No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/24/2018 - Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision CITY OF RENTON July 24, 2018 JUL 2 4 2018yg P RECEIVED t0" City of Renton CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision to City Council Pursuant to City of Renton Code 4.8.110(F) Dear Members of the Renton City Council: Thank you for this opportunity to submit an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision dated June 27, 2018, denying our request for an extension of the August 16, 2018 preliminary plat approval expiration date for the Wilson Park 1 Preliminary Plat, LUA 09-140 ("Wilson Park 1"). As explained below, our appeal is premised upon undisputed"unusual circumstances" warranting an extension pursuant to City of Renton Code ("RMC") 4-7-080(L)(2). Standing and Procedural Background We are Robert and Doravin Wilson, owners of Wilson Park 1 as well as the related Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat, LUA 12-013 ("Wilson Park 2"). We built a home, raised a family, and lived on Wilson Park 1 from 1977 to 2005 and are now retired. We are the applicants for the Wilson Park 1 preliminary plat approval, and on May 3, 2018, we applied to the Hearing Examiner for an 11-month extension of the Wilson Park 1 approval, which is set to expire on August 16, 2018. We agreed to proceed without a hearing and provided written submissions to the Examiner. On June 27, 2018, the Examiner issued a decision denying our request for an extension but granting a limited three-month extension, extending the plat approval to November 16, 2018. On July 2, 2018,the City filed a Motion for Reconsideration, asking the Examiner to revoke the limited extension. On July 15, 2018,the Examiner granted the City's motion, revoked the limited extension, and reinstated the plat expiration date to August 16, 2018. Factual Background Wilson Park l's approval was set to expire on August 16, 2018. RMC 4-7-080(L)(2)provides that the Examiner may grant an extension of a preliminary plat approval "if the applicant can show need caused by unusual circumstances or situations which make it unduly burdensome to file the final plat . . . ." In our request to the Examiner, we requested an 11-month extension of Wilson Park l's approval, extending the approval from August 16, 2018 to July 5, 2019. The related Wilson Park 2 approval expires on July 5, 2019. Thus, if granted, our request would synch the validity of the two interrelated plats. The following timeline explains the unusual circumstances surrounding Wilson Park 1 and 2: 1 • On August 2010, the Hearing Examiner approved Wilson Park 1. This preliminary plat approval was based upon obtaining an access and utility easement across adjacent property.I • On October 2010,the adjacent property, across which we had our access and utility easement, was foreclosed and transferred by Trustee's Deed. This foreclosure jeopardized Wilson Park l's access and utility easement rights, and thus triggered the need to negotiate acquiring the adjacent property from the bank. • On March 2011, we purchased the adjacent property from the bank. This acquisition triggered both the need and the opportunity to re-evaluate plat design to develop both parcels with common access, utility, and stormwater infrastructure and grading to maximize the ability to balance cuts and fills on the combined property. • On July 2012,the Hearing Examiner approved Wilson Park 2 (the preliminary plat for the adjacent property we had acquired from the bank). • On June 2014, the City of Renton signed and stamped our final engineering drawings for Wilson Park 1 and 2 combined as one overall project. • On December 2014, the Soos Creek Water District approved and signed the final design drawings for the overall 22-lot development. • On July 26, 2015, the City of Renton granted our request for a one-year extension for Wilson Park 1, extending the plat approval to August 16, 2018. Under RMC 4-7- 080(L)(1), the City may grant an extension if the applicant demonstrates good faith effort to obtain final plat approval. In our request to the Examiner,we included Declarations from Steve A. Beck and Darrell Offe, two professionals who have extensive experience working on plats and who worked on Wilson Park 1 and 2. Both professionals opined that this project was unusually difficult and burdensome compared to other projects in their experience, and Wilson Park 1's timeline exceeded the average timeline for obtaining approvals for a project of this type and scale. Mr. Offe, our engineer for Wilson Park 1 and 2, explained the difficulties and delays that arose when designing, engineering, and obtaining approvals for Wilson Park 1 and 2. As Mr. Offe explained, after we had obtained the Wilson Park 1 approval, the foreclosure and need to coordinate development between Wilson Park 1 and 2 consumed a considerable portion-4.5 years—of Wilson Park l's approval period. For 4.5 years, we were unable to market or pursue final plat approval for Wilson Park 1. Mr. Beck, our broker and advisor, testified that we aggressively marketed the property, continually lowered the price to below market price and had at least six deals. Nevertheless, ' Supporting documents and exhibits such as the Easement were attached to our May 3,2018 request to the Examiner,which is attached as Attachment A. 2 because the market was still recovering at the time, we were unable to close any deals. Potential buyers have informed Mr. Beck that they would be interested only if Wilson Park 1 and 2 are sold together, because the two sites are linked and interrelated. As shown above, we have invested significant good faith effort, money, and time into Wilson Park 1 and 2. If Wilson Park l's approval expires, we will lose our investment in both. However, potential buyers have informed Mr. Beck that if Wilson Park 1's approval were extended to July 2019 to coincide with Wilson Park 2's approval, the extension would afford sufficient time to complete construction of improvements and obtain final plat approval for both preliminary plats. Appeal Arguments In his decision, the Hearing Examiner found that the foreclosure and coordinated development issues with Wilson Park 2 constituted"good unusual circumstances."However, the Examiner ultimately denied our request because the Examiner found that most of the development issues had been resolved by December 2014 (when Soos Creek Water District approved final design), with 3.5 years of the approval period remaining. The Examiner also found that our difficulties marketing the property were not sufficient justification for further extension. We believe that our undisputed facts and testimony do show sufficient justification for a brief, 11-month extension, and therefore the Examiner's denial of our request was an error. First, the Examiner expressly found that we had shown unusual circumstances and delays for at least the first 4.5 years of Wilson Park l's approval period, during which we could not market or pursue final approval. Although 3.5 years remained, 3.5 years is considerably less than the standard five-year validity period for preliminary plats.2 In effect, our unusual circumstances significantly shortened Wilson Park l's validity period, and the Examiner erred by not considering this shortened period as a burden justifying extension. Second, the Examiner erred by not considering the market and economic conditions as potentially relevant justification. On several occasions during and after the recent recession, the Legislature considered the economic downturn as justification for statutorily extending the plat approval period.3 Although Wilson Park 1 received an additional two years through the Legislature's extension, the time spent incorporating Wilson Park 2 consumed more than twice that period, depriving us of the benefit of the Legislature's extension. Moreover, as Mr. Beck attested, the market was still recovering from the recession after we obtained the approvals for Wilson Park 2. The slow market, compounded with our shortened approval period, created an additional burden justifying extension. Further, while we did have the option of developing the property ourselves, as the Examiner pointed out, we also had legitimate reasons to believe that we would be able to obtain a buyer before the expiration date. As Mr. Beck stated, we lowered the price until it reached below market, and we had a number of interested buyers. Additionally, my wife and I are now retired, are not commercial developers, and would frankly find it difficult to develop the property ourselves. The number of deals and interested buyers gave us reason to expect we could secure a buyer and to hold off on doing the construction ourselves. 2 See RMC 4-7-080(L)(1)(providing a five-year validity period for preliminary plats). 3 2010 c 79 § 1; Washington Final Bill Report,2013 Reg. Sess.H.B. 1074. 3 We understand that since Wilson Park 1 and 2's approval,the City has revised its development regulations on retaining walls and other matters, and the Examiner considered the revised regulations as indication of"public detriment" in granting the extension. Because Wilson Park 1 and 2 vested to the prior regulations, we are not familiar with the revised regulations. However, no City employee has ever raised concerns about the safety or soundness of Wilson Park 1 or 2's design. In fact,the Examiner found that the revised regulations related to "community aesthetics,"not to safety or public health.4 Therefore, we do not believe that Wilson Park 1 and 2, which have already received the necessary approvals from the Examiner and the City, causes any public detriment or impact. In fact, as Mr. Beck also stated, we believe the project will add valuable housing inventory to the City and will help meet the current high demand for single- family homes. Finally, the tone and the arguments in the City's filings are striking and indicative of the City's arbitrary and capricious opposition to our project. For example,the Examiner's original decision had granted only a limited three-month extension, recognizing that the pendency of our extension request created delay and uncertainties surrounding the plat's expiration date. The City asked the Examiner to revoke that limited extension, created more delay and uncertainties, and ultimately left us with only one month of our plat approval period remaining. In its motion to revoke the limited extension,the City argued that the extension should be revoked to deprive us of the opportunity to construct improvements and obtain final plat approval. Notwithstanding that Wilson Park 1 is valid, approved, and vested, the City's apparent position is that the project should be stopped, and we should not obtain final approval. Conclusion We respectfully request that the City Council re-examine the record in light of our arguments above, and grant our request to extend the Wilson Park 1 approval to July 5, 2019, synching the expiration dates of Wilson Park 1 and 2. This request represents a brief, 11-month extension of the current expiration date (August 16, 2018), and if granted, will allow us sufficient time to obtain final plat approval. Please let us know if you require any additional information to support our request. Thank you, Robert and Doravin Wilson Exhibits from the record (attached for reference): Attachment A: Wilsons' Request for Additional Extension Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code 4-7-080; Attachments A—F, filed May 3, 2018 Attachment B: City's Request for Denial of May 3, 2018 Request, filed May 22, 2018 4 Attachment H at p. 1. 4 Attachment C: Wilsons' Reply in Support of Request for Additional Extension; Declaration of Steven A. Beck; Declaration of Darrell Offe, filed June 7, 2018 Attachment D: Hearing Examiner's Final Decision, filed June 27, 2018 Attachment E: City's Limited Motion for Reconsideration, filed July 2, 2018 Attachment F: Wilsons' Response to City's Limited Motion for Reconsideration, filed July 9, 2018 Attachment G: City's Reply in Support of Its Limited Motion for Reconsideration, filed July 11, 2018 Attachment H: Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon Reconsideration, filed July 15, 2018 5 A 1.