Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda AGENDA Planning & Development Committee Regular Meeting 5:30 PM - Thursday, August 9, 2018 Council Conference Room, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way 1. Wilson Park I Appeal a) AB - 2192 City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision regarding the Wilson Park 1 Preliminary Plat (LUA-09-140) filed by Robert & Doravin Wilson, accompanied by required fee. The consideration of the closed record appeal by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional arguments based on the record by parties (RMC 4-8-110.F.6.). (No new evidence or testimony allowed.) b) Letters from Interested Parties in Support/Opposition of Appeal c) City's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision d) City's Exhibit A AB - 2192 City Council Regular Meeting - 06 Aug 2018 SUBJECT/TITLE:Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Final Decision dated 7/15/2018 regarding the Wilson Park 1 Preliminary Plat. (File No. LUA-09-140) RECOMMENDED ACTION:Refer to Planning & Development Committee DEPARTMENT:City Clerk STAFF CONTACT:Jason Seth, City Clerk EXT.:6502 FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY: n/a SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner’s Final Decision (dated July 15, 2018) on the Wilson Park 1 Preliminary Plat (File No. LUA-09-140) was filed on July 25, 2018 by Robert & Doravin Wilson, accompanied by the required $500.00 appeal fee. Any additional documents filed in response to this appeal will be forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee and to all Parties of Record. EXHIBITS: A. City Clerk’s letter (7/30/2018) B. Appeal – Robert & Doravin Wilson (7/25/2018) C. HEX’s Final Decision upon Reconsideration (7/15/2018) D. City’s Reply in Support of its limited Motion for Reconsideration (7/11/2018) E. Wilson’s Response to City’s Limited Motion for Reconsideration (7/9/2018) F. HEX’s Olbrechts’ email with timelines (7/2/2018) G. City’s Limited Request for Reconsideration (07/02/2018) H. HEX’s Olbrechts’ Final Decision (06/27/2018) I. Wilson’s Request for Extension of Wilson Park 1 (06/07/2018) J. HEX’s Olbrechts’ email re: Request for Extension (05/31/2018) K. HEX’s Olbrechts’ email re: Request for Extension (05/22/2018) L. City’s Request for Denial (05/22/2018) M. Wilson’s Request for Additional Time (05/03/2018) N. HEX’s Kaufman’s Decision (04/01/2010) O. Staff Report to HEX (03/16/2010) P. ERC Report (02/22/2010) Q. DNS Mitigation Measures (02/22/2010) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Take action on the Wilson Park 1 Preliminary Plat (File No. LUA-09-140) appeal. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Denis Law Mayor IR July 30, 2018 City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC APPEAL FILED BY: Robert & Doravin Wilson RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated July 15, 2018, regarding Wilson Park 1 Preliminary Plat. (File No. LUA-09-140 PP, ECF) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the Wilson Park 1 Preliminary Plat has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F, within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal, or after all appeal periods with the Hearing Examiner have expired, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of their positions regarding the appeal within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of this notification. The deadline for submission of additional letters is by 5:00 p.m., Thursday, August 9, 2018. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be referred to the City Council's Planning and Development Committee. You will be notified by Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison (425-430-6501), once the hearing date has been set. Any recommendation regarding this appeal made by the Planning and Development Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Copy of the appeal and the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeal of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations is attached. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 • (425)430-6510/Fax (425)430-6516 • rentonwa.gov AGENDA ITEM #1. a) For additional information or assistance, please call Jason Seth, City Clerk, at 425-430-6510. Sincerely, Jason A. S th, CMC City Clerk Please note that if you signed up to be a Party of Record for this matter you are receiving a copy of this letter as a courtesy. Attachments cc: Hearing Examiner Chip Vincent, CED Administrator Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager Kyle Wunderlin, Planning Technician Judith Subia,Administrative Assistant Craig Burnell, Building Official Leslie Clark, Assistant City Attorney Ed Prince, City Councilmember Ryan Mclrvin, P& D Committee Chair Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Robert& Doravin Wilson, Appellants Parties of Record (10) AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 7/30/2018 Print Preview 4-8-110 APPEALS: A. SCOPE AND PURPOSE: This Section provides the basic procedures for processing appeals to the Hearing Examiner and City Council of land use and development-related decisions. Specific requirements are based upon the type/level of appeal and the appeal authority. (Ord. 5154, 9-26-2005; Ord. 5157, 9-26- 2005; Ord. 5450, 3-2-2009; Ord. 5676, 12-3-2012) B. REVIEW AUTHORITY: RMC 4-8-080G, Land Use Permit Procedures, lists the development permits reviewed by the City and the review authority responsible for open record appeals, closed record appeals and judicial appeals. RMC 4-9-070R, Environmental Review Procedures, Appeals, lists additional actions subject to appeal to the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4587, 3-18-1996; Amd. Ord. 4660, 3- 17-1997; Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002) C. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICABLE TO APPEALS: The following applies to appeals to the Hearing Examiner and City Council unless otherwise provided elsewhere in the RMC or by state law: 1. Standing: Only the applicant, City or a person who has been made a party of record prior to the issuance of a decision may appeal the decision. In order to appeal, the person shall be aggrieved or affected by the decision pursuant to RCW 36.70C.060. 2. Time to File: Except for final EIS decisions, all appeal periods shall be fourteen (14) calendar days, which shall begin either three (3) calendar days after the date of mailing of the decision to the parties of record via U.S. Postal mail by the City Clerk, or the date the decision is electronically transmitted, posted or emailed to the appellant and parties of record by the City Clerk, if such electronic transmittal method has been previously approved or agreed to by the parties. The appeal period for a final EIS shall be twenty (20) calendar days from the publication of the final decision. (Ord. 5676, 12-3-2012) 3. Required Form for and Content of Appeals: Any appeal shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. If the appeal is unclear and does not sufficiently explain the basis for the appeal, an order requiring the appellant amend the appeal within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the order may be issued. If the appeal is not satisfactorily amended within the time allowed, it shall be dismissed. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-1992) 4. Filing of Appeal and Fee: The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with the City of Renton fee schedule. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982; Ord. 5660, 5-14-2012; Ord. 5688, 5-13-2013) http://www.codepublishing.com/wA/Renton/cgi/menuCompile.pl 1/6 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 7/30/2018 Print Preview 5. Facsimile Filings: Whenever any application or filing is required under this Chapter, it may be made by facsimile. Any facsimile filing received at the City after five o'clock (5:00) p.m. on any business day will be deemed to have been received on the following business day. Any facsimile filing received after five o'clock (5:00) p.m. on the last date for filing will be considered an untimely filing. Any party desiring to make a facsimile filing after four o'clock (4:00) p.m. on the last day for the filing must call the City Clerk's office and indicate that the filing is being made by facsimile and the number to which the facsimile copy is being sent. The filing party must ensure that the facsimile filing is transmitted in adequate time so that it will be completely received by the City before five o'clock (5:00) p.m. in all instances in which filing fees are to accompany the filing of an application, those filing fees must be received by the City before the end of the business day on the last day of the filing period or the filing will be considered incomplete and will be rejected. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-1992) 6. Motions: The Hearing Examiner may dismiss an appeal to the Hearing Examiner, without hearing, when it is determined by the Hearing Examiner to be untimely, without merit on its face, incomplete, or frivolous. Any application to the Hearing Examiner for an order shall be by motion which, unless made during a hearing, shall be in writing, stating the reasons for the request and setting forth the relief or order sought. Written motions shall be received at least five (5) business days in advance of the hearing. 7. Parties: The parties in appeal hearings shall be the City, the applicant, and the appellant(s), if different from the applicant or the City. No other persons shall be allowed to testify unless serving as an expert witness for one of the parties. 8. Notice of Appeal Filed and Public Hearing: If an appeal is filed with the City Clerk, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record to the decision subject to the appeal. Notice shall be sent within five (5) calendar days via U.S. Postal mail by the City Clerk, or on the date the application of appeal is received if electronic transmittal (email) had been previously approved or agreed to by the parties, and at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. A hearing for the appeal shall be set within twenty one (21) days after acceptance of a complete application for appeal. 9. Restrictions on Subsequent Actions: Any later request to interpret, explain, modify, or retract the decision shall not be deemed to be a new administrative determination creating a new appeal period for any new third party to the permit. (Ord. 4168, 8-8-1988) 10. Limit on Number of Appeals: Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.050 and 43.21C.075, the City has consolidated the permit process to allow for only one open record appeal of all permit decisions associated with a single development application. There shall be no more than one appeal on a procedural determination or environmental determination such as the adequacy of a determination of significance, nonsignificance, or of a final environmental impact statement. Any appeal of the action of the Hearing Examiner in the case of appeals from environmental determinations shall be joined with an appeal of the substantive determination. (Ord. 3891, 2- 25-1985; Ord. 4587, 3-18-1996; Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997; Ord. 5608, 6-6-2011) http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Renton/cgi/menuCompile.pl 2/6 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 7/30/2018 Print Preview 11. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: No person may seek judicial review of any decision of the City unless that person first exhausts the administrative remedies provided by the City. D. (Repealed by Ord. 5853, 8-7-17) E. APPEALS TO HEARING EXAMINER: 1. Format of the Appeal Hearing: The appeal hearing will be of an informal nature, but organized so that testimony and other evidence can be presented efficiently. An appeal hearing shall include at least the following: a.An introductory outline of the procedure by the Hearing Examiner. b. Presentation by the appellant, including any witnesses. c. Cross-examination, if any, of appellant and appellant's witnesses. d. Presentation by City staff, summarizing the staff analysis and including any witnesses for the City. e. Cross-examination, if any, of City staff and staff's witnesses. f. Presentation by the project applicant, if different from appellant, including any witnesses. g. Cross-examination of any of the project applicant and applicant's witnesses. h. Rebuttal testimony and closing by City staff. i. Rebuttal testimony and closing by applicant, if different from appellant. j. Rebuttal testimony and closing by appellant. 2. Prehearing Conference: The Hearing Examiner may schedule and hold a prehearing conference when it appears that the orderly and efficient conduct of the hearing will be served, or that settlement of the appeal through such a conference is likely. A prehearing conference may, among other things, consider: a. Simplification of the issues. b. The existence of undisputed facts to which the parties are willing to stipulate. c. The identification of witnesses and documentary or other evidence to be presented at hearing. d.Any reasonable needs any party may have for discovering the details of the case the other party intends to present. e. The imposition of reasonable time limits. http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Renton/cgi/menuCompile.pl 3/6 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 7/30/2018 Print Preview Based upon the discussions and agreements at such a conference, the Hearing Examiner may enter a prehearing order, which shall govern subsequent proceedings. If the case is settled at such a conference, the Hearing Examiner shall enter an order reciting the terms of the settlement and dismissing the appeal. 3. Content of the Record: The record of an appeal hearing conducted by the Hearing Examiner shall include at least the following: a. The notice of appeal and any amendments. b. The staff analysis responding to the appeal and all accompanying documents, including the papers that comprise the record of the decision subject to appeal. c.Additional documentary or physical evidence received and considered, including all exhibits filed. d. The Hearing Examiner's decision. e. Electronic recordings of the proceedings and/or an accurate written transcription thereof. 4. Hearing Examiner Decision: a. Substantial Weight: The procedural determination by the Environmental Review Committee or City staff shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. The Hearing Examiner shall give substantial weight to any discretionary decision of the City rendered pursuant to this Chapter/Title. b. Hearing Examiner Decision Options and Decision Criteria: The Hearing Examiner may affirm the decision or remand the case for further proceedings, or it may reverse the decision if the substantial rights of the applicant may have been prejudiced because the decision is: i. In violation of constitutional provisions; or ii. In excess of the authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or iii. Made upon unlawful procedure; or iv.Affected by other error of law; or v. Clearly erroneous in view of the entire record as submitted; or vi.Arbitrary or capricious. c. Time for Hearing Examiner's Decision: Each final decision of a Hearing Examiner, unless a longer period is mutually agreed to in writing by the applicant and the Hearing Examiner, shall be rendered within ten (10) business days following conclusion of all testimony and hearings. http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Renton/cgi/menuCompile.pl 4/6 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 7/30/2018 Print Preview d. Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion): The Hearing Examiner may deny a party's request to relitigate one or more issues or determinative facts decided or ruled upon in a previous litigation if the party against whom the collateral estoppel doctrine is to be applied had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding. The party requesting application of the collateral estoppel doctrine must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that (1)the issue decided in the earlier proceeding was identical to the issue presented in the later proceeding; (2)the earlier proceeding ended in a judgment on the merits; (3) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party to, or in privity with a party to, the earlier proceeding; and (4) application of collateral estoppel does not work an injustice on the party against whom it is applied. The Hearing Examiner may apply collateral estoppel, sua sponte. e. Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion): The Hearing Examiner may apply a prior ruling or summarily decide an action or appeal if the current, pending or proposed action or appeal is substantially identical to a prior action or appeal in four(4) respects: (1)the same persons and parties or a person or party in privity with the prior person or party; (2) causes of action that substantially involve the same rights or interest, the same evidence, an infringement of substantially the same rights or interests, or the two (2) actions or appeals arise out of substantially the same facts; (3) subject matter is identical or substantially the same; and (4) at least one or more of the parties are bound by the prior judgment or ruling. The party requesting application of the res judicata doctrine does not have to prove each factor, but must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that application of res judicata is appropriate. The Hearing Examiner may apply res judicata, sua sponte. f. Full and Fair Opportunity: Failure to seek or obtain evidence or information that existed at the time of the prior proceeding does not establish that a party did not have a full or fair opportunity to litigate an issue or change the subject matter of an action or appeal. (Ord. 3454, 7-28-1980; Ord. 3891, 2-25-1985; Ord. 3992, 5-19-1986; Ord. 4168, 8-8-1988; Ord. 4346, 3-9-1992; Ord. 4351, 5-4-1992; Ord. 4401, 5-3-1993; Ord. 4521, 6-5-1995; Ord. 4551, 9-18-1995; Amd. Ord. 4827, 1-24-2000; Ord. 4899, 3-19-2001; Ord. 5153, 9-26- 2005; Ord. 5558, 10-25-2010; Ord. 5675, 12-3-2012; Ord. 5706, 3-24-2014) F. APPEALS TO CITY COUNCIL: 1. Standing and Parties to the Appeal: See subsection C of this Section. 2. Time to File: See subsection C of this Section. 3. Notice of Appeal: See subsection C of this Section. 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. If a transcript is made, the applicant is required to provide a copy to the City Clerk and the Renton City Attorney at no cost. It shall be presumed that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 5675, 12-3-2012) http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Renton/cgi/menuCompile.pl 5/6 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 7/30/2018 Print Preview 5. Burden: The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional arguments based on the record by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may modify or reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner accordingly. Ord. 5675, 12-3-2012) 8. Decision Documentation: The decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Hearing Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless timely appealed. (Ord. 3658, 9-13- 1982; Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993; Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997; Ord. 5558, 10-25-2010; Ord. 5853, 8-7-17) G. RESERVED H. (Repealed by Ord. 5853, 8-7-17) I. (Repealed by Ord. 5853, 8-7-17) J. (Repealed by Ord. 5853, 8-7-17) http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Renton/cgi/menuCompile.pl 6/6 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) CITY OF RENTON July 24, 2018 JUL 2 4 2018 r~ RECEIVED t City of Renton 16 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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.' 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 l'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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 l'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 1'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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 72ó / )4;g-vc-v - 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 J Attachment H at p. 1. 4 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) A Tta4 Pkep-} 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Artac-I Exp- 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Atf ekkeaf 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) ro 44473 , 2©ry (e ffev) AFTER RECORDING MAIL TO:1 ROBERT D.WILSON 20080327002018 COMMONWEALTH L EAS 45.00 720 SO. 55TH ST.N91176711 1g117 RENTON,WA 98055 KING COUNTY, WA E2338944 03/27/2008 13:08 KING COUNTY, WA TAX 51,429.00 SALE 0,000.00 PAGE001 OF 001 ROAD AND UTILITY EASEMENT ROAD AND UTILITY EASEMENT executed this 24th day of March, 20 , 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 \Vest 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 Easement-Page 1 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) To ,May 3, Le r) 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) To May 3 zoik //t),;) 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 ofprovisions 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 punning 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 bc),A4c\-` q7' ROBERT D.WILSON DORAVIN A. WILSON Road and Utility Easement-Page 3 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) TA l,aWil__ A r0 Atay ;, 2.04Le/fe ) 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 OFFICLAL SEAL this day of March, 2008. tt+ rf' OS` 5ONc 4 'y 0:4\b01 44;W `, PrintW:< : Craig D. hielbar 0. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at Puyallup i54'y+r 0130 9 p: My Commission Expires: 8/30/200980- l/` t' AS` 11 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 thise day of March, 2008. O krr C _ . 0TA,Q 4 •, 15 +-- • . Printer •'!•" raig D. - ielbar NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of i Washington,,residing at Puyallup r ` ++i..iiv ..••`. My Commission Expires: 8/30/2009 Road and Utility Easement-Page 4 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 111100111111111102--°/f'L trey-) After recording return to: 20101027000645 Patrick K.McKenzie ARH0MUNF 3TD 64.00 Marsh Mundorf Pratt Sullivan+McKenzie,P 10/27/2010 12:00 16504 9th Avenue SE, Suite 203 KING COUNTY, WA Mill Creek,WA 98012 E2464251. 10/27/2010 12:00 KING COUNTY, UA TAX 1 . 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. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) en 13r41. f., T& /VI? Jz 213i1 Le iteY, 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. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) AA 70 ; 2v,A L el fer DATED this 18th day of October,2010. MARSH MUNDORF PRATT SULLIVAN MCKENZIE,P.S.C. c1102 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. 0/ osp,N L. 0S e,wSISSIDlyffe444/ tiXi 1\107,4Ry t< Print name: i9 4., COPi L c Fr P ry Notary Public in and for the State of o.;OJ3\\:;- .20J3 Washington,residing at . trit c . G O My commission expires: /j—/(7_ /3 W'VASH&N C?rtrr PacSc 8a11.'Fsk K.W tnniev:s D¢ddoc AGENDA ITEM #1. a) tit a/ 3/ z„,k' se!ter) 11111111111111111111111 112011031700037Afterrecordingjreturnto: NORTHPOINT ESC D 63.00 Robert Wilson and Doravin Wilson 03/17/2011 1OF 2:04 21703 60th Si E KING COUNTY, WA Lake Tapps, WA 98391 E2482673 03/17/2011 12:02 KING COUNTY, WA TAX 4,455.00 SALE 250,000,00 PAGE-001 OF 001 Reference: 30048506-326-3G1 oiestrow+tide orderorder no. 0 p BARGAIN AND SALE DEED( p THE GRANTOR(S) 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 Nurnber(s): 3123059119 Bargain and Sale Deed Page 1 of 2 LPB-15-05(Itr) (rev. 4/2009) AGENDA ITEM #1. a) To /+try 3 2(..,1i Le1f'c - Dated: March4. 2011 Prime Pacific Bank, N.A. . J By:cx...k O- : Its:Sc.:. t1 r State of Washington , nohorn5 ss. County of I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that [, -u K 2 Z)D 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 acknowledged it as the aft.Yt2E of Prima Pacific Bank, N.A.to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned In the instrument. Dated: & - Of f Given under my hand and official seal the day and year last above written. a.ekkJa--) Notary Public in nd for the State of VV 1L Residing at 4 4L 3410MyAppointmentexpires: Oar" // C. M. PICKRELL NOTARY PUBUC STATE OF WASHINGTON COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 9,2011 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) M ffirt v mhy aNnmc w I C/C i Ds noHS xD.7 3 :M r10_W I Jamin+rE v ufo M / N 0 .1/1A 3 Zd i? Le fet-) wx 'E uI: jr ? mag j 1.,Q i r> i,.. J om3w® ot=wpo x=w[ ce i Z Z ai Y:/ ` W 7 W: O ool-wrz 36111 Zc 3 zxt/x e e e S ,,,,)„,17, y42a Z y Zia z3Ka i_...„, KnI"W.. W Z J 4' .Z -NO 2;j Z mnWOa (Wi zrl l-0 Z 8 tl7O NgaW Oa¢O <OLa F YlC 1-W Z VI O Q mG4y . z-.Ji' 0_000 m otn i N.J..d 2 limo ct 4J J N...:n to O N o an S ScLgLL 3 ^ L}zzzoQ aeoaoo H- otn- ° LLWLLZZZ N Q ari>OOEMMCLt''-M, r Vll t" LLwcc¢oulv,tnFOO Z ww i w, ,' ooh>QL" FW'ozw z U O N wl L. ¢L p \ JC, QWW O J o aQQ > tz - 1' 01E A eIL_, Voo8 a f..3 LL tJIz o-Nrra N mN,<,u,r .s 2. ciW n ` y,i. 3.. C01-: cowct t3% air 7 1 1..{. Z a ii 53 J I SII. Z 06 40 2% 'i W 14 N Z 'w Om tn rn s 1 I_, 1 i 1 Ti-ll 0 V 1 3S 311N3LV Puzo t o K x e W 0_2 Z I I WOir, e gf41oJ i m fla y99hPLACESCCfl, ti 3R .i r 3 G covJ 0 5,1' it I ; r O J Cao yo 5tn I s mI S hZ OWU QO W 0 w mz¢ 5 i j CU) OU 9B/F/ OZU JO_ q'§;c i 1 LL J G co v Wa WokLayyO f,) V4L" cwW Lci Ce 0 u, I-- ao0 I Ist r W } Q m ' o yf41. Z Uj unos cvoa lour! az twin 1 z g-k:,. z On 1 VIII 4?_ $ia s W W D Z ' E q ; eta 00 co 1 z .66 .-6„ " zez 0 w F LL g L z c gc !R o y ` rV " LL 0 v=im < e O Q a y `.1rsi #-a zo W J H oJ_ N 0.07v),01•9L9ZM„Zb,£L105 n i 4N; LI i` zm solo: 1 3U t'`''','- Z w v' n 1 _ '"3o Cr) w 5 2 w'`Q' e. v-hNN,,, N do zI A X I w?aI ice= \NLzcU W u.ag z 0_e 3 W.12 - L11 war w„I -- ,bS'1F£1 i$'1F£!3.BY,ac ooN_____ I I NN o A1 2 4 ooz o wooz o e 13 ,i- ,' 1.-1 [Ds Hw^' '-'4'' ce,:l..m u NN =2 Is QrO WO' rj 0 U In al 12 w, N 1z9rOOaUWI OSU 2 U 14, NiL ry122 C QZ U n oho= U N opz o L I I z OU7x!"F w u a Y"w u ,„ a pn SO'SZ£i ;,v 3; Q Nu.,Q-w : - r 477V),OfOS9Z 3.S,Fb.GOr z nooy rz nmz (AB z nx ' mzo ? EW.naf o mo-' w dJ34v`"i'bs ax §,E,7,0 in3 0 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) oG e n^ - m a a do oN;stn T n r+ gzr " jwrQ N Bmuu aii I Z Y Jv`'Ed a wbWI6tA a m U 00WI5.- , i,,g'0 A f s m m N01- 0 og_Agc - a 70 4 y 3evil' 1.€.-ter) Y =-I r h44 appri 3rA C.0J t h 4n R% a.- u C Q S. y mai_ J 1,Z ilII5 I n 57.0' SQ0' 50.0. 50.0' , Q 20700' 5ori3'a_zw °'I yx. W 1 4 1 15.00' -- 92.0' 4 3.m, c"3 n I 51.6' , W 63.9' 89.0' wi I i C7 76S' I N ni x ci c1 a. o os I i',.,'1o o d o I ';''a. Z 12 a -. 0 O o e\ I - @ I O 89.0' 76.5' .Icol I az 3 111 Po N89.0' 69.5' `l I m 'o y0N \I I I W a 55.0' 55.0' I 55.0' fI 55 0' 56.3' Esi J I ' IOdsso1 1 I 1 I 94.7' myJ1' IZ1Iai-, w! G' o Q o 0o aEng1zoC V^ r I 1 s, 1iroi0l11sj o 3 i 1 i I I IW I iof ry swwIm 39-i.9S.0N .9L90Z C II Zi I I a. r '- G. wivl 1 ' O o al' n a3, b a, oI 4, q' d 61 ' c 4t$:.A.:.: Oa o I! s 0 0 o O 9 o O iI 0 I N o„ it, I r 0 oo:omi I h pl.': Er; 1 r I 0 20' REAR BS.9.L-I1-m5 , o < r 6C.0' 56.0' 56.0'56.0' c0 0'x 2 z 5 53— : 'eu r' 1 , CI)En"W I N i Ci a 6• oc i swi z Ztm to , rn n i W§ J6jaCzz7k32I-r j a gii m - z']" . ,rF0gO r in OL!r I ' j I t1-.;11,2, ,'-2, W'Z_. '"' "..,.p''sc" ct- am wm J o' J t -13 30Wt poi g=800008 p cz 4mnrvn w I i"( V ov J UUtJ00 0 ZW 1 \i/• uoc V f 00Rn LL0 N O AGENDA ITEM #1. a) o 1 2 8 8 8 1 21-+ a r it a a 2 i etel CC i N a 1 U o a i ' a w JOts-Li4 1 zZ¢¢ooa o OOI-Z 1i.`f'' 7 i="."_ F. ica<w e, m m to t/)cA O s W W, = 3 z To a 3 hr letter/ '•, m W '3: ^ cc n6/—cEr1. P., i 3 F v J LU 12 a` .' Zr0 ccuz o 00-' 37o" sg o SY l rte. n C air-,-..;.r.1 ` A L X51..,`c 3o0 a il Q r y asW11-...•-•:'''—/_„( k I r s t r Ys Z f , - or x In 21r CO L __-- ave -4----r---. i` -._ zea ro 1_: cv F i\ i 2is sjar/ 42a c,_ NWc;::-----------4-----',i : 6am _— _ may-% 7 CI- a: e. I _ I //, !1I Z ..Rte' ra. -t,77-____",•"----,iv----FP' 11 v`_ _ jlvlt c.-aamlc 'T'_ :3- j off 1 CO 2- tz-- -f- i`,f! y \ i C0fAl7Armitflitilili_.....Tif ..7.,: elj'esia,......... ..,,,,„,...„,F- sir`i'`'` %[/r j• 7 I D o 7/g w€ 4 ice. ,.' I o,.n d c+'.• e' etJ., .. y%fl)41'JNIW3i,^, -3NI1 Attl3dCiid SIc I' k'_ ggI tea- i r n V J ion ae u W ul=z b'o <a W.53 Zn . tlm a; 6.66 <E z R. ? Hca IT, d7 s. Z < Lcgo i o n$xS S W C.. 03 13 rT,ZG6 zo W FV p2 O r~ J i O w c;,-._\----"' Y aW oJ AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 6` 2\ Toif..1ay 3, zo/ /e fre)-) jJ% / \7 2 — eem2T ` 72 2ti0_5 \ (c 70g ggk 2.3 j/ C j\ E 5 . 