Laserfiche WebLink
120 March 25,1507 <br /> based on Moorland's inability to mitigate the impacts of his short <br /> subdivision. The Planning Department contends that significant <br /> traffic and pedestrian safety hazards would result if the street <br /> frontage improvements are not made. <br /> The problems encountered in this appeal stem from the sale of <br /> property from Moorland to Anderson. Moorland tax segregated his <br /> property and sold Anderson a portion of his property without first <br /> subdividing u the property in accordance with the subdivision laws. <br /> s 1p df this action, frontage improvements <br /> property n t the time the tithe pro permit w s isy B ria tM1e <br /> property now owned by Anderson,the property was owned by Bou[lantl. <br /> The City objects to the Examiner's ruling because he has failed to <br /> take into account Moorland's culpability. The City's traffic <br /> engineer has opoined that requiring Moorland to make frontage <br /> improvements across his own frontage without also making the same <br /> improvements acrossa Anderson's frontage would create traffic <br /> hazard. This traffic hazard hes been created by Moorland's illegal <br /> be held tionally property. <br /> oMoo`lantlolreitedving this problem and should <br /> Mr. Candies stated the Planning s Department Peels the following <br /> errors in law occurred: <br /> l. ;Tee a aminetr therLnorg hauthentl Ciy <br /> improvements setP forth in 04 <br /> a0 <br /> 5. mtlaokees ntohte <br /> The Examiner erred in not recognizing the existence of <br /> 2 the authority to impose Conditions 00 t 05 in the <br /> City's subdivision ordinance and in the City's general <br /> police power. <br /> 3. The Exadinet erred by ruling on the SEPA issue when he <br /> M1atl no adthoxlty to tla so. <br /> It is also the opinion of the Planning Department that the following <br /> errors in race gccnaea: <br /> 1. The Examiner erretls stating that Anderson has <br /> refused to participateIn the short plat when he has in <br /> fact agreed to participate. <br /> 2. The Examiner erred In stating that safety haiards o <br /> Third Avenue will result from future improvements to <br /> Thirthat thenue. In traffic,hazard theTraffic <br /> becreatedEngineer <br /> t E eby Moorland's <br /> subdivision. <br /> r c u <br /> The Planning Department requests that City Council hold a public <br /> hearing fo onsiaet reimposing Conditions 06 k 05 n the Preliminary <br /> Approval oP Srox[Subtli vision 013-85,Wiliam Moorland. <br /> Councilman Overstreet asked if any solution might be reached if the <br /> appeal is remanded back to the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Candles stated <br /> that in his opinion all avenues through the Hearing Examiner process <br /> have been exhausted. <br /> I11I <br />