---t-ac- Pk end-" A- Robert and Doravin Wilson (owners) 21703 60th St. E Lake Tapps, WA 98391 May 3, 2018 Mr. Phil Olbrechts Renton Hearing Examiner 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Ref: (1) Request for Additional Extension Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code 4-7-080 (2) Wilson Park 1 Preliminary Plat LUA 09-140, PP, 12 lots (3) Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat LUA 12-013, PP, PUD, 10 lots Dear Sir: We are Robert and Doravin Wilson, owners of the referenced properties. We bought the property of Ref 2, built a home and lived there from 1977 to 2005, raised a family, and now are retired. We are requesting an 11 month extension to the period of validity for Wilson Park 1, from the current date of August 16, 2018 to July 5, 2019 per provisions of the Renton City Code 4-7-080, Paragraph L.2 "Additional Extensions." July 5, 2019 is the current ending date for the period of validity for Wilson Park 2, Ref 3. This extension would allow both projects, referenced above, to be completed and recorded concurrently as one total project, which has been the intent since final engineering approval by the City of Renton in the 2014 time period as one plat of 22 lots. The final engineering design is based on combined development of both plats. This letter explains the unusual circumstances surrounding the two separate preliminary plat applications and the need to combine the two preliminary plats into a single development proposal, thus satisfying the code requirements for an additional extension. The following timeline details the progress of the referenced project: 1 Arch wiekit- A-- 1. 1. August , 2010— Hearing Examiner approval of Wilson Park 1 Preliminary Plat, City File No. LUA 09-140. This preliminary plat approval was based upon an access and utility easement across adjacent property. A copy of this easement is attached to this letter as Attachment A. 2. October, 2010—Trustee's deed transferring the adjacent property across which we had our access and utility easement pursuant to bank foreclosure. This foreclosure jeopardized access and utility easement rights and thus triggered the need to negotiate acquisition of the adjacent property from the bank to protect access. A copy of that Trustee deed to the bank is attached to this letter as Attachment B. 3. March, 2011— We purchased adjacent property from the bank. A copy of the Bargain and Sale deed to us from the bank is attached to this letter as Attachment C. This acquisition triggered both the need and the opportunity to re-evaluate plat design to develop both parcels with common access, utility and stormwater infrastructure and grading to maximize ability to balance cuts and fills on the combined property. 4. July, 2012 — Hearing Examiner approval of Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat (the property we acquired from the bank), City File No. LUA 12-013. 5. June, 2014— City of Renton signed and stamped our Final Engineering drawings for Wilson Park 1 and 2 combined as one overall project. A copy of the final engineering drawings is attached as Attachment D. 6. December, 2014—Soos Creek Water District approved and signed design drawings for the overall 22 lot development. Attachment E. 7. July 26, 2015 — City of Renton granted a one- year extension for Wilson Park 1 per our request. Attachment F. As this summary timeline and the attached documents demonstrate, we had to buy the Wilson Park 2 property in 2011 because a bank was foreclosing on the previous owner. We found out that our easement rights to put the road across the now Wilson Park 2 property to Wilson Park 1 would be eliminated by the foreclosure. 2 These circumstances delayed us in preparing final engineering for Wilson Park 1 for about a year and a half. We hired engineering to file a preliminary plat of the Wilson Park 2 property and began final engineering of the combined properties into one overall development. Combining development of the two parcels facilitated access, grading, utilities and stormwater design as an integrated project. The requested additional extension for Wilson Park 1 validity period will allow Wilson Park 1 and 2 to continue to be linked together for overall development. It has always been planned that the two properties will be constructed together, thereby allowing optimum grading of the roadway slopes and building pads without need for import or export of grading materials. A structural wall is required at the curve linking both properties, and the storm water vault serving both properties is located on Wilson Park 2. These are further illustrations the two properties are interdependent. The two properties have always been marketed together as one total package of 22 lots. Given the interrelated design, including the topographical challenges of the site, we have been unable to successfully market the plat in the original time periods for preliminary plat approval, despite dropping the selling price significantly over the past two years during a time when home and finished lot prices continue to rise dramatically. More interest is now being shown with our current land pricing plus the effect of rising home sales prices. Recent feedback from possible buyers, though, suggest that the timing of completion of the Wilson Park 1 portion of the development before the expiration date of August 16, 2018 is a real concern. We believe, with feedback from buyers, if Wilson Park 1 expiration date of Aug. 16, 2018 can be extended 11 months to July 5, 2019 coinciding with Wilson Park 2 validation, near term sale of the properties can be accomplished. This extension would allow development of both plats, as always intended. With the current lack of inventory of buildable land and new homes, the City of Renton will benefit sooner if we can make this happen. We have spent a very significant amount of time and effort and money to bring these two properties through preliminary plat approval at different times, and A±"f-rcitpke + A then combining them into one project through final engineering and approval by the City of Renton. The unexpected risk to our original access easement caused by the 2010 foreclosure presents the type of unusual and unexpected circumstances that your code specifies for our additional extension request. Obviously, we do not want to lose our investment by allowing Wilson Park 1 period of validity to expire. If Wilson Park 1 expires, Wilson Park 2 can't be built either. The two parcels are combined into one project for final engineering and construction as described above. This linkage between the two plats, one that expires in 2019 and one that expires in 2018 also creates an unusual circumstance beyond our control. We are sincerely asking you for your consideration and approval of this request for an 11 month extension of the period of validity for Wilson Park 1 preliminary plat approval from August 16, 2018 to July 5, 2019. This will synch the deadlines for these two interrelated plats. If you require any of this information to be submitted in the form of a sworn declaration, we would be happy to work with our land use attorney, Jay Derr, to prepare one. However, he indicated that the city code provision for extensions does not require a new evidentiary hearing and thus suggested that for simplicity and because time is of the essence, we submit our request directly. Please let us know if you require any additional information to support our request. Thank You, Robert and Doravin Wilson — Owners (253-208-3263) Cc: Jay P. Derr, C.E."Chip" Vincent, Jennifer T. Henning, Shane Moloney, Ed Prince, Ryan Mclrvin, Steve Beck Attachments: 6 4 w y tic .! AFTER RECORDING MAIL TO: e ~ T , ROBERT D.WILSON 20080327002018 P AGEONUEOFTO@4 EAS 45.00 720 So. 55TH ST. 03/27/2008 15:17 RENTON,WA 98055 KING COUNTY, WA E2338944 03/27/2008 15:08 KTAG COUNTY, WA$1,429.00 SALE $80,0@0.00 PAGE001 OF 001 ROAD AND UTILITY EASEMENT ROAD AND UTILITY EASEMENT executed this 24th day of March, 20 8, by and between ERIK DORMAIER, a single man, (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor"), and ROBERT D. WILSON and DORAVIN A. WILSON, husband and wife, (hereinafter referred to as "Grantees"). WHEREAS; Grantor is the owner, in fee simple, of that certain real property situate in the City of Renton, King County,Washington, legally described as follows: The East 317 feet of the West 1,003 feet of the South 318 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 31, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington; Said document(s) were filed for record EXCEPT County Road. by Commonwealth Land Title as accommodation (hereinafter referred to as "Parcel A"} only. It has not been examined as to proper Tax Parcel Number: 312305-9119-00 execution or as to its effect upon title. AND WHEREAS; Grantees are the owners, in fee simple, of that certain real property commonly known as 720 South 55th Street, Renton,Washington,legally described as follows: Parcel 3, King County Short Plat No. 674217, recorded under Recording No. 7603170525, in King County,Washington. (hereinafter referred to as "Parcel B") Tax Parcel Number: 312305-9125-02 AND WHEREAS; the parties hereto do hereby desire to grant a non-exclusive easement for ingress, egress and utilities over, under, upon, across and through a portion of the said Parcel A,for the benefit of the said Parcel B; Road and Utility 1:sisement-Page 1 } t ( TO Mir 3� 2-v/P L e O'er') WITNESSETH : NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the sum of Eighty Thousand and No/100 Dollars, ($80,000.00), and the mutual promises, covenants and agreements contained herein, and the mutual benefits to be derived therefrom, the parties hereto do hereby promise, covenant and agree as follows: 1. Grantor does hereby grant and convey to the owners of the said Parcel B, their heirs, executors, successors and/or assigns, a non-exclusive easement for ingress, egress and utilities over, under,upon, across and through that portion of the said Parcel A, described as follows: An easement for ingress, egress and utilities lying 25 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at the Southeast Corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 31, Township 23 North, Range 5 East,W.M., in King County,Washington; Thence North along the East Line of said Section 31 to the Northeast Corner of the South 318 feet of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 31; Thence West along the North Line of the South 318.00 feet of the said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 31, a distance of 497.37 feet to the Point of Beginning of this description; Thence South along a line parallel with the East Line of the East 317.00 feet of the West 1003.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 31 to a point on the South Line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 31 and the terminus of this description, extending and shortening the side lines as to terminate at the property line; EXCEPT County Roads. (hereinafter referred to as "Road and Utility Easement") 2. The parties hereto acknowledge that both Parcel A and Parcel B are being marketed for sale. In the event that both Parcel A and Parcel B are sold to or acquired by the same party or related entities of the same party, then Erik Dormaier, a single man, shall refund to Robert D. Wilson and Doravin A. Wilson,husband and wife, all consideration paid for this Road and Utility Easement. 3. The owners of the said Parcels A and B shall be equally responsible for and shall each pay 50% of the costs and expenses of the installation, maintenance, repair, replacement and/or improvement said Road and Utility Easement until such time as said Road and Utility Easement becomes a dedicated City of Renton Street; provided, the owners of Parcel B shall have no obligation for such costs and expenses until said Road and Utility Easement is being used by them and for the benefit of said Parcel B; provided further, in the event said Road and Utility Easement is used only for utility purposes, the obligation referred to herein above shall be limited to those related to the utility purposes and shall not include obligations, expenses etc., as relate to ingress and egress. The parties acknowledge their intent to make improvements to said Easement so that the City of Renton will accept said improved right of way as a city street; provided, Robert D. Road and Utility Easement-Page 2 t e .Pjp ( to 444 3, zo1i- Le My—) Wilson and Doravin A.Wilson shall have no personal liability for any of the aforementioned costs and expenses. 