _,., (6)
���o w.�As CASEY ENGIN.
O..•VI{,•y re 15 SOUTH GRADY WAY—
GRAPHIC SCALE .:,° 'y•
�, RENTON, WA 98055 (4:
Sl 0 10 20 40 00
*'n
IMIM ' 4c CITY OF RE
MET x�.. sic;;:ar
s m n- zo f it �8/0;;Z''E4,.,2s FILE No. LL, 9—.
A .
EXPIRES•orE� 5-13-01
SI
l
•
•
CIT' , .3F RENTON
.. J :T
� Planning/Building/Public Works Department
J e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator
January 21,2000
Mr.Robert West
Hi Point LLC
2903 Powerhouse Road
Yakima,WA 98902
Subject: Teri Place Short Plat
File LUA-99-183
Modification Denial Clarification
Dear Mr.West,
We have received a series of letters from your traffic consultant, Christopher Brown, regarding the
modification request for the private street design of the proposed Teri Place Short Plat. I wanted to clarify
a 'couple of items regarding this modification request which seem to be misunderstood in this series of
letters.
The alternate suggestion of dual private street access for the short plat has not been recommended or
supported for approval by City staff. This option was presented to you as a layout that would permit
creation of an additional seventh lot without requiring a modification approval. This option, if it had been
proposed, would have been reviewed by staff for comment, and eventually by the Hearing Examiner for
review and approval/denial consideration. Based on the information which has been provided, including
your strong objection to this alternative,yo traffic consultants recommendation opposing the dual private
street concept,and the stated opposition of our Department Administrator, staff would not support such a
proposal for approval if it was proposed.
The denial of your modification request was not based on an evaluation of the comparative value of a
single private street with two private streetsJ The denial was based on the lack of special individual reason,
making the strict letter of this Ordinance impractical. The modification request was to add an additional lot
to the short plat by creating five landlocked parcels, when the City regulations limit the number of
landlocked parcels on a private street to four parcels. Since the lot is relatively flat, and regular in shape,
their was no evidence of special individual need demonstrated in the request for modification.
There are legitimate concerns about the use of private streets, as expressed to Mr.Brown by the City staff
that he contacted. It is our position that private streets may be appropriate in limited situations,but are not
suitable for serving a larger number of lots. There are several reasons for this limitation of parcels served
byj a narrow private street:
I • Difficulty of shared maintenance by private property owners
• Lack of available on-street parking
• Lack of sidewalks
Shared Maintenance: Private streets must be maintained by the various property owners using the shared
street, and the likelihood of the long term maintenance of the private street decreases as the number of
involved property owners increases.
Parking: Private streets provide no on-street parking for the adjacent landlocked parcels, increasing the
demand for parking on the nearby public street. The increase in landlocked parcels increases the number of
cars parking on the public street, with no increase to the number of spaces available on the public street.
Thee increase in landlocked parcels increases the likelihood that a portion of the narrow private street will be
blocked by parked vehicles,restricting emergency access use of the private street.
1055 South Grady),Vay-Renton, Washington 98055
Sidewalks: Private streets also include no separate pedestrian facilities(sidewalks). Increasing the number
of landlocked parcels on a private street increases both the number of vehicles using the street,as well as
the number of pedestrians. The increased likelihood of conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians is best
addressed by development of a public street,including curbs and sidewalks.
Staff can support either of two options for the platting of this property, with a preference for the second
option:
1. A six lot short plat with a private street,with the same lot configuration recently approved for the
Miller Short Plat which is adjacent to this parcel to the southwest.
2. A short plat with a public street developed to half street standards (see RMC 4-6-060-R-2 for
specific development standards). This would reduce the allowed number of parcels to five lots.
In summary,the denial of the original modification request was not based on evaluating the relative values
of a dual private street system versus a single street system. For this particular lot,the maximum number of
parcels that can be created in comformance with City of Renton development standards is six lots. The
modification request was to add an additional parcel to the short plat. There are several sound reasons why
adding additional lots to a narrow 20 foot private street is not desirable. We do not object, and in fact
prefer, your consultant's suggestion that this short plat be developed with a public street constructed to
half-street standards. We also can support approval of this short plat with a private street, as long as it
conforms to all the development standards of City Code.
