1987/04/15 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

350 April 15,1987 PUBLIC HEARING President Gipson opened the hearing by stating the purpose of the hearingis to consider an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision denied enied the motion for-reconsideration of his decision which granted the applicant,William Bourland, relief from Conditions 4 8 of the original preliminary short subdivision approval. B Landles,Planning Staff, stated the City Planning Department Ls aggrieved by the Hearing Examiner's decision which released Condition 4 which required dedication of right-of-way to the City for street purposes on Third Avenue from moorland's north property line to specific his street tart property line and.Condition 5 which required the Improvements to Third Avenue from moorland's north propertylinecontinuous to the south property line. The effect of the Eo the Examiner's decision is to require the City to either allow the short plat to proceed without conditions 4 and 5 or deny the short plat based on moorland's inability to mitigate the impacts of his short subdivision. Mr. Landles stated the Planning Department contends that en error-in-fact and law exists to the record of the Hearing Examiner's decision. The City does have the authority to impose these conditions by the SEPA ordinances and the Subdivision ordinance. One of the requirements is that the City plan for minimum vehicle e and pedestrian conflict end provide for smooth transition with existing improvements. The problems encountered in this appeal stem from the sale of property from moorland to Anderson. Bourland tax segregated his property and sold.Anderson a portion of his property Without first subdividing theproperty in accordance with the subdivision laws. Ash a result ffthis action, no frontage improvements were {I installed. The parcel sold to Anderson divides Bcurland's property Fhb. along his frontage. (v The requirements of these conditions are consistent with prior subdivision approvals. Mx. Bourland created the problem and he should have to correct it to conform with existing ordinances and tosu consistent with the requirements imposed on recently developed subdivisions. The Planning Department contends khat the following errors On hat SII exist to the the Hearing Examiner's decision: 1. The Examiner erred in ruling that the City does not have authority to require Bourland to-make the P improvements set forth in Conditions#4 8 05. 2. The Examiner erred In not recognizing the existence of authority thority to impose Conditions W4 8 15 in the City's subdivision ordinance and in the City's general police power. 3. The Examiner further erred by ruling on the SEPA issue when he nee no authority to do so. 'I' t �.