4. The owners of Parcel B shall have the right to grant utility easements over, under and across said Easement to any and all providers including, but not limited to, electrical power, natural gas, water and sewer,cable and other or related utilities etc. 5. The parties hereto shall cooperate in taking all necessary steps in dedicating or otherwise transferring said roadway to the City of Renton as a public right of way as soon as the road improvements have been completed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Renton. And as part of the development of either of the parcels described hereinabove (Parcel A and/or Parcel B), when the said Easement has been dedicated to the City of Renton as a public right of way,then this Easement, with the exception of provisions contained in Paragraph 2 above, and the right of contribution contained in Paragraph 3 above, shall immediately terminate and shall be of no force and effect. 6. Covenant Running with Lands/Attorney's Fees. This Agreement shall be a covenant running with the Iands described herein, and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their heirs, executors, successors and/or assigns. In the event that any party to this Agreement, their heirs, executors, successors and/or assign, retains the services of an attorney to enforce any provision of this Agreement,the prevailing party in such enforcement proceedings shall be entitled to recover their reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred therein. LN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands the date and year first above written. ERIK DORMAIER 'er u)ti ROBERT D.WILSON DORAVIN A. WILSON Road and Utility Easement-Page 3 ( 7-0 Alay � zoI £e//e ) STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me, a notary public, Erik Dormaier,to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within instrument and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes herein mentioned. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL this is.i9 day of March, 2008. �= F� +, <.� `g810k es.'by 1; 5. C�_Via` 01 A.9 '�i`�i, i Print . ►. -: Craig D. hielbar zU `i„ , .• � % NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at Puyallup t/.34*' V \G My Commission Expires: 8/30/20099i7. 0- � �rO !l1ffQ4AAS�`� STATE OF WASHINGTON .) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me, a notary public, Robert D. Wilson and Doravin A. Wilson, to me known to be the individuals described in and who executed the within instrument and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes herein mentioned. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL this aLe day of March, 2008. f `gS10NF►+� '+,� � Wit, s O �O�AR ���% : Printer g D. hielbar . _ _ y raig NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of '(pi q�i BUB►-\g 2' Washington,residing at Puyallup i ,''++F�`30-0.��`'� My Commission Expires: 8/30/2009 lift f u� ‘NN� Road and Utility Easement-Page 4 -1-4 - - rte,, . lv 2 /?'L�firmer) 111111111111011111111111111011 After recording return to: 20101027000645 Patrick K.McKenzie MARSH MUNDORF TD 64.00 PACE-001 DF 003 Marsh Mundorf Pratt Sullivan+McKenzie,P 102»zale 12:Oe 16504 9`h Avenue SE, Suite 203 KING COUNTY, WA Mill Creek, WA 98012 E2464251. 10/27/2010 12:00 KINNG COUNTY, UA• X $10.00 SALE $0.00 PAGE-001 OF 001 Document Title: Trustee's Deed Reference No. 20061229002003 Grantor: Marsh Mundorf Pratt Sullivan+McKenzie,P.S.C.,Trustee Grantee: Prime Pacific Bank N.A. Legal Des: PTN SEC 31, TWP23 N, R 5 E Assessor Parcel No. 312305-9119-00 TRUSTEE'S DEED The Grantor, Marsh Mundorf Pratt Sullivan + McKenzie, P.S.C., as successor Trustee under that Deed of Trust, as hereinafter particularly described, in consideration of the premises and payment recited below, hereby grants and conveys, without warranty, to Prime Pacific Bank, N.A., Grantee, that real property, situated in the County of King, State of Washington, legally described as follows: THE EAST 317 FEET OF THE WEST 1,003 FEET OF THE SOUTH 318 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH,RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT COUNTY ROAD 1. This Conveyance is made pursuant to the powers, including the power of sale, conferred upon said Trustee by that certain Deed of Trust between*Eric Dormaier, as Grantor, to Prime Pacific Bank.N.A.,as Beneficiary,dated December 22,2006,and recorded on December 29, 2006 under King County Recording No.20061229002003,records of King County, Washington. 2. Said Deed of Trust was executed to secure, together with other undertakings, the payment of a promissory note in the principal sum of$785,000.00 with interest thereon, according to the terms thereof, in favor of Prime Pacific Bank, N.A. and to secure any other sums of money which might become due and payable under the terms of said Deed of Trust. • ( To tiles. J, 2aiJ' Le ffc-) 3. The described Deed of Trust provides that the real property conveyed therein is not used principally for agricultural or farming purposes. 4. Default having occurred in the obligations secured and/or covenants of the Grantor as set forth in "Notice of Trustee's Sale" described below, which by the terms of the Deed of Trust made operative the power to sell, the thirty day advance "Notice of Default" was transmitted to the Grantor, or his successor in interest, and a copy of said Notice was posted or served in accordance with law. 5. Prime Pacific Bank N.A., being the holder of the indebtedness secured by said Deed of Trust, delivered to said Trustee a request directing said Trustee to sell the described property in accordance with the law and the terms of said Deed of Trust. 6. The defaults specified in the "Notice of Default" not having been cured,the Trustee, in compliance with the terms of said Deed of Trust, executed and on June 28, 2010 recorded in the office of the King County Recorder, a "Notice of Trustee's Sale" of said property under recording No. 20100628000192. 7. The Trustee, in its aforesaid "Notice of Trustee's Sale" fixed the place of sale at the main entrance, King County Administration Building, 500 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, Washington on October 15, 2010, at 10:00 o'clock a.m., and in accordance with law, caused copies of the statutory "Notice of Trustee's Sale" to be transmitted by mail to all persons entitled thereto and either posted or served prior to ninety days before the sale; further, the Trustee caused a copy of said "Notice of • Trustee's Sale" to be published between the thirty-fifth and twenty-eighth day before the date of sale, and once between the fourteenth and seventh day before the date of sale; and further, included with this Notice, which was transmitted or served to or upon the Grantor or their successor in interest, a "Notice of Foreclosure" in substantially the statutory form, to which copies of the Grantor's Note and Deed of Trust were attached. 8. During foreclosure, no action was pending on an obligation secured by said Deed of Trust. 9. All legal requirements and all provisions of said Deed of Trust have been complied with,as to acts to be performed and notices to be given,as provided in Chapter 61.24 RCW. 10. The defaults specified in the"Notice of Trustee's Sale" not having been cured eleven days prior to the date of Trustee's Sale and said obligation secured by said Deed of Trust remaining unpaid, on October 15, 2010 the date of sale, which was not less than 190 days from the date of default in the obligation secured, the Trustee then and there sold at public auction to said Grantee, the highest bidder therefore,the property hereinabove described. I �� r , -1 ,� it ,,,,,, e , • (7c' /I!7 3 2©1 f z elte,-) DATED this 18th day of October,2010. MARSH MUNDORF PRATT SULLIVAN +MCKENZIE,P.S.C. C .C142 (CLO--&-1:c-- By: Patrick K.McKenzie, Secretary Trustee STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) On this day personally appeared Patrick K. McKenzie, to me known to be the person described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument as Secretary of Marsh Mundorf Pratt Sullivan +McKenzie, P.S.C. and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument on behalf of the corporation, and acknowledged the same to be the free and voluntary act of said entity,for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal on October 18th, 2010. A6rISSIOIyfi, e 01 �07;4Ry �'^ Print name: ,1.L z._.- (b�tl1.. T„ SR!? cn cf,�! Notary Public in and for the State of T., '1..•;,cc' Q 3 , Washington,residing at . `IJjc ftt OA. ,S My commission expires: //—!(1— /3 F WASHING S'1C1catiPra a Pad6c 8aa4'F lc K.OmmuIi\TtWCs Deddot • (Ti /14 at 3/ 2 of f'Ce tier 1111 1111111111 201103170 00372 After recordrngjreturn to: NORT!{AOINT ESC D 63.00 PAGE-001 OF 002 Robert Wilson and Doravin Wilson 03/17/ZOji 12:04 21703 60th Si E KING Lake Tapps, WA 98391 • E2482673 03/17/2011 12:02 KING COUNTY, UA 4,485.00 SALE $250,000.00 PAGE-001 OF 001 Reference: 30048506-326-361, norihpolnt escrow+title BARGAIN AND SALE DEED order no.5pp�!-;{�tp� THE GRANTORS) Prime Pacific Bank, N.A., a National banking association • • for and in consideration of Two hundred fifty thousand and no/100 Dollars ($250,000.00), • in hand paid, bargains, sells, and conveys to Robert Wilson and Doravin Wilson, husband and wife • • the following described real estate, situated in the County of King, state of Washington: THE EAST 317 FEET OF THE WEST 1,003 FEET OF THE SOUTH 318 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST,W.M., IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON; EXCEPT COUNTY ROAD; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Abbreviated Legal: (Required if full legal not inserted above) PTN OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST,W.M Tax Parcel Number(s): 3123059119 • • • • Bargain and Sale Deed Page 1 of 2 LPB-15-05(Itr) (rev. 4/2009) A i . r f CTD Ailey 3 zoo) Geffen .) • Dated: March?4. ZOii Prime Pacific Bank, N.A. cwt// By: CXµ O Qp Its:St-i.:•‘ r, '-')' State of Washington , County of oJnohof'Y1/S SS: I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that C.hLU&C is the person who.appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument, on;oath stated that(he/she) is authorized to execute the instrument and ,/1 acknowledged it as the . SCG of Prima Pacific Bank, N.A.to be the free and voluntary act ofuch party for the uses and purposes mentioned In the instrument. Dated: .3 _i jD/f Given under my hand and official seal the day and year last above written. Notary Public in nd for the State of WIC? Residing at o LL Wo/ My Appointment expires: O(,` // C. M. PICKRELL . NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON I COMMISSION EXPIRES • JUNE 9, 2011 , _ �1 . 1 W m,, s M U . 7,t (r mn 5mn8"c " ��y �*✓�IPUi evil- D, ¢woi« a mNgE �No f'Y'1 itl, cm El' N 1 • (To v !V „X. 3 20!F Le tl're)-) @2r1 p NO^Uz-,A W JlZp Q C , ,.. Z3w® wJ2w°o s=w> Z2w� ,Lv� f i 1 �h .;i' >rrrt. V 0 W m4' ; V Z x 0 Y r�J �_ ago i o3.wP OZxx d• 4' a• 4 yIn( W m o Z _J_ W 3$�Z.O wONz Zia aoo3 331,(7= WOJ ZOV z_ W¢.z N 0,--u) p 2yaw o<- o w „ Li',,,, aZ W WZN7 » � aCrOQ - 0 �JJ (n M ON Z En''t vv Z O IY �Q '., lJvJJ O � 5c _o U< o z.,--z.,--.3E da_Cnno �o0aa0-N-'wwwZzz vA (; pNN ¢ Q w p w}CK�7mmt.LIW2=8 (n F- N =JWWO00.N> , ,O 1 z z L>.-, NF�;H rgyrrr�-,-' o O W N W L1 �WO���OJa�=aW W 'r >O¢¢Q¢¢.2ZZt2¢tr m ZrOaU6000¢ N17,8 o U O Ln Z YOp 3 1 z >-z -,- 1--1_,,j a' _ .-cvnr,n.nocc, Vt7Q 3 N .a m 3w Fa- e-,), 3 w �1 It g KN A- < co lg li•,8a0 mss -g = ,,Z QZcJo a z-, _ 0 u i,d m s ' v 3s 3f1N3Av PuZOI w w vV N 2 oo as< F� g€ " " j U) Z oNN �� 1- g Wi'W i, V V � / pJ/ 0 �.jw �ON � ng� rig hl z 3 &o koa !$f O I I < 99th PLACE SOUTH ><Lcn_. C g Z J ›a ¢ oW44 G S oy IO pN0 KCS SES)- ti¢O mPhW W _� L Z W� mZ� "CNV yZ4 ! oU VI Son ZW U WG.M c'�"0 O L LL xo Q n Cn V�� azz $ dz ^gad r N = O N_ �� d O dO /� v g w w �_ �z _ " Li. z N1f10s Qv021 1081v1 ` d Z m o z a. g a G Co U 03¢ tii gWFrw � > §r< u o W �' t-O� W 6 &,,, K Z -0- W W D Z ' m ..se , c33 �W o s TO Src Y'c u i, _" 'Pg- a _ ` g: ! :.g Vieo' IgI W Z Ce Q w '4.