Sincerely,
/V6(-1 (}‘?;(;
Neil Watts,P.E.
Plan Review Supervisor
Development Services Division
cc: Gregg Zimmerman
Jana Hanson
Jack Crumley
Peter Rosen
..I-':ti n - [.:::.•",- xi. 4-$.'•- .:ram
f•�'t ,Va�r
+�. tip:-,".'�.':::i ,-1:`?•'�:'i_
xC. a�zt �f'. • • • -
'J k
- -h3' :::
r rrL
.i- irk+: ..r, !'!'r":
f r
• y p
..7 .r?.'�tY'•`:Y:`; ;,�' ;.'°.,Y,':^�t_i-. `:i�'IJ^ i'F; y'x.
`CI: .F T:_ :� RE
_ NT.O
f
- N
YF
•v 4 :1
i ytc
,AL • - • Planning/Building/Public• - Works Department - -
7esseTanner, Gregg Zimmerman P.E.;Administrator
January:19,•2000 , - .
Mr.Christopher Brown •
•
Christopher Brown and Associates •
•
9688 Rainier Ave. S. :
- Seattle,WA 98118-5981
•
S CT: TERI PLACE SHORT PLAT
Dear Mr.Brown: - .
•
Tliank you for sending me your letter regarding our discussion concerning access options for the •
proposed Teri Place Short Plat. There e a few issues I should point out to make sure the record
is complete.
1. I find your account of our conversation to be accurate,however I wish to remind you of
several caveats that I mentioned. Fist,although I am the Department Administrator,as you
pointed out in your letter to Mr.Weft,I do not make decisions on roadway or private street
design associated with private development projects.:This function is performed by the
Development Services Division's Plan Review Section;which is supervised by Neil Watts,
•P.E. During our meeting I was"brainstorming",ideas with you,but attempted to make it - '
clear that Neil Watts'group would be making decisions
un for the City on this subject I
suggested that you r these ideas b'Neil Watts to make sure there were no"fatal flaws"or
"show stoppers"in these ideas. Nei and his staff deal with land use'and street standard code
on a daily basis,and would be betterequipped than I to evaluate these ideas in relation to City
Code. In fact,I briefly discussed this project with Neil,who pointed out to me that City Code
subtracts the area of city streets front the project property size,while it does not subtract the
area of private streets from the property size. This would result in a smaller developable
parcel in the density and lot number calculations,and could result in the reduction in the •
number of lots that would be allowed for the Teri Place Short Plat. He also reminded me
that the Code is very clear on standards of half-street improvements in terms of required
street widths,etc. These standards are not negotiable. I continue to recommend that you
discuss these issues with Neil Watts'so that all the ramifications of the available choices can
be considered by yourself and your client. I would not want your client to have false
expectations regarding his develop ent options.
2. As I mentioned to you,there have been cases where alternative ornamental street lights have
been approved in lieu of Renton's standard aluminum radial design street lights. However,
since our Transportation Operations staff will assume maintenance of these lights,and since
they will have to meet specified illumination rating,any alternate street light proposal will
have to be reviewed and approved by the Plan Review Section. There are some criteria
involved,and it should not be assumed that all proposals will be found acceptable.
3. Your client may already understand.(although it does not appear to be included in the letter to
Mr.West)that a half public streetunprovement approach will require that he dedicate right—
'..of-way to the City at no cost to the ity. •
c _
. ._::1055.South Grady..Way.=Rerfton Washington_98055f-s.,'•: , ,; :`' ::•" .:`•i..
n�. :_,tiv�:s-\;i"v51':�A•: 'at�G'11.�• _ [ .-.}av'a_ "af]..y..;.a- 'ii` - '.4.:}�.•• .:;: -
. : ;5:>"•''!: y�,,Y u, < t.. H'.. ..ra .rt : . ..,•.s....:n ::w� ..V: cr :2% -
,4„ ,.4 .: Y '•`�a`:c�'°s 'A' ' ✓'' i "' .',v .laS :T•�ri` _ ';k.