6 P. V.2) j \% @ 7 f ƒ° )/\ \\ 3 /¥ # $ TIf // 8052 / 9 k/]/ (\ƒ r ' 3 / /f E t$ 5 k 0 -}/§ \ 2% e 2 /-Q - fe9 2 \ 27b\ /7 \ E 22 U ) 0'\ @a\\« 72. — r 2 § 2\ _=- :, a; :; j\ _a. k e - < 2 ( §«t co & /\ 94 7/3 ) c_, ca_ - X395§ g } })k (/ [\°\}\ \ I-Q li < ±1 g < vme J / \\ 2j _ } ))\ / / ` , ` AGENDA ITEM #1. a) r - Ta tea/ 3 -2.D!Y /f / ) 72 2 1-7,.. j / \ }\ IS/ \ 7 27 F„ 1,,-”:,.,1- 1 E 57 — 21g51)j \\ Kƒ & d / aa , cr.\ \ k Ejee ± [ 3f %\ z4, AGENDA ITEM #1. a) t O A, r 3/ zo E lk-r)41A 441 . TI e t NC!'.1.-N.IX3 t.Ili,i d-t_ 101aLSICI 2J3M3SV CINV 2:1DIVAA N:70 SOOS 7. C•47;:, 1 io-3, i Imf, •—: 1 I 1 7---i'r'fi.2 ."'-'-1-.'":,.. -:,', 4, r".-.'-., ''..'5::-. - =';''-: IF4I71p Z..tC. t ; 3 15 i, :1-,--: i-e-i. 1•.-= T f-J,-',i', -!::. '`,,i': =-----: . t -LS:: i =7,--_;, '..1.---- -7 , -.-_-_-=. ,•-: IT 7.7 . z s. ?.... 40 L--- :-. 7:, li1 A ...\: -: ,-.'-'• - I.t- I .12 1 -- ', ''','•--..:-,„ _ L__. __i_, 11, ,,,- ,7.7-7>, ",--.1, ,"g-• R..t .---- _-_--`• : , i ."7-7."--"7--:-.;-."':- K- 4JD I i- VI r 41 i in 0 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) To May 3j 2m9 /E' IiLcr) daPS Denis Law Mayor 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 ihennine@rentonwa.gov. 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057• rentonwa.gov AGENDA ITEM #1. a) December 12,2016 4]-i cA wte-d F, Page2 k) /I/14r3/ 2" /ette) Sincerely, t V.;` .,i fru, 11-s=f 1 . — v N of a—, Jennifer T. Henning,AICP Planning Director cc: Chip Vincent,CED Administrator Brianne Bannwarth,Development Engineering Manager Vanessa Dolbee,Current Planning Manager Jan Illian,Plan Reviewer 02FR• C:\Usersksmirante\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files Content.Outlook\L40R7PID\Wilson Park 1 d 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Attach kti e Denis Law Mayor a` o- r 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 finalplatwithineightyearsofpreliminaryplatapproval. 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 combineddevelopment. 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 thefinalplattingprocess, 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 WilsonParkIplattingactiontimelineinlinewithWilsonPark2. Granting an additional extension for Wilson Park 1 would extend the life of a preliminary platthat, 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 thenadoptingnewretainingwallheightregulations. 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, Ci tHiti Jennifer Henning Planning Director cc: Robert and Doravin Wilson Chip Vincent,CED Administrator Ed Prince,Renton City Council President Leslie Clark,Senior Assistant City AttorneyRyanMclrvin,Renton City Councilmember Jay P.DerrJasonSeth,City Clerk Steve Beck Shane Moloney,City Attorney File—LUA09-140 iT Y p^. NTO 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) A tracX t4- 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 IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR Wilson Park 1 Preliminary Plat LUA 09- ADDITIONAL EXTENTION 12 I 140, PP, 12 Lots i 13 Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat LUA 12- 14 013, PP,PUD, 10 Lots 15 1 16 I, Steven A. Beck, declare and state as follows: 17 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 - IVan NessIFeldman ,„ 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 206) 623-9372 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 1 Services. I sat on the Regional Real Estate Board for King County in the 1980s, and in 2 1992 1 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 4I 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 been6 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 4t1' Street, called Beclan Place. 12 I 13 4. When working on development projects, I act an end product advisor, 14 seeing the end product and working it back to the dirt stage. I monitor and am involved in 15 I 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 t I 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 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 i 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 II 206) 623-9372 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 31 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 the6 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 continually13 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 Iieu of construction, which limits our 20 21 options to market the property and increases the uncertainty for potential buyers. 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 719 Second Avenue. Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 206) 623-9372 Ii AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 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 1 0 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 i with. 13 14. Moreover, because of the linkage, if the Wilson Park 1 plat approval were 14 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 I 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 1 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 206) 623-9372 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 4 6 Steven A. Beck, Declaran 7 8 9 10 11 12 li 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 22 23 24 25 DECLARATION OF STEVEN A. BECK-6 Van Ness Feldman,„ 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 206) 623-9372 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Alte?e Pt C 1 T 3 4 5 6 7 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON S 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 OFFS IN Wilson. Park 1 Preliminary Plat LUA 09- j SUPPORT OF REQUEST 7OR 12 140, PP, 12 Lots ADDITIONAL EXTENSION 1' 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 atters 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 - ily 21 residential projects to high rise commercial office buildings to heavy civil construct on. I 77 have been a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Washington since O4tober 23 1990 (28 }ears) and in the State of Wyoming since November 2009. 24 2 DECLARATION OF DARRELL OFFE- 1 Van Ness Feldman :_- 719 Second Avenue, Sui e 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 206) 623-9372 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) I 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 number of projects. I have worked on projects in King County, City of Redmond, Sit), 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. table6 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). 10 4. My commercial experience includes providing civil engineering and s pport 11 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 Utat. 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 I and 2. combined as one 22-lot development, and I wor•-d on 20 the preliminary plat and planned unit development ("PUD") approval for Wilson Par 2. 21 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 'UD 24 25 DECLARATION OF DARRELL OFFS-2 Van Ness Feldman 719 Second Avenue, Sui e 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 206) 623-9372 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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. 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 n onths 6 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 .lining 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 end result was productive, the process extended the timeline for obtaining approvals. 14 1 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.y 18 Thej'Peroct 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 determining the City's requirements .r the 21 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 5 DECLARATION OF DARRELL OFFE-3 Van Ness Feldman 719 Second Avenue, Sui e 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 206) 623-9372 it AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 1 took four months from the time we began working to meet the condition to the topographic survey. 3 10. After we received the preliminary plat/PUD approval and the engin 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 ofthe stormwater vault. The vault's location had been shown 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 process 11 of attempting to negotiate took considerable time. Further,the supervisor required than three 12 access ports be provided on the vault,although the Code only required two access po s. In 13 this case, we revised the plans to accommodate the supervisor's requirement. This p ocess14 15 of working with the City on these matters consumed an additional six weeks, beyoi d the 16 normal time period for review and approval of the final plans. 17 1 1. Despite the challenges this project has faced, I believe that if the extension 18 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 Washing-ten that 70 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) e. z A` arrell Offe, Deel 3 6/7/74 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1' 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 7j 24 25 DECLARATION OF DARRELL OFFE-5 Van Ness Feldman 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 206) 023-9372 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) k- -cac4 cyh-t 1 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 I 1 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. The17CityfiledaresponsedatedMay22, 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 which20makeitundulyburdensometofilethefinalplat..." The standard five year expiration period was 1 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 I acquired preliminary plat approval23inAugust, 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 adjoiningpropertyandthendevelopeditintoasecondsubdivision, Wilson Park 2. In addition to delays26 PLAT EXTENSION REQUEST - 1 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) I caused by the foreclosure, additional delay can be attributable to coordinating development between Wilson Park 1 and 2. 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 20 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 Councilappealsmustbefiledwithin14daysoftheissuanceofthisdecisionandjudicialappealsmustbe 3 filed within 21 days of the issuance of this decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearingexaminermayalsobefiledasoutlinedinRMC4-8-100(1). 4 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes5 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) gra CITY OF RENTONAlaCIiAienfE , JUL 0 2 2018 RECEIVED1CITYCLERK'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 RN Renton,WA 98057 Phone: 425.430.6480 Fax: 425.430.6498 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 3 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 that7 compelled the City to urge denial of the extension request in the first place. For example within8 the three-month period, extensive site clearing and mass grading could commence resulting in9 tree removal, as well as construction of retaining walls, all of which would not be permitted10 under current code. 11 In sum, because the Decision's three-month extension violates the criteria of RMC 4-7-12 080.1.2 and could have significant negative consequences to the City,the City respectfully13 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 preliminaryplat approval expiration date for 15 Wilson Park I.1 16 Respectfully submitted this day of July, 2018. 17 18 e , C. E. "Chip"Vincent 19 Administrator Community& Economic Department20CityofRenton 21 22 23 1 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 asaconsequenceofthetimetakentodecidethismotion. 25 Wilson Park I Renton City AttorneyCity's Motion for Reconsideration-3 as 1055 South Grady Way S Renton,WA 98057 Phone: 425.430.6480 Fax: 425.430.6498 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) cli ri,ent 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. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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'sargumentisabsurd. 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 neededtomitigateforthetimespentonourextensionrequest. 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'sMotion. 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 1'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 ofWilson 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 fl AGENDA ITEM #1. a) ei4+CITY OF RENTON JUL 112018 (V 1 RECEIVED 12.•21 /m CITY CLERK'S OFFICE2 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 reconsidered16 and set aside. As explained in this Reply,the Response.does not successfully refute any issue17 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 6 showed that all of the significant platting obstacles had been resolved by December 2014 and failed to account for why plat work was not completed in the ensuing 31/2 years. Decision at7 2:4-7. Two,the City explained in its Motion that even if the Wilsons had submitted evidence of8 delayed platting efforts while awaiting the Decision, any such delay was not reasonable and did9 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 23 burden" and "unusual circumstances or situations." 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 the25 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 5 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 all6 its platting efforts while its extension request is pending.7 Third, the Response characterizes as "absurd" and "troubling"the City's opposition to8 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 I 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 l'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 under24 RMC 4-7-0801. As to the latter,the City incorporates by reference its prior arguments: The25 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) acii 'tie4 ti 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 9 RE: 10 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 would24findsuchanextensionreasonable. 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 in2theconstructionandplanningofaproject, 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 f 8 rit,R7421,1_, 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 propertytax 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 ofMay 3, 2018 Request, filed May 22, 2018 4 Attachment H at p. 1. 4 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) w y tic .! AFTER RECORDING MAIL TO: e T , ROBERT D.WILSON 20080327002018 PAGEONUEOFTO@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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe Southeast Quarter ofthe 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 Puyallupt/.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 aLeday 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: 8/30/2009liftfu ‘NN Road and Utility Easement-Page 4 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 ofthe 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. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) I r1 , 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 ofT., ' 1..•;, cc' Q 3 , Washington,residing at . `IJjc ftt OA. S My commission expires: //—!(1— /3 F WASHING S'1C1catiPra a Pad6c 8aa4'Flc K.OmmuIi\TtWCs Deddot AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Ti /14 at 3/ 2 of f'Ce tier 1111 1111111111 20110317000372Afterrecordrngjreturnto: NORT!{AOINT ESC D 63.00PAGE-001 OF 002RobertWilsonandDoravinWilson03/17/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 DEEDorderno.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 ($250,000.00), in hand paid, bargains, sells, and conveys to Robert Wilson and Doravin Wilson, husband and wife the following described real estate, situated in the County of King, state of Washington: THE EAST 317 FEET OF THE WEST 1,003 FEET OF THE SOUTH 318 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST,W.M., IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON; EXCEPT COUNTY ROAD; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Abbreviated Legal: (Required if full legal not inserted above) PTN OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST,W.M Tax Parcel Number(s): 3123059119 Bargain and Sale Deed Page 1 of 2 LPB-15-05(Itr) (rev. 4/2009) AGENDA ITEM #1. a) A i . r f CTD Ailey 3 zoo) Geffen .) Dated: March?4. ZOii Prime Pacific Bank, N.A. cwt// By: CXµO QpIts:St-i.:•‘ r, '-')' State of Washington , County of oJnohof'Y1/S SS: I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that C.hLU&C is the person who.appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument, on;oath stated that(he/she) is authorized to execute the instrument and 1acknowledgeditasthe . SCG of Prima Pacific Bank, N.A.to be the free and voluntary act ofuch party for the uses and purposes mentioned In the instrument. Dated: .3 _i jD/f Given under my hand and official seal the day and year last above written. Notary Public in nd for the State of WIC? Residing at o LL Wo/My Appointment expires: O(,` // C. M. PICKRELL NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON I COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 9, 2011 1 . 1 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) W m,,s M U 7,t ( r mn 5mn8"c "y * IPUi evil- D, woi« a mNgE No f'Y'1 itl,cm El' N 1 Tov !V „X. 3 20!F Le tl're)-) @2r1 p NO^Uz-,A WJlZp Q C Z3w® wJ2w°o s=w> Z2wLv f i 1 h .;i' >rrrt. V 0 W m4' ; V Z x 0YrJagoio3.wP OZxx d• 4' a• 4 yIn( WmoZJ_ W3$Z.O wONz Zia aoo3 331,(7=WOJ ZOV z_ W¢.z N 0,--u) p 2yaw o<- o w „ Li',,,, aZ W WZN7 aCrOQ0 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 mZrOaU6000¢ N17,8 o U O Ln Z YOp3 1 z z -,- 1--1_,,j a' cvnr,n.nocc, Vt7Q 3 N a m 3w Fa- e-,), 3 w 1It g KN A-co lg li•,8a0mss -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 VpJ/ 0 jw ON ng rig hlz 3 & o koa !$fOII < 99th PLACE SOUTH Lcn_. C g Z J a oW44 G S oy IOpN0KCSSES)- 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 v g w w z Li. z N1f10s Qv021 1081v1 d Z m o za. g aGCo U 03¢ tii gWFrw > § r< u oW ' t-O W 6 &,,, KZ 0- W W D Z ' m ..sec33 W o s TO Src Y'c u i, _" 'Pg- a g: ! :.g Vieo' IgIWZCeQw 4.-1 :1;11<ti 0z r^ J 0 a oV m 0,971,0),01'9L9Z .Zb£1.10S R :. xM SO"8f£! 4o'£l8 i a7.1 w Qn ti min n N Y fr A O W •--- ,' '''' W O W U t-,gF ts UU¢ NJIh I j 1I^ ,OW ISINwUuUI ~ yWL`¢ 'S WO 2aNCu> yj Z 4Ha l 024iN 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 NNtlffI3.96,9£OON 33 1ZNRa o¢H w cMi H NN eJ4. ''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 Un 2W N NZZ O O at I i jn\L4 Y 1w4'FUU vl .wFL8 a u n SO'SZFI _ _,SO'SZfI _ n W3vi 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-no; 6 N3 1 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) BoFz§ti» C.-) rig II .- 8 $ o o J$ fIWu- 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 NJ W O Ln'1 E j y(P .tihril..La.- u li f f Z¢N.- 09waagcci2S /rY lli t 0 N fJ' J I- IN lig l\ It: 0.0717).015[9L A4J$0Llos n' c. o J 1+ y' ~ I O i 3 1 nsn- b I '(i'y c 1 f ' i i 9O f N O in O Os m Os A dl rn s O,27,,,.T:S I d. • 4 91 1- j ” I 57.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 1 f.r & i n Q 1 _ 207.00' 01'13'42'°W b IWf175.00°92.0'LUtr) 1 F N I57.6' F, 63.9' I u G'I i TZFoaI o i w N 9Y 6w N t i' I 89.0' ost 76.5' 1 1 m Z i oo il Too b ip O 1, 1 89.0' S n) 76.5•' I 1' 11' 1' 1' 111' 41. R d l ai o S"' Ip N.NII I atnl1J'3\ IZ1 Ooo loo OOo a ____---_U _ —_ `\lss \\ LLa Q O I S I d /I o 4.ON 1 89.0' 69.5' ti i m u N I mUIIoa U) d oIN zIoO` I' 55.0' 55.0' 55.0' 55.0' 66.3' O os 1- z I 94.7' 1155 °N lIY G,Gi- w 7J6'2 _ 3-fJ xi¢ _ O o ps o U o 6 oaNNaJP co I O S. SS ~ p ,TI' O O O O o O p o J1 ® in ooJIosIOUyflSi0OaU pI_o fo, 2, N,_ s s mlrn3 i W OI oAF N4,\ N i=WW1— JV- N DOo 1 zz f o ' O •o O •o Oi < IAO o J, s 0 ; o4 F ..Q. IfOOmoOAoOAo `n ®I I oVeI tO$ z2rfl ml 1 nom{20' REAR B.S.B.L. 0, ' b a I rnI__ . 1_ 56_0_- 56.056.0 _ 60.0'_L_ - ?, iiz 0.0 IIozt --2,—ILF;‘:- IisNW,,Ia UL= tY n c Iv WUFuUV 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 pyL6k4S-,?;8-8-8 .8 wasIDIn0300000 P d'._. W,ONNr.-N I2 O" a 1 l'''''.S' I t P VEtUUUUUUo.& R17,d ri--- i ' InL O 0ItIet Ie Ra,-, AGENDA ITEM #1. a) aim\ T V ti it ,.A S 8 S S f' n. J a 10 w 11 5 L7QN 4 41 rta Qat' J d W CrCCZZ¢ 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 fiW 0 1912 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.___Ai —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 bZ D y s 1 a i s :p: _ 0, j \ 11 m p 1"1gg L(Jf w m \.i=r ise 1 1—J Y-i -- X ' `a d aOT5 N y.i 7"p 1 V v,. I i_ 3 be ,x.arY'_0 hx o i aMsrIrva1,, 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-gjriC`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.‘".. ...jA...Q. o IPA; I 1" a;?C:••.3 1 ONI211,310 3NI1 A1tl3d0 d tC 2' 6 } bl __4 fit° 8 itia 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 h. = Wmg eG UzX Ifl IGasrnao V) wm S y ijig3rvn uwaond J O O p w s€ z o AGENDA ITEM #1. a) To .tilm), 3' ' '1? /P tier, I( c a c a El s 'vi I c8"E cv ice e, 8.u0 e a-c 7: = lymoCa 7, - i--.1WEl '-'.9N9V8.aOn w _ '17.4 U 3 c U ^i ' mOa ti ---1 - c C V'O.T W 8 - of.2, o at 73 El s02rywG8 ' !I mTd -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 _I0C NOCsN ~ EC ,- 1q " vo TD --0 tea' o a 1 -1 O a ocoopi1.! QCSC0C..7 L 4 .-. ^I_ w R v E.a v'F j .r .-.I-21 mg toT E. 5. o - O f- ¢ 8 X o - I P c0U r W 2 O v V E L: .y • I nl V] C Lno8. C u 7 V410' V C 4. C C -f o; ,. ti I v a V 'JmTyO 'L.o _ _ m C(3 L, C E a p W a C --E1 C 9 CAA 4a7oaawaF-? 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 moano9Oa -. v 7 d a CJ ea. 5 c4UONII. 0 N3 ce n" wa 3 H E AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 yu A v o ur, 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 07'14, Z...,,• z0 o 1 Ii •-•J;,-. ,-., ..-.1:2, ,-,,,,,, 2 rc' P',6-6• LI '?..''•--Z t4:1- 1Lx.,`,"; 9.:::,,,-, I ii- 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 \'96'•' -.6.6. ! , ..•;-, •‘..1 '•,'.., 'ir;41' . I 7'7-7----i - jy-------li•, '-,5 b, ,4• .6,,..i -LI" 1,, ',. i- ',, 6. T-------77-777I '1I--- i•••=--'-' I 1-I-----,-4,,,4,,,..i.-7,I •.',-lif 1ff-,, t ' !1,6:.,=!t'!=,-71.',..:!-I ‘.,'••., I , i —, ,,-.:,-.7-1 ,,i 1 ,,-I "-'.1 ' . ! I '-:-,"•,--:-. 1 1• co7s=',..-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.— I1..... cr,i.i.. 1u., to AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Mr.Phil Olbrechts Page 2 of 2 May 22,2018 First, the Wilsons' have not proved "unusual circumstances or situations"justifying a nine-yearplattingperiod. If the acquisition of the Wilson Park 2 property had only recently becomenecessary, 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 nocurrentorrecentcircumstancesorsituationsjustifyinganadditionalextension. Second,the Wilsons' have not proved that it was "unduly burdensome"for them to file a finalplatwithineightyearsofpreliminaryplatapproval. Rather than alleviate a burden, theWilsons' request indicates that delaying the Wilson Park I timeline to align with the Wilson ParkIItimelineisbasedinconveniencetotheapplicantandmarketabilityofacombineddevelopment. 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 thefinalplattingprocess, 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 WilsonParkIplattingactiontimelineinlinewithWilsonPark2. Granting an additional extension for Wilson Park 1 would extend the life of a preliminary platthat, in the face of code amendments, no longer conforms to provisions of the RentonMunicipalCodeincludingbutnotlimitedto, zoning, stormwater, critical areas, tree standards, street standards, and retaining wall heights. Since the date of approval of Wilson Park 1 theCityhasadoptedanewcomprehensiveplanincludingnewdevelopmentstandardsassociated with the residential zones. Furthermore, the public concern related to retaining walls thatstemmedfromanappealassociatedwiththisprojectresultedintheCityconsideringandthenadoptingnewretainingwallheightregulations. For the above reasons, the City respectfully requests that the Hearing Examiner deny theWilsons' 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 AdministratorEdPrince,Renton City Council President Leslie Clark,Senior Assistant City AttorneyRyanMclrvin,Renton City Councilmember Jay P. DerrJasonSeth,City Clerk Steve BeckShaneMoloney,City Attorney File—LUA09-140 c,k1 Y o; 4A4TQ . 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 the6 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 ii4 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 ofthe 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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. The17CityfiledaresponsedatedMay22, 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 coordinate5developmentwereresolvedbyDecember, 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 3.58yearsofdelay. 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 certain15extentastheywaitedforadecisionontheirextensionrequest. 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 ofthis 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 purposes5notwithstandinganyprogramofrevaluation. 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 to18 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 satisfy7 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 potential23 buyers of the plat, suggesting that marketing of the plat continued. Even if the Wilsons had24 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 that7 compelled the City to urge denial of the extension request in the first place. For example within8 the three-month period, extensive site clearing and mass grading could commence resulting in9 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 Mf 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 4tid 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. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 ' AGENDA ITEM #1. a) CITY OF RENTON JUL111zoneM 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 reconsidered16 and set aside. As explained in this Reply, the Response.does not successfully refute any issue17 raised by the City, and the City's Limited Motion for Reconsideration (the "Motion") of the18 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 and6 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 all6 its platting efforts while its extension request is pending.7 Third, the Response characterizes as "absurd" and "troubling"the City's opposition to8 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 under24 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 in2theconstructionandplanningofaproject, 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PLAT EXTENSION REQUEST - 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Wilson Park 1 Request for Extension of Plat Expiration ))))))))) FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION The City’s motion for reconsideration is granted and the final decision on the Wilson’s 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 expire on August 16, 2018. As background, the Wilson’s filed a request on May 3, 2018 to extend the expiration period of the Wilson Park I subdivision. At the time of the request, the Wilson Park I subdivision was due 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 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 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. 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 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 find such an extension reasonable. The City’s position is harsh but fair, as the Wilsons have 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. The three month extension also would enable the Wilsons to construct their development to AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PLAT EXTENSION REQUEST - 2 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 the construction and planning of a project, but there was nothing unusual about the delays in this 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 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 three month expansion of all extension requests, which was not contemplated in the City’s code1. DATED this 15th day of July, 2018. City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices 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 attorney and the City’s Planning Department to ascertain their appeal rights. In the absence of 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 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 examiner may also be filed as outlined in RMC 4-8-100(I). Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 1 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 differently by the Examiner from any other applicant that has requested an extension request. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) CIN OF RENTON JUL 112018 (IN 1 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE2 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 reconsidered16 and set aside. As explained in this Reply, the Responsedoes not successfully refute any issue17 raised by the City, and the City's Limited Motion for Reconsideration (the "Motion") of the18 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 and6 failed to account for why plat work was not completed in the ensuing 31/2 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 City's Reply in Support of Its Motion for Reconsideration-2 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 5 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 all6 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 I 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 l'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 cannot reasonably have interrupted their platting activities because of the pending Motion for23 all of the same reasons raised in the Motion itself, and no further extension is merited under 24 RMC 4-7-080.L. 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 Administrator 5 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 City's Reply in Support of Its Motion for Reconsideration-4 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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,?led 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—makingprocess. 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 p1at’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 ?nal plat approval while an extension request is pending. ‘Final Decision atp.1,lines 15-16;p.2,lines 15-16. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Finally,the City suggests the Examiner should reconsider the Final Decision because there is a chance we may construct the improvements necessary to obtain ?nal 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 ?nal 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 ?nal 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 //V/a‘Z:m .’/./(Li/,(/€_{a//,»5/L/ AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 1 Cynthia Moya From:Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, July 02, 2018 5:23 PM To:Cynthia Moya; doravin@comcast.net; Cc: 'Jay Derr'; Clara Park; Steve Beck; Offe Engineers; Jason Seth; Chip Vincent Subject:Re: Wilson Park Reconsideration Request Parties, My understanding is that the Wilsons have received a copy of the City's reconsideration request. The Wilson will have until 5:00 pm 7/9/18 to respond and the City may submit a reply by 7/11/18 at 5:00 pm. The response and reply should be emailed to the parties of this email. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Cynthia Moya <CMoya@rentonwa.gov> wrote: Thank you, Cindy Moya, City Clerk Specialist City of Renton - Administrative Services/City Clerk Division cmoya@rentonwa.gov 425-430-6513 From: Cynthia Moya Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 5:01 PM To: 'doravin@comcast.net' <doravin@comcast.net> Cc: 'Jay Derr' <jpd@vnf.com>; 'Clara Park' <cpark@vnf.com>; 'Steve Beck' <stevebeck@johnlscott.com>; 'Offe Engineers' <Darrell.offe@comcast.net>; Jason Seth <JSeth@Rentonwa.gov> Subject: RE: Scan_0071.pdf Request for Extension of Wilson Park 1 Approval Mr. & Mrs. Robert Wilson, AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 2 We just received the attached City’s Limited Motion for Reconsideration in the Wilson Park I – Request for Extension of Plat Expiration Thank you, Cindy Moya, City Clerk Specialist City of Renton - Administrative Services/City Clerk Division cmoya@rentonwa.gov 425-430-6513 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) CITY OF RENTON JUL 0 2 2018 1 RECEIVED CITY CLERKS 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 10 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 1055 South Grady WayCity's Motion for Reconsideration-1 Renton,WA 98057 Phone: 425.430.6480 Fax: 425.430.6498 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 every additional extension, including the three-month extension given in the Decision here.6 However, here, the Decision's analysis explains that the requestors (the Wilsons) did not satisfy7 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, 50 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 50 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 potential23 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 1055 South Grady Way iTS, Renton,WA 98057 Phone: 425.430.6480 Fax: 425.430.6498 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 3 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 extended. 6 Finally, the unsupported three-month extension could allow the very consequences that7 compelled the City to urge denial of the extension request in the first place. For example within8 the three-month period, extensive site clearing and mass grading could commence resulting in9 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 16 Respectfully submitted this!1 day of July, 2018. 17 18 e , C. E. "Chip" Vincent 19 Administrator Community & Economic Department 20 City of Renton 21 22 23 1 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 w 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 Phone: 425.430.6480 Fax: 425.430.6498 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PLAT EXTENSION REQUEST - 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Wilson Park 1 Request for Extension of Plat Expiration ))))))))) FINAL DECISION Robert and Doravin Wilson have requested extension of the August 16, 2018 preliminary 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 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 City filed a response dated May 22, 2018 in which the City requested denial of the extension 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- 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 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 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 in August, 2010. 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 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PLAT EXTENSION REQUEST - 2 caused by the foreclosure, additional delay can be attributable to coordinating development between Wilson Park 1 and 2. The foreclosure and coordinated development issues certainly qualify as unusual 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 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 development were resolved by December, 2014, by which time final engineering design had been 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 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 years of delay. The additional two years granted by the legislature was intended to address delays 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 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. In assessing whether the obstacles faced by the Wilsons makes it “unduly burdensome” to 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 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 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 extent as they waited for a decision on their extension request. To mitigate against this impact to the Wilsons, the Wilson Park 1 preliminary plat expiration is extended to November 16, 2018. DATED this 27th day of June, 2018. City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices 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 attorney and the City’s Planning Department to ascertain their appeal rights. In the absence of AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 1 2 3 4 5 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 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 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 examiner may also be filed as outlined in RMC 4-8-100(I). Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 ?le the ?nal 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 signi?cant 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 ?le the ?nal 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.l (allowing a one-year extension if the applicant demonstrates good faith effort)).We believe that,if granted,the limited ll-month extension will allow us suf?cient time to obtain ?nal plat approval. Please let us know if you require any additional information to support our request. Thank you, Robert and Doravin Wilson ????/14 wax;Z4/54424:, AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 10 ll 12 l3 l5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23, 24 25 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the “Request for Additional Extension Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code 4-7-080”submitted by Robert and Doravin Wilson: Hearing Examiner File DECLARATION OF STEVEN A.BECK IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR Wilson Park 1 Preliminary Plat LUA 09-ADDITIONAL EXTENTION 140,PP,12 Lots » Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat LUA I2- 013,PP,PUD,10 Lots I,Steven A.Beck,declareand state as follows: 1.I am over eighteen years of age,have personal knowledge of the matters herein,and am competent to testify regarding all matters set forth herein. 2.I have over 40 years of experience working as a real estate broker in the State of Washington.My work has been primarily concentrated in the Renton/Southeast King County area. 3.I am currently a broker with John L.Scott Real Estate.Previously,I was the founder and owner of a real estate research company called New Construction DECLARATION OF STEVEN A.BECK -1 VanNess Feldman 719 Second Avenue,Suite 1150 Seattle,WA 98104 (206)623~9372 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) C>\DOO\lO\ ll 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Services.I sat on the Regional Real Estate Board for King County in the 1980s,and in 1992 I was the President of the NorthwestMultiple Listing Service,a nonpro?t,member- owned organization of real estate professionals.In 1991 I sat on the first surface water manual development committee,representing both the May Valley and the Cedar River basins and the Highlands Redevelopment Committee with the City of Renton.I have been involved in land development since the mid—1980s,and I worked on some of the ?rst large developments in the Renton area.I have been involved in over 30 subdivision developments in various capacities such as overseeing acquisition,and I have been involved as a developer in approximately 15 subdivisions,such as a 32-lot development off of Northeast 4”‘Street,called Beclan Place. 4.When working on development projects,I act an end product advisor, seeing the end product and working it back to the dirt stage.I monitor and am involved in various aspects of the development,ranging from soils analysis;stormwater management, design,and best management practices;lot layout and design;and access and road standards.Through my experience in land development,I have become familiar with the regulations relating to civil construction and plat approval. 5.I ?rst began working on this project with Robert and Doravin Wilson around 2010.In my career working in land development,this project has been the most complicated subdivisions I have ever been involved with and has faced unusual, unforeseen circumstances.The site of the ?rst preliminary plat,Wilson Park 1,had attractive features such as quality soils and potential for views,but also had some site 1,VanNess ~Feldman DECLARATION OF STEVEN A.BECK -2 719 Second Avenue,Suite 1150 Seattle.WA 98104 (206)623-9372 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 difficulties at the outset.For example,the site had challenging topography and required heavy cut and ?lls on—siteto meet grading requirements. 6.After we received the preliminary plat approval,we discovered the property adjacent to Wilson Park 1 was going through foreclosure.The preliminaryplat approval for Wilson Park 1 depended on an access and utility easement across the adjacent property.The foreclosure jeopardized the access and utility easement rights. Consequently,to preserve the easement rights for Wilson Park 1,on March 2011 the Wilsons purchased the adjacent property,which became the subject of the second preliminary plat,Wilson Park 2. 7.The Wilson Park 2 site had complicated zoning issues,with an overlay and different zoning designations on portions of the site.To modify some of the development standards,the Wilsons applied for planned urban development approval in addition to the preliminary plat approval.This process was an additional unforeseen step,and though the Wilsons acted quickly,the application process took over a year and received approval on July 2012. 8.With the Wilson Park 2 site,we had to relook at engineering plans from scratch to combine the two sites into one integrated project.Thus,we could not complete ?nal engineering for the Wilson Park 1 site until more than three years after the Wilson Park 1 preliminary plat approval. 9.We received approval of our final engineering drawings and water plans from the City and from Soos Creek Water and Sewer District on December 2014.At this DECLARATION OF STEVEN A.BECK -3 1VanNess i FeldmanIL" 719 Second Avenue,Suite 1150 Seattle.WA 98104 (206)623-9372 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) C\O0G\]O\ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 point,becauseof the need to incorporate Wilson Park 2,we had used up four years of the Wilson Park 1 approval period and were unable to market or pursue ?nal plat approval during this time. 10.When we received ?nal engineering approval,the housing market was just coming out of the doldrums.We went to market very shortly after we received the engineering approval.We initially listed the property for approximately$90,000 per unit, which was an appropriate starting price close to market price for this property and its characteristics.We have had over six deals,though the deals fell through,in part because of the economic conditions,the site’s challenging topography,and the costs of constructing improvements. 11.We have listed the property eight times,and each time we continually dropped the price until it has now reached under $50,000 per unit,which is an extremely competitive price.For comparison,one comparable undeveloped property within a few hundred feet of the Wilson Park site closed in 2015 for a price of approximately $58,300 per lot.Despite this price,potential buyers have been reluctant to close on the property because of the upcoming expiration of the Wilson Park 1 preliminary plat approval. Moreover,the City no longer accepts bonds in lieu of construction,which limits our options to market the property and increasesthe uncertainty for potential buyers. 12.Potential buyers who have expressed interest in the site have informed me that if Wilson Park l’s expiration date were extended to July 2019 to coincide with 1 VanNess 4'Feldman 719 Second Avenue,Suite115D Seattle.WA 98104 (206)623-9372 DECLARATION OF STEVEN A.BECK -4 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) A-IO\U1 10 ll 12 l3 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Wilson Park 2’s expiration,the extension would afford sufficient time to complete constructionof improvements and obtain ?nal plat approval for both preliminary plats. 13.In my opinion,and based on the feedback from potential buyers,Wilson Park 1 and 2 must be approved and marketed as a single development project,because the two sites are linked and dependent upon each other.For example,the stormwater design is dependent on developing both sites together~the stormwater drainage vault for Wilson Park 1 was originally planned to be within Wilson Park II,and was later revised to accommodate both Wilson Park 1 and 2.This unusual linkage,combined with the site’s engineering challenges,made this a particularly difficult project and required substantially more time and effort than any other subdivision development I have ever been involved with. 14.Moreover,because of the linkage,if the Wilson Park 1 plat approval were to expire,the Wilsons will lose their signi?cant investment in both Wilson Park 1 and 2. 15.Despite the challenges this project has faced,I believe that if the extension is granted,the project will be ready for ?nal plat approval in time.I also believe the project will add valuable housing inventory to the City and will help meet the current high demandfor single-family homes. // // // §VanNGSS 3 Feldman 719 Second Avenue,Suite 1150 Seattle,WA 58104 (206)623-9372 DECLARATION OF STEVEN A.BECK -5 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoingis true and correct. DECLARATIONOF STEVEN A.BECK -6 Steven A.Beck,Declaran VanNBSS Feldman 719 Second Avenue,Suite 1150 Seattle,WA 98104 (206)623-9372 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) LA)\lO\U1-l> ll 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the “Request for Additional Extension Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code 4-7-0230”submitted by Hearing Examiner File Robert and Doravin Wilson: DECLARATION OF DARRELL OFFE IN Wilson Park 1 Preliminary Plat LUA 09-SUPPORT OF REQUEST ‘OR 140,PP,12 Lots ADDITIONAL EXTENSION Wilson Park 2 Prelilnjnary Plat LUA 12- 013,PP,PUD,10 Lots 1,Darrell Offe,declare and state as follows: 1.I am over eighteen years of age,have personal knowledge of the matters herein,and am competent to testify regarding all matters set forth herein. 2.I have over 40 years of construction experience,ranging from single family residential projects to high rise commercial office buildings to heavy civil constructlon.I have been a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Washington since Odtober 1990 (28 years)and in the State of Wyoming since November 2009. DECLARATION OF DARRELL OFFE .1 VanNess Feldman 719 second Avenue.Sul Seattle,WA 98104 (208)623-9372 e1150 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Lo.)-P\IC\kI1 10 ll 12 13 14 3.Since becoming a Professional Engineer,the large majority of my experience has been in single family residential development,and I have worked on a large number of projects.I have worked on projects in King County,City of Redmond,C Auburn,City of Kent,City of Renton,City of Pnyallup,City of Seattle,City of Mercer Island,City of Bellevue,City of Kirkland,City of Clyde Hill and City of Burien.Ne projects include 1994 Street of Dreams —Summit Ridge (Bellevue);Pinnacle (Bellevue);Rainier Shadows/Willow Park (Auburn);The Parks (Lake Desire/Shady (King County)and View Point at Maple Ridge (Renton). 4.My commercialexperienceincludesprovidingcivil engineeringand S1 for design and construction on numerous projects in Redmond such as the Pro Sports the Lakeridge office development,the Daytona and Laguna Of?ce projects for Properties,and Microsoft’s campus.My heavy construction experience includes ' table Point lake) pport Club, Hart ieavy equipment operation and construction surveying for projects in Wyoming and Utall,and acting as project engineer for construction on Shuster Parkway (L705)from L5 to Street ~Tacoma. Dock 5.1 am the engineer who signed and stamped the ?nal approved engineering drawings for Wilson Park 1 and 2,combined as one 22-lot development,and I work 1;he preliminary plat and planned unit development (“PUD”)approval for Wilson Par 6.In my opinion,based on my experience,this project faced a numlf unusual delays and circumstances.The timeline for obtaining the preliminary plat DECLARATION OF DARRELL OFFE —2 VanNess Feldman 719 secund Avenue,suite 1150 Seattle,WA 98104 (206)523-9372 ed on (2. /PUD ity of er of AGENDA ITEM #1. a) DJO\U1-l§ 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 IQLu[\)-P 25 approval and the approval of the ?nal engineering and design plans exceeded the average timeline for obtaining approvals for a project of this type and scale. 7.For example,although the Wilson Park 1 and 2 sites are within the City of Renton water service area the City granted permission to Soos Creek Water and $ewer District to be the water purveyor for the sites.This process took an additional two months of negotiations betweenthe Wilsons,the City,and the District,and the District had to for and obtainapproval for the expanded service area. apply 8.Additionally,the Wilson Park 2 site had an overlay and different zoning designations on various portions of the site.We spent considerable time working with the City to determine how to handle the split zoning issues and what process the City would use,which led to the need to apply for a PUD in addition to the preliminary plat.Whilethe end result was productive,the process extended the timeline for obtaining approvals. 9.The City also wished to condition approval for Wilson Park 2 providing pedestrian linkage to the nearest Renton School District bus stop.The con was unusual given the project’s size (10 lots)and the confusing layout of school bus r The project is close to the boundary between the Renton and Kent School District both districts had school buses operating in the area.Determining the actual locati upon dition outes. ,and ns of the routes and stops for the two districts,and determining the City’s requirements for the Walkway,required multiple conversations.We thenneededto bring in a surveyor to provide additional topographical information for the pedestrian walkway design.This process DECLARATIONor DARRELL om:-3 VanNess Feldman 719 Second Avenue,Suite 1150 Seattle,WA 98104 (206)623-9372 alone AGENDA ITEM #1. a) -J>\lO\U1 took four months from the time we began working to meet the condition to the topogi survey. 10. aphic After we received the preliminary plat/PUD approval and the engineering plans were ready for review,additional delays occurred.The plans were reviewed under the direction of three different supervisors.One of the supervisors refused to provide final approval based on the location of the stormwater vault.The vault’s location had been shown on the preliminary plat application and on every set of plans we had submitted to theiCity, so the refusal to approve came as a surprise.After the Stonnwater Utility Department approved the location,the supervisor conceded and gave verbal approval,but the pl of attempting to negotiate took considerable time.Further,the supervisor required that OCSSS three access ports be provided on the vault,although the Code only required two access ports.In this case,we revised the plans to accommodate the supervisor’s requirement.This process of working with the City on these matters consumed an additional six weeks,beyondthe normal time period for review and approval of the final plans. 11. is granted,the project will be ready for ?nal plat approval in time. Despite the challenges this project has faced,I believe that if the extension I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. DECLARATION or DARRELL om:—4 VanNess Feldman 719 Second Avenue.Suite 1150 Seattle,WA 98104 (206)523-9372 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) DECLARATION OF DARRELL OFFE —5 VanNess Feldman 719 Second Avenue,Sui Seattle,WA 98104 (205)623-9372 e 1150 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 1 Cynthia Moya From:Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 31, 2018 5:10 PM To:Jason Seth Cc:Cynthia Moya Subject:Re: Request For Extension Please forward to Ms. Henning and the Wilsons. At this point I have not received a request from the City or the Wilsons for a hearing on the Wilson May 3, 2018 request for extension of preliminary plat expiration. Consequently, the Wilsons may email a written reply to the City's May 22, 2018 response, due by 5:00 pm, June 8, 2018. The reply should be emailed to Ms. Moya or delivered to her by that deadline. Ms. Moya is in the Renton City Clerk's Office and her email address is CMoya@rentonwa.gov. On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 8:34 PM, Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you for the information. Please forward this email to the Wilsons and Jennifer Henning, cc'd to all remaining parties of interest (Wilsons or Henning) and myself. If you are unable to acquire an email for the Wilsons, please let me know and I will make other arrangements for addressing the extension request. Parties (Wilsons and Henning): I am in receipt of the May 3, 2018 Wilson request for extension of preliminary plat expiration and the May 22,2018 response to that request. I do not see any requirement in the Renton Municipal Code to hold a hearing for this type of request. If any party believes that a hearing is required, please let me know. In the absence of a hearing mandate we have some flexibility on how to process the extension request. If either party wishes to have a hearing on the request, I will order one held. If both parties are fine relying upon the written materials submitted thus far, I will give the Wilsons an opportunity to submit a written reply to the City's May 22, 2018 response and base my ruling upon the May 3, 2018 extension request, the May 22, 2018 City response and the Wilson's reply. If the parties have some other preference as to how to proceed I am certainly willing to consider alternatives. Please let me know of your preference on how to proceed by 5:00 pm, May 28, 2018 by email to all the parties of this email as well as the Wilsons. If I don't receive any preferences by the May 28, 2018 due date I will set a due date for a Wilson reply and subsequently issue a ruling on the extension request. On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 10:07 AM, Jason Seth <JSeth@rentonwa.gov> wrote: Phil, I received this letter requesting an extension on a short plat application. CED and the Attorney’s office would like to discuss it with you. Thank you, -Jason Jason Seth, CMC AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 2 City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 jseth@rentonwa.gov This communication may be subject to public disclosure laws of the State of Washington (RCW 42.56). AGENDA ITEM #1. a) DenisLawMayorCommunity&EconomicDevelopmentC.E.“Chip”Vincent,AdministratorMay22,2018Mr.PhilOlbrechtsRentonHearingExaminer1055SouthGradyWayRenton,WA98057Subject:WilsonPark1PreliminaryPlatLUA09-140,PP,12totsWilsonPark2PreliminaryPlatLUA12-013,PP,PUD,10totsRequestforDenialofMay3,2018“RequestforAdditionalExtensionPursuanttoRentonMunicipalCode4-7-080”submittedbyRobertandDoravinWilsonDearMr.Olbrechts:TheCityofRentonCommunity&EconomicDevelopmentDepartment(“CED”)respectfullyrequeststhattheHearingExaminerdismisstheMay3,2018requestbyRobertandDoravinWilsonforan“AdditionalExtensionPursuanttoRentonMunicipalCode4-7-080”forlanduseapprovalsassociatedwiththedevelopmentsitesreferencedabove,WilsonPark1andWilsonPark2.Asexplainedbelow,theWilsons’requestforan11-monthextensionforWilsonPark1shouldbedenied.TheApplicantsHaveNotMetTheirBurdentoProve“UnusualCircumstancesorSituationswhichMakeItUndulyBurdensome”toJustifyObtainingaNine-YearExtensionTheWilsons’requestan11-month“additionalextension”forthepreliminaryplatofWilsonPark1,arguingthatcircumstancesoccurringsincetheHearingExaminer’sAugust2010preliminaryplatapprovaljustifyanadditionalextensiontoJuly5,2019.TheWilsons’focusontherelativelyshort(11-month)extensiondeemphasizesthattheWilsonPark1preliminaryplatwasapprovedeightyearsago,in2010.TheWilsons’newrequestwouldextendthedelaybetweenpreliminaryplatandfinalplattoatotalofnineyears.TheWilsons’requestforanine-yearpreliminaryplatperiodfailstomeetRMC4-7-080.L.2’scriteriafortheapplicanttoshowthat“unusualcircumstancesorsituations”havemadeit“undulyburdensome”fortheapplicanttohavetimelysubmittedforfinalplatapproval.1055SouthGradyWay,Renton,WA98057.rentonwa.govAGENDA ITEM #1. a) Mr.PhilOlbrechtsPage2of2May22,2018First,theWilsons’havenotproved“unusualcircumstancesorsituations”justifyinganine-yearplattingperiod.lftheacquisitionoftheWilsonPark2propertyhadonlyrecentlybecomenecessary,theWilsons’mighthavedemonstratedsufficientunusualorcircumstances.But,here,theWilsons’acquiredtheWilsonPark2propertysevenyearsago,in2011.Therearenocurrentorrecentcircumstancesorsituationsjustifyinganadditionalextension.Second,theWilsons’havenotprovedthatitwas“undulyburdensome”forthemtofileafinalplatwithineightyearsofpreliminaryplatapproval.Ratherthanalleviateaburden,theWilsons’requestindicatesthatdelayingtheWilsonParkItimelinetoalignwiththeWilsonParkIItimelineisbasedinconveniencetotheapplicantandmarketabilityofacombineddevelopment.TheWilsons’shouldnotgainadvantagebytyingtheearlierWilsonParkItimelinetothelater-plattedWilsonPark;iftheWilsons’prefertotakethetwoplatssimultaneouslythroughthefinalplattingprocess,itshouldbedonesoontheearlierWilsonParkItimeline.TheWilsons’acquiredtheWilsonPark2propertyin2011—theyhavehadampletimetobringtheWilsonParkIplattingactiontimelineinlinewithWilsonPark2.GrantinganadditionalextensionforWilsonPark1wouldextendthelifeofapreliminaryplatthat,inthefaceofcodeamendments,nolongerconformstoprovisionsoftheRentonMunicipalCodeincludingbutnotlimitedto,zoning,stormwater,criticalareas,treestandards,streetstandards,andretainingwallheights.SincethedateofapprovalofWilsonPark1theCityhasadoptedanewcomprehensiveplanincludingnewdevelopmentstandardsassociatedwiththeresidentialzones.Furthermore,thepublicconcernrelatedtoretainingwallsthatstemmedfromanappealassociatedwiththisprojectresultedintheCityconsideringandthenadoptingnewretainingwallheightregulations.Fortheabovereasons,theCityrespectfullyrequeststhattheHearingExaminerdenytheWilsons’requestforanadditionalextensionoftheWilsonParkIpreliminaryplat.Sincerely,?JenniferHenningPlanningDirectorcc:RobertandDoravinWilson.ChipVincent,CEDAdministratorEdPrince,RentonCityCouncilPresidentLeslieClark,SeniorAssistantCityAttorneyRyanMclrvin,RentonCityCouncilmemberJayP.DerrJasonSeth,CityClerkSteveBeckShaneMoloney,CityAttorneyFile—LUAO9-1401055SouthGradyWay,Renton,WA98057.rentonwa.govAGENDA ITEM #1. a) r 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: AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) c. 