-1 :1;11< ti 0z r^ J _ _ 0 a oV ✓m (0,971,0),01'9L9Z .Zb£1.10S R :.x M „ SO"8f£! ,4o'£l8 i a7.1 w Qn ti min n N Y fr A O W •--- ,' '''' W O W U ,t-,g F ~ ts UU¢ NJIh UW �I j '1I�^ ,OW ISI N w U uUI ~yWL`��¢ 'S WO 2aN C�u> y�j Z 4Ha �l `� 024i N w h� �a .c• 1 o3N W V -a ng m !r4 c,M I CI � W 5 t.3 O s NN - ---_ - CI OO HjW zls. WF,ioy 3 w � mW NN .t lffI 3.96,9£OON 33 ..1 OOPS ZN �Ra o¢H w cMi H NN eJ 4. ''P wa o N�1^ 7.1 -- rz, gi4.E+ Ii�uxiF r"i �� �o U m mil 0122 �o W ZOV z�33 X033 0 I� I MI LI w9pE‹ r � 5,� _�� rc P o o d O�zC U U n 2W N�NZZ O O at I i jn\ L4 Y 1w4'FUU vl .wFL8 a u n � _ .SO'SZFI _ _,SO'SZfI _ n W 3vi ut u e e N V H W r 0 z F (4071,9),oi oc9Z 3,t.co.00N 0,__]'J o ¢a naox ni ¢a nogx o , zo -4 ;SP''.-4 yo zwwi o w_ $ C (Or7, FL ' a a ' 6 �s O 3 4.743a '22 31s-n o; 6 N3 1 BoFz§ti» C.-) rig II .- 8 $ o o J$ fI�Wu- `J � Y4. r ' a � i „ ".tAWXLi'2 m o - DC ' z Z W- �oaa^Zgg !° t a l YVI .r_f... 1r..1,y0� ` J JL> �oy� � (gip Ola 3�'��y �%tfll rc,' ) 3�g 1 <000 -yO O N J W O Ln'1 E j /y�( P .tihril..La.- u li f Ma f Z¢N.- 0 9 waagcci2 S /rY lli t / 0 N fJ' J I- IN <lig l\ It: (0.0717).015[9L A4J$0Llos n' c. o J 1+y' ~ I O i 3 1 ♦^nsn- b I '(i' �'y .c 1 f� ' i i 9 O� f N O in O Os m Os A dl rn s� O,27,,,.T: S I d. • \ • } 4 91 1- �j ” I 57.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 1 f.r & i - n Q 1 _ 207.00' 01'13'42'°W b I _!��, W f 175.00° 92.0' LUtr) 1 F N - _ _ �I 57.6' .._.....F, ' 63.9' I u G' I .,.,- i T Z F o a I� o� Os �� /` i w N 9Y� % 6w — N t i' I 89.0' ost 76.5' 1 ��. 1 m Z i� oo�il Too b� ' ip O �1, 1 89.0' S n) 76.5•' I 1'11'1'1'111'41. :°R d�l�ai o S"'Ip N. NII , •, I a tnl ,1J'3\ I Z1� Ooo 'loo OOo a ____---_U _ —_ `\lss \\ LLa Q _O I �S I d /I o 4.O N . _ {- 1 89.0' 69.5' ti i m u N \.... I m U I I �o a� -'�- U) d ' oIN z Io O`I' * 55.0' 55.0' 55.0' 55.0' 66.3' O os .1- z I 94.7' 1155 °N lIY G, Gi- w 7 J = 6' 2 _ 3-fJ xi¢ _� O o ps o U o - �. 6 oa N N a J P co I O S.SS ~ p ,TI' O O O O o O p o J1 ® in o�o JI o s I O Uy `flS i0 O a U p I_ o fo, 2,� N,_ s s � ml rn 3 -- ---- - i ' /W OI oAF N4,\ N / i= WW1— JV- N DOo 1 zz \f o ' O •o O •o Oi < IAO o J, � s 0 ; o4�F .. '•Q. IfOOmoOAoOAo `n ®I I oVe I tO$z2rfl ml 1 {nom{ 20' REAR B.S.B.L. 0, ' b a I rn I__ . 1_ 56_0_- 56.056.0 _ 60.0'_L�_ - ?, i iz 0.0 II o ;z t --2,—ILF;‘:- Ii sNW,,Ia UL=tY n � ' �c •I v WUFu .UV N ' ' wa awz .. Em o .= WI UODU h Vn N I 1--4 ‘,2.),S)-_, �.... 6 xm:-:,o�m ` �a Fiiii§ �' zoaiarin-,o a`o W3Z•0�J r (4 I w py »L6k ., (4S-,?;8-8-8 .8 wasID In03 , ..,. � ��00000 � P d'._. W,ONNr.-N I2 O"a �1 ....,,, .., ''''''' l'''''. S' / I t P VEt UUUUUUo.& R17,d ri---i ' InL O 0 It I et Ie Ra,-, /aim\ T V ti it ,.A S 8 S S /f' n. \J a .10 w 11 5 L7 Q N 4 41 rta Qat�' J d W Cr CC ZZ¢ /4-1- t oQo m m w NNIAO (To lety 3/7 ik letter/ ;,, " 10,<,©0 0.51-`°0 h �j r i rs ,: �i a, to Z W ril oo Al? rra g w'000 �o' m �o V Ot.' Li-'1°,"'"!r? w of . . 28 O � �i �\, \-\\\\.. C 1ti.a aid, 000 - — '• \ -.z 3"F 1 � � / \I\.,:':,:\\� y, —. — — £ �r —fin —J h< '} 093 ,-y5q -`. T• / 'Yr.,,,`• 'gf.. I fi W 0 19 ,12 3 0 a N. \ a w S Q co Of �� £ ^`` �s .I]YJ 17-'47 E / I,J;B ILL ti W 47 Lea . �.i V �( //��""/ \ .. - _ ��,� 1 ,limas Q �y .% Ojt f \ 1✓ /yon � '4S e<v 4.,r w ¢. 2 ss 41 F. / ✓n /--i f Vp--4:.)--;• dad p ¢gl ... 1 --r. ✓ ✓�—vo: o �"- ,tial_ 9Or I Llb'ti r poi M z�f-� yy.___A i —zlc' ...\ 1 � �/ w�g w �/— /cam °Or • 3j� �o i' — P a. U "6 .' ___________g-1- � 1 30 r - m p __<:- ,(9 I ry. �s b Z D y s 1 a i s :p: _ 0, ____<:- / �j \ 11 m p {1"1 gg L(Jf w m �\.i=r ise 1 1—J '.Y���-i -- _ / X ' ` a d - a OT5 N y.i 7"p 1 V v,.� I i_� 3 be ,x.ar Y'_0 ���� ' hx ,o ''i a M sr I -� �, rva1�,, e 6 g Z aEr` �` ' 1 irs'"�1101111011#110-1 31$—_.moo_,„1 ./��`� iw'C���='•zti �QIr�1.�`�:( ® �� i m I ..7„, g U LES r\ '6;' -y- 91 _ ' _\ ':+� �,�'�Sgs• ▪Z LL Z m ffi 'Re 4z i- ,lr,'-may 9 1\droll-_�'` CP\�'' - a-----------i 1 g-I jai�; '' 30 .„--- — L _ let '\ `\—CkF.AftiNf Of(��(IYR+� _�, ' _ 4 `Iii ,5b _' _i� ------, . F! ILLS (l !A sLz---� `�+J• III I \ ___--- .4.K., - lrs2,:j- g-gj -}-�_ $ri C`rl Zsz�.' I is o .,it,... ,„, LLI 4 ;1N — 0-- --t N ''AllerAirillOrl ''Ci.' , �� \i ...4 ars—,, / d 704-iire,plity-p affilior._... Ly „,„______et .-',02t;'^9k�- 1..wAtiosi ma pins 3 r oftglyir----t a o 7icmoryg° *�l - j/, I oI o ' y4 :`1.‘".. ...j .A... ,+Q. o / !IPA; I 1" •' .a;?C:••.3 1 ONI211,310 3NI1 A1tl3d0 d tC 2' 6� }bl __4 fit° 8 iti a Zd W 00 0Y o y aoz dq `c Jja 3v,1.7 11 Uma Es d Z.,..6.StO LP � � �a �� 5 r.PE W(�3p � og h. = Wmg eG UzX Ifl IGasrnao _ V) wm� S y ijig3rvn uwaond -J O O : � -p . w >s€ z o ;, ( To .tilm), 3' ' '1? /P tier, I( c .a c a El s 'vi �I c .8"E cv � � � ice e, 8. = u 0 = °� e _ a-c 7: =lym o C a❑ 7, -i--.1 W El '-'.9 N9 V 8.aOn w _ '17. 4 U 3 c U ^i ' m -> O a _ .§ ti ---1 - c C V'O.T W 8 - of.2, -o at 73 • ` El s0 '2r ywG 8 ' !I m T d -E. O,y. m " = 71 o3R x � ,..7.-1 -E >,-o W N E oI v; oag - � yo_ _0 Q C> y 00 w U� _I 0 C N O C sN ~EC �,-1 q " _ vo _TD -- 0 tea' o a -1 -1 O a oco o p i 1.! Q CS C 0 C..7 L 4 �.-. ^I_� w R v E. a v'F j .r .-.I-21 mg to T ?,E. 5. o - O f- ¢ 8 X o -� I P c ° _0 U r W 2 O v V E L: .y • I nl V] C L no 8. _ C u 7 ..V41 0' ..,V C =4. C C -f o; ,.ti I v a V 'J m — T y O 'L.o _ _ m C(3�L, C E a p -=W a C --�E1 C 9 CAA 4a7 o a a w a F-? 3 -v w - c 7 �y y a�Q ` c O c h `�- C o. v = y _ .r = u m 0.w u 4> a 3 aa o.? a`, m 'I s4A '� L A m o ano 9 ,O a -. v 7 d a CJ ea. 5 c4U O N .II. - 0 �N3 ce n" wa 3 H E A • (%0 May 3, -.a Y jt. f j` ) • 4 r V.,• c.) ^ u ; a C N t,. C 0 0. e° 75. i w y u A v o u :r, w L ,P_. .0 p.=a 4' v V .a ` r _ o 4 -6 . iJ >+ 'E -U U 9 ' SCi Z' _ V c.,,, C — 61 ti s M. 0 ✓-— G m a z u " `• ` g cq.33 m 4 O 5-4 . .0 C.0 5 a • >V ^. W 2 ^ v N c X r 'd• cs 9 .n E'E C' 3 ri `� .. — - U_. n' C 'ryp ti C C• C )= of �' w i ▪ SFr", dN 4 v,- fil v O fir. G_ c� C C. .'= > U S `> N 1J 1 4_, n G ` ✓Ui T v t ? ,,,, i.(-71 m,::: 71 _ .., (To MA), 3, zot g let .,-) ,. ld.H1E124 ,....„ • >i Vd NOS-1111, . .„r. ... ' . - ''..'--;Yir, r',..;?%-` , 1-,,,,,,,',',f,-•..7. `-"V•'-''''',!•'-'•• V•' Q 1.0W1SIG 83M3S CINV!:131VM>13980 SOOS --- - , 6%, r.__"-----,,-----,-- - ,_, i ';-_--,;:- .. ,',7,,,- --:;.;,-., ,:',,.- '6 w'=',6' 26=--rit,',...rf:II • 6, g.5.-It",.., :?,,L' , ----,.. 1 , ..4-,q,, I •••'CN; I -,t5,3:-k --,,..:6• L.,,,f•-=,ff ...-,•=. -:-..'"'="! ?jf-',';',i,,,','At•i:= ,% '-,' ' 6•=- --,.T.•'' r,••.- - - • -i , 10.-'i, . , - ' '',▪ .':''...: ''','_,,T'1 F--..i-,,LiF= '.=•- •...i,,,i-,t.• -t-,.=6! -=' 41 -1ff..,',---..,,' ,,-_-.._.,;'... _ .. 1 1,--,,-,., ',,,,;1: :',-.:i: •,,,'",:i.','. ,'..-;-;:i%.=, 1.2, ..-',Eyg-.--2'.-,,, r..,, ,,,-,:,,,-E. ,,,i„-....'-i,:ri, ,,...,-5, 1 - L-:- ,-1,:1,, .."5•1 r,,,-....:- t-:",,.9.E: r.i ,,.,..,-,. i I i .,•. ',..::„:1::,:! 7,,,-., •=7... .1.-_•'.' 4...-, 7. 7,;;•"=,qi.=-: ••-•- l'VF ii.,,,- ,6 "i -;•;',.;,, , ,, 1 ',';', ----, :•,,..',,, :!:_t=';'-,`. !,:.,-;:.: "-•-•,-,,f. •••,rr-6',.'.=_,:t6 .6..'-', ,,C, '_!2:.r.`,A -•-.•:. , . I: 1, , -..=, --,-_,, '.-!,;:,7,-:= ',..6rf-.,,, f_.?7,26, ,•••-5.'-',,,,.-.,g5. ,•7=7'. '''',-, ;',.Y.I,'-',',4,7 .7-'61, . _. - _ . , , •.,'!!!:,',-• L',2,-, F,,16:::, =,-.,,,6;- .J.,,,-5,,,j ,,,,,t75,,,.-!'.;-•,7 '6 6••'' .7";' , ''‘,.--:'12 , 6_77 _ . .Y.! • I 07' 1 ' - . -4, ;Z...,,• ,• z ... 0 o 1 ..; .,"•. '-. - „ : , . ' . - : . • : I i •-•J;,-. ,-., ..-.1: :2, ,-,,,,,, 2 ,,. rc' P',6-6• LI '?..''•--Z t4:1- 1Lx.,`,"; 9.:::,,,-, — ,—\,,,,,.• ._.,,,,,.„„, ----- . . .. -_,...._.,, I i i- . -, .. . irij.,•!-,,i.-22,:1, t-,,,:,.L1,::, ;.--, ,%. 12 2 --. c U i5 ,r--,, " z• s.,x7 ,c!,. 0 ..,-,.5,-,77 w, ,,- IL). ai' i'.,•=1,_-2 I-i'L.6 gi: .6,I:1'i'.., T.'4Erf.,:: Hi' ;''.-!-,3'..,-..; >, i:.: I :•E: . F-----7—--—7----i .,. . . :,-- ..._. .-i:'--z=-,i,--;.• I ;:•,-•, -,i--,- : sr., , . , rj: :,_—______,_-_,_:_..=„,•„,,,.4.. ...i,..,,h_ .-___---- ,-... --,-- ;5,-70,6',5., .., ,,,:. ,______7_____,„..,-.„ 7,7-,-,,-.•:: •, 1 , !F. ---"'---. .. . ' -- ;•-: 7 \'9 ; • : ' 6'•' -.6.6. ! , ..•;-, •‘..1 '•,'.., 'ir; ',.,41' . I ' ,—.7'7-7----i - jy-------li•, '-,5 b, , - - : ..-4• .6,,..i -LI" 1,, ',. i- ',, .• 6. T-------77-777 I '1I--- i•••=--'-' \ I , -1-I-----,-4,,,4,,,..i.-7,I •.',-lif -....1 ,,,,,, !'ff-,, t ' !1,6:.,=!t'!=,-71.',..:!-I ‘.,'••., I , i —, ,,-.:,-.7-1 ,, i 1 ,,-I "-'.1 ' . ! I '-:-,"•,--:-. 1 1• co , :• ., \-....„ °---7s=',..-rr.„„ 1_ , ! , Lj, HT----------i,J., . -c-,. ''' '"' 1 --'•••; i'",--1-1 • :.- -11-'---'----- 4.z.,.7.-zat7-____---:,,i, / . ,,va`) -..?: s,:-..;,,T . "-- , ; i ,;-L-: h-i ,'• -:777-:;‹,-, - -.17 • : '—',. - r• - - ,- ' •-- .-= ' -' 1• - -. . t- •-,-•Q .: '. .: •--- ._. 15" — 5 I, • '-,,.,. ,, -,... -, •„'...,:-.:, ri-E: 8',=' Y::.,- , - 1, -,,-, ,, — ,,,,, .... 1 ' I-.I ,:____...,--' • 1- „ , ,., ..._ - , 1-: — 1 , = 2.— I _„. 1..... cr,i. '...i.. ..,, 1 u., to .. . :. .. _.:. , (To Aitay zois, /e �4 Denis Law Mayor i December 12, 2016 Community&Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent,Administrator Robert Wilson 21730 60th Street East Lake Tapps,WA 98391 Via email: doravin@comcast.net SUBJECT: Expiration Dates for Wilson Park 1&2 Preliminary Plats(LUA 09-140,PP,and LUA 12-013,PP,PUD) Dear Mr.Wilson, You have requested a letter from the City indicating the period of validity for the Wilson Park 1 Preliminary Plat(LUA09-140)and the Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat and Planned Urban Development(PUD) (LUA12-013, PP, PUD). Wilson Park 1. Renton Municipal Code allows for a period of validity of 5 years for Preliminary Plats. However,the Washington State Legislature approved an extension to the period of validity to seven (7)years for plats approved on or after January 1, 2008 and before January 1, 2015. Wilson Park 1 Preliminary Plat was approved by the Hearing Examiner on August 16,2010 and because of the extension provided by the Washington State Legislature,was valid for a total of seven(7)years, until August 16,2017. In addition,the applicant requested a one-time one- year extension to the preliminary plat,as provided for in Renton Municipal Code. This extension for Wilson Park 1 was granted on July 26,2015. Therefore,Wilson Park 1 Preliminary Plat is valid for a period of eight(8)years and will expire on August 16,2018. Wilson Park 2. Renton Municipal Code allows for a period of validity of 5 years for Preliminary Plats,and allows for applications submitted with the preliminary plat to expire at the same time as the preliminary plat. In addition,the Washington State Legislature approved an extension to the period of validity to seven (7)years for plats approved on or after January 1, 2008 and before January 1,2015. Because the Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat and PUD was approved by the Hearing Examiner on July 5,2012, both approvals are valid for a total of seven (7)years, until July 5,2019. The Final Plat and Final PUD must be submitted prior to the expiration of the preliminary approvals. Please also note that the Renton Municipal Code allows for the applicant to request an additional one-year extension if requested at least 30 days prior to expiration and provided the applicant demonstrates that he/she has attempted in good faith to submit the final plat within the approved time period. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7286 or ihenning@rentonwa.gov. 