- -'S :�•, -�
• �-J•. _ _ if;' ti'.5 :!tip .a:'C Z'r,:^" .i"i.r Aa`•
- •Y.. .i a. r tti�y r o �"-. "' A ft.•'•:.
✓: S Fr...,�':. '';.r. _ •1:..-.;='::;'i:l..• �Y:.S::;jV:J.;:.' _ ,.t,:.,.tF'..`.'";1: .,e•..-
a •7 nu `1 °;�.9 '2U�00
Pa e 2
g _
4. The code mandated street standards require that sidewalks installed along frontage
improvements be made of concrete. Grasscrete or similar material would not be approved.
•
•
My intent in writing this clarification letter is not to throw cold water on pursuing the half public
street improvement option for access to the:short plat. I share your preference for this approach.
However,I would not want your client to come to conclusions or make a decision without
knowledge of important considerations.':Thank you.for discussing this with me,and sending me a
letter on the subject
Sincerely,
•
12 4
Gregg ZJim arman,-Administrator
Planning/Building/Public Works Dept
`taf
,,
cc: Jack Crumley , •= °
" :.:.;.
Neil Watts sV.; f �;
Peter Rosen , <•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
,
ocument2\c r 0
1,
:T•.i : CIT _ ' OF RENT.ON••:•
}
Hearing.Examiner'
Jesse Tanner,Mayor '. . - - Fred J,Kaufman
January 20,2000' :.
•
•
•
•
Mi:Robert E. West, •
Hi-Point L.L.C.
2903 Powerhouse Road
Yakiia, WA_98902
•
- .. : Re: 1. .Appeal,of A dministrative:Decis�on re Teri Place Short�Plat .,
Appeal File No.'.LUA00-•OO2AAD ,
t -: `'� k�: :' 7-Dear Mr. West ' -
f •
We received your appeal.`datea Januar'118,2„�0�0�0, and.the hearing•will be'scheduled for Tuesday;
January 25,2000, at 9:00'a.m:°in the`Council„Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City '` ,
.i.::::::.:'...-s.: i,:.;
Hall.
(
•
• Should you have any further questions,please contact this office.
Sincerely, : .
'.t °Ie xaminer�
': :_ ,ij' !l..redJ.Kau an. - - _::
4
':cc: :: •:Ma. or Jesse'Tanner
ay"Covingtoi;Chief Administrative.Officer.-
,.:
.. L Marren CityAttorney.:.
Peter Rosen.
. _. Ne
il Watts-.
. ... ... .:..
•
1,
•
r• • -
:l r,
t•-:-....77:!,-,: l.,';':',:•-,.. *'--:;•:::'.,-.;:‘,'c.:,••-.:.:,.. :•.,..-,e;,:f._-•;,,,:;.•.-..-:•:•.,•::::_•:,:-:•••,:c,:'-r_5.,,_ :::.. '..--,..::••:-.•;.z•-.:,-2,-;::::::.7.•-.-:,-.-... ....:-....:-:-..,..,:.:,:-_:-.7:.,5...-.,.-..:-,:.;-...,-,..-2.-..,::::-...-_,,,,,:::,,,...;,.,,,,:, ,',.-, .,,-._.:',-_,':'"-,.:!.„.:•.:..:.':"..',,...'"1_.1-,i'....1.1:.:/'.-::.'.",:.:.'-:,„''.j;..„i:l_:::-':,-:.-.::._.:.`.1.2.-..I...::','-,1':..,!,,...[.:..-1-.-::::._;.,,1..1.„,,",'•::.::..:],':..'..::-..1:'-:i,.-......:1.:.-:.::-„:--._'_.
f•
-
-.-5:..,:,':,.:'...:...:-..,•'---:::.-::-,:ls'..„1..,'•.':.-„-.:'L..•
s -:_ :.: <..'1 _Renton Washin on.98055 =' 425 430-6515. A::;=; . "
_ I} _ 055 South Gr/a�dy..Way. ,. gt ,( ). _
-I ...R�-------
- ...
January 18,2000 CITY OF RE'NTON
/,4'0p,rn,
JAN 1 8 2000
Mr. Fred Kaufman, RECEIVED
Hearings Examiner, CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton,WA. 98055
SUBJECT: Appeal of Administrative decision Re. Teri Place Short Plat.