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 3 AGENDA ITEM #1. 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) i7 Cc: Jay P. Derr, C.E."Chip" Vincent, Jennifer T. Henning, Shane Moloney, Ed Prince, Ryan Mclrvin, Steve Beck Attachments: 6 4 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) q / jj IIII 1 I 1 1, 11 11,1 ,111 AFTER RECORDING MAIL TO: 111 f I I ' 1, i Id 11r 1 1 11,1 IpS' ROBERT D.WISON 20080327002018 COMMONWEALTH L EAS 45.00 720 SO, 55TH ST. PROEM OF 004 03/27/2008 15:17 RENTON..WA 98055 KING COUNTY, WA E2338944 03/27/2008 15:06 KING COUNTY, WA TAX 81,429.00 SALE 80,000.00 PAGE001 OF 001 ROAD AND UTILITY EASEMENT o45/ 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 Easement-Page 1 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 44•I v?('..0 r c 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 ofthis 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) itac--4‘ Wilson and Doravin A.Wilson shall have no personal liability for any ofthe 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 lands 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. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands the date and year first above written. ERIK DORMAIER 7?-444L ROBERT D.WILSON DORAVIN A. WILSON Road and Utility Easement-Page 3 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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 day of March, 2008. n * ySIOkF, 4 y V` a , r0'q i4y Print Craig D. hielbar41r .. _ ca; NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of ov \G la...-; Washington; residing at Puyallup 8,3 t„t0 My Commission Expires: 8/30/2009r- qi: 1tiwAs` .: 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 Lday of March, 2008. V. r 1 .d A ' Printer z'!' rain D. ' uelbar NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State ofN9 iRr'8300 '? Washington,residing at Puyallup iirFO" , N`.Y My Commission Expires: 8/30/2009 Road and Utility Easement-Page 4 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) iIII 1111111111 1111 After recording return to:20101027000645PatrickK.McKenzie MARSH MUNDORF TD 64.00 Marsh Mundorf Pratt Sullivan+McKenzie, Pie z @zelrF1 0e 16504 9th Avenue SE, Suite 203 KING COUNTY, WA Mill Creek, WA 98012 E2464251 10/27/2010 12:00 KING COUNTY, WA TAX 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. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 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. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) DATED this 18th day ofOctober,2010. MARSH MUNDORF PRATT SULLIVAN MCKENZIE,P.S.C. C;30 -0. 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. SvsAN L. Q N07'4RY `m Print name: ,SJ,GS,94 ti) 'u i f Notary Public in and for the State of o.?0j3 Washington,residing at ot,*tt GAO My commission expires: /1—In— /. le'ASHAN SKlwNPtae Pbd&BakWit K,ommiea eeI Aee6Aee AGENDA ITEM #1. a) A± 111111101111111120110317000 3Afterrecordingjreturnto:NORTH?OINT ESC 0 63.00 72 Robert Wilson and Doravin Wilson 03/17//22011F12:042170360thSiEKINGCOUNTY, WA Lake Tapps,WA 98391 E2482673 03/17/2011 12:02 KING COUNTY, UA TAX 4,455.00 SALE 250,000.00 PAGE-001 OF 001 Reference: 30048506 -326-301 escrow+title order no. BARGAIN AND SALE DEEDorder O p[,p. 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(ltr) (rev. 4/2009) AGENDA ITEM #1. a) X rA e Dated: March':4. 2011 Prime Pacific Bank, N.A. X By: 4r O.a- Its:Scn:.r (Jrw prerti•t }- State of Washington County of 51.0[/Of'Y7/5 k' SS• nIcertifythatIknoworhavesatisfactoryevidencethatah'U(-x is the person who,appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that(he/she) signed thisinstrument, on oath stated that(he/she) is authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the ep.160 E 192E.6 , of Prima Pacific Bank, N.A. to be the free and voluntary act of.such party for the uses and purposes mentioned In the instrument.Dated: . -if j O/r Given under my hand and official seal the day and year last above written. Notary Public in nd for the State of IN 1 Residing at o l ` LL 1,1101-My Appointment expires: r& —// C. M. PICKRELL NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 9,2011 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 0, n M NY U 6,.* u° i E e ) z ZNo '-'_ ::PAPA ¢z 1 c¢ F- zsW® wJNZ i _o pro c'^` , c,1--h--,:,--) 3oa9 zz53lm zF 3d w= c H t~W zg $ 33y< Ngj " o . V1 bFnU! Z ow Wq44 ii ZW Y W i 2. zsoW`=wZw1Z.zZNM r( 5i 8„...azz, 7r ¢,„. w xzr i- , wwccon. 0.ozO > r:i'U OH vi u Jd aa3 W. QC..Qtb_tOwW ZrQ 5gP,I vt; g- Z Y 0 00 a z zZpE–W o N m M ,n 9r, Q -gI- lie A9f f coi F- CO iiWft0 l h , II U, Z z N a k w — Z qS a liqX44 l^a j w y, *0 gi a• 11- 0 9 3s 311N3AY;WO1 0 aco 1!: 7 a.g cT Y &2 Z LJ z oo d« pa o gz 4P' 99th PLACE SOUTH K s'i 'o & igi w 0 sewCl) ov 9err oz ca eh j A' p o4-rc I siiw 1 r W H aoo azz i W uYi••• ! z Htnos arca MTN N .."•••az wZ w • o g icnIa ;, p3m a a W IIIFoytii3Q,- - , vi W 8 kW _' x B3 u aq a O Z r # 0 v J O 4 iY),0!'9[92:d,ZY,£1.IOS nr 76;A:4. ..,-; SOBf£1l .4ori8 J I a I W. L.i 4 1ry Iai n U 4^ N 5 Q u y.l 'i'',n4 I wO u U JFO pp ff 02,+i ghQ s¢ C! O+.ol U h Q 2341 WU `L; bcp• brE § ,FEZ x m 4S I£f! f ,4S'!F£f 3„86,8SOON I 4. W g goo el I , W, 4n Poi sw'g C N w c=0i m vuyi El n l I Zp aaz ,V?' AO i Ell.,rn N,,z , J,"., rrl 3Qgv. woo z z o F+1 z o G Z z8-- Gr ; o ti 2, W i ata.,rc w Zz t- P i nt n I omo was o Y. h°u $g x xN,' ; a SO'SZF! _ I .SO'SZ£I I 34; p o c tio«g o <^_ oLLz O.JlY9),0!"C59Z 3.Str,£b.0-0M1' 9Lw1aagarcY ~ F4rrl z Wz f3 z u o I T 1Ua :Z U LL,' N NR a J TA: U ON J NOT ax 3 e-nOi v,3 r 0 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 86rg ,r I m 2 a 4 flilliN. 1Axai - S 6 = m o a u€ 5a h_. U zzcc D WD OO.Oooyy ?f C`jfa',d m a € co.., d-.1-` pm4N -z o a mr-'q r- f3 .{ 71— Ca20) Fimn. z "' Caa_aVa u a I 1F m ra r( r I lll 3 N s g4 a3J o)A75[9tx_zan.ws J0 p,",,,..._..`"Y ti 1097E tIIp `'` j, i t a La gIONNON . 0 ON °s I JE. 2' 4 a 57 0' 50.0' I so.o' 50.0' J W m _ 207.00' 01'73'42.W _ °p tt1 1775.00'92.0' 6;i. W i 57.6. A. J A ti IF O J 63 4' 1 A.",4 Z G C j 1 aN o1 8 41 N I 89.0 wI 76.5' Q.g I Z Io °J+ o O • I z'a s m o m I Ln C z. 4J 89.0' 76.5' 1 I sz IC611O1NIyra CO Z m O a w 4)gs . a O I N I a ,-1,<,3,; s a U 89.0' 1 69.5' '"'/In w Jm I 1.11 G' p t o pc fit• N GIN O CO e o a 55.0' 55.0' 55.0' 55.0' I 66.3' z N s oi wV194.T and 28 SS JIY G- I M U ILI G, re. Yl d D o ''''P o r muNOoacoSa0a_IN 0 O mo o ` a O o o O o o ON ®: vJ z 0 a\ of J s+N s ea. Z i 1I-. trig m I z tO i! Op.• 1\ N / is1cNwI,i OF7 h J /. I-- t,Iry 3_734,99.00N ,SL'902 9 /" l rt j o ° r G O G ° o ° o G" I ' o 1 N o s s o q,' 1n; Z n N I^ 0-- O OBD 0°C?°i9 G ONS r.--).. N ®I ' n i I“i'V p4Ey°*vnG o r r ^ Om Z 1 I' LLQ J . ..._.. 20' REAR 8S.7.L rni IG a.r'pir,' .5' to f+' 1 I-- 60.0' I S6A__ 560' 56.0' r In m= z.z j- 1_ 60.0'-`_I\ I?<s0oZo HW0'''it Z F• Z I I y U Ig-c, JpU441 wU Lit,- I i uzg f r.m C W u naGzzzUoI4•J OHmss-' r-,. Inv n ' 9. c._ Z aIg 14m w,nnMn9,iW ° fa).--,. Tj --_ o'4n I tl w a g UUUUV ZjiI ;N G0a tS V oa AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 114.% 6)j 1: ', d S:-. i A:' AI' N7 i r i. ,q 1 1ev'NO o 6_ 1 N n L3yF I Uo got -4 Wo{ a b W HPso an-1—tacA oi ei;c1— D, 0 ,d.:27 ii-i z ra 6+3/I.Cf Lr/ar;?;iv'r t'i jO 0.00.f wf 4 ¢ 4 Sa'Ana r e 0 N ZALLP', ,o!o N o _ c=ivv w; CM1 w, a E nti.rsc o uirue, $42 v ti:-.,-4-.E7.774,,,,,.-..,4_ c t y„ oak' g U Q f tco i {rT.' v..''; j/ aa' <tet T-,2:','' x 0 Z s. z11 ,- ,_ -G`-•i-__ G0_ 9, ! Vii_ F, ' Y @q j a. e. I' 3 t q h -0,..'r"w U i gO2.-390 ,!_r-2---cel 2.i, xi ,---..e_ / ,/ f`,C, i 8rc S @ 6 M s..,.'1-! 5,1.!' }"3 I U z 1 Cr.f.0 -kg:4 G.J.2 — "..// ti ':'.."--.Z., ' 51.o ir// ~ tea, r x o U e' 9' 1 m te -y[2 N i I tL 2' "-Vie.,. '. / r—" a: ., - t a 8 W ct&Rnc ct YsY 1 { h i CO 47?-------_-1 1 \ --,t `' J. iii.?'- ---- v,-.:1.,vtY 11 o No lc c,,,-u..1 i,„,k- P••••--`":, .,5''' ._.,--•,_,:- ____:,, 1:10., T' tr. 's, --jaw* ..)---,:ir,.---;:-,,'- i, 1-4116 40,OPC -------/:.-''';'Y I , - o H o h' rj SF 1 7'......• tom' zO4L„,_.„1 I.600' 1 'i 91.116V3133N,1.i1?J3d0tid ttt i O{T I , L fY i j— V LI+ O ¢ r 1orr0. n:i 1 j I`Z•":.q",<I'''v,»o Lp 7g f U E. 'A' d e WNRcnoasF 1:-z 03 1 ;? Ks I z'6d l; H N `)f =I w 3W,1r3n35Y3 6'3 I 1 i1 N II O.. C V inn UImD1W W 3 2 2 I .< °. F W t5 il n 01J QU by, Y' F> AGENDA ITEM #1. a) C V V• •'r t1 M a G OUU WP- O .. V _ yO 1.,,A a E'c g 5 m , u U M oQCNV.6 2nT . V O S PU 1— n - CgO U•CrU ` 17G- O -I O ' UryryCDd01cuaJl O O R. u a U V U O u omac 4,- 8a$ 8 ! rlr, a 3N v s4r, .c 176 ,:-° a u 'S.:I V 11:_': r QO of ? O UCO o • ao b0pn_ Y y 0 0 7,1 :-1 c6 3 . 3 a o °7 X o = 'g eo °aa j - : W2 -0U. uU — - v-'4'.—LI'.D) GziiU3I 1 0P-4 ti _ J. ° p n' o iC od w7 vN3C o aw V uou0.E00 = 5;;;.2t h = 7 m O = _ 0.16 ce c_ 2 Ho ,. co a. c. R u Ao ^•v ic c Q a e a- _ - Vsc _ 13'.5•g m0, ii, d 0 w 2 3 E AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 111-11,A;44 22 Z t( E. \ { § vi o \ j 0.\ 2\8 \ 0 \\\ 4 P. 3-g= q % ;73 I\ ° 0.> Fu 4/ _a _ , ,P _ ,2. .. , 92x \ // 2 $ gi3 Fi s c ; } -Q/\}\ V \ )/ 00VV 2® j±di ) \ ( 2\)2 2 \\\ 0 m \\ /) \ \ /$\\{ AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 44. 1 P4, rOild b191.VA.P, tr, f8V.3N0311M, WNOSN31X3Mb1,11.a3.1.VAI 1‘..! ',..,'•:.•: - — ---= V 1:1 qi .10181SICI 2:13M3S 4-::,‘,,;"•Vs-,` '`"" ' ' ONVeGIVAA>133)30 SOOS 1 i.`21 7:„.--i 1 '041.2 1 I i173,11I “Dig I I I 0 -,, - , ,,,!,.. a'..,-, 1,,,', ?,- ';-', '''',. ,,P;;.--- ',-•."4l'-'. L i' L ''!*' '..,,..,,.:-. .t,:,,,d,..2d i...q It,--,=.,. .;1= 2,,, r•-..1-r12,r, '-'=',1 et 1 c,,,•, ...•I ,-,; -,.., ,j,Th•,, If`,7•q.,==,.=q=1 'I 7Ii-:', ,i,:;','-',-.:i. ':'..-.7.',' I 1 i 4., - 7.:l' 7' . ;'''-t'.7.7. 77"7-,L7 ''',.t';!``;;: .•`; .dq', ...-',.' %..;:,.. ‘---, ,,',-;' 1 il - ,...,,, •-.,;-s--. ,--,.' g4,- .-",::•2•:,•=1c, -.2 .t,-, ,,t,-,:,.. n,;2- i d..! 7 Z.......al 2 4, P.-• 2 • : I--7 1 ,I,.:;, LI,--..it'',,, 4 2I ,z7,-,.;,,' ,.!; rr r, ea,: •.,,.:::4;.,.'0, .`, , I 7.., :-Ii>' -..1' a •^4L'.- < ...1•-, 0 .:; ',-., <-*, •--,`1'_, 'ilsc- 6 ,f,r,,-.::, cc .= 41. 7- f• z z z 1 Jlc 2.',:',. 1 1 s•--. t 7''''' d ...' 7.: 710 t•;‘1 ----.'"i_ _ ''- ;I 7--- -- I „V: 'i-is,,.5.1 ;, --- i 4-A,\`3.-r. 4 „Li7t.,-,- i ----E• .e: sc\ 47 1 i o '.:, _ 1;?: ES-_., I.1/,';,, , L-;-; 17,.. r..,17,-. , I , :7-''''' .,' %.,-, 1.7 f..-'‘. I i,- ;,`-1, , :.-.,,_-k- ' ' _ -;, •! — ,-, 1 I a. Ln i CO i AGENDA ITEM #1. a) w th Denis Law Mayor 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 jhenning@rentonwa.xov. 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057. rentonwa.gov AGENDA ITEM #1. a) December 12,2016 Page 2 Sincerely, Jennifer T. Henning,AICP Planning Director cc: Chip Vincent,CED Administrator Brianne Bannwarth,Development Engineering Manager Vanessa Dolbee,Current Planning Manager Jan Illian,Plan Reviewer f C:\Userslsmirante\AppData\LocallMicrosoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files`Content.Outlook\LAOR7PID\Wilson Park I f 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 . rentonwa.gov AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 1 Cynthia Moya From:Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 22, 2018 8:35 PM To:Jason Seth Cc:Cynthia Moya Subject:Re: Request For Extension Thank you for the information. Please forward this email to the Wilsons and Jennifer Henning, cc'd to all remaining parties of interest (Wilsons or Henning) and myself. If you are unable to acquire an email for the Wilsons, please let me know and I will make other arrangements for addressing the extension request. Parties (Wilsons and Henning): I am in receipt of the May 3, 2018 Wilson request for extension of preliminary plat expiration and the May 22,2018 response to that request. I do not see any requirement in the Renton Municipal Code to hold a hearing for this type of request. If any party believes that a hearing is required, please let me know. In the absence of a hearing mandate we have some flexibility on how to process the extension request. If either party wishes to have a hearing on the request, I will order one held. If both parties are fine relying upon the written materials submitted thus far, I will give the Wilsons an opportunity to submit a written reply to the City's May 22, 2018 response and base my ruling upon the May 3, 2018 extension request, the May 22, 2018 City response and the Wilson's reply. If the parties have some other preference as to how to proceed I am certainly willing to consider alternatives. Please let me know of your preference on how to proceed by 5:00 pm, May 28, 2018 by email to all the parties of this email as well as the Wilsons. If I don't receive any preferences by the May 28, 2018 due date I will set a due date for a Wilson reply and subsequently issue a ruling on the extension request. On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 10:07 AM, Jason Seth <JSeth@rentonwa.gov> wrote: Phil, I received this letter requesting an extension on a short plat application. CED and the Attorney’s office would like to discuss it with you. Thank you, -Jason Jason Seth, CMC City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 jseth@rentonwa.gov AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 2 This communication may be subject to public disclosure laws of the State of Washington (RCW 42.56). AGENDA ITEM #1. a) April 1, 2010 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes OWNER/APPLICANT: Robert Wilson 21703 60th Street East Lake Tapps, WA 98391 CONTACT: Shupe Holmberg Baima & Holmberg Inc. 100 Front Street Issaquah, WA 98027 Wilson Park Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA 09-140, PP, ECF LOCATION: 720 South 55th Street SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant is requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat for the subdivision of 2.5 acre parcel to encompass 12 lots and 3 tracts for open space. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: Staff Report was delivered to the Hearing Examiner on March 9, 2010. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the March 16, 2010 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing was opened on Tuesday, March 16, 2010, at 9:32 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Wilson Park Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-140, PP, ECF April 1, 2010 Page 2 Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 2: Vicinity Map Exhibit No. 3: Preliminary Plat Map Exhibit No. 4: Boundary/Topography Map Exhibit No. 5: Generalized Utilities/Drainage/ Control/Conceptual Grading/Landscaping Plan Exhibit No. 6: Road Profile Exhibit No. 7: Wall Profiles & Cross Sections Exhibit No. 8: Tree Inventory Exhibit No. 9: Zoning Map Exhibit No. 10: Administrative Policy/code Interpretation Affecting Urban Separator Overlay Regulations, effective January 14, 2010 Exhibit No. 11: Street Modification Letter, dated November 10, 2009 Exhibit No. 12: Plat Map Showing All Zoning Designations Exhibit No. 13: Map Showing Urban Separator Areas in the Talbot Area of Renton Exhibit No. 14: Generalized Utilities and Drainage showing the Retaining Walls Exhibit No. 15: Planter Strips for Sidewalks Exhibit No. 16: Large Sheet Showing Most Recent Drainage and Grading Plan with the Retaining Walls Exhibit No. 17: Right of Way Papers for 55th Street Exhibit No. 18: Existing Easement Document for the Smithers Emergency Access Roadway Exhibit No. 19: Aerial Photo of Existing Area Exhibit No. 20: Going Native Brochure The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager, Community and Economic Development Division, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The proposed project is a 2.5 acre site, the nearest access street is South 55th Street. The access street is very steep and has several serpentines with a speed limit of 25 MPH. This site has been constrained by trying to get access to it due to the steep slopes. There also have been some difficulties due to City Code because of the Urban Separator Overlay and all the various zoning designations. The final plat has gone through several revisions to meet all requirements, this presentation today has 12 lots suitable for the development of single-family residential homes. There are three open space tracts, Tracts B, C, and D. There is no Tract A. Tract B is greater than a 40% slope and as such is a protected area that cannot be touched. Tracts C and D are open space areas and are split by the zoning designation. R-1 zone is on the west side and R-8 zone is on the east. All open spaces are considered reserved areas and would be planted with trees by the applicant. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Wilson Park Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-140, PP, ECF April 1, 2010 Page 3 Part of Lot 12, to the north is within the R-1 zone, a portion of this lot would have an easement overlaying it to be considered open space that satisfies the Urban Separator requirements. It is not a separate Tract, but an area that will have an easement over the top. The remainder of the lots in the plat are between 4,500 and 6,270 square feet. There is a lot of topography on the lots and in order to develop the lots there would need to be some retaining walls constructed. The walls would vary in size from 12-20 feet in height. One retaining wall would be located on the eastern border of Lot 7 and the other would be located on the western border of Lot 12. The retaining wall on the east side would be either poured concrete or soil nail composition; the wall on the west side would be poured concrete or stabilized soil. The walls abutting the property both to the north and the west will have some impact to the property owners at least during construction and perhaps during maintenance. The applicant has been required to secure both construction and maintenance easements. The plan is to terrace those walls and landscape them, it has been requested by Staff that those walls be maintained by the Homeowner’s Association. The applicant would like to see the individual homeowners maintain the walls in their particular lot. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance – Mitigated with eleven mitigation measures. No appeals were filed. The project is compliant with both Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan policies. The density of the proposed plat is 7.99 dwelling units per acre. All lots comply with the minimum width and depth. The plat would be accessed via a new street that would extend from S 55th Street. It would be a 50-foot right-of- way and enters into the plat, makes a curve and becomes S 53rd Place. It eventually ends in a “T” that will eventually extend to the north and south property lines with a gated emergency access at the south property line. All on-site roads will be dedicated rights-of-way. Because of the restraint in this plat, it would be required to have sidewalks and planting strips on one side of the roadway. The sidewalk and planting strip would be located along the west side of the street coming into the plat. There also would be a sidewalk and an 8-foot wide planting strip on the north side of South 53rd Place. The planting strip would be 5 feet wide along the north/south interior road. A tree inventory plan has been submitted, currently there are 101 trees on site, of those 25 must be retained. The applicant has stated that they can only retain 15 trees. The applicant has proposed 60 trees to be planted primarily in the open space areas (Tracts C and D as well as the open space area that is part of Lot 12). Staff has asked for a split rail fence to define these areas. A goal of the Urban Separator is to create corridors of open space for wildlife to roam through. There are only two areas of the City where the Urban Separator applies, the Talbot Hill Area and May Creek. In Talbot, the Urban Separator slices through the hill and takes just portions of the property and this is why Lot 12 has been designed with the open space that will be surrounded with a split rail fence. Police and Fire have indicated that there are sufficient resources to serve this area. The project is located in the Renton School District and they do have sufficient room for the projected new students. This project would be subject to School Impact Fees. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Wilson Park Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-140, PP, ECF April 1, 2010 Page 4 There have been some letters sent to the City of Renton concerning the safety on S 55th Street and the new driveways that would be taking access onto that street. A safety evaluation was done and it was determined that the roadway was safe based on a higher speed than what is currently allowed on S 55th Street. A drainage report was completed and showed that the parcel to the east drains onto this site and runoff from this site flows to the west into Geneva Court, this flow collects in a drain and flows into the storm system located in the road inside Geneva Court and finally flows into Springbrook Creek. The drainage vault for this project would be located under the roadway with an easement for maintenance. The opening to the vault would not be located in the roadway, but placed into the landscaping or sidewalk areas adjacent to the vault. There has been vandalism where the grates have been removed which creates a grave traffic safety issue. Water service would be provided by Soos Creek, the Certificate of Water Availability has been issued for this site. Sewer service would be provided by the City of Renton with a minimum 8-inch diameter extension required. The public streets would become part of the City System with the exception of the emergency access road. It was requested that a 9th Condition be added indicating that the grate covering the drainage vault be located in the sidewalk or the landscaping. A 15 Minute Recess was taken. The Hearing Resumed at 10:31 am. Shupe Holmberg, 165 NE Juniper Street, Issaquah 98027 stated that if the proposed plat is approved subject to the recommended Staff conditions they believe that the public’s interest in safety and welfare would be met. Condition #5 calls for the Homeowner’s Association to maintain the retaining walls. It would appear to the applicant that the individual homeowners should maintain those walls within their own respective lots. That would involve Lot 7 and 12. The Drainage and Grading plan that was shown today is not the latest version. The north wall would still be a 5- foot high retaining wall. On the east portions of Lots 4-7 there would be two staged rockeries that would be 2 to 6 feet in height with the highest part being at the north end. The retaining wall on the west side is the same on both plans. The retaining wall on Lot 12 would be approximately 20-feet tall. There would be a fence on top of the 20-foot wall. Since the 20-foot wall does cover several parcels, it might be best if the Homeowner’s Association would maintain that particular wall. In the drainage report it does state that the runoff from the site currently runs through Geneva Court. The proposal for this site is to pick up the drainage, pipe it to the detention vault within the off-site roadway and discharge that to the roadside ditch on S 55th Street. Any drainage impacts to Geneva Court would be lessened, no drainage from this site would go to Geneva Court. The 2009 King County Stormwater Manual would apply to installation and operation of the vault. Each individual lot will have a connection and drainage would be piped directly to the conveyance system. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Wilson Park Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-140, PP, ECF April 1, 2010 Page 5 The emergency access to the site would be paved. Some cut and grading will take place along the road and adjacent lots. Vincent Geglia, 11410 NE 124th St., Ste. 590, Kirkland 98034 stated he had an aerial photo of the site and surrounding areas. The new public road off of S 55th Street to the site was pointed out showing that the new interior road, S 53rd would hit just on the outside corner of the curve giving the optimum sight distance looking in both directions on S 55th. The site distance does meet the City of Renton requirements. Paul Witt, 617 S 53rd Pl, Renton 98059 stated that he lives in Geneva Court, Lot 13. He is not opposed to this project, but does want to make sure that any project in the area is done correctly and safely. This is a challenging project, from his front porch up to the far side of this new site, it is over 110-feet in difference. His concern is to make sure that the retaining walls along the west side are done correctly, he still feels a little vague about exactly what materials are being used to create these retaining walls. He was further concerned about the terminus and vagueness of how far the wall at his corner lot would continue. Going into his back yard and looking up, there would just be a 20-foot wall going straight up, how is that going to look. At that location, the road would be above grade. That roadway could be prone to accidents especially in the snow and ice. He would prefer to see the maintenance kept with the Homeowner’s Association, it sounds great on paper, however, in reality it most likely will not get done. It seems strange to have a Homeowner’s Association responsible for something built on City property. The vault that they are responsible for is not on any property they have vested interest in, it is on a City right-of-way on a dedicated street. It would stand to reason that the engineering would be strong enough to hold large vehicles. Steven Beck, 4735 NE 4th Street, Renton 98059 stated that he is the manager of Amberwood LLC and consultant for Wilson Park Preliminary Plat before the Hearing Examiner today. Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 to the east will have a rockery on their site. He was involved with the Cherie Lane plat several years ago and recently brought plans to a meeting showing how rockeries and vegetation was handled in the Cherie Land. It was not pretty. They did not want that on this site, so everywhere they can, even on the west side to try to step up and do rockeries and vegetation, it looks much better and is better for the environment. On Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 where there is approximately a 120-foot depth, the plans include a garage under a two story basement with decks off the main floor. These plans were used in Cherie Lane and worked very well. With that house plan, the back yards can be tiered up with 4-6 foot rockeries at a time and use vegetation on them. Lot 12, they have discussed how to do that, possibly sloping the hill up slowly to the building pad. If a wall is used, it would have to be textured or soil nail used, but the end product would have to look good. Kayren Kittrick, Community and Economic Development stated that Geneva Court has a north connection, a small bit of right-of-way that was reserved for future use. Rockeries four feet and over must be structurally engineered. They require a separate building permit and a separate inspection, there is a special inspection required with a structural engineer on site at the time of the inspection. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Wilson Park Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-140, PP, ECF April 1, 2010 Page 6 The Examiner stated that the road is pretty much at the south end of the retaining wall leaving no room to create terraced or sloped retaining walls. Ms. Kittrick stated that her concern is that could be a focal point for erosion, she will instruct her staff to pay particular attention to that area. If the wall stops right there, something will have to be placed there to protect the area. The wall and transition would be required to meet building standards. S 55th ideally would be required to have sidewalk, curb and gutter. The problem is that is a third party property and therefore if there were to be any improvements through there it should be associated with designs to accommodate what may be developed on that property. There have been inquiries on that property and it will happen at some time. It is also possible that S 55th should be something that the City is looking at as a general overall plan as opposed to putting it on each individual property. They are not prepared to do that today, but it is on their agenda. Road A will either be called Smithers or Morris, it has not been determined as yet. The preference at this point is to call it Smithers. The north/south connection from S 53rd to S 55th will be subject to traffic and building requirements. The sidewalk is situated next to the slope and will require a pedestrian level barrier or guard rail of some type. There is a possibility that the school bus may pick up children on S 55th that has not been established as yet. The drainage with the walls must meet the 2009 Manual requirements. The vault would be located in the dedicated right-of-way and the grate would be placed outside the traffic right-of-way. The sewer line would run down S 55th Street. Because of the protected area on Lot 12, they can only clear 35%. It seems it may be complicated to build the wall, do the grading and remain at less than 35%. They will also need the permission of Mr. Witt and any other neighbors prior to building this retaining wall. Her opinion is that the maintenance of that particular retaining wall should be spread over the whole group in a Homeowner’s Association. That particular wall on Lot 12 is in essence holding the entire plat in place. It might have to be in an easement where all the property owners have an undivided interest, which may be stronger than putting it on the Homeowner’s Association. There could be a possibility of flipping Lot 12 and making the open area next to the retaining wall rather than the house. Mr. Holmberg stated that he had a Geotech engineer present, but did not have a structural engineer in the room today. The Examiner asked if this wall could be built without disturbing the properties to the west. Permission would be needed to shore it up as it is being built or the piles being driven from the top for the soldier walls and then doing what was necessary. Mr. Holmberg stated that technically they could build the wall on Lot 12 with no off-site easements. It would be a fill behind the wall. It will have impacts on the four lots in Geneva Court because it is going to be a large wall in their backyard. They did look at putting the building area on the west side of Lot 12, there was less of a building envelope doing it that way, but they could revisit that possibility. It could also be a condition that they work with the homeowners of Geneva Court to try to address some of the visual impacts of that wall. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Wilson Park Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-140, PP, ECF April 1, 2010 Page 7 They are proposing larger lots in this development because of the retaining walls and rockeries that are necessary because of the steep slopes. Lot 12 is a difficult lot. Moin Kadri, 19213 Kenlake Place NE, Kenmore 98028 stated the soil investigation that was done found the soil in that area to be a glacial till and generally has a fairly high sheer strength. If the foundations are built on that native material that can withstand the bearing capacities and even a retaining wall. The report has options for three different types of retaining structures, in this type of environment, taking care of drainage is very important. The Examiner stated that he had some concerns with the retaining wall, its length and height and its affect on the properties to the west as well as supporting anything built on Lot 12. He may impose another condition for Lot 12, in that if it can be built it can be built, but it may actually yield to the Urban Separator. These are steep slopes and adjoin other people’s property, there are a lot of things involved in making sure it is done safely without jeopardizing anybody on this site or adjacent sites. Ms. Henning checked on the requirements for a Hillside Subdivision. Lots are required to be larger than the minimum size. Erosion control, grading and Geotech information seem to be the criteria. This is a difficult site, the applicant has been very responsive in working with the City. The remaining concerns would be how clearing would be accomplished on Lot 12 in order to preserve the number of trees required and accommodate all the improvements. There will be export from the site which does not seem to be severe. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 11:36 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Robert Wilson, filed a request for an approval of a Preliminary Plat for the subdivision of a 108,884 square foot (2.5 acre) parcel in the R-1, R-8 and R-14 zones and in the Urban Separator Overlay. The original proposal encompassed 13-lots and 4-tracts (for open space and storm detention). The revised proposal encompasses 12-lots and 3-tracts (for open space). 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 720 South 55th Street. The subject site is located north of 55th and does not front directly on that street. The subject site is east of Talbot Road South and is generally south of AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Wilson Park Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-140, PP, ECF April 1, 2010 Page 8 Valley Medical Center and directly south of the eastern portion of the Sikh Temple site. An existing home is located on the eastern end of the parcel. That home would be removed if the plat is approved. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of a variety of residential uses ranging from low density to medium density uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 7. The subject site is currently zoned R-1 (Single Family - 1 dwelling unit/acre), R-8 (Single Family - 8 dwelling units/acre) and R-14 (medium density - 14 units/acre). The R-14 portion is only about 10 feet wide. 8. The subject site is also subject to the Talbot Road Urban Separator Overlay requiring preservation of a corridor of open space. The overlay is located near the westernmost portion of the subject site and is the portion zoned R-1. It is approximately 23,795 square feet. An Administrative Interpretation found that only 50 percent of the area defined by the urban separator rather than 50 percent of the entire site should be restricted to open space use. 9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 3268 enacted in December 1978. 10. The subject site is approximately 2.49 acres or 108,884 square feet. The rectangular subject site is approximately 207 feet wide (north to south) by 510 feet long. The southwest corner of the subject site is approximately 290 feet north of South 55th. 11. The subject site slopes downward over 110 feet from approximately 370 feet in the northeast corner of the site to approximately 254 feet at its western boundary. The slopes range from 13 percent 39 percent with an area exceeding 40 percent east of the southwest corner of the site. Slopes exceeding 40 percent are designated as protected slopes. 12. The site's sloped topography means the site falls within the definition of a Hillside Subdivision. Larger lots and decreased density are permitted in Hillside Subdivisions. 13. The applicant proposes grading the subject site to create building pads for homes as well as appropriate grades for roads to and through the site. The applicant proposes approximately 17,000 cubic yards of cut and approximately 6,000 cubic yards of structural fill. 14. The tree inventory showed 101 significant trees on the subject site. Code requires the retention of 25 trees whereas the applicant proposes retaining 15 trees. The replacement ratio is six (6) trees for each one removed that should have been retained. Sixty new trees would be planted mainly in the open space corridors. Additional street trees would be required 15. Access to the subject site would be provided via a new public roadway that connects S 55th with the subject site across a neighboring, third-party property. This south to north roadway would be paved to a width of 26 feet and have an eight foot planter strip and a 5 foot sidewalk on its west side. It would connect to a new roadway, Road A, through the site that would curve to the east and end in a T- intersection with another north-south road, Road B. This Road B would extend to the north and south AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Wilson Park Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-140, PP, ECF April 1, 2010 Page 9 property lines. The north leg would eventually connect to properties north of the subject site. The south leg would connect to a secondary, gated emergency access easement that connects to S 55th. The emergency road would have 20 feet of paving. Road A, the main road through the site would have a public right-of-way 42 feet wide and would continue the sidewalk on its north side. A modification to reduce Road A to less than 42 feet was denied. 16. The applicant proposes dividing the subject site into 12 lots and 3 tracts (labeled Tracts B, C and D - there is no Tract A). The three tracts are located south of Road A as you enter the plat from the west, followed by Proposed Lots 1, 2 and 3. Proposed Lots 4-7 are located along the eastern edge of the plat, east of Road B. Proposed Lots 8-12 are located along the north side of Road A. Tract B would encompass the critical slopes. Tracts C and D would be open space areas. As initially proposed the eastern portion of Proposed Lot 12 would be an open space easement as it is governed by the Urban Separator overlay. 17. The lots would range in size from 4,500 square feet to 13,006 square feet. Most of the lots would be between 5,400 square feet and just under 6,000 square feet. The different zones have different development standards. Proposed Lots 1 - 11 are subject to the R-8 standards. Proposed Lot 12 is subject to the R-1 standards. There are actually no lots subject to the R-14 standards. Staff noted that the proposed lots appear to meet the appropriate zoning standards. 18. The applicant proposes installing a number of rockeries along the north and east side of the plat to terrace the lots and provide more level building pads or yard areas. These rockeries will vary in height. The initial plans show them as 5 and 6 foot rockeries. 29. The applicant proposes a tall retaining wall along the western boundary of the subject site adjacent to the four (4) lots of the adjacent Geneva Court Plat. The wall will be twenty (20) feet tall. Walls or rockeries will also be provided along the entry road from S 55th to provide suitable grades for a road in the steeper slopes. 20. Construction of walls or rockeries along property lines may require cooperation and even construction easements from adjoining property owners. The applicant cannot enter upon or injure neighboring properties without legal consent. The ERC imposed conditions to address the visual impacts of the large retaining structures. 21. The three zoning districts each have their own density standards and staff calculated that they all comply with their underlying standards. The overall density for the plat would be 7.99 dwelling units per acre after subtracting sensitive areas and roadways. 22. The subject site is located within the Renton School District. The project is expected to generate approximately 5 or 6 school age children. These students would be spread across the grades and would be assigned on a space available basis. The proposal is subject to the Renton School Impact fee. 23. The development will increase traffic approximately 10 trips per unit or approximately 120 trips for the 12 single family homes. Approximately ten percent of the trips, or approximately 12 additional peak hour trips will be generated in the morning and evening. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Wilson Park Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-140, PP, ECF April 1, 2010 Page 10 24. There was concern about traffic and sight distance issues where the plat's access road intersects S 55th. Accidents along this roadway have been reported, including a fatality. The traffic analysis indicated that there is adequate sight distance on this area of the curving, hilly street. S 55th and the access to the plat may be impaired in inclement, snowy weather. 25. Stormwater from the east drains onto the subject site and then west toward Geneva Court where it is collected and conveyed to 53rd and Talbot. This stormwater will be collected on the subject site and conveyed to an off-site detention vault located under the western roadway that connects the plat to S 55th. The project will have to comply with the 2009 King County Stormwater Manual. 26. Sewer service will be provided by the City. 27. Water service will be provided by the Soos Creek District. CONCLUSIONS: 1. While the division of the subject site into additional lots appears to serve the public use and interest, the twelve lot plat is excessively dense. The proposed plat attempts to maximize the density limitations of the subject site and it does so by sacrificing too much of the natural terrain of the property, particularly, the area designated by the Talbot Urban Separator Overlay. Not only does it sacrifice the natural slopes but it would impose a huge 20 foot tall retaining wall on its neighbors creating an aesthetic blight in the rear yards of four separate homes. Rather than blend this plat's terrain with its western neighbors, it creates an obstacle to neighborliness. Staff calculated that the plat would achieve a density of 7.99 dwelling units per acre. That certainly approaches the permitted density of 8 dwelling units per acre, the upper range, of the R-8 including what should be an R-1 dwelling where the lot size is ordinarily one (1) dwelling unit for an over 43,000 square foot area. The Hillside Subdivision regulations suggest reducing densities on steeper properties. The comprehensive plan suggests making use of the natural contours of a site rather than substantially altering them. The applicant will be substantially altering the grades and slopes of a majority of the property, particularly the easternmost lots. It will also be substantially altering property on either side of the new road connecting the site to S 55th. It does not serve the public use and interest to further alter or damage the natural contours along the westernmost, Urban Separator portion of the property, in addition to the other alterations necessary to develop this otherwise substantially constrained parcel. Proposed Lot 12 and Road A are proposed to occupy too much of what should be protected property. Eliminating Proposed Lot 12 will also reduce the potential issues of a 20 foot wall holding up a large area of slope behind the existing Geneva Court homes. Proposed Lot 12 should be eliminated from the plat and its natural features and slope preserved. 2. An eleven lot plat will serve the public use and interest even though it will still substantially alter the terrain of the site and require engineered rockeries or walls along the road and easternmost lots. It will create eleven new parcels that can provide additional housing choices for residents of the City. It apparently can be served by urban services including domestic water and sewer and storm water. It appears that the stormwater can be contained or controlled by inline systems and an off-site vault under the new road. The access to the subject site might preclude access during inclement weather but it is not the only area subject to such constraints as hilly terrain and steeper roads are the only means of accessing certain parcels. Staff reviewed the traffic report and it appears that while the new access road will be steep it can meet engineering standards and its intersection provides reasonable sight distance for AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Wilson Park Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-140, PP, ECF April 1, 2010 Page 11 all turning directions. 3. The applicant will be providing mitigation fees to offset some of its impacts on emergency services, traffic, parks and schools. The development of eleven new lots should also increase the tax base of the City. The provision of Road B, the eastern north-south road will provide secondary access for emergency vehicles to the south and a potential connector to the north so that if additional development occurs north of the subject site through access might be available on public roads. A sign should be installed warning potential residents that Road B might be a through road with additional traffic in the future. 4. The Zoning, Comprehensive Plan and Urban Separator all recognized that this site would have additional development potential. The development of the subject site will obviously increase traffic on a steep, serpentine road. It will also introduce what should be short-term construction noise and impacts as well as the permanent additional impacts of an increased population on a parcel which now only supports one home. 5. In conclusion, while the development of the subject site was envisioned by the City's Zoning and Policies, the site is also severely constrained by topography and access limitations. Reducing the density by one lot will not unduly limit development of the site, still provide additional housing choices and also retain some of the natural features that the comprehensive plan and the urban separator intended to protect. Reducing the density by one lot will also protect neighboring properties from severe disruption along their eastern boundaries and protect them from an unsightly 20 foot tall wall. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve an ELEVEN LOT plat of the subject site subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Determination of Non-Significance – Mitigated that was issued by the Environmental Review Committee on February 22, 2020 for Project File No. LUA-09-140, ECF, PP. 2. The applicant shall apply for a demolition permit, remove the existing residence and complete final inspections of the demolition prior to plat recording. 3. A Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE) shall be recorded over all of Proposed Lot 12 and Tracts B, C, and D and Lot 12 shall be eliminated. The edge of the NGPE shall be delineated with a split rail fence and identified with signage as approved by the Planning Division project manager. A fencing and signage detail shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval at the time of construction permit application. The fencing and signage shall be installed prior to recording the final plat. 4. The applicant shall be required to plant replacement trees as indicated on Exhibit 8 prior to recording of the final plat. 5. The applicant shall establish a Homeowners Association for the maintenance of the NGPE and the AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Wilson Park Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-140, PP, ECF April 1, 2010 Page 12 stormwater vault and each home shall have an undivided interest in the western retaining wall or walls along the road and if Lot 12 is ultimately approved provide the appropriate documents for the review and approval of the Planning Division project manager prior to recording of the final plat. 6. A note shall be placed on the face of the plat which indicates that Lots 3 and 8 shall be oriented to take access from proposed Road A. 7. The applicant shall place signs at the northerly terminus of proposed Road B which alert future property owners that this road may be extended to the north should future development warrant such an exte4nsion. These signs shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. 8. The applicant shall obtain any necessary construction and maintenance easements for the retaining walls and the stormwater vault subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. 9. The grate covering the drainage vault shall be located either in the sidewalk or the landscaping. 10. All retaining wall, rockeries and transitions shall meet the building standards. ORDERED THIS 1st day of April 2010. FRED J. KAUFMAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 1st day of April 2010 to the following: Mayor Denis Law Dave Pargas, Fire Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Meckling, Building Official Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Planning Commission Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Transportation Division Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Utilities Division Jennifer Henning, Development Services Neil Watts, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Marty Wine, Assistant CAO Renton Reporter Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., April 15, 2010. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Wilson Park Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-140, PP, ECF April 1, 2010 Page 13 An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $250.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., April 15, 2010. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) PUBLIC City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: PUBLIC HEARING DATE: March 15, 2010 Project Name: Wilson Park Preliminary Plat ApplicantlOwner: Robert Wilson; 21703 50th Street East; Lake Tapps, WA 98391 Contact: Shupe Holmberg; Baima & Holmberg Inc., 100 Front Street; Issaquah, WA 98027 File Number., LUA09-140, PP, ECF Project Manager., Gerald Wasser, Associate Planner Project Summary: The applicant is requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat for the subdivision of a 108,884 square foot (2.5 acre) parcel in the R-1, R-8 and R-14 zones and in the Urban Separator Overlay. The original proposal encompassed 13 -lots and 4 -tracts (for open space and storm detention). The revised proposal encompasses 12 -lots and 3 -tracts (for open space). A portion of proposed Lot 12 would also contain an open space easement. A proposed stormwater vault would be located under the proposed access road. Proposed lots range in size from 4,500 to 1.3,006 square feet with a density of 7.99 dwelling units per acre. The proposed lots are intended for the future construction of single family residences. Slopes generally range from 13`Yo to 39% and the southwestern portion of the site contains a small area of protected slopes (over 40%). Access to the proposed lots would be via a new street off of South 55th Street; a secondary access for emergency vehicles is also proposed. Grading would involve approximately 17,000 cubic yards of cut with approximately 5,000 cubic yards used as structural fill. Approximately 500 cubic yards of crushed rock fill would be used for road construction. Project Location: 720 South 55th Street Project Location Map LUA09-140, ECF, PP AGENDA ITEM #1. a) City of Renton Community and Economic lopment Deportment P inary Report to the Hearing Examiner WILSON PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA09-140, PP, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE March 36, 203 Page 2 of 13 B. HEARING EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Project file ("yellow file") containing the application, reports, staff comments, and other material pertinent to the review of the project. Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map (date stamped 10/16/09) Exhibit 3: Preliminary Plat Map (Baima & Holmberg Inc., Sheet 1/1, revised 01/11/10) Exhibit 4: Boundary/Topography Map, (Baima & Holmberg Inc., Sheet 1/5, revised 01/11/10) Exhibit 5: Generalized Utilities/Drainage/Control/Conceptual Grading/Landscaping Plant (Sheet 2/5, revised 01/11/10) Exhibit 6: Road Profile (Baima & Holmberg Inc., Sheet 3/5, revised 01/11/10) Exhibit 7: Wall Profiles & Cross Sections, (Baima & Holmberg Inc., Sheet 4/5, revised 01/11/10) Exhibit 8: Tree Inventory, (Baima & Holmberg Inc., Sheet 5/5, revised 01/11/10) Exhibit 9: Zoning Map (Sheet 13, East %) Exhibit 10: Administrative Policy/Code Interpretation affecting Urban Separator Overlay Regulations, effective January 14, 2010 Exhibit 11: Street Modification letter, dated November 10, 2009 C. GENERAL INFORMATION. 1. Owner of Record: Richard Wilson 21703 601h Street East Lake Tapps, WA 98391 2. Zoning Designation: Residential —1 du/ac (R-1); Residential — 8 du/ac; Residential —14 du/ac (R-14); Urban Separator Overlay 3. Comprehensive Plan Designation: 4. Existing Site Use: 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: East: South: West: 6. Site Area: D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Annexation N/A Comprehensive Plan N/A Zoning Code N/A E. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities: Residential Low Density (RLD); Residential Single Family RSF); and, Residential Medium Density (RMD) Single-family home Vacant (R-1, R-8, and R-14 Vacant (R-4) Vacant and Single Family Home (R-1, R-8, and R-14) Single Family Residential Plat (Geneva Court, R-14) 2.49 acres (108,884 gross square feet) Ordinance No. 3268 5099 5100 Water: Water service is provided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. Date 12/13/78 11/01/2044 11/01/2004 LUA09-I40, ECF, PP AGENDA ITEM #1. a) City of Renton Community and Economic Development Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner WILSON PARK PRELIMINARYPLAT LUA09-140, PP, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE March 16, 2010 Page 3 of 13 Sewer: Sewer service is provided by City of Renton. An 8 -inch diameter sanitary sewer is required to be extended to serve the site. Surface Water/Storrn Water: Storm conveyance is City of Renton. 2. Streets: All streets are within the City of Renton. 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts b. Section 4.2.070: Zoning Use Tables c. Section 4-2-110: Residential Development Standards d. Section 4-2-115: Residential Design and Open Space Standards 2. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards a. Section 4-2-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations 3. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards a. Section 4-"60: Street Standards 4. Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations a. Section 4-7-080: Detailed Procedures for Subdivision b. Section 4-7-120: Compatibility with existing Land Use and Plan — General Requirements and Minimum Standards c. Section 4-7-1.50: Streets — General Requirements and Minimum Standards d. Section 4-7-170: Residential Lots — General Requirements and Minimum Standards e. Section 4-7-220: Hillside Subdivisions S. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria 6. Chapter 11 Definitions G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element: Residential Low Density; Residential Single Family; Residential Medium Density 2. Community Design Element: Natural Areas; Urban Separators; New and Infill Development: Site Planning; 3. Environmental Element: Storm Water; Steep Slopes, Landslide, and Erosion Hazards H. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. Project Description/Background The applicant proposes subdividing an existing 2.49 acre parcel (APN 312305-9125) into 12 lots suitable for the eventual development of detached single family homes and 3 tracts for open space. The resulting parcels would range in size from 4,500 to 13,006 square feet. In addition, the applicant is also LUA09-140, ECF, PP AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Citrof Renton Community and Economic opment Deportment P nary Report to the Hearing Examiner WILSON PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA09-140, PP, ECF PUBLIC NEARING DATE March 16, 2020 Page 4 of 13 proposing that 4,884 square feet of proposed Lot 12 (which is within the Talbot Urban Separator) be designated as a Native Growth Protection Easement. The site is comprised of three zoning classifications: 27,156 square feet in the Residential -1 dwelling units per acre zone (R-1) ; 79,343 square feet in the Residential — 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) zone; and, 2,384 square feet in the Residential —14 dwelling units per acre (R-14) zone. In addition, the Talbot Urban Separator Overlay is present and corresponds to the R-1 zoning in the western portion of the site. Overall density of the 12 -lot proposal on the site would be 7.99 dwelling units per acre. Primary access to the site would be via a 50 -foot wide access easement from South 55th Street. This access easement is approximately 300 -feet in length and accesses the westerly portion of the site and is identified as "Road A" on the revised site plan. A secondary emergency access on the easterly side of the property is also proposed via a 30 -foot wide access easement and continues to the northerly property line. This access is identified as "Road B" on the Preliminary Plat plan. A stormwater detention vault is proposed off-site and to be located under proposed Road A. The applicant is proposing grading involving 17,000 cubic yards of cut with a pproximately 6,000 cubic yards of it being used as structural fill material with the remainder to be exported. In addition, approximately 500 cubic yards of crushed rock fill would be imported to the project site for road construction. An existing single family residence (3,520 square feet) would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. Because average slopes are in excess of 20 percent this project is considered a hillside subdivision. 