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057• rentonwa.gov � � December 12, �� 2016 7-ra/4 F' Page2 (To Ad 3, z0/9 /~,t_,-) Sincerely, Jennifer l[ Henning,AICP Planning Director cc: Chip Vincent,CED Administrator Brianne Bannwarth,Development Engineering Manager Vanessa Dolbee,current Planning Manager Jan lIlian,Plan Reviewer cAaoxs\snmmn mm Internet FiR7P'mWimmPark I 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov Attar'1M e,4P & �.; Denis Law Mayor ,±, Community&Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent,Administrator May 22, 2018 Mr. Phil Olbrechts Renton Hearing Examiner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Subject: Wilson Park 1 Preliminary Plat LUA 09-140, PP, 12 lots Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat LUA 12-013, PP, PUD, 10 lots Request for Denial of May 3, 2018 "Request for Additional Extension Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code 4-7-080" submitted by Robert and Doravin Wilson Dear Mr. Olbrechts: The City of Renton Community& Economic Development Department ("CED") respectfully requests that the Hearing Examiner dismiss the May 3, 2018 request by Robert and Doravin Wilson for an "Additional Extension Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code 4-7-080"for land use approvals associated with the development sites referenced above, Wilson Park 1 and Wilson Park 2. As explained below, the Wilsons' request for an 11-month extension for Wilson Park 1 should be denied. The Applicants Have Not Met Their Burden to Prove "Unusual Circumstances or Situations which Make It Unduly Burdensome"to Justify Obtaining a Nine-Year Extension The Wilsons' request an 11-month "additional extension"for the preliminary plat of Wilson Park 1, arguing that circumstances occurring since the Hearing Examiner's August 2010 preliminary plat approval justify an additional extension to July 5, 2019. The Wilsons'focus on the relatively short (11-month) extension deemphasizes that the Wilson Park 1 preliminary plat was approved eight years ago, in 2010. The Wilsons' new request would extend the delay between preliminary plat and final plat to a total of nine years. The Wilsons' request for a nine-year preliminary plat period fails to meet RMC 4-7-080.L.2's criteria for the applicant to show that "unusual circumstances or situations" have made it "unduly burdensome" for the applicant to have timely submitted for final plat approval. 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057• rentonwa.gov Mr.Phil Olbrechts Page 2 of 2 May 22,2018 First, the Wilsons' have not proved "unusual circumstances or situations"justifying a nine-year platting period. If the acquisition of the Wilson Park 2 property had only recently become necessary, the Wilsons' might have demonstrated sufficient unusual or circumstances. But, here, the Wilsons' acquired the Wilson Park 2 property seven years ago, in 2011. There are no current or recent circumstances or situations justifying an additional extension. Second,the Wilsons' have not proved that it was "unduly burdensome"for them to file a final plat within eight years of preliminary plat approval. Rather than alleviate a burden, the Wilsons' request indicates that delaying the Wilson Park I timeline to align with the Wilson Park II timeline is based in convenience to the applicant and marketability of a combined development. The Wilsons' should not gain advantage by tying the earlier Wilson Park I timeline to the later- platted Wilson Park; if the Wilsons' prefer to take the two plats simultaneously through the final platting process, it should be done so on the earlier Wilson Park I timeline. The Wilsons' acquired the Wilson Park 2 property in 2011—they have had ample time to bring the Wilson Park I platting action timeline in line with Wilson Park 2. Granting an additional extension for Wilson Park 1 would extend the life of a preliminary plat that, in the face of code amendments, no longer conforms to provisions of the Renton Municipal Code including but not limited to, zoning, stormwater, critical areas, tree standards, street standards, and retaining wall heights. Since the date of approval of Wilson Park 1 the City has adopted a new comprehensive plan including new development standards associated with the residential zones. Furthermore, the public concern related to retaining walls that stemmed from an appeal associated with this project resulted in the City considering and then adopting new retaining wall height regulations. For the above reasons, the City respectfully requests that the Hearing Examiner deny the Wilsons' request for an additional extension of the Wilson Park I preliminary plat. Sincerely, / tet, t; � -1-04 1t-,, - Jennifer Henning Planning Director cc: Robert and Doravin Wilson Chip Vincent,CED Administrator Ed Prince,Renton City Council President Leslie Clark,Senior Assistant City Attorney Ryan Mclrvin,Renton City Councilmember Jay P. Derr Jason Seth,City Clerk Steve Beck Shane Moloney,City Attorney File—LUA09-140 c,k1 Y o; • -��4A4TQ �. 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov A-i-a,4C- June 7, 2018 VIA EMAIL Mr. Phil Olbrechts Renton Hearing Examiner 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Ref: (1) Request for Additional Extension Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code 4-7-080 (2) Wilson Park 1 Preliminary Plat LUA 09-140, PP, 12 lots (3) Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat LUA 12-013, PP, PUD, 10 lots Dear Sir: This letter is in support of our Request for Additional Extension Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code 4-7-080, and in reply to the City's Request for Denial. Preliminarily, our request is not for a"nine-year extension,"as the City calls it, but rather for a limited and brief 11-month extension of the validity of the Wilson Park 1 Preliminary Plat, which is set to expire on August 16, 2018. Our request seeks to extend the approval to July 5, 2019 only, which coincides with the Wilson Park 2 approval period. The Code allows for additional time extensions of preliminary plat approvals "if the applicant can show need caused by unusual circumstances or situations which make it unduly burdensome to file the final plat . . ." As explained in our request, the Wilson Park 1 preliminary plat approval faced unusual circumstances, such as the need to obtain approvals and develop plans incorporating a second preliminary plat. Although the two plats are interdependent and necessary, the time spent on the second plat consumed a significant portion of the Wilson Park 1 approval period. To further explain some of the challenges we faced, attached are Declarations from Steve A. Beck and Darrell Offe, who worked on the plats. Both professionals opined that this project was unusually difficult and burdensome compared to other projects in their experience. Further, contrary to the City's characterizations of our efforts, the Declarations demonstrate that we have been working diligently and in good faith to file the final plat. The City previously granted a one-year extension under the Code, indicating that the City believed we demonstrated good faith effort. (See Code 4-7-080.L.1 (allowing a one-year extension if the applicant demonstrates good faith effort)). We believe that, if granted, the limited 11-month extension will allow us sufficient time to obtain final plat approval. Please let us know if you require any additional information to support our request. Thank you, Robert and Doravin Wilson A-ttracA 1.4 e`cf c .- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON 8 9 In the Matter of the"Request for ` Hearing Examiner File Additional Extension Pursuant to Renton 10 Municipal Code 4-7-080" submitted by Robert and Doravin Wilson: j DECLARATION OF STEVEN A. BECK 11 f IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR Wilson Park 1 Preliminary Plat LUA 09- ADDITIONAL EXTENTION 12 140, PP, 12 Lots 13 Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat LUA 12- 14 013, PP,PUD, 10 Lots 15 _ —_-- — — 16 17 I, Steven A. Beck, declare and state as follows: 18 1. I am over eighteen years of age, have personal knowledge of the matters 19 herein, and am competent to testify regarding all matters set forth herein. 20 2. I have over 40 years of experience working as a real estate broker in the 21 State of Washington. My work has been primarily concentrated in the Renton/Southeast 22 King County arca. 23 3. I am currently a broker with John L. Scott Real Estate. Previously, I was 24 25 the founder and owner of a real estate research company called New Construction DECLARATION OF STEVEN A. BECK- 1 I Van Ness Feldman «„ 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 1 Services. I sat on the Regional Real Estate Board for King County in the 1980s, and in 2 1992 I was the President of the Northwest Multiple Listing Service, a nonprofit, member- 3 owned organization of real estate professionals. In 1991 I sat on the first surface water 4 manual development committee, representing both the May Valley and the Cedar River 5 basins and the Highlands Redevelopment Committee with the City of Renton. I have been 6 7 involved in land development since the mid-1980s, and I worked on some of the first large 8 developments in the Renton area. I have been involved in over 30 subdivision 9 developments in various capacities such as overseeing acquisition, and I have been 10 involved as a developer in approximately 15 subdivisions, such as a 32-lot development 11 off of Northeast 4th Street, called Beclan Place. 12 4. When working on development projects, 1 act an end product advisor, 13 14 seeing the end product and working it back to the dirt stage. I monitor and am involved in 15 various aspects of the development, ranging from soils analysis; stormwater management, 16 design, and best management practices; lot layout and design; and access and road 17 standards. Through my experience in land development, I have become familiar with the 18 regulations relating to civil construction and plat approval. 19 5. I first began working on this project with Robert and Doravin Wilson 20 around 2010. In my career working in land development, this project has been the most 21 22 complicated subdivisions I have ever been involved with and has faced unusual, 23 unforeseen circumstances. The site of the first preliminary plat, Wilson Park 1, had 24 attractive features such as quality soils and potential for views, but also had some site 25 DECLARATION OF STEVEN A. BECK-2 Van Ness Feldman 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 1 difficulties at the outset. For example, the site had challenging topography and required 2 heavy cut and fills on-site to meet grading requirements. 3 6. After we received the preliminary plat approval, we discovered the 4 property adjacent to Wilson Park 1 was going through foreclosure. The preliminary plat 5 approval for Wilson Park 1 depended on an access and utility easement across the 6 7 adjacent property. The foreclosure jeopardized the access and utility easement rights. 8 Consequently, to preserve the easement rights for Wilson Park 1, on March 2011 the 9 Wilsons purchased the adjacent property, which became the subject of the second 10 preliminary plat, Wilson Park 2. 11 7. The Wilson Park 2 site had complicated zoning issues, with an overlay and 12 different zoning designations on portions of the site. To modify some of the development 13 14 standards, the Wilsons applied for planned urban development approval in addition to the 15 preliminary plat approval. This process was an additional unforeseen step, and though the 16 Wilsons acted quickly, the application process took over a year and received approval on 17 July 2012. 18 8. With the Wilson Park 2 site, we had to relook at engineering plans from 19 scratch to combine the two sites into one integrated project. Thus, we could not complete 20 final engineering for the Wilson Park 1 site until more than three years after the Wilson 21 22 Park 1 preliminary plat approval. 23 9. We received approval of our final engineering drawings and water plans 24 from the City and from Soos Creek Water and Sewer District on December 2014. At this 25 DECLARATION OF STEVEN A. BECK-3 Van Ness Feldman 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 1 1 point, because of the need to incorporate Wilson Park 2, we had used up four years of the 2 Wilson Park 1 approval period and were unable to market or pursue final plat approval 3 during this time. 4 10. When we received final engineering approval, the housing market was just 5 coming out of the doldrums. We went to market very shortly after we received the 6 7 engineering approval. We initially listed the property for approximately $90,000 per unit, 8 which was an appropriate starting price close to market price for this property and its 9 characteristics. We have had over six deals, though the deals fell through, in part because 10 of the economic conditions, the site's challenging topography, and the costs of 11 constructing improvements. 