Project No. LUA-99-183,SHPL-H
Dear Mr. Kaaufman:
1
Ina letter to the Development Services Division for the City of Renton,Dated November
23, 1999, I requested a modification o their Code that would have allowed us to access
five lots in our proposed Teri Place sh rt plat through the use of a private street. In the
best interests of all concerned I feel that the modification could and should have been
granted administratively.
However, I received a letter, dated Jan ry 5,2000,from Neil Watts denying our request
and in its place suggesting an alternate a that would put us in compliance with Code and
private street design requirements.
HiJ suggestion involves the creation of three double fronted lots,the use of a shared drive
way that would create an additional 2/00 sq. ft. of impervious surface, and three accesses
from Park Ave. N. within a distance o eighty feet. •
Wel feel that his suggestion runs so co ter to sound engineering,and good planning that
it could not possibly serve the public health, safety,or welfare.
Wel,therefor, are appealing his decisiol to you in hope of obtaining relief.I
We l are prepared to offer evidence and testimony at the hearing, including letters from
surrounding property owners,that we hope will convince you that the development plan
proposed by us will best serve the interests of all concerned.
I look forward to appearing before you
7Si cerely,
ram- .. ' Ce2
Robert E.elWst,Mgr.
Hi-Point L.L.C.
it
it
1
% ii4,4n :1 ruY 1i1
44211 wn4 I
1
-4-/oli
17 tzsioro7 w„ up 71,04 rge ,)v_row'_9u two 'AI 11 rot ,_,,,w2 r?.;(170
4, ( -7 i ,
712(4,41 17 "A(1 iri / ,rfyi
ar v iii Aw -iy
ue.,4 �► ,,ram � j17
-v V
�� �-►.�.o�,�'?J 6
4P _�. — 1 114 r
rpir cv/ (40 714914 ??-0,-0)0 it? 0 tr ,N, hi. h /174194.0,4
I
-iv - ipi rd -27 ro4a il
ww'r
r441/7
��
04,
;� q" rPu 7 i ?ram i r2T-KJI P r '1
-id pe-piRS 7 gut wvor Twy 7ff-0 - -yd roirrs4(0) 11_[H . 7-11 Po"
7 u/rirdirr, 4 7S1 7-4A fr;t9ki / i g 4taor reia-t) ?If i
7 yivo
1
1
rid royi :gotc) ?-n-1, 1 S50.84 V /
in-( _ It 1A-71
,uyy:).177-zpo,ives rtwo
•6.6b / ' QE 4P"Q°U vril I° ;
-B St--,50v HA 2'lvd60 , - -
"I wv0 Y c `Oci b `
January 14,2000
City of Renton
Development Services Division
Renton City Hall
Renton,WA.98055
I1
To Whom It May Concern,
I own the Property at 3930 Park Ave.N.abu ling the proposed Teri Place Short Plat to the north.My
Brother and I own the property across the street and to the north. I have seen the development plan as
proposed by Hi-Point Development and the plan suggested by the City Planning Dept.
Whereas I see no significant impact on my property either way,it appears to me that the plan as proposed
by Hi-Point would best serve the general welfare of the neighborhood and create less traffic confusion.
Sincerely6))26,w6e
Olga Lissman
II
II
January 14, 2000
City of Renton
Development Services Division
Renton City Hall
Renton,WA. 98055
II
Tol,Whom It May Concern,
I own the Property at 3907 Park Ave. N. directly across the street from the proposed Teri Place
Short Plat.
Bob West has shown me the development plan that he has presented to the city and the plan
that the city has suggested that would meet their code requirements.
� I
Thejcity's plan would require three accesses from Park Ave. N. within a space of eighty feet. I
feel that this is not good traffic control.
I also feel that the additional hard surface created by the shared driveway is not good from a
drainage standpoint.
As a property owner in the neighborhood I would prefer the development proceed according the
plan as proposed by Mr.West.
Yours Truly,
Chris Sidebotham
(;a._
Christopher brown 0 Associates
9688 Rainier Ave. S.
Seattle, WA 98118-5981
(206) 722-1910 Fax (206) 722-1909
January 17, 2000
Mr. Peter Rosen
Project Manager DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
Planning, Building and Public Works Department CITCOFRENTON
Renton City Hall
1055 South Grady Way JA 2000
Renton, WA 98055
• I RECEIVED
Re: Teri Place Short Plat,
File LUA-99-183, SHPL-H
Optimum Design Considerations
Dear Mr. Rosen:
In accordance with our brief phone conversation this morning I
am enclosing copies of my recent correspondence to Messrs.
Robert West of Hi-Point LLC and Greg. Zimmerman, Administrator
of the city' s Planning, Building and Public Works Department.
1
I hope these will be of some value in assessing the access
matter that is before you.
Yours truly,
C. V. Brown, P.E.
cvb/s
cc Mr. Robert West
Traffic Engineers C4 Transportation Planners
(.-__ Ph\D1
Christopher Brown CS Associates
9688 Rainier Ave. (S.
/ (Seattle, WA 98118-5981
\ / (206) 222-1910 Fax (206) 722-1909
January 17, 2000
Mr. Greg. Zimmerman, P.E. , Administrator
Planning, Building and Public Works Department
Renton City Hall
1055I�South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Re: Teri Place Short Plat _
File LUA-99-183
Optimum Design Considerations
Dear Mr. Zimmerman:
First, thank you very much for affording me the time in your
busy schedule to review some of the access items related to the
subject plat. It certainly presented me with a clear and better
understanding of the city' s concerns.
Second, I am attaching a cop of my letter to Mr. Robert West of
Hi-Pont LLC, the developer of the proposed plat for your review
and/or reference. You will note on page 2 I have enumerated a
series of benefits that accrue from the recommended design,
albeit outside of the normal code boundary.
Concerning the recommended design for plat access, and recalling
your and Mr. Crumley' s concerns over the longterm maintenance
of the "private road", I forgot to advise you of the "Homeowners
Association" that will be constituted as a part of the recorded
plat. Documents for that association will be submitted to the
hearing examiner for his review and reference. I am sure that
will dispel any anxiety the Oity may have over any long term
maintenance of the private road.
Incidentally, the optimum design naturally includes access for
Lots 1 , 2 and 3 (nearest Park Avenue N. ) from the same pipestem
road. Since those homeowners will also be assessed for its
maintenance it is only fair that they also gain access to it.
Of course, benefits to the ci y by concentrating all access to
one road are obvious and sign' ficant. Traffic safety is aided.
Third, I mentioned that curre t property owners are in favor of
this design. Letters from Samuel Robbins at 3900, Chris
Traffic Engineers FS Transportation Planners _
Mr. Greg. Zimmerm'. P.E. , Administrator
January 17, 2000
page 2
Sidebotham at 3907 and Olga Lissman at 3930 Park Avenue N. will
be submitted in support of the optimum design.
Given the disbenefits that arise from the code designed access
versus the positive benefits from the proposed access we hope
you Will be able to provide positive input to the examiner' s
decision making process.
Again, thanks for your time and understanding in this matter.
Yours truly,
C. V. Brown, P.E.
cvb/s,
cc Mr. Robert West -
Mr. Jack Crumley •
Mr. Neil Watts
Mr. Peter Rosen
•
Christopher Brown Cn Associates
C 9688 Rainier Ave. S.
Seattle, WA 98118-5981
(206) 222-1910 Fax (206) 722-1909
January 17, 2000
Mr. Robert West
Hi-Point LLC
2903 Powerhouse Road
Yakima, WA 98902
Re: ' Teri Place Short Plat
File LUA-99-183
Optimum Design Considerations
Dear 'Mr. West: -
Last1Friday, January 14th, I was fortunate to be able to meet
briefly with Mr. Greg Zimmerman, Administrator of the city' s
Planning, Building and Public Works Departments and also,
earlier, with Mr. Jack Crumley, the city's maintenance manager.