12 11. We have listed the property eight times, and each time we continually 13 14 dropped the price until it has now reached under $50,000 per unit, which is an extremely 15 competitive price. For comparison, one comparable undeveloped property within a few 16 hundred feet of the Wilson Park site closed in 2015 for a price of approximately $58,300 17 per lot. Despite this price, potential buyers have been reluctant to close on the property 18 because of the upcoming expiration of the Wilson Park 1 preliminary plat approval. 19 Moreover, the City no longer accepts bonds in lieu of construction, which limits our 20 options to market the property and increases the uncertainty for potential buyers. 21 22 12. Potential buyers who have expressed interest in the site have informed me 23 that if Wilson Park 1's expiration date were extended to July 2019 to coincide with 24 25 DECLARATION OF STEVEN A. BECK-4 Van Ness Feldman h. 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 ( (206) 623-9372 1 Wilson Park 2's expiration, the extension would afford sufficient time to complete 2 construction of improvements and obtain final plat approval for both preliminary plats. 3 13. In my opinion, and based on the feedback from potential buyers, Wilson 4 Park 1 and 2 must be approved and marketed as a single development project, because the 5 two sites are linked and dependent upon each other. For example, the stormwater design 6 7 is dependent on developing both sites together—the stormwater drainage vault for Wilson 8 Park 1 was originally planned to be within Wilson Park II, and was later revised to 9 accommodate both Wilson Park 1 and 2. This unusual linkage, combined with the site's 10 engineering challenges, made this a particularly difficult project and required substantially 11 more time and effort than any other subdivision development I have ever been involved 12 with. 13 14 14. Moreover, because of the linkage, if the Wilson Park 1 plat approval were 15 to expire, the Wilsons will lose their significant investment in both Wilson Park 1 and 2. 16 15. Despite the challenges this project has faced, I believe that if the extension 17 is granted, the project will be ready for final plat approval in time. I also believe the 18 project will add valuable housing inventory to the City and will help meet the current high 19 demand for single-family homes. 20 // 21 22 // 23 24 25 DECLARATION OF STEVEN A. BECK-5 Van Ness Feldman 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 1 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington 2 that the foregoing is true and correct. 3 ii 4 / 4 5 1‘, � . 6 Steven A. Beck, Dcclaran 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 , 22 23 24 25 DECLARATION OF STEVEN A. BECK-6 Van Ness Feldman«n 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 Art-e(Gil Yk ektf C 1 7 3 4 7 6 7 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON 8 9 In the Matter of the"Request for Hearing Examiner. File Additional Extension Pursuant to Renton 10 Municipal Code 4-7-080" submitted by Robert and Doravin Wilson: 11 DECLARATION OF DARRELL OFF- I_N Wilson. Park 1 Preliminary Plat LUA 09- SUPPORT OF REQUEST OR 12 140, PP, 12 Lots ADDITIONAL EXTENSION 13 Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat LUA 12- 14 013, PP, PUD, 10 Lots 15 16 I, Darrell Offe,declare and state as follows: 17 18 1. I am over eighteen years of age, have personal knowledge of the n afters 19 herein, and am competent to testify regarding all matters set forth herein. 20 2. I have over 40 years of construction experience,ranging from single .milt' L1 residential projects to high rise commercial office buildings to heavy civil construct on. I 22 have been a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Washington since October 23 1990 (28 years) and in the State of Wyoming since November 2009. 74 25 DECLARATION OF DARRELL OFFE- 1 Van Ness Feldman 719 Second Avenue, Sui e 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 1 3. Since becoming a Professional Engineer, the large majority o my 2 experience has been in single family residential development, and I have worked on large 3 number of projects. I have worked on projects in King County, City of Redmond, Oily of 4 Auburn, City of Kent, City of Renton, City of Puyallup, City of Seattle, City of ercer 5 Island, City of Bellevue, City of Kirkland, City of Clyde Hill and City of Burien. N. table 6 7 projects include 1994 Street of Dreams — Summit Ridge (Bellevue); Pinnacle Point 8 (Bellevue); Rainier Shadows/Willow Park (Auburn); The Parks (Lake Desire/Shady lake) 9 (King County) and View Point at Maple Ridge(Renton). 1 0 4. My commercial experience includes providing civil engineering and s pport it for design and construction on numerous projects in Redmond such as the Pro Sports Club. 12 the Lakeridge office development, the Daytona and Laguna Office projects fo Hart 13 14 Properties, and Microsoft's campus. My heavy construction experience includes eavy 15 equipment operation and construction surveying for projects in Wyoming and Utas, and 16 acting as project engineer for construction on Shuster Parkway (I-705) from 1-5 to Dock 17 Street—Tacoma. 18 5. I am the engineer who signed and stamped the final approved engin:ering 19 drawings for Wilson Park 1 and 2, combined as one 22-lot development, and I wor 4-d on 20 the preliminary plat and planned unit development ("PUD") approval for Wilson Par 2. 21 22 6. In my opinion, based on my experience, this project faced a num er of 23 unusual delays and circumstances. The timeline for obtaining the preliminary pla PUD 24 25 DECLARATION OF DARRELL OFFE-2 Van Ness Feldman 719 Second Avenue, Sul e 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 1 approval and the approval of the final engineering and design plans exceeded the a erage 2 timeline for obtaining approvals for a project of this type and scale. 3 7. For example, although the Wilson Park 1 and 2 sites are within the lity of 4 Renton water service area, the City granted permission to Soos Creek Water and '.ewer 5 District to be the water purveyor for the sites. This process took an additional two onths 6 7 of negotiations between the Wilsons,the City,and the District,and the District had to .pply g for and obtain approval for the expanded service area. 9 8. Additionally, the Wilson Park 2 site had an overlay and different .•ping 10 designations on various portions of the site. We spent considerable time working wi h the 11 City to determine how to handle the split zoning issues and what process the City "ould 12 use, which led to the need to apply for a PUD in addition to the preliminary plat. Wh le the 13 14 end result was productive, the process extended the timeline for obtaining approvals. 15 9. The City also wished to condition approval for Wilson Park 2 upon 16 providing pedestrian linkage to the nearest Renton School District bus stop. The con ition 17 was unusual given the project's size(10 lots) and the confusing layout of school bus r utes. 18 The project is close to the boundary between the Renton and Kent School District., and 19 both districts had school buses operating in the area. Determining the actual locations of 20 the routes and stops for the two districts, and detelniining the City's requirements .r the 21 22 walkway,required multiple conversations. We then needed to bring in a surveyor to p •vide 23 additional topographical information for the pedestrian walkway design. This process alone 24 25 DECLARATION OF DARRELL OFFS-3 Van Ness Feldman 719 Second Avenue, Sui e 1150 Seattle, WA 98194 (206) 623-9372 1 took four months from the time we began working to meet the condition to the topogi aphic 2 survey. 3 10. After we received the preliminary plat/PUD approval and the engina ering 4 plans were ready for review, additional delays occurred. The plans were reviewed nder 5 the direction of three different supervisors. One of the supervisors refused to provid. final 6 7 approval based on the location of the stormwater vault. The vault's location had been •hown 8 on the preliminary plat application and on every set of plans we had submitted to th• City. 9 so the refusal to approve came as a surprise. After the Stormwater Utility Dep. ment 10 approved the location, the supervisor conceded and gave verbal approval, but the p ocess I1 of attempting to negotiate took considerable time. Further,the supervisor required that three 12 access ports be provided on the vault.although the Code only required two access po s s. In 13 14 this case, we revised the plans to accommodate the supervisor's requirement. This p ocess 15 of working with the City on these matters consumed an additional six weeks, beyor d the 16 normal time period for review and approval of the final plans. 17 11. Despite the challenges this project has faced, I believe that if the extension 1 is granted, the project will be ready for final plat approval in time. 19 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washingt. that 20 the foregoing is true and correct. 21 23 24 25 DECLARATION OF DARRELL OFFE-4 Van Ness Feldman 719 Second Avenue, Sul e 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 Ii 1 ;2 �i A I V ,r arrell Offe, Decl /7/7 4 5 6 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 77 24 25 DECLARATION OF DARRELL OFFE-5 Van Ness Feldman „, 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 kacAktie`tf 1J. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 9 ) RE:10 Wilson Park 1 ) FINAL DECISION 11 Request for Extension of Plat ) Expiration ) ) 12 ) 13 ) 14 Robert and Doravin Wilson have requested extension of the August 16, 2018 preliminary 15 plat approval expiration date for the Wilson Park 1 subdivision to July 5, 2019. The request is denied. However, preliminary plat expiration is extended to November 16, 2018 to account for the 16 uncertainties attributable to the decision-making process in addressing this extension request. The Wilsons first submitted their request for extension by letter dated May 3, 2018. The 17 City filed a response dated May 22, 2018 in which the City requested denial of the extension 18 request. The Wilsons submitted a reply dated June 7, 2018. Requests to extend the expiration of preliminary plat approvals are governed by RMC 4-7- 19 080(L)(2), which authorizes extensions by the hearing examiner to approve up to one year extensions "...if the applicant can show need caused by unusual circumstances or situations which 20 make it unduly burdensome to file the final plat..." The standard five year expiration period was extended by the state legislature an additional two years in recognition of the Great Recession that occurred in 2008. The Wilsons have also already acquired an administratively approved one-year 22 extension authorized by RMC 4-7-080(L)(1). The currently proposed extension would extend the expiration period from eight years to nine years. Wilson Park 1 acquired preliminary plat approval 23 in August, 2010. 24 The Wilsons raise some good unusual circumstances that occurred in the first few years of the proposal. Most notably, access to Wilson Park 1 was across adjoining property that went into 25 foreclosure. To maintain their access rights, the Wilsons ultimately purchased the adjoining property and then developed it into a second subdivision, Wilson Park 2. In addition to delays 26 PLAT EXTENSION REQUEST - 1 1 caused by the foreclosure, additional delay can be attributable to coordinating development between 2 Wilson Park 1 and 2. The foreclosure and coordinated development issues certainly qualify as unusual 3 circumstances, but the record does not establish a need to go beyond the additional time created by the state legislative expansion of the expiration period from five to seven years and the additional 4 one-year extension already approved. The timeline in the Wilson's May 3, 2018 request for extension shows that most of the problems caused by the foreclosure and need to coordinate 5 development were resolved by December, 2014, by which time final engineering design had been 6 approved by both the City of Renton and Soos Creek Water District. Beyond December, 2014, there isn't much in the record to explain why it's taken an additional three and a half years for the 7 Wilsons to acquire final plat approval. Some declarations in the Wilson reply identify undated issues regarding stormwater design, but these do not appear significant enough to justify another 3.5 8 years of delay. The additional two years granted by the legislature was intended to address delays 9 created by the Great Recession, which likely encompasses the problems the Wilsons incurred due to the foreclosure of the adjoining property. Problems in marketing the property are not a sufficient - 10 justification for further extension, since the Wilsons always had the alternative to develop the property as required for final plat approval, notwithstanding any financial obstacles to this objective. 11 In assessing whether the obstacles faced by the Wilsons makes it "unduly burdensome" to 12 meet final plat deadlines, it is appropriate to consider the public detriment in authorizing the extension. In their May 22, 2018 response the City identified numerous code revisions that have 13 occurred since Wilson Park 1 was approved, including amendments to retaining wall standards that was a matter of considerable public concern in part due to the Wilson subdivisions. Given these 14 public impacts, it is not considered unduly burdensome to the Wilsons to deny the request. It is recognized that the Wilsons development plans may have been put on hold to a certain 15 extent as they waited for a decision on their extension request. To mitigate against this impact to 16 the Wilsons, the Wilson Park 1 preliminary plat expiration is extended to November 16, 2018. 17 18 DATED this 27th day of June, 2018. 19 r a. 20 Nlttir_1. ()11„„tts 21 City of Renton Hearing Examiner 22 23 24 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices 25 The RMC does not identify whether a hearing examiner decision on plat expiration requests is appealable to the City Council. If the Wilsons wish to appeal, they should consult with their 26 attorney and the City's Planning Department to ascertain their appeal rights. In the absence of PLAT EXTENSION REQUEST -2 r 1 clear appeal rights, a common strategy is to appeal both administratively (in this case the City 2 Council) and judicially (under the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW). City Council appeals must be filed within 14 days of the issuance of this decision and judicial appeals must be 3 filed within 21 days of the issuance of this decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed as outlined in RMC 4-8-100(I). 4 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes 5 notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PLAT EXTENSION REQUEST -3 0 A?7 c j_ A e p E .. CITY OF RENTON JUL 02 2018 1 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 2 3 4 5 6 7 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON 8 9 RE: Wilson Park I City of Renton's Limited Motion for Reconsideration i0 Request for Extension of Plat Expiration 11 12 13 14 The City of Renton (the "City") respectfully submits this limited motion for 15 reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's June 27, 2018 Final Decision (the "Decision") on the Wilson Park I subdivision's request for extension of preliminary plat expiration. 16 Scope of Motion 17 The City agrees with the Decision's analysis supporting the denial of the request to 18 extend the Wilson Park I expiration date. In this limited motion for reconsideration,the City 19 challenges only the Decision's grant of a three-month plat extension (to November 16, 2018) 20 that the Decision made "to account for the uncertainties attributable to the decision-making 21 process in addressing this extension request." Decision at 1:15-16. For the reasons discussed 22 below,the City respectfully requests that the Hearing Examiner reconsider the Decision and 23 issue a modified decision that (1) denies the extension request in full and (2) retains the August 24 16, 2018 preliminary plat approval expiration date for Wilson Park I. 25 Wilson Park I Renton City Attorney City's Motion for Reconsideration-1 ,• 1055 South Grady Way 74 % Renton,WA 98057 Phone: 425.430.6480 Fax: 425.430.6498 1 Discussion 2 The Renton Municipal Code ("RMC") provides that the Hearing Examiner may only grant 3 additional plat extensions if the requestor satisfies strict criteria. Specifically, the requestor 4 must show that "unusual circumstances or situations" caused it to be "unduly burdensome"to 5 proceed without an additional extension. RMC 4-7-080.L.2. These criteria apply to any and 6 every additional extension, including the three-month extension given in the Decision here. However, here,the Decision's analysis explains that the requestors (the Wilsons) did not satisfy 7 the applicable code criteria. In other words,the Decision itself does not support its own three- 8 month extension and is,thus, in conflict with RMC 4-7-080.L.2. 9 Nor could the Wilsons reasonably argue now that the Decision's three-month extension 10 satisfies RMC 4-7-080.L.2's criteria for showings of"unusual circumstances or situations" and 11 "undue burden." First,there was no undue delay or burden in the processing of the Wilsons' 12 request for extension. They submitted their request on May 3, 2018, and the Decision issued 13 on June 27, 2018, SO days before the plat expiration date of August 16, 2018. Meanwhile,the 14 code allows a requestor to wait until just 30 days before plat expiration to even submit a 15 request for an additional extension. RMC 4-7-080.L.W (request for additional extension must 16 "be filed at least thirty(30) days prior to the plat expiration date"). Here,the decision on the 17 Wilsons' request was issued 5O days before plat expiration. The Wilsons received the Decision 18 20 days before they were even required to submit their request. There was no "unusual 19 circumstance or situation"causing "undue burden." 20 Next,there was no evidence before the Hearing Examiner that the Wilsons suspended 21 their plat-related activities after submitting their request for the additional plat extension, 22 which the Decision's three-month extension appears to assume. In fact, the City's Community & Economic Development department ("CED") recently received inquiries from potential 23 buyers of the plat, suggesting that marketing of the plat continued. Even if the Wilsons had 24 25 Wilson Park I Renton City Attorney City's Motion for Reconsideration-2 .f 1055 South Grady Way i!c. Renton,WA 98057 Phone: 425.430.6480 Fax: 425.430.6498 1 suspended their plat-related activities while waiting for the Decision, such suspension would 2 not have been reasonable. Nothing in the code authorizes a "tolling" of the expiration date g pending the outcome of a request for plat extension. Without such a provision, in CED's 4 experience, it is routine that a plat's interested parties (i.e., both applicants and the local 5 government) rely on the specified plat expiration date unless and until that date is actually 6 extended. Finally, the unsupported three-month extension could allow the very consequences that 7 compelled the City to urge denial of the extension request in the first place. For example within 8 the three-month period, extensive site clearing and mass grading could commence resulting in 9 tree removal, as well as construction of retaining walls, all of which would not be permitted 10 under current code. 11 In sum, because the Decision's three-month extension violates the criteria of RMC 4-7- 12 080.L.2 and could have significant negative consequences to the City,the City respectfully 13 requests that the Hearing Examiner issue a modified decision that (1) denies the extension 14 request in full and (2) retains the August 16, 2018 preliminary plat approval expiration date for 15 Wilson Park I.1 M f 16 Respectfully submitted this 4,— day of July, 2018. 17 :- 18 e , � C. E. "Chip"Vincent 19 Administrator Community& Economic Department 20 City of Renton 21 22 23 ' Even if the Hearing Examiner disagrees with the City's analysis and denies this limited motion for 24 reconsideration,the City urges the Hearing Examiner to not add additional time to the plat expiration as a consequence of the time taken to decide this motion. 25 Wilson Park I Renton City Attorney City's Motion for Reconsideration 3 • 1055 South Grady Way 'ION Renton,WA 98057 Phone: 425.430.6480 Fax: 425.430.6498 4t id e f F July 9, 2018 VIA EMAIL Mr. Phil Olbrechts Renton Hearing Examiner 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Ref: Wilsons' Response to City of Renton's Limited Motion for Reconsideration of Examiner's Decision on Request for Extension (Wilson Park 1, LUA 09-140) Dear Sir: We are writing to oppose the City of Renton's Limited Motion for Reconsideration, filed July 3, 2018. Although we believe the record supported granting our request for an extension to July 5, 2019 in full,the Examiner's Final Decision(which essentially preserved the original plat approval period and extended the plat approval only as needed to mitigate for the time spent on our extension request) was not an improper abuse of discretion, was supported by the record, and should not be reconsidered as the City requests. As the Examiner found, we faced"uncertainties" and put our plans "on hold to a certain extent as [we] waited for a decision" on our extension request.' The extension, if granted, would have lowered the risks associated with construction and obtaining final plat approval and would have increased the property value. Thus, no buyers were willing to close or settle on a purchase price until we knew whether we had an extension. Further, although we considered our options if the extension were denied, we did not want to give up the value of the entitlements or rush to begin construction ourselves, in case the extension was later granted. In short, both we and potential buyers remained in limbo and unable to act until we knew the plat's expiration date. At heart,the City's arguments fault us for being proactive and putting good faith effort into the plat and our request. The City argues that the Code allows a requestor to submit an extension request up to 30 days before plat expiration, and the fact that we received the Final Decision before the Code's submission deadline means we cannot show any burden from the decision- making process. But the Code's 30-day submission deadline is a deadline, not a recommended or wise practice. The City should not be punishing requestors who submit their extension request before the deadline, precluding that party from claiming any burdens suffered during the decision-making process. The City also argues we suffered no burden because the City received recent inquiries from potential buyers of the plat, suggesting that marketing continued. But as discussed above, buyers were unwilling to close until the plat's expiration date was decided, and the uncertainties surrounding the plat's expiration date burdened our efforts. Again,the City should not be punishing parties for exerting good faith(though impaired and unsuccessful) efforts to work toward final plat approval while an extension request is pending. 