First, in reviewing the two conceptual plat designs Mr. Crumley
immediately noted that the design with a single pipestem access
road ;was far superior. As he observed, it provides only a
single conflict point on Park Avenue N. , it precludes the
necessity for garbage trucks backing out onto Park Avenue N.
when 'serving lots 2 and 3, and would be beneficial in their
normal maintenance of Park Avenue N. in that there would be only
a single access rather than, at worst, three access points.
This last consideration also applies to such mundane items as
water and power meter readings and the like. In essence, the
design with the single access has far better economies to the
city '1- a major consideration in the post I-695 budget era.
Second, at my meeting with M . Zimmerman he noted that staff, in
deriving the second design option, was obviously developing the
site 'density in conformance with the code while the code, in
turn, was leading to a convoluted design by its very nature.
His major concern, and one tiat was also voiced by Mr. Crumley,
was that they have had numerous complaints from property owners
on "private streets" who, later on, when the streets begin to
disintegrate and need maintenance turn to the city for that
function. The preference is clearly to have access streets
public rather than private. Public streets tend to ensure
better quality of design, construction and on-going maintenance.
Traffic Engineers Transportation Planners
Mr. Robert West
January 17, 2000
page 2
N,
In essence, public streets, by their apparently better design
and construction standards, tend to inhibit complaints by local
residents in the future.
I
Mr. Zi1immerman posed the query, "What if the single pipestem
option was designed and buil as a "half street"? This would do
much to allay their fears ov r long term maintenance and also
prevent the difficult access issues that the "code designed"
access seems to produce.
I felt that this might be an option although public streets, by
standard design applications, require sidewalks and street
lighting - the latter being the aluminum, radial design, light
poles which would be clearly out of character on this site. To
that Mr. Zimmerman noted that a smaller, perhaps post-top style
luminaire, would be a good alternative so that the street
lighting would not be out of character with these lots.
The single access street concept, the preferred alternative
albeit a pipestem design, has a lot of other advantages as well
not the least being:
o for DPW, a smaller impervious surface and thus smaller
surface water run-off;
o for the post office a much more efficient addressing and
mail delivery style;
o for the fire department a simpler and less confusing
home address in the case of an emergency;
o for the city treasurer a greater return on the available
taxing opportunity;
o for the environmentalist the preservation of more green
space;
•
-- o for the motorist visiting the enclave an opportunity to
turnaround at a hammerhead style dead end and approach
Park Avenue N. in a dustomary, normal and safe manner:
o for Lots 1 , 2 and 3 a, y visiting motorist will not have
to back into the street with obvious hazard issues;
o for the neighbors on the north and south sides a more
harmonious and compatible design that is less intrusive;
111)
Mr. Robert West
January 17, 2000
page 3
o for the police department responding to a burglary in
progress, only one street to block;
o for the city administration, with the adoption of public
street design standards and the formation of a
homeowners association, the elimination of future
maintenance issues and " . . . complaints to City Hall" .
All of the above advantages arise for the single pipestem design
option - which I believe to be the preferred option. For the
alternative with a separate access to Lots 2 and 3, the city
gains . a pitiful, design that accomplishes none of the above but
one that will ensure long term maintenance, a higher level of
traffic hazard, and no opportunity to address budget concerns.
The city department heads are all facing future budget concerns
with the passage of I-695 . This project, with the
implementation of the singleccpipestem access road, will do much
to ward off some of those budgetary concerns.
In discussing this with the site Civil Engineer, Mr. David
Casey, the implementation of "half street" improvements per the
typical city design standards, may not be feasible since the
construction of a sidewalk may be hard to fit into the "half
street right-of-way" while also meeting code required lot
sizes. Other options for providing an all weather walkway can
be exiplored. For example, a walkway of grasscrete or similar
material.
If you wish, I will contact Rainier Disposal, the contract
holder for solid waste, and ask for their input in the best
design.
Last, nighttime illumination can be subdued, designed to be
harmonious to the enclave, and yet provide for residential
security as well as assist in pedestrian and motorist safety.
I trust you will agree with he above assessment.
Yours truly,
C. V. Brown, P.E.
cvb/s
cc Mr. Greg Zimmerman, P.E.
Mr. Jack Crumley
/OltMr. Neil Watts C
Mr. Peter Rosen