1 Final Decision at p. 1,lines 15-16;p.2, lines 15-16. Finally, the City suggests the Examiner should reconsider the Final Decision because there is a chance we may construct the improvements necessary to obtain final plat approval. The City's argument is absurd. The City granted preliminary plat approval for Wilson Park 1; that approval remains valid and has not yet expired; and we are undisputedly entitled to construct and work toward final plat approval. The Examiner's limited extension to November 16, 2018 only preserved our plat approval and maintained the status quo, extending the approval only as needed to mitigate for the time spent on our extension request. On the other hand, the City's Motion for Reconsideration effectively cuts into our plat approval period. First, if granted,the City's Motion would deprive us of the time during which we were unable to move forward while awaiting a decision on our extension request and the City's Motion. Second, even if the Motion is denied,the time taken to resolve the Motion re-raises the uncertainty surrounding the expiration date and burdens our ability to move forward. We therefore request additional time to mitigate for the time spent resolving the City's Motion. In conclusion, the City's Motion is troubling, particularly its suggestion that potential construction and final plat approval is cause for concern and grounds for revising the Final Decision. The Motion demonstrates that the City's focus is not on our unusual circumstances or burdens, but rather on stopping this project. Although the City has revised its development regulations, the undisputed fact is that Wilson Park l's approval is valid, approved, and vested to the prior regulations. Moreover, no City employee has ever raised concerns to us about the safety or soundness of Wilson Park 1 or 2's design. The City's desire to impose its revised regulations on Wilson Park 1 is not grounds for cutting the plat approval period short or arguing that construction should not commence. Therefore, we respectfully request that you deny the City's Motion and grant additional time to mitigate for the time spent resolving the City's Motion. Additionally, in the spirit of reconsideration and in light of the positions and motives expressed in the City's Motion, we respectfully request that you reconsider your decision to deny our original extension request, and grant our request to extend the plat approval expiration date to July 5, 2019 to coincide with the expiration of Wilson Park 2. Please let us know if you require any additional information, and thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Robert and Doravin Wilson 7 ' / / • CITY OF RENTON JUL1 1 1 zone ,M RECEIVED ' 2 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 3 4 5 6 7 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON 8 9 RE: Wilson Park I City of Renton's Reply in Support of Its Limited Motion for Reconsideration 10 Request for Extension of Plat Expiration 11 12 13 14 Introduction 15 This Reply responds to the Wilsons'July 9, 2018 response (the "Response") as to whether the Hearing Examiner's unsolicited three-month plat extension should be reconsidered 16 and set aside. As explained in this Reply, the Response.does not successfully refute any issue 17 raised by the City, and the City's Limited Motion for Reconsideration (the "Motion") of the 18 Hearing Examiner's June 27, 2018 Final Decision (the "Decision") should be granted. 19 Discussion 20 First,the Response asserts that the Hearing Examiner"found"that the Wilsons faced 21 final platting interruptions while they awaited the Decision. Response, p. 1, para. 2. ("As the 22 Examiner found...") (citing the Hearing Examiner's decision, not the record before the Hearing 23 Examiner). The Hearing Examiner did not make any such finding; rather, the Decision 24 postulates that the Wilsons might have paused their efforts. Decision at 2:14-16 ("It is 25 recognized that the Wilsons development plans may have been put on hold to a certain extent Wilson Park I City's Reply in Support of Its Motion for Reconsideration-1 1 as they waited for a decision on their extension request"). As the City explained in its Motion, 2 such postulation conflicts with the extension standards of RMC 4-7-080.L for two reasons. One, 3 the burden is on the applicant to make an adequate showing of need; here,the Wilsons did not 4 introduce any evidence regarding their actions pending the Decision. In fact,the Decision 5 rejected as inadequate the only evidence that the Wilsons submitted,finding that the evidence showed that all of the significant platting obstacles had been resolved by December 2014 and 6 failed to account for why plat work was not completed in the ensuing 3'/years. Decision at 7 2:4-7. Two,the City explained in its Motion that even if the Wilsons had submitted evidence of 8 delayed platting efforts while awaiting the Decision, any such delay was not reasonable and did 9 not warrant the Decision's unsolicited three-month extension. Now, in their Response, the 10 Wilsons assert for the first time that they were delayed by the pending Decision;the Hearing 11 Examiner should reject these newly-made assertions. 12 • The Wilsons assert that buyers would not close on the property while the 13 extension request was pending. Response at p. 1, para. 2. City's response: The 14 pending decision on an extension request did not deter buyers; it was far more 15 likely the remaining, underlying plat termination date of August 16, 2018 that 16 was deterring buyers. The pending extension request did not jeopardize the 17 Wilsons' position. 18 • The Wilsons assert that they did not "want to give up the value of the 19 entitlements or rush to begin construction ourselves." Response at p. 1, para. 2. 20 City's response: These were business judgments that the Wilsons made when 21 they chose to assume the risk that the status quo(the plat expiration date) 22 would shift. Such risk calls do not meet the RMC 4-7-080.L showings for "undue burden" and "unusual circumstances or situations." 23 Next,the Response complains that the Motion "fault[s the Wilsons] for being proactive" 24 by filing their extension request before the deadline to do so. Response at p. 1, para. 3. To the 25 contrary, the Motion laid out the extension request's timeline to explain that (1)the Decision's Wilson Park I • City's Reply in Support of Its Motion for Reconsideration-2 1 timing did not reflect any inappropriate delay and (2) because the Renton Municipal Code 2 allows an applicant to file an extension request until just 30 days before plat expiration, it 3 clearly contemplates that decisions to deny will issue so close to plat expiration dates that 4 applicants must continue to act diligently. The Wilsons are not somehow less entitled to delay their platting efforts because they filed their extension request early; rather, no applicant— whether submitting a request early or on the 30-day deadline itself—is entitled to delay at all 6 its platting efforts while its extension request is pending. 7 Third, the Response characterizes as "absurd" and "troubling"the City's opposition to 8 the three-month extension on the grounds that the extension could allow the plat construction 9 to occur. Response, p. 2, paras. 1 and 3. The City's position is reasonable and grounded in its 10 code and in sound public policy. Due to its prior plat extension, the Wilson Park t preliminary 11 plat had an eight year approval period in which construction could have been commenced and 12 completed. Meanwhile,as the City explained in its May 22, 2018 request to the Hearing 13 Examiner,there have been a myriad of code changes that have occurred since Wilson Park I's 14 approval. As just one example, concerns raised by the public about the retaining walls for this 15 very project resulted in the City amending its retaining wall height regulations. Thus, because 16 the Wilson Park I construction remains unfinished at the end of its eight-year approval period, 17 the City's interest now is in preventing the unjustified tacking on of additional time that would 18 facilitate building out a plat that is materially and detrimentally nonconforming to the City's 19 development regulations. 20 Finally,the Hearing Examiner should deny the Response's two concluding requests for 21 (1) additional time to account for the pendency of the City's Limited Motion for 22 Reconsideration and (2)full reconsideration of the Decision. As to the former,the Wilsons 23 cannot reasonably have interrupted their platting activities because of the pending Motion for all of the same reasons raised in the Motion itself, and no further extension is merited under 24 RMC 4-7-080.1. As to the latter,the City incorporates by reference its prior arguments: The 25 Decision correctly found that no extension was warranted under RMC 4-7-080.L;the only error Wilson Park I City's Reply in Support of Its Motion for Reconsideration-3 1 in the Decision was that it proceeded to grant a three-month extension despite its findings. 2 Respectfully submitted this 11th day of July, 2018. 3 4 C. E. "Chip" Vincent 5 Administrator Community& Economic Development 6 City of Renton 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Wilson Park I City's Reply in Support of Its Motion for Reconsideration-4 /- t / ace4 /-I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 9 ) 10 RE: Wilson Park 1 ) FINAL DECISION UPON 11 Request for Extension of Plat ) RECONSIDERATION Expiration ) 12 ) ) 13 ) 14 The City's motion for reconsideration is granted and the final decision on the Wilson's 15 request for extension of plat alteration is modified to remove the three month extension authorized in the Examiner's June 27, 2018 final decision on the extension request. The Wilson's plat shall 16 expire on August 16,2018. As background, the Wilson's filed a request on May 3, 2018 to extend the expiration period 17 of the Wilson Park I subdivision. At the time of the request,the Wilson Park I subdivision was due 18 to expire on August 16, 2018 and the Wilsons requested extension of the expiration to July 5, 2019. By decision dated June 27, 2018 the Examiner found no unusual circumstances to justify the 19 requested extension, but agreed to extend expiration for an additional three months to November 16, 2018 in order to mitigate against any delays caused by the decision making process on the Wilson's 20 May 3, 2018 request to extend expiration. The City requested reconsideration of the three month extension on July 2, 2018. The Wilsons responded to the request on July 9, 2018 and the City replied on July 11, 2018. 22 The Examiner's authorization of a three-month extension was largely based upon presumed consent from the City and Wilsons that the extension would constitute a reasonable means of 23 mitigating any delay prejudice the Wilsons may have encountered during the pendency of the Wilson's extension request. However, the Examiner erred in his presumption that the City would 24 find such an extension reasonable. The City's position is harsh but fair, as the Wilsons have 25 essentially benefitted from an arguable gap in the City's development standards that enabled them to acquire approval of retaining walls at a height that was not compatible with community aesthetics. 26 The three month extension also would enable the Wilsons to construct their development to PLAT EXTENSION REQUEST - 1 I numerous other development standards that are outdated by several years as well. The uncertainties that underly the time in waiting for a plat extension decision certainly can cause additional delays in 2 the construction and planning of a project, but there was nothing unusual about the delays in this 3 extension request that would distinguish the request from any other. The reconsideration process added a little further delay, but the delay overall was minimal as a reconsideration decision was 4 expeditiously issued by the Examiner. Approval of a three month extension solely because of the extension request review process under these circumstances would set a precedent for automatic 5 three month expansion of all extension requests, which was not contemplated in the City's code'. 6 DATED this 15th day of July, 2018. 7 8 r . Pa N.. ()itilvehK 9 City of Renton Hearing Examiner 10 11 12 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices 13 The RMC does not identify whether a hearing examiner decision on plat expiration requests is appealable to the City Council. If the Wilsons wish to appeal, they should consult with their 14 attorney and the City's Planning Department to ascertain their appeal rights. In the absence of 15 clear appeal rights, a common strategy is to appeal both administratively (in this case the City Council) and judicially (under the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW). City Council 16 appeals must be filed within 14 days of the issuance of this decision and judicial appeals must be filed within 21 days of the issuance of this decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing 17 examiner may also be filed as outlined in RMC 4-8-100(I). 18 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes 19 notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 20 21 22 23 24 25 ' It is also noteworthy that as far as the Examiner can recall,he hasn't been presented with any other plat extension request in the seven years he has served as Renton's examiner. Consequently, the Wilsons are not being treated 26 differently by the Examiner from any other applicant that has requested an extension request. PLAT EXTENSION REQUEST -2