2. Environmental Review Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on Feb 22, 2010, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated (DNS -M) for the Wilson Park Preliminary Plat. A 14 --day appeal period commenced on February 26, 2010 and ended on March 12, 2010. No appeals of the threshold determination were filed as of the writing of this staff report. 3. Compliance with ERC Conditions Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee ERC) issued the following mitigation measure with the Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated: 1. The applicant shall place a note on the face of the plat which requires a 15 -foot building setback line from the top of slopes which are 40% or greater. 2. The applicant will be required to comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Liu & Associates, Inc. dated February 20, 2009. 3. The applicant shall clearly mark and fence trees outside the construction area and replant exposed ground as soon as possible after construction activities. 4. That the applicant shall provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Plan designed pursuant to the 2005 Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. LUA09-140, ECF, PP AGENDA ITEM #1. a) City ofRenton Community and Economic Deveoopment Deportment Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner . WILSON PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA09-140, PP, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE March 16, 2010 Poge 5 of 13 S. Weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the Project Engineer of record to the Public Works inspector. 6. Grading and foundation activities shall be conducted during the dryer months of the year from April 1 through October 31 unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 7. The final drainage report and design shall be subject to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 8. The applicant shall be required to pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.75 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat (with credit given for the existing house). The fee is estimated to be $5,838.36. 9. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily vehicle trip associated with the proposed project prior to recording of the final plat (with credit given for the existing house). The fee is estimated to be $7,895.25. 10. The applicant shall be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488.00 per each new single family Jot prior to recording the final plat (with credit given for the existing house). The fee is estimated at $5,368.00. 11. The applicant shall submit a sample board indicating the texture and tinting to be used on all visible surfaces of retaining walls for the review and approval of the Planning Division project manager prior to the issuance of construction permits. 4. Staff Review Comments Representatives from various departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. Consistency with Preliminary Plat Criteria Approval of a plat is based upon several factors. The following preliminary plat criteria have been established to assist decision -makers in the review of the plat: a) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Designation The site is designated Residential Low Density (RLD), Residential Single Family (RSF), and Residential Medium Density (RMD) on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The proposal is consistent with all of the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use policies: Policy CD -1. Integrate development into natural areas by clustering development and/or adjusting site plans to preserve wetlands, steep slopes, and notable stands of trees or other vegetation. Natural features should function as site amenities. Use incentives such as flexible lot size and configuration to encourage preservation and add amenity value. Policy Objective Met 0 Not Met Policy CD -22. During land division, all lots should front streets or parks. Discourage single tier lots with rear yards backing onto a street. Where a singie-tier plat is the only LUA09-140, ECF PP AGENDA ITEM #1. a) City of Renton Community and Economic Iopment Department P inary Report to the Hearing Examiner WIMN PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA09-140, PP, ECF PUBLIC NEARING DATE March 16, 2010 Page 6 of 13 viable alternative due to land configuration, significant environmental constraints, or location on a principal arterial, additional design features such as larger setbacks, additional landscaping, or review of fencings should be required. a. Evaluation of land configuration should consider whether a different layout of streets or provision of alleys is physically possible and could eliminate the need for a single -tier plat. b. Evaluation of environmental constraints should consider whether the location and extent of critical areas prevents a standard plat design. c. Review of fencing should ensure that the development does not "turn its back" to public areas. Policy Objective Met Not Met Policy CD -25. Streets, sidewalks, and pedestrian or bike paths should be arranged an interconnecting network. Dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs should be discouraged. A grid or "flexible grid" pattern of streets and pathways, with a hierarchy of widths and corresponding traffic volumes, should be used. Policy Objective Met Not Met Policy CD -26. Interpret development standards to support plats designed to incorporate vehicular and pedestrian connections between plats and neighborhoods. Small projects composed of single parcels and/or multiple parcels of insufficient size to provide such connections, should include future street stubs. Future street connections should be clearly identified to notify residents of future roadway connections. Policy Objective Met Not Met Policy EN -28. Minimize on-site erosion and sedimentation during and after construction. Policy Objective Met Not Met Policy EN -71. Allow land alteration only for approved development proposals or approved mitigation efforts that will not create unnecessary erosion, undermine the support of nearby land, or unnecessarily scar the landscape. Policy Objective Met Not Met Policy LU -156. Residential Low Density areas may be incorporated into Urban Separators. Policy Objective Met Not Met Policy EN -28. Minimize on-site erosion and sedimentation during and after construction. Policy Objective Met Not Met 6j Compliance with the Underlying Zoning Designation The subject site is designated R-1, R-8, and R-14 on the City of Renton Zoning Map. The proposed development would allow for the future construction of 12 new single-family dwelling units. Density: The density permitted in the R-1 zone is a maximum of 1 dwelling per net acre du/ac). The density range in the R-8 zone is a minimum oof 4.0 up to a maximum of 9_0 du/ac. The density range in the R-14 zone is a minimum of 10.0 and a maximum of 14.0 du/ac. Net density is calculated after public rights -of way, private access easements, and LUA09-140, ECF, PP AGENDA ITEM #1. a) City of Renton Community and Economic Development Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner WILSON PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA09-140, PP ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE March 16, 2010 Page 7 of 13 critical areas are deducted from the gross acreage of the site. The net acreage of the R-1 area of the property is 0.3882 acre (23,795 sf — 5,927 sf of road area and 958 sf of steep slope area = 16,910 sf or 0.3882 ac); the net acreage of the R-8 portion of the property is 63,277 sf or 1.4526 ac (80,632 sf —17,355 sf of road area = 63,277 sf or 1,4526 ac); and the net acreage of the R-14 area of the property is 2,094 sf or 0.0481 acre (2,384 sf — 290 sf of road area= 2,094 sf or 0.0481 acre). The overall net density for the project is 7.99 du/ac. Lot Dimensions: Twelve lots and three tracts are proposed. The minimum lot size required in the R-1 zone is 1 acre or 10,000 sf for cluster developments; minimum lot width in the R- 1 zone is 75 -feet for interior lots and 85 -feet for corner lots and the minimum depth is 85 - feet. The minimum lot size in the R-8 zone is 4,500 sf for parcels greater than one acre in size; the minimum lot width in the R-8 zone is 50 -feet for interior lots and 60 -feet for corner lots. No lots are proposed in the R-14 portion of the property. As proposed and demonstrated in the table below, all lots meet the requirement for minimum width. Lot Area (s4. ft.) Width/Depth (ft. 1 Notes 1 4,594 63/75 R-8 Zone; abuts open space Tracts B &D 2 4,500 60/75 R-8 Zone 3 5,896 80/75 R-8 Zone; corner lot 4 5,993 50/120 R-8 Zone 5 5,979 50/120 R-8 Zone 6 5,964 50/120 R-8 Zone 7 5,782 57/120 R-8 Zone; future road connection to north 8 6,269, 70/90 R-8 Zone; corner lot 9 5,400 60/90 R-8 Zone 10 5,400 60/90 R-8 Zone 11 5,404 60/90 R-8 and R-1 Zones 12 73,006 (net lot area 8,122) 108/90 Ft. R-1 Zone; includes 4,884 sq. ft. of open space B 958 N/A I Steep Slope Open Space Tract C 4,195 N/A Open Space Tract D 2,900 N/A Open Space Tract Setbacks: Proposed Lots 1 -11 are subject to the setback requirements of the R-8 Zone. Lot 12 is entirely within the R-1 Zone, and is, therefore, subject to R-1 setbacks. None of the proposed lots are subject to the requirements of the R-14 zone. R-1 zone setback requirements are a minimum of 30 -feet front yard, 15 -feet side yard and 25 -feet rear yard. R-8 setback requirements are a minimum of 15 -feet for the primary LUA09-140, ECF, PP AGENDA ITEM #1. a) City of Renton Community and Economic . lopment Department P inary Report to the Nearing Examiner WILSON PARK PRELIMINARYPLAT LUA09-140, PP, ECF PUBLIC NEARING DATE March 16, 2010 - Page 8 of 13 structure and 20 -feet for attached garages in the front yard, 5 -feet side yard and 20 -feet rear yard. As proposed, all lots appear to contain adequate area to provide all required setback areas. Compliance with building setback requirements would be reviewed at the time of building permit review. The applicant has indicated that the existing residence on portions of proposed Lots 2, 3, 8, and 9 would be removed. Since the existing house is within the area of several proposed lots and the Road 8, the house will need to be removed prior to recording. Staff recommends as a condition of approval, that the applicant apply for and obtain a demolition permit, remove the existing residence, and complete final inspections of the demolition prior to plat recording. Building Standards:_ The R-1 and R-8 zones permit one residential structure per lot. Each of the proposed lots would support the construction of one detached single family home/ Building height in the R-1 (Lot 12) and R-8 zones (Lots 1 - 11) is limited to 30 feet. The maximum lot coverage in the R-1 Zone (Lot 12) is 35% percent; while the maximum impervious lot coverage in the R-8 Zone is dependent on the lot size. For lots greater than 5,000 square feet (Lots 3 - 11) 35% lot coverage or 2,500 sq. ft. is permitted, whichever is greater; for lots less than 5,000 sq. ft. (tots 1 and 2) 50% lot coverage is permitted. it appears that all of the proposed parcels contain enough area to accommodate single family residential homes that comply with the lot coverage requirements. The building standards for proposed lots would .be verified at the time of building permit review. Proposed Lot 12 contains an open space easement which would be recorded as a part of the Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE) recommended in this report. d) Community Assets Landscaping: The applicant will be required to provide landscape strips along the internal roads where street trees shall be planted. Proposed Road A within the plat would require an 8 -foot landscape strip between the street and the sidewalk along the north side of the street. The off-site portion of Road A will also require an 8 -foot planter strip between the street and the sidewalk. Proposed (toad B is required to have a 5 -foot planter strip landscaped with street trees. The applicant has submitted a tree inventory and tree retention worksheet which indicates that there are 101 trees on the site. A total of 25 trees must be retained and the applicant is proposing to retain 15 of these trees_ The replacement ratio is six, 2 -inch caliper trees per tree removed. The applicant is proposing to provide 60 replacement trees. The majority of these replacement trees are proposed to be planted within the Urban Separator Area (R-1 zoning) which encompasses the eastern portion of proposed Lot 12, and Tracts B, C, and D. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE) be recorded over the eastern portion of Lot 12 and Tracts B, C, and D. The edge of the NGPE shall be delineated with a split rail fence and identified with signage as approved by the Planning Division project manager. A fencing and signage detail shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval at the time of construction permit application. The fencing and signage shall be installed prior to recording the final plat_ In order to ensure that the proposed open space area would be provided with vegetation enhancement, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant be required to plant replacement trees as indicated on Exhibit 8. Staff further recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant establish a Homeowners LUA49-140, ECF, PP AGENDA ITEM #1. a) City of Renton Community and Economic Development Department Preiiminory Report to the Nearing Examiner WILSON PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT LLiA09-140, PP, ECF PUBLIC NEARING DATE March 16, 2010 Page 9 of 13 Association which would be responsible for maintenance of the open space areas within the plat. Open Space: The R-1 zoned portion of the property coincides with the Talbot Road Urban Separator Overlay. RMC 4-3-110 identifies two Urban Separator Overlay areas in the City: the May Valley Urban Separator and the Talbot Road Urban Separator. In the May Valley Urban Separator, entire properties are included in the Urban Separator designation. However, in the Talbot Road Urban Separator only portions of properties are within the Urban Separator. Urban Separators are intended to create contiguous open space corridors within and between urban communities, which provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits. The purpose of the Urban Separator is also to protect resources and environmentally sensitive areas. Properties located within Urban Separators are required to dedicate 50 percent of the designated gross area of the property as open space. For properties in May Valley, where entire properties are within the Urban Separator, this is appropriate. However, for properties in the Talbot Road area, where only portions of the sites are within the designated Urban Separator, the requirement for dedicating 50 percent of the area as open space is a hardship. By requiring 50 percent of the area designated as Urban Separator to be dedicated as open space, there is uniformity and fairness between the Talbot Road and May Valley Urban Separator areas. An Administrative Policy/Code Interpretation which became effective on January 14, 2010 states that properties in the Talbot Urban Separator will be required to dedicate 50 percent of the gross land area in the Urban Separator as open space, rather than 50 percent of the gross site area. The area to be dedicated may also include portions of the site abutting the Urban Separator. The area of the project site within the Talbot Road Urban Separator (R-1 zone) is 23,795 sf. Using the Administrative Policy/Code Interpretation cited, above, the applicant would be required to dedicate 11,898 sf of open space. The applicant proposes to provide 12,937 sf of open space (958 sf in Tract B, 4,195 sf in Tract C, 2,900 sf in Tract D, and 4,884 sf in the open space easement as part of proposed Lot 12). e) Compliance with the Subdivision Regulations Streets: Access to the site would require the dedication of a new public street across an abutting property. This street would 26 -feet of paving, an 8 -foot planter strip and a 5 -foot sidewalk. A secondary emergency access across the abutting property to the southeast is required. This emergency access would be gated and is required to have 20 -feet of paving. Residential Blocks: RMC 4-7-160A states that blocks shall be wide enough to accommodate two tiers of lots, except where the location and extent of environmental constraints prevent a standard plat land configurations including size and shape of the parcel. In addition, prior the approval of a single tier of lots, the applicant must demonstrate that a different layout or provision of an alley system is not feasible. The site contains environmental constraints including limited access, steep slopes, and narrow underlying lot width which preclude a double tier of lots or an alley configuration. Furthermore, the applicant initially proposed a different lot layout, with more parcels, and redesigned the plat to conform to the multiple underlying zone classifications and the Urban Separator Overlay. Staff supports the current lot layout. The parcels are ,uniform in size and shape. Lots: The proposed lots are generally rectangular in shape and conform to Code requirements in terms of minimum size and width_ Proposed Lots 3 and 8 would be corner lots and frontage has been determined to be on proposed Road A. Staff recommends as a LUA09-140, ECF, PP AGENDA ITEM #1. a) City of Renton Community and Economic . lopment Department P inary Report to the Nearing Examiner WIL50N PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA09-140, PP, ECF PUBLIC NEARING DATE March 16, 2010 Page 10 of 13 condition of approval that proposed Lots 3 and 8 front on proposed Road A and, therefore, a note shall be placed on the face of the plat prior to recording. D Reasonableness of Proposed Boundaries: Access: Each of the proposed lots and tracts would have access to a public street. The applicant has proposed to extend a new 42 -foot wide public street from South 55` h Street. This street would have 26 -feet of paving, an 8 -foot planter strip, a five-foot sidewalk, curb and gutter along the westerly side of the street. This street would require off-site dedication. Within the plat, Road A would be a 42 -foot wide right-of-way consisting of 26 feet of paving, with and 8 -foot wide landscape strip and 5 -foot wide sidewalk fronting proposed Lots 8 —12. The sidewalk and planting strip would be located on only on the north side of the street fronting Road A. Improvements proposed on proposed Road B fronting Lots 4 — 7 consist of a 5 -foot wide sidewalk and a 5 -foot wide sidewalk and a 5 -foot wide planting strip along the east side of proposed Lot 8. improvements for proposed Road B would end at the northern property line. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant place a sign at the northern terminus of proposed Road B that alerts future property owners that this road may be extended to the north should future development warrant such an extension. Emergency secondary access would be provided via an emergency vehicle access extending from the southeast terminus of Road 'B' (near Lots 3 and 4) to South 55'h Street. This emergency access would require 20 -feet of pavement. Property owners to the west have expressed concern about the installation of new roads to the proposed project. They are concerned about appropriate setbacks, easements and fences along property lines. Additionally, these property owners are concerned about safety on these roads in inclement weather. The surrounding property owners also suggest a concrete barrier wall for cars travelling southbound (downhill) on proposed Road A. The applicant must address all appropriate City of Renton road safety issues at the time of construction. The property owners to the west are also concerned about traffic on S 551h Street which is serpentine and slopes downward from east to west in the vicinity of the proposed project. While it is acknowledged that vehicle accidents have occurred in this area on S 55th Street, the Traffic Study submitted with the application materials indicates that sight distances at the proposed access point for the proposed project are adequate. This has been verified by City staff. Topography: The site contains areas of protected slopes (greater than 40 percent) in the southwestern portion of the property. The Environmental Review Committee imposed a mitigation measure which requires the applicant to place a note on the face of the plat that requires a 15 -foot building setback line from the top of slopes which are 40 percent or greater. The applicant has indicated proposed retaining walls along the westerly side of proposed Lot 12 (within the R-14 portion of the property) and through proposed Lots S, 6, and 7. These walls range in height from 12 to 20 -feet in height. The retaining wall on the easterly side of the property would be poured concrete or soil nail composition. The retaining wall on the westerly side of the property would be poured concrete or reinforced earth. Because the height of these proposed walls may cause visual impacts to adjoining property owners to the west and northeast, the Environmental Review Committee imposed a mitigation measure to require a combination of texturing and tinting on all visible surfaces LUA09-140, ECF, PP AGENDA ITEM #1. a) City of Renton Community and Economic Development Department Preliminary Report to the Nearing Examiner WILSON PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA09-140, PP, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE March 16, 2010 Page 11 of 13 of the proposed retaining walls. Because proposed retaining walls would be in close proximity to property lines, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant obtain any necessary construction and maintenance easements for the retaining walls and the stormwater vault. Property owners to the west of the project site have expressed concern about appropriate engineering of the proposed project so that the properties below the site are not compromised by increased danger of landslides or run-off. The Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Liu & Associates, Inc., dated February 20, 2009 and the Technical Information Report prepared by Baima & Holmberg, Inc., dated May 5, 2009 address these issues and present recommendations to avoid such consequences. Relationship to Existing _Uses: Single-family residences abut the project site to the west and south with vacant land to the north and east. The detached single-family residences would be compatible with the surrounding development. g) Availability and Impact on Public Services (Timeliness) Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development. Due to limited access staff recommends, as a condition of approval, any future residence constructed within the plat shall be sprinkled unless the requirement is removed by the City of Renton Fire Marshal or his/her designee. A note shall be recorded on the face of the short plat to this effect. The proposal would add new residential units to the City that would potentially impact the City's Police and Fire Emergency Services. Staff recommended through SEPA Environmental Review as a condition of approval to mitigate for these impacts that requires the applicant to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee, based on $488.00 per new single-family residence payable prior to recoding of the final plat. The fire mitigation fee is estimated to be $5,386 (11 new units x $488.00 = $5,386.00) Schools: The project site is served by schools in the Renton School District. It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Benson Hill Elementary, Nelsen Middle School and Lindbergh High School. School impact fees are regulated under RMC 4-1-160 and are in effect at the time of permit application or final plat approval. Currently, the Renton School District required fee is 6,310.00 per each new single-family residence; however, school mitigation and impact fees are updated annually and are subject to change. Surface Water: The applicant submitted a Technical Information Report for Wilson Park, prepared by Baima & Holmberg, Inc. dated May 5, 2009. That report includes an analysis of upstream tributary drainage which states that the parcel to the east drains onto the site. The Level I Downstream Drainage Analysis in the report states that runoff from the site flows west into lots in the adjacent Geneva Court development. The majorities of these flows collect in a drain constructed along the back yards of the western -most lots of the Geneva Court development and then flow into the storm system in South 53rd Place. This flow collects in a stormwater pond/bioswale facility located at the intersection of Talbot Road S and South 53`d Place approximately 750 -feet downstream from the site. This facility outfalls through an 18 -inch pipe to the west side of Talbot Road S into a poorly defined channel flowing into the woods. The flows then pass through a 12 -inch culvert under a walking path and continue to flow west to a wooded wetland area more than a quarter LUA09-240, ECF, PP AGENDA ITEM #1. a) City of Renton Community and Economic opment Deportment Pr )cry Report to the Nearing Examiner WILSON PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA09-140 PP, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATEMarch 16, 2010 Page 12 of 13 mile downstream from the site. Flows into the ditch along S 551" Street continue west in a rock lined channel along the north side of the street to the intersection of Talbot Road S and S 55`h Street. The channel is eroded and shows signs of flowing into the street. Flows from the ditch along Talbot Road S collect in the storm system about 850 -feet downstream from the site eventually flowing into Springbrook Creek at about 1,800 -feet downstream from the site. Springbrook Creek continues flowing west to about one-half mike downstream of the site where it enters a box culvert crossing SR 167. The Technical Information Report indicates that there are no apparent drainage problems. The plans submitted by the applicant indicate that a proposed storm water detention vault would be located off-site in the easterly proposed access road to control downstream stormwater impacts. The Environmental Review Committee imposed a mitigation measure that requires the final drainage report shall be subject to the 2004 Icing County Surface Water Design Manual. Property owners to the west have expressed concern about changes in drainage due to impervious surfaces created by the proposed project. The applicant proposes to install a stormwater vault within the off-site portion of proposed Road A. Additionally, the applicant would be required to use the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual in the final drainage report. Water: The applicant proposes to serve the subject subdivision with a public water supply and distribution system managed by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. A Certificate of Water Availability, dated November 7, 2008, has been issued by the Soos Creek Water & Sewer District. The applicant will show, during engineering review, the location and distance of all existing fire hydrants within 300 feet of the site. Existing and new hydrants will be required to be retrofitted with Storz "quick disconnect" fittings, if not already in place. Furthermore, the Fire Department requires that all new houses be sprinklered. Sewer: The site is within the City of Renton sewer service area. A minimum 8 -inch diameter sanitary sewer extension is required to serve the site. Streets: The streets within the proposed project would be dedicated public streets and would become part of the City's street system. Improvements required on these streets are described ion the Access section, above. As indicated in that section, the neighboring property owners are concerned about how street safety issues would affect them. The Traffic Study prepared by Traffex, dated June 23, 2004 cites accident history in the project vicinity on South 551h Street between 98th Avenue S and 99t11 Place S. A total of four accidents occurred between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2008. Two of the accidents were injury accidents with one of them being fatal. None of the accidents occurred at the curve on South 551h Street where the site access is proposed. The Traffic Study indicates that sight distances are adequate for the curves in the vicinity of the proposed project. The adequacy of sight distances has been verified by City staff and has been found to be appropriate for the proposed plat LUAC9-140, FCF, PP AGENDA ITEM #1. a) city of Renton Community and Economic Development Department Preliminary Report to the Nearing Examiner WILSON PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA09-140, PP, ECF PUBLICNEARING DATE March 16, 20I0 Page 13 of13 G. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the Wilson Park Prellminary Plat, Project File No. LUA09-140, PP. ECF) subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated that was issued by the Environmental Review Committee on February 22, 2010 for Project File No. LUA09-140, ECF, PP. 2. The applicant shall apply for a demolition permit, remove the existing residence and complete final inspections of the demolition prior to plat recording. 3. A Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE) shall be recorded over the eastern portion of Lot 12 and Tracts B, C, and D. The edge of the NGPE shall be delineated with a split rail fence and identified with signage as approved by the Planning Division project manager. A fencing and signage detail shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval at the time of construction permit application. The fencing and signage shall be installed prior to recording the final plat. 4. The applicant shall be required to plant replacement trees as indicated on Exhibit 8 prior to recording of the final plat. 5. The applicant shall establish a Homeowners Association for the maintenance of the NGPE, the stormwater vault and the retaining walls and provide the appropriate documents for the review and approval of the Planning Division project manager prior to recording of the final plat. 6. A note shall be placed on the face of the plat which indicates that Lots 3 and 8 shall be oriented to take access from proposed Road A. 7. The applicant shall place signs at the northerly terminus of proposed Road B which alert future property owners that this road may be extended to the north should future development warrant such an extension. These signs shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. 8. The applicant shall obtain any necessary construction and maintenance easements for the retaining walls and the stormwater vault subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. EXPIRATION PERIODS: The Preliminary Plat approval will expire 5 years from the date of approval. An extension may be requested pursuant to RMC Section 4-7-080.1_. LUA09-140, ECF, PP AGENDA ITEM #1. a) EXHIBIT 2 r .a :A3 5 F`$•a a}' er s' 4 ei ` a r _ S tg ° Bei a! ° o 1i1 b0t,1 C x '• - -- l J rn. E PPS w ^ a y , jIy ;4 Q 0 - 3htl: rr..F c w . i1.1 uj s "- a x • -.T. r.--- H166K " .''F .a, SJ.i Q m 1 c J yypp4tK of 5C'—. /!? . To 'id s g.7 K x 41(D g ar8q m cd 1 pV 4 I = , • p * e 4 y, ,' ' it 4 rYI,.. F.. y 6 I` g c9 jj p_ .^-- Ir GL4 DC7 11 a' zW1 k?7-T101*i p Fl m K - F n - y srw:7- ;ruoauoa ldaa AGENDA ITEM #1. a) W LO Y MO Z Za ch 0NF— CD ZZ Q SE L)3 id 0 LL Z W tl M y uj T f y L V O Z 99O IL r : 1_ ElLqkfille a oarnc faa nl A,z wlc ri,os 104IC lq I E, &g r3I ------I I 1Gi Fb88 ' Ao' y A09C .Po9i -------- AM f BIZ+Lv enx air Mr' Jt„8 X41,' EXHIBIT 3 x arrmr J I f a Y ELS W LO Y MO Z Za ch 0NF— CD ZZ Q SE L)3 id 0 LL Z W tl M y uj T f y L V O Z 99O IL r : 1_ ElLqkfille a oarnc faa nl A,z wlc ri,os 104IC lq I E, &g r3I ------I I 1Gi Fb88 ' Ao' y A09C .Po9i -------- AM f BIZ+Lv enx air Mr' Jt„8 X41,' J I f° X41,' J I i bmfw oro yf ra,. mljLOx 4 eaBBF 3_f*-8G.Owr 1 V L-, E IilVd HQS'IUYI 'w oH,*' AGENDA ITEM #1. a) g}g} If EXHIBIT 4 W1 1 11 6 _ Fq I Rtla ppj` ySg b6@ R' 3 2 Affil"cak i9 fide x E.. os v•ah" f2rmJyolataEt rfit'uns4.-------_'.- -------- n E ce r T- ---__ -- - _itm1-=~~~ _- M.,- 7 Wim. --=- rcr - _ "•:i:w co jjj "'.SSS -- .tI 1 • R.'8 '.' 1 _ / ,.L i Fir __C. __ - 'y9j- S ' r • j-M. Lu o ar. TILp .---------- -- - m J . as ' pa ii` C r i .e I Lu qkf - - 1- _ cb•^- __# ,•'FJ iv_ ice_.--__ _P`l'9,y-- -•WY_ 'I !/ LLT_----_____ fir- Z+:r± iz p ---` - CyFt -wr 1 b `-. n,ti 't Y—y_•-_--___ _ g a Y _ oor r- ___ -,..-_ -serm - _ ---- r^ij.t I •y. .._`$ -, _-`__F Y ____ r. d f, pm a. cz _ OF -- qtr''' -- ^' Q - - ^ ------ tip µ- rT'r J _w. L12fi[9 dSAI 571 1, 1 y F_~ 74yo-terat dtl11 1.FidV990dOJ[/ XSVClLlOB way.)IUVd NOSIIM u1r B,R •+rR AGENDA ITEM #1. a) EXHIBIT 5 R lilt I a4pl EailH k oil r i `w { `t `w ! i t j LO Z Z— '\'fol'c '1i ! . Yv-_r. t'.rr,—_...___—:, — o rf`=;•--,r t— _ J , y T_ ''a' a-ti—`------ 1 y` W = - IIIJ ar+---------- V) S 1 1 I' alc -w x w 911 0 Uri LL 0,0 ——---7i•yl _ i j i rN..S rr J r'I J Imc riV=, iU ,.3 I - I t _ IiIi` _ r '- - -__-~" - r r r 0 41 70 as nlz^ Y _ - ^ \ 30 ` r![ i ,logBz 3"BF,B¢OON -.cr a and elm"os0NYl/Jmiavus r.er 3nm^ Ps r ' on ro-cecz 7YN.d33N00/1MH1W0=- {-'I 9 m, 3 YN11lHR 6 2J 1111 man"ap y+4 6 WIWl,T w+RB ar m a la- NUVd NOSI M rt== m w. .c... an WWF w,na.o o-:so-nsCtw\m-rnrmana AGENDA ITEM #1. a) LU C9 z Z z C9 v 8 z w0 W F— LL z OW LL w0 co U LL z 0 0 a- rer-w q q p w WAL- RSA q t i i i 4 4 FT i EXHIBIT 6 3 I 37fi aaa avoa — -- -_d MUtld MOS—IM '4 6 4LIOH,RlrB r or — AGENDA ITEM #1. a) C W rO V Z B 6 I J r' J fJ , es¢ JJ JJ i it 5 f JJ 7:2 JJJJ JJ I JJJJ-IJ JJ.iJ JJJ i JJ J J JJJJ JJJ C JJJJ JJJ JJJJ JJJ JJJ JJJJ JJJJJ._I JJJJJJ JJJJ JJ JJ JJJ JJ4J J'J JJi J JJJ _ i J 1JJJ_J JJJJJ JJZJ JJJ JJJJ JJJ ysJ JJ JJJJJJJJJ JJJ JJ_ JJJ U JJJJJJ a g C W rO V Z B 6 I J r' J fJ , JJ JJ 5 7:2 M JJJJJJJJJJ JJ I JJJJ-IJ JJ.iJ JJJ JJJJ 'JJJ' JJJJ JJJ C JJJ_i J J JJJJ JJJJJJ _I l JJJJ J JJ JJU EJJJJJJ JJ JJJJJ LL O z 0 O CL B B zb 5 M C br R9 rYRr 5 5 C b R9 r YRr 5 B B 8 T 6d7fjOi3d l7YM WVd WDS HM VWAGAMMON. T SPH g w m w wm3x 8 8 C b B B 8 T 6d7fjOi3d l7YM WVd WDS HM VWAGAMMON. T SPH g w m w wm3x 8 8 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) yy yy I rA EXHIBIT 8 FE E E 3E EEE • t'EEa<arls>`EEF 3EEEE tib do a?:2k__:kkSkL_aa•.=eR aa,:,ks.:Rk R aJ' Gia zr e Qe EEEEEFF3tom EFEEFEEEF11111glop! IoE o l \ b y titi ,y•. 1 f 7 fa 7Y.1) •af9LDZ ALifxI.I85 p 1` t `3 ^-... •` - -----, J J ! rl-.~ 1 it A „ a--- - -- • - -' /, e LU i..J n --•r'' Y - t - - a ryy ---- vim'-Mk --i'-;q. . 'z, G 1 w - '_ -_ # y . - . x• - oma' 5$ I • 8 N eor .,- - b - * Y - - mor aals 3t.wa7' - i ,' 3{• W LL- SFJ- .Pei w - J 4°! ,* _ -_ J- _SSii EL qr- 4 ® r- -_ y,\ _~ CSF _ ^ - • O{ 1' f -r- _ --__ ^- -- -'- - fes -_ - _ ---i -^_ ` 1-. '-_ -_ -.•', -`- ___.-• Pi='-- __ --_ -- ^_ ` moi^' ryp+ - -- T, y^ -- - -_ -'L-rf _- 251_ -_ __.-,-Zi~ ___ • j4tS , _ r"1 zw 3i' •' -- i - cltrrs ear xtj /1 t - -f. =T - - * - - -- ' -- - - __ - 0'882 3,Br,8t-aaK c -.a- _fir' • t •. WM yw IAfW i ao-tasT grnd N0tLN3.L9WABOIN3hM 33UL-- = mf m =5 7ik1Vd HQSIWI ;W ON•r7,Pg _ AGENDA ITEM #1. a) H3 - 30 T23N R5E E 1/2 IM -- EXHIBIT 9 co I IINftci9 S 1 _ _ . CO... R-14 iR-: CO co i 1to cE CarIW co-- 4t/ i ro j I CO RM -F ! 14 6.vane az __ s,wn0 aawta B s -- R-4 co COr C co CO i CO c CO W R-4 N x R -S Ngsnai R-14 ss,a s, R 1 ' t,lL R_4... 3 sw9 R-1 R-4 R-4 4 ZONING MAP.13010K J3 - Ob T22N R5E E 1/2 PW TECHNICAL SERVICES 3PRINTEDON11/13/09 I1 a 200 400 31 T23N R5E E 1/2crtraF.z in Feet f1 r I D_r .. 1:4.800 5331 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) EXHIBIT 14 City of 00000 ri 1 U") Department of Community and Economic Development Planning Division ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/ CODE INTERPRETATION MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS: RMC 4-3-110, Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. REFERENCE: Wilson Park Preliminary Plat (LUA09-140, PP, ECF) SUBJECT: Determination regarding dedication of open space requirements for properties within the Talbot Urban Separator. BACKGROUND, The City received an application for a development proposal on a 2.5 acre site in the R-14, R-1, and R -S Zones. The site includes a portion of the Talbot Urban Separator, which is an overlay intended to create contiguous open space corridors within and between urban communities, which provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits. The purpose of the Urban Separator is also to protect resources and environmentally sensitive areas. There are two Urban Separator areas: May Valley and Talbot Road. In the May Valley Urban Separator, entire properties are included in the Urban Separator designation. However, in the Talbot area, only portions of properties are within the Urban Separator, and these are generally portions of the property containing steep slopes. Properties located within the Urban Separator are required per RMC 4-3-110.E2.a to dedicate 50% of the gross land area of the parcel or parcels as a non - revocable open space tract. In May Valley, since the entire property is designated Urban Separator, the dedication of 50% of the gross site area is appropriate. However, in the Talbot Urban Separator where only a very small portion of the site is designated Urban Separator, it is inequitable to require that 50% of the gross site area be retained. JUSTIFICATION: Urban Separator regulations require dedication of 50% of designated properties gross area as open space. For properties in May Valley, where the entire site is within the Urban Separator, this is appropriate. However, for properties in the Talbot area, where only a portion of the site is designated Urban Separator, the requirement for dedication of H:\CED\Planning\Title IV\Docket\Administrative Policy Code Interpretation\CI-06\Code Interpretation.doc Page 1 of 2 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 50% of the area as open space is a hardship. By requiring 50% of the area designated as Urban Separator to be dedicated as open space, there is uniformity and fairness between the Talbot and May Valley areas. DECISION: Properties in the Talbot Urban Separator will be required to dedicate 50% of the gross land area in the Urban Separator as open space, rather than 50% of the gross site area. The area to be dedicated may also include portions of the site abutting the Urban Separator, in order to create a contiguous open space corridor. PLANNING DIRECTOR APPROVAL: C. E. "Chip" Vincent DATE: January 14, 2010 APPEAL PROCESS: To appeal this determination, a written appeal --accompanied by the required filing fee --must be filed with the City's Hearing Examiner (1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057) no more than 14 days from the date of this decision. Your submittal should explain the basis for the appeal. Section 4-8-110 of the Renton Municipal Code provides further information on the appeal process. CODE AMENDMENTS NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT DETERMINATIONS: RMC 4-3-110.E.2 should be amended to read as shown on Attachment A. CE -05 Page 2 of 2 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Attachment A RMC 4-3-110.E. 2. Dedication of Open Space Required. a. Approval of a plat, and/or building permit on an undeveloped legal lot in the May Valle Urban Separator Overlay shall require dedication of fifty percent (50%) of the gross land area of the parcel or parcels as a non -revocable open space tract retained by property owner, or dedicated to a homeowners association or other suitable organization as determined by the reviewing official. Approval of a 1plat, and/or building permit on an undeveloped le al lot in the Talbot Urban Separator Overlay shall require dedication of fifly percent 50% of the gross land area of that portion of the parcel or parcels located within the Urban Separator as a non - revocable open sace tract retained by the property owner, or dedicated to a homeowners association or other suitable organization as determined by the reviewinq official. In order to satis the dedication requirement, some of the area to be dedicated may consist of land abutting the Urban Separator, as determined b the Planning Director, on a case-by-case basis. Acreage in tracts may include critical areas and/or critical area buffers._ At a minimum, open space shall be connected to another contiguous open space parcel by a fifty foot (50') corridor. b. Existing residences, existing accessory uses and structures, existing above ground utilities located in the tract at the time of designation and new small and medium utilities shall not count toward the fifty percent (50%) gross land area calculation for open space except for storm water ponds designed with less than 3:1 engineered slopes and enhanced per techniques and landscape requirements set forth in the publication the "Integrated Pond" King County Land and Water Resources Division. c. Approval of a building permit for an addition of three hundred (300) square feet for a primary use structure or five hundred (500) square feet for an accessory structure shall require recordation of a conservation easement, protective easement or tract and deed restriction on critical areas and critical area buffers located within the contiguous open space corridor pursuant to RMC 4-3-0501=4, Native Growth Protection Areas. d. Land dedicated as open space shall be located within the mapped contiguous open space corridor unless a modification is approved pursuant to subsection E6 of this Section. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) LawLDenis— F City of EXHIBIT 11Mayor Department of Communityand Economic Development November 10, 2009 Alex Pietsch, Administrator Tom Redding Bairna & Holmberg, Inc. 100 Front Street South Issaquah, WA 98027-3817 Subject: Wilson Park PreliminaryPlat— I_UA09-140 720 South 55a' Street Street Modification requests Dear Mr. Redding.: We have completed our review of your request for modifications to the street standards for the proposed Wilson Park Preliminary Plat located at 724 South S5`'' Street. The proposed residential subdivision is for 13 single family building lots and four additional tracts. Tile subdivision will be served by two access roadways south of the site to South 55th Street, connecting to a rrew street through the - proposed project. You have requested modification for the internal roadway, including eliminating the required sidewalk from one side of the street,'reducing the right-of-way width, and eliminating the requirement far a cul- de-sac. Clarification of the street improvement requirements for the two off-site access roadways is also. requested. The proposal continues to be based on a waiver of the required connection to the north property line. The request to reduce the internal street right-of-way width to 37.5 feet is denied. However, the request to delete the sidewalk from one side of the internal street is approved', subject to providing an eight -foot (8') planting strip between the street and remaining sidewalk. The requirement fora cul-de- sac is modified to allow for a hammerhead turnaround and gated emergency access for secondary access. The proposal to waive the requirement to extend the public street to the north property line is also denied. tity Cade 4-6-060 (Street Standards) requires full street improvements for all adjacent rights-of-way for, within, and dedicated by a plat. The City can modify street improvements for new plats if there are practical difficulties in carrying out the provisions of the Street Improvement ordinance. The Modification Procedures, as defined in Section 4-9-250D, clearly states the criteria for approval by the Department Administrator. In order for a modification to be approved, the Department Administrator must find that a special individual reason make's the strict letter of this'Ordinance impractical, that the modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Ordinance; and that such modification: a) Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by this ordinance, based upon sound engineering judgment; and b) Will not be injurious to other property(s) in the vicinity; and Renton City Ha[I 9 i o55 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057. • rentonwa.gov AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Mr. Torre Redd"ng Wilson Park Preliminary Plat Page 2of3 , c) Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code; and d) Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended, and e) Will not create adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity. The request to reduce the right-of-way width to 37.5 feet cannot be approved. The code allows for consideration of reduction to 42 feet in width in cases where the additional area provides for a more reasonable lot configuration. The reduction to 42 feet in width is approved, but we fail to find justification'to reduce the public right-of-way in this new residential neighborhood to a lesser standard. The request to eliminate the sidewalk along'the southerly side of the new internal roadway can be supported in this situation, provided there are equivalent value amenities provided in exchange for these improvements. This request is granted, subject to the provision of an eight- foot (8') wide planting strip, including landscaping and street trees, on the northerly side of the street with the new sidewalk. The project site will be accessed by a single public street, which requires a cul-de-sac. The proposed secondary access will mitigate the dead-end roadway configuration for emergency vehicles, but will not be available for regular vehicles and delivery trucks. The requirement for a cul-de-sac is hereby waived, subject to providing a full hammerhead turnaround in public right-of-way and emergency secondary access through an approved gated system. The function of a hammerhead turnaround will be provided with the extension of the street to the north property line, as addressed below. The proposed street design for the plat fails to meet the requirement to extend the public street system through the plat to the northerly property line. The property north of the site is large enough for future platting, and will be connected to the public street system approved for this plat. The regbirement farextensionofthepublicstreetsystemthroughtheproposedplattothenorthpropertylineremains. This extension is to be provided'where Lot 8 is proposed, as an extension of the easterly north -south access roadway. The street improvements required for this preliminary plat, as modified in this decision, are as follows: Westerly off-site access roadway between S. 55t St and the development site: This street section shall be in dedicated public right-of-way. The pavement width can be reduced to 26 feet (26') in width, allowing for parking on one side of the street. Curb and gutter shall be provided along the westerly edge of the pavement_ An eight -foot (8') wide planting strip shall be provided along the west side of the street, with a five-foot (5') wide sidewalk. New internal street syste.m: This street section shall be in a minimum 42 -foot width right-of-way. Additional right-of-way is also required at ail the intersections and turns in the roadway configuration. These radius dedications shall be for a 15 -foot radius. The pavement width can be reduced to 26 feet in width, allowing for parking on one side of the street. Both sides of the street shall be improved with curb and gutter. A sidewalk is not required on the southerly side of the new street. The -face of the curb shall be installed three feet (3') from the southerly edge of the right-of-way. A five-foot (5') wide sidewalk shall be provided along the northerly and "outside" portion of the new internal street, with an AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Mr. Tom Redding Wilson Park Preliminary Plat Page 3 of 3 eight -foot (8') planting strip. The planting strip is to be landscaped, including street trees. Street lighting meeting code with required lighting levels shall be provided on the new internal street system. Street extension to nbrth property line: A public street is required -in the approximate location -of proposed Lot B. This street shall include a minimum of 42 feet in right-of-way. The street improvements for this extension shall include 25 feet of pavement, and curb and gutter along both sides of the street. Sidewalk's are required along both sides of this street section, both five feet (5') in width. The sidewalk on the east side of the street can be constructed adjacent to the new curb. The west side of the street shall include a five-foot (5') planting strip landscaped with street trees. Easterly off-site access roadway between S. 55th St and the development site: This street Section is initially to be used for secondary emergency. access through a private roadway easement. The pavement shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width through this roadway section. An emergency access gate, approved by the Renton Eire Department, can be installed where this roadway enters the new plat. If this private easement is replaced in the future with dedicated public right-of-way, the emergency access gate shall be removed. A note to this effect is to be included on the final plat. You have x4 days from the date.of this letter to appeal the administrative determination in accordance with City code. Appeals are to be filed in writing; with the City Clerk, and require a filing fee in the amount of $250.00. Appeals must be filed with the City Clerk before Tuesday, November 24, 2009, at 5:00 P.M. You may contact Kayren Kittrick at (425) 430-7299 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, r Neil Watts, Director Development Services Division cc: Alex Pietsch, Community & Economic Development Administrator Chip Vincent, Planning Director Kayren Kittrick, Development Engineering Supervisor Jerry Wasser, Associate Planner AGENDA ITEM #1. a) DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: February 22, 2010 Project Name: Wilson Park Preliminary Plat Owner: Robert Wilson, 21703 601h Street E, Lake Tapps, WA 98391 Applicant: Steve Beck, Amberwood LLC, 4735 NE 4`h Street, Renton, WA 98059 Contact: Shupe Holmberg, Baima & Holmberg Inc., 100 Front Street S, Issaquah, WA 98027 File Number: LUA09-140, ECF, PP Project Manager: Gerald C. Wasser, Associate Planner Project Summary: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and approval of a Preliminary Plat for the subdivision of a 108,884 square foot (2.5 acre) parcel in the R-1, R-8 and R-14 zones and in the Urban Separator Overlay. The original proposal encompassed 13 -lots and 4 -tracts (for open space and storm detention). The revised proposal encompasses 12 -lots and 3 -tracts (for open space). A portion of proposed Lot 12 would also contain an open space easement. A proposed stormwater vault would be located under the proposed access road. Proposed lots range in size from 4,500 to 13,006 square feet with a density of 7.99 dwelling units per acre. The proposed lots are intended for the future construction of single family residences. Slopes generally range from 13% to 39% and the southwestern portion of the site contains a small area of protected slopes (over 40%). Access to the proposed lots would be via a new street off of S 55th Street; a secondary access for emergency vehicles is also proposed. Grading would involve approximately 17,000 cubic yards of cut with approximately 6,000 cubic yards used as structural fill. Approximately 500 cubic yards of crushed rock fill would be used for road construction. Project Location: 720S 551h Street Exist. Bldg, Area SF. 3,520 sf (to be Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): N/A removed) Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): N/A Site Area: 108,884 sf (2.5 ac) Total Building Area GSF: N/A STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a RECOMMENDATION: Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M). Revised ERC Report 09-140 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) City of Renton Department of Commun Economic Development E )nmentol Review Committee Report WILSON PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA09-140, ECF, PP Report of February 22, 2010 Page 2 of 12 Project Location Map Revised ERC Report 09-I40.doc AGENDA ITEM #1. a) City of Renton Department of Commun Economic Development mmentol Review Committee Report WILSON PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA09-140, ECF, PP Report of February 22, 2010 Page 3 of 12 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND The Environmental Review Committee considered the original proposal for this project on November 23, 2009. At that meeting the ERC requested that additional information be submitted prior to rendering a threshold determination. On November 24, 2009, staff placed the project "on hold" and requested the applicant to provide more information regarding: the final preliminary plat layout (including street rights- of-way and improvements); driveway locations and grades; detailed information on grading; and retaining wall location, height and materials. The applicant has submitted additional information and the project was taken "off hold" on February 5, 2010 and rescheduled for review by the Environmental Review Committee. Additionally, an Administrative Policy/Code Interpretation affecting RMC 4-3-110, Urban Separator Overlay Regulations and, specifically the dedication of open space requirements in the Talbot Urban Separator Overlay became effective on January 14, 2010. Urban Separator regulations require dedication of 50% of designated properties gross area as open space. In the May Valley Urban Separator entire properties are designated as Urban Separator so the dedication of 50% of the gross site area is appropriate. In the Talbot Urban Separator only small portions of properties are designated as Urban Separator and, therefore, it is inequitable to require that 50% of the gross area be designated as open space. By requiring 50% of the area designated as Urban Separator to be dedicated as open space, there is uniformity and fairness between the Talbot and May Valley Urban Separator areas. This code interpretation accomplishes this uniformity and fairness. The applicant has submitted calculations which indicate that 50% of the proposed Wilson Park Preliminary Plat area designated as Urban Separator would be dedicated as non -revocable open space. The applicant originally proposed a preliminary plat of 13 single family residential lots and 4 tracts for open space and stormwater detention. The applicant is now proposing a preliminary plat of 12 single family lots and 3 tracts for open space. In addition, the applicant is also proposing that 4,884 square feet of proposed Lot 12 (which is in the Talbot Urban Separator) be designated as an open space easement. The stormwater detention vault is now proposed to be located under proposed Road A. The total site area is approximately 2.5 acres. There are 27,156 square feet in the Residential -1 dwelling units per acre, 79,343 square feet in the Residential — 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) zone and 2,384 square feet in the Residential —14 dwelling units per acre (R-14) zone. The Talbot Urban Separator Overlay corresponds to the R-1 zoning in the western portion of the site. Overall density on the site is 7.99 dwelling units per acre. Primary access to the site would be via a 50 -foot wide access easement from S 55th Street. This access easement is approximately 300 -feet in length and accesses the westerly portion of the site and is identified as Road A on the revised site plan. A secondary emergency access on the easterly side of the property is also proposed via a 30 -foot easement and continues to the northerly property line and is identified as Road B on the revised site plan. The applicant is proposing grading involving 17,000 cubic yards of cut with approximately 6,000 cubic yards of it being used as structural fill material. In addition, approximately 500 cubic yards of crushed rock fill would be imported to the project site for road construction. Revised ERC Report 09-140.doc AGENDA ITEM #1. a) City of Renton Department of Commun Economic Development E inmental Review Committee Report WILSON PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA09-140, ECF, PP Report of February 22, 2010 Page 4 of 12 The existing single family residence (3,520 square feet) would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. Comments from surrounding property owners have been received. The concerns expressed were: slope and the statement that appropriate engineering should be included so that property below the site is not compromised by landslide or run-off); trees (with a point raised that trees proposed for removal may weaken the hillside); drainage (with a point raised about an increase in impervious surfaces overburdening existing stormwater facilities); roads and access (with points raised about public safety); and stormwater retention. Code requirements and recommended mitigation measures address these concerns. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS -M with a 14 -day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures 1. The applicant shall place a note on the face of the plat which requires a 15 -foot building setback line from the top of slopes which are 40% or greater. 2. The applicant will be required to comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Liu & Associates, Inc. dated February 20, 2009. 3. The applicant shall clearly mark and fence trees outside the construction area and replant exposed ground as soon as possible after construction activities. 4. That the applicant shall provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Plan designed pursuant to the 2005 Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. 5. Weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the Project Engineer of record to the Public Works inspector. 6. Grading and foundation activities shall be conducted during the dryer months of the year from April 1 through October 31 unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 7. The final drainage report and design shall be subject to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 8. The applicant shall be required to pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat (with credit given for the existing house). The fee is estimated to be $5,838.36. Revised ERC Report 09-140.doc AGENDA ITEM #1. a) City of Renton Department of Commun Economic Development nmentai Review Committee Report WILSON PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA09-140, ECF, PP Report of February 22, 2010 Page 5 of 12 9. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily vehicle trip associated with the proposed project prior to recording of the final plat (with credit given for the existing house). The fee is estimated to be 7,895.25. 10. The applicant shall be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488.00 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat (with credit given for the existing house). The fee is estimated at $5,368.00. 11. The applicant shall submit a sample board indicating the texture and tinting to be used on all visible surfaces of retaining walls for the review and approval of the Planning Division project manager prior to the issuance of construction permits. C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Vicinity Map Exhibit 2 Zoning Map Exhibit 3 Preliminary Plat Map Exhibit 4 Topography Map Exhibit 5 Generalized Utilities/Drainage Control/ Conceptual Grading/Landscape Plan Exhibit 6 Road Profile Exhibit 7 Wall Profiles and Cross -Sections Exhibit 8 Tree Inventory/Retention Plan Exhibit 9 Street Modification letter dated November 10, 2009 D. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: The subject site is located on a broad moderate to steep westerly -sloping hillside. This downward slope is at grades of 13 to 39 percent. The higher gradient portions of the site generally lie within the eastern 100 to 200 feet and the western 150 to 200 feet of the site. The applicant submitted a Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Liu & Associates, Inc. dated February 20, 2009. The report identifies the soils on the site as Kame Terrace deposits underlain by Ground Moraine. Kame Terrace deposits consist mostly of silty sand and gravel to cobble. Kame Terrace deposits are of moderately -high to high permeability and can provide good foundation support to structure in their native undisturbed state. The site contains areas of protected slopes (greater than 40%) in the southwestern portion of the property. This area of protected slopes would be contained within Tract B. The report concludes that conventional footing foundations constructed on or into the competent basal soils may be used to support residential buildings and the stormwater detention vault. Geotechnical study Revised ERCReport 09-140.doc AGENDA ITEM #1. a) City of Renton Department of Communi Economic Development E amental Review Committee Report WILSON PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT ' LUA09-140, ECF, PP Report of February 22, 2410 Page 6 of 12 recommendations include a 15 -foot building setback line from the top or toe of slopes with grades of 40% or more. Staff recommends that as a mitigation measure the applicant be required to place a note on the face of the plat which states that a 15 -foot building setback line shall be established from the top of slopes with grades greater of 40% or more. The applicant is creating areas of protected slopes (40% or greater) in the easterly portion of the site on Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050J.5, these slopes may not be developed. The revised plans submitted by the applicant indicate retaining walls along the westerly side of proposed Lot 12 (and within the R-14 zone) and through proposed Lots 5, 6 and 7. These walls range from 12 -feet to 20 -feet in height. The retaining wall on the easterly side of the property would be poured concrete or soil/nail composition and the westerly retaining wall would pour concrete or reinforced earth. The geotechnical study states that soils at shallow depth on the project site have good to excellent resistance against slope failures. The study concludes that if recommendations are followed the potential for deep-seated landslides would be minimal. Such recommendations include preserving vegetation outside of construction limits, re -vegetating exposed ground as soon as possible after construction activities and controlling runoff from impervious surfaces such as roofs, paved roadways and driveways. Staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant shall clearly mark and fence trees outside the construction area and that exposed ground be replanted as soon as possible after construction activities. The topsoil and loose to medium -dense weathered soils on-site are of low resistance to erosion. Erosion may occur in the weaker surficial soils over the higher gradient areas if they are devoid of vegetation. Progressive erosion can lead to shallow, skin -type mudflows. The geotechnical report recommends preservation and maintenance of vegetation outside of construction limits to mitigate this potential hazard. The study also recommends that concentrated stormwater should not be discharged uncontrolled onto the ground. Stormwater from impervious surfaces should be captured by underground drain line systems connected to roof downspouts or by catch basins installed in roadways and driveways. Temporary erosion control measures are also recommended and these include: a thin layer of quarry spalls placed over excavated areas to protect the subgrade soils from disturbance by construction traffic; silt fences installed along the downhill sides of construction areas to prevent sediment from being transported onto adjacent properties or streets; and ditches or interceptor trench drains installed on the uphill sides of construction areas to intercept and drain away storm runoff and near -surface groundwater seepage. Staff recommends a mitigation measure which requires compliance with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Liu & associates, Inc. dated February 20, 2009. Staff also recommends that the applicant provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Plan designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. This mitigation measure shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division. Staff further recommends that weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the Project Engineer of record to the Public Works inspector. Because of Revised ERC Report 09-140.doc AGENDA ITEM #1. a) City of Renton Department of Commun' Economic Development L Pnmental Review Committee Report WILSON PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA09-140, ECF, PP Report of February 22, 2010 Page 7 of 12 moisture -sensitive fine-grained soils mantling the site and the higher gradient areas within the site the geotechnical study recommends that grading and foundation construction be carried out and completed within the dryer period of the year from April 1 through October 31 unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. Staff recommends that as a mitigation measure that the applicant adhere to a construction schedule involving grading and foundation work during the dryer period of the year. The geotechnical study discusses excavation and fills slopes. Approximately 17,000 cubic yards of earth material would be cut with approximately 6,000 cubic yards of it used as structural fill. Approximately 500 cubic yards of crushed rock fill would be imported for road construction. Excavation slopes shall not be steeper than the limits specified in local regulations. Permanent fill embankments required to support structural or traffic loads should be constructed with compacted structural fill placed over undisturbed, proof -rolled, firm, native, fresh Kame Terrace and/or lodgement till soils after the unsuitable soils are completely stripped. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall place a note on the face of the plat which requires a 15 -foot building setback line from the top of slopes which are 40% or greater 2. The applicant will be required to comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Liu & Associates, Inc. dated February 20, 2009. 3. The applicant shall clearly mark and fence trees outside the construction area and replant exposed ground as soon as possible after construction activities. 4. That the applicant shall provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Plan designed pursuant to the 2005 Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. 5. Weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the Project Engineer of record to the Public Works inspector. 6. Grading and foundation activities shall be conducted during the dryer months of the year from April 1 through October 31 unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations; 2005 Department of Ecology Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements 2, Storm Water Impacts: The applicant submitted a Technical Information Report for Wilson Park, prepared by Baima & Holmberg, Inc. dated May 5, 2009. That report includes an analysis of upstream tributary drainage which states that the parcel to the east drains onto the site. The Level 1 Downstream Drainage Analysis in the report states that runoff from the site flows west into lots in the adjacent Geneva Court development. The majorities of these flows collect in a drain constructed along the back yards of the western -most lots of the Geneva Court development and then flow into the Revised FRC Report 09-140.doc AGENDA ITEM #1. a) City of Renton Department of Commune Economic (Development E inmental Review Committee Report WILSON PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA09-140, ECF, PP Report of February 22, 2010 Page 8 of 12 storm system in South 53rd Place. This flow collects in a stormwater pond/bioswale facility located at the intersection of Talbot Road S and South 53'd Place approximately 750 -feet downstream from the site. This facility outfalls through an 18 -inch pipe to the west side of Talbot Road S into a poorly defined channel flowing into the woods. The flows then pass through a 12 -inch culvert under a walking path and continue to flow west to a wooded wetland area more than a quarter mile downstream from the site. Flows into the ditch along S 55th Street continue west in a rock lined channel along the north side of the street to the intersection of Talbot Road S and S 55th Street. The channel is eroded and shows signs of flowing into the street. Flows from the ditch along Talbot Road S collect in the storm system about 850 -feet downstream from the site eventually flowing into Springbrook Creek at about 1,800 -feet downstream from the site. Springbrook Creek continues flowing west to about one-half mile downstream of the site where it enters a box culvert crossing SR 167. The Technical Information Report indicates that there are no apparent drainage problems. The revised submitted plans indicate that a proposed storm water detention vault would be located in the easterly proposed access road to control downstream stormwater impacts. Staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the final drainage report shall be subject to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Mitigation Measures: 1. The final drainage report and design shall be subject to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations; 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual 3. Vegetation Impacts: The applicant submitted a Tree Inventory and Retention Plan and a Tree Retention Worksheet with the project application. There are 101 total trees on the project site. Twenty- three trees would be required to be retained. The applicant is proposing to retain 21 trees and replacing the 2 additionally required trees with twelve 2 -inch caliper trees as required. Lot 12, Tracts C and D, and a portion of Tract B are located in the Talbot Urban Separator Overlay. As stated previously in this report, the purpose of the Urban Separator Overlay includes providing a continuous open space and wildlife corridor. A revised tree retention worksheet and a revised tree replacement plan were submitted by the applicant and indicate that 60 replacement trees would be planted on site. Because the majority of these trees would be planted within the Urban Separator area, the proposed open space area would be provided with vegetation enhancement. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is necessary. Nexus: N/A 4. Parks and Recreation Impacts: It is anticipated that the proposed development would generate future residents who would use City park and recreation facilities and programs. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single family lot to be payable prior to recording the final plat. The fee is estimated at $5,838.36 (12 new lots —1 existing lot x $530.76 = $5,838.36). Revised ERC Report 09-140.doc AGENDA ITEM #1. a) City of Renton Department of Communi Economic Development E nmental Review Committee Report WILSON PARK PRELIMINARYPLAT LUA09-140, ECF, PP Report of February 22, 2010 Page 9 of 12 Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall be required to pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat (with credit given for the existing house). The fee is estimated to be $5,838.36. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations; Parks Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 3082, Ordinance No. 4527 5. Transportation Impacts: Access to the site would be from S 55t Street via a 50 -foot access easement (Road A) to the west and a 30 -foot emergency access easement to the east (Road B). The applicant has requested a street modification to reduce the internal roadway right-of-way width from 50 -feet to 37.5 -feet. That request was denied by the Development Services Director on November 10, 2009; therefore, the internal roadway is required to be a minimum of 42 -feet of right-of-way. Additional right-of-way is also required at all intersections and turns in the roadway configuration. The pavement can be reduced to 26 -feet in width allowing parking on one side of the street. Both sides of the street would be required to be improved with curb and gutter. A sidewalk is not required on the southerly side of the street; however, the curb shall be installed 3 -feet from the southerly edge of the right-of-way. A 5 -foot sidewalk is required by code and must be provided along the northerly and outside portion of the new internal street with an 8 -foot planting strip (which shall include street trees). Additionally, street lighting is also required. The revised proposed internal street design provides a connection to the property to the north. That property is large enough for future platting. This proposed northerly street extension is depicted on the revised site plan as Road B. Proposed Lots 4 through 7 front on this street. The westerly access roadway must be dedicated as public right-of-way. The pavement may be reduced to 26 -feet in width, allowing for parking on one side of the street. Curb and gutter must be provided along the westerly edge of the pavement. An 8 -foot wide planting strip and a 5 -foot sidewalk must be provided along the west side of the street. The easterly access easement from S 55th Street is initially to be used for secondary emergency access through private road easement. The pavement must be a minimum of 20 -feet in width. An emergency access gate, approved by the Fire Department can be installed where the roadway enters the new plat. The proposal would result in an increase in traffic trips to the City's street system. Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $75.00 per additional average daily vehicle trip. Each new residence is expected to generate 9.57 trips; credit is given for the existing residence on the subject property. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is estimated to be $7,895.25 (12 new lots —1 existing lot x 9.57 trips x $75.00 = $7,895.25) and would be payable prior to recording the final plat. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily vehicle trip associated with the proposed project prior to recording of Revised FRC Report 09-140. doc AGENDA ITEM #1. a) City of Renton Department of Communi Economic Development E amental Review Committee Report WILSON PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA09-340, ECF, PP Report of February 22, 2010 Page 10 of 12 the final plat (with credit given for the existing house). The fee is estimated to be 7,895.25. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations; Transportation Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 3100, Ordinance 4527 6. Fire & Police Impacts: Fire apparatus access roads appear adequate. All required roadways must be fully paved and not exceed 15°x6 grade elevation, turning radius is 25 -foot inside and 45 -foot outside. Proposed access gates must meet all requirements for Fire Department standards including Click -2 -Enter control devices. Minimum 20 -foot roadway sections must be signed for "No Parking — Anytime" on each side at maximum 50 -foot intervals. Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development subject to the condition that the applicant provides the required improvements and fees. As the proposal could potentially add 13 new residences, staff recommends that the Applicant be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee in the amount of $488.00 per each new single family lot with credit given for the existing single family residence. The total fee is estimated to be 5,368.00 (13 new lots —1 existing lot X $488.00 = $5,368.00). Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488.00 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat. The fee is estimated at $5,368.00. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations; Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 2913, Ordinance no. 4527 7. Aesthetics Impacts: The applicant is proposing retaining walls on the property along the westerly property line and in the northeastern portion of the subject property and within proposed Lot 7. These proposed retaining walls would range from 12 to 20 -feet in height. The applicant has indicated that the proposed retaining wall on the westerly side of the property would be composed of poured concrete or reinforced earth and the proposed retaining wall in the eastern portion of the property would be composed of poured concrete or soil nail. Because the height of these proposed walls may cause visual impacts to adjoining property owners, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that a combination of texturing and tinting shall be used on all visible surfaces of the retaining walls. A sample board indicating the texture and tinting for the retaining walls shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning Division project manager prior to issuance of construction permits. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall submit a sample board indicating the texture and tinting to be used on all visible surfaces of retaining walls for the review and approval of the Planning Division project manager prior to the issuance of construction permits. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant." Revised ERC Report 09-140.doc AGENDA ITEM #1. a) City of Renton Department of Commur Economic Development onmental Review Committee Report WILSON PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT LUAO9-140, ECF, PP Report of February 22, 2010 _ Page 11 of 12 Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, March 12, 2010. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.8 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing at the City Clerk's office along with the required fee. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98057. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC 4-4-030C2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am and 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Community &Economic Development Department. 2. Commercial, multi -family, new single family and other non-residential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between 7:00 am and 8:0-0 pm, Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between 9:00 am and 8:00 pm. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. A Renton Schools Impact Fee is required and is payable at the time of building permit issuance. 4. The plat is subject to the Urban Separator Overlay Regulations, RMC 4-3-110. 5. The applicant must obtain easements for any off-site construction activities. Fire: 1. A fire hydrant with 1,000 gpm fire flow is required within 300 feet of all new single family structures. If building square footage exceeds 3,600 square feet in area, the minimum fire flow increases to 1,500 gpm and requires two hydrants within 300 feet of the structures. 2. Fire apparatus access roads appear adequate. All required roadways shall be fully paved and shall not exceed 15% grade elevation, turning radius is 25 -foot inside and 45 -foot outside. Proposed access gate shall meet all requirements for Fire department standards including Click -2 -Enter control device. Minimum 20 -foot roadway sections shall be signed for "No Parking—Anytime" on each side at maximum 50 -foot intervals. Water: Soos Creek Water will serve the site. Extension of a water line will be required for domestic and emergency service. Sanitary Sewer: A minimum 8 -inch diameter sanitary sewer is required to be extended to serve the site. 2. The System Development Charge shall be determined by the size of the meter installed per each lot. This fee is payable with the construction permit. Revised ERC Report 09-140.doc AGENDA ITEM #1. a) City of Renton Department of Commun) Economic Development E nmentat Review Committee Report WILSON PARK PRELIMINARY PIAT LUA09-140, ECF, PP Report of February 22, 2010 Page 12 of 12 Surface Water: 1. The System Development Charge shall be at the current rate of $1,012.00 per single family site. This fee is payable with the construction permit. Transportation: 1. All new access roads shall meet City of Renton standards or as modified. 2. A dedicated connection to the northern property line is required. Plan Review —General: 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 2. A construction permit is required. When plans are complete three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate, application and appropriate fee shall be submitted to the City Hall sixth floor counter. Revised ERC Report 09-140.doc AGENDA ITEM #1. a) r jlr r PJ e w+' 1T i la! • c n _ C$:f '.' _ - Ch LSJ II I EXHIBIT 1 w x » a i= p g = - v. a q ' a _r.a ua ree • a Y^s7~',Y FN s JD A w a ^: 1 Y_, FaF u, ° o klb01•S M{R ,' m" cl R ul LLl _ w Is 3O q P5 IE a• Q I i`` J I'S as '3AY- DR ..4HZ I°! a 9y a ° d•' a® ii ' ;IM1I •e.t :s14 '' tl i` Cd LU AU-6 _ —.-. fin• --T ld Ni66` sem LP W ' Cd ill I ti I d 14 4. i d W o a r St m r Is C11 It' 1 „ N • ' I is Qsa i 08 4 x iC i acd ct: yy[ i fie'' •.L.%,, s lil.2{ON ___ _ 0 A _---- `o UO AGENDA ITEM #1. a) M LU ca EXHIBIT 2 CA co SW4,p, $; S 1TTn St R-$ Co R-8 R-14 Jfco co co co R-14 co 5 RM -F SW ]M 6, S 1lalh 9 5 R-4 co co co R710 co 4h co co g co W W y o RM -F S R R-8 PAW s, m occ s N s sans R-14 se,eTns : R-14 R-1 R -A M 5$ R-0 R-1 R -q R-4 4 ZONING MAP BOOK J3 - 06 T22N R5E E 1/2 PW TECHNICAL SERVICES PRINTED ON 11/13/09 T 1+j 0 200 400 31 T23N R5E E a./2Feet 1:4,800 5331 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) to]NIac IL .11:101971 74 92 93; 4551'.456- 459 _ _ 461 1 77 B2;--- 21ST2411N RAE- l B 6 7- T24N25T24NR4E-0 R5E i9 T24N R6 28 T24N R5E: 274N R5E.. ' 26 T24N RSE8194W455Wi5 I i j, J4584'` 46(3, 464 Its 1 C2"" 06,C 7R4E:'. 36 T24N R4E 31 T24N R5E ` ryn3fi6 j 307 a'ew 1W$ 3491 - 35T4NR51 r lil l J `,.. Y y... z i D3. tD 4Vq)77 -Qw 7 D 7f iT73 1 R E t 1 2 g4E ` 6T23N RSE : T23N_ ih4 T23f 1 R5E2 T23N R5E \ 3 i23N RSE 31 s _ 319 _ 369 CU5$ QG 7 E 12 T23N 4E _1 RSE . f RSE 9T23N RSET I 2 10 T23N-}:. N R5E r' 1325 - 321327 , 370 g,ip g - LTi Ll' „ .. ` - - I', _ 45 4 asr Ra8 3 rel3T231ff4E16i23NR5E.,---: 1'7T1z3 - t R5E 16 T23N RSE 1 T23N!R5E 432W 1 I 11 II X35 33.6 33 = 371 815, J 846 = f 3T234Rdt ' " _ 2, 24 T23r R4E 19 i`Z3N 135E i ' .20T231R51 _y= 21 T23N A5E : - . 22 T23 R5E 23 T23N 244346OQ'I, - 601 602 82Q 821 ij 4HlT23NR4E25T23NR4Ei', 0 T23N R5E` ''' 29 T23N`R5E - 2ST23N R5E- - T23N R5E 2fi T23N R5E 25' 0 - 'ii 6p4 j EI ; 605 825 826 f _ -- I I d 3 E 36 T23N R4E 31 T23 R5E 11 3223! RSE 33 T23N R 34 T23N R5E 35 T23N R5E 36 607 608 609, '63' 833 J i r22N R4E = j- L V 7 ra1T22Nrti4E6722NR5E5T22N: R5E 4 T22N,E _° 3 T22N R5E 2 T22N RSE 11 T21 RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE CENTERS INDUSTRIAL rc (RC) Resource Conservation [CV) Center Village IH (IL) Industrial -Light i (R-1) Residential 1 du/ac c -Mf (UC -N1) Urban Center- North 1 iM (IM) Industrial - Medium f? -a : (R-4) Residential 4 du/ac LcNe (UC -N2) Urban Center- North Z F iL [IH) Industrial - Heavy P-a(R-8) Residential 8 du/ac EE [CD) Center Downtown H (RMH) Residential Manufactured Homes FF, -Ic (R-101Residential10 du/ac COMMERCIAL I;, -.a (R-14) Residential 14 du/ac ----- Renton city Limits aH-= (RM -F) Residential Multi -Family co; (COR) Commercial/Office/Residential _ Y Adjacent City Limits kn-T (RM -T) Residential Multi -Family Traditional EeE (CA) Commercial Arterial Ry -u (RM U) Residential Multi -Family Urban Center co [CO) Commercial Office KROLL PAGE Lc(CIN) Commercial Neighborhood PAG E# INDEXm<_ +focimen• _s a rnnhc r..ese.atM. o: gooro teen Tl,n rwy is or vrsyl, rcases un'y. SECEROwN/pANGE AGENDA ITEM #1. a) r 7g it 4 1.5 1; W Z q Z Z c? Q NF - ZZ i5 dZ . w LL Z 4W wn rO wU L LL O Z o o CL S IF ------- 1 r------, -----, ------- I I I I I 1 1 I I I i I I I I I I 0' La F1U'M, .[19p5 n ,06'OS r------ Cpl$ afire I 'C,m ILbC9 dSJN 7134 6/[ ice I IIIII L -------JJ p. b R E m 8m Iwo I br If I II i h! Iry bLO i II 1 L r _MQe _T I IIIl v IIII I T N II I l lam pl I v ire-------- i UVB F B: f N..tlS.VJN afire ILbC9 dSJN 7134 6/[ ice 8 R E m 8m Iwo I br If i h! Iry bLO i 1 L plµ h EXHIBIT 3 R qg qg R'k8 INA lily I' ll F19U11ova pg: aB aA fa rl .orn sz.war, Cups afire 8 R E m 8m Iwo I br If ih! Iry bLO i 1 L pl J 9g i UU Rw aa PE L-- — — t W o own it rcwr br If ih! Iry HCl bLO 1 L 69Z pl HdM 31M A9 Iggtall wia ro 14UVd MOSIIM ,• OH• uwa _ x — — ca ru ec:n:eo- IA/ro/m e..oeace.o-u3-100-Le4L\nw\x-east rc, AGENDA ITEM #1. a) EXHIBIT 4 3s i,r wal gE d s - Mh PFL P,u: ..e4 ori ,p € iPd `W" R i5 II y3E 4r a g " mo f47ri7) N Oise M.it.,fLms AVIC Wim W O e y LO N, Uzi} 14 a g " mo I W Z _ _ o _\ _ - MZ IwIz 9 ds,1h ale r/I 2s Y/I 7S ',M/ a;?a :•i S' {}_ - - mow^' - i 'tt Ell I S 1 _ tltla' 31,9 .B M4Vtl oo-cesi 41111 AH"U9OdOLAVVCMO8 — eQaz w xard NOSIWI e W PH +W+B W O N, I W Z _ _ o _\ _ - MZ IwIz 9 ds,1h ale r/I 2s Y/I 7S ',M/ a;?a :•i S' {}_ - - mow^' - i 'tt Ell I S 1 _ tltla' 31,9 .B M4Vtl oo-cesi 41111 AH"U9OdOLAVVCMO8 — eQaz w xard NOSIWI e W PH +W+B AGENDA ITEM #1. a) w 5w EXHIBIT 5 m'" l M 1! M 1! I . • Fr4s4saY 9X q c 8s L A ate- a zE d 3 6Bf477d71arvrszmLzt,rcros ZZ I I f • e C N l it tl ti i4 a Jed y dR a _ _ Y L I I I•--- I n ' aES Y-. Zvi Z I IL D Nai[ ttLL Om W x I LL I i 41— LL D v'y 4 off _! .j'S 'h/I 'i5 •IY6L M AH. 3 Y`i'p•// At I s = 9wwrosarrv waara9 _--.- I.a, Lw re w a LL O-L892 i+rrua aoanoa oo YnqOAMPM ..4.tea . ea uho nwV.1 wnR11M -,a 16d M1 6i:t.:LO 60/Y9/9P 6•o 60LLM.......... Z\ewlLoo—exs[\ooSL\ o AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 3 :103d OVOld NHYd M0811M 41¢ yWiw1,9 EXHIBIT 6 k nuc Noun WHEN Enos Emrscom mmosom ME ml s a[ wB K4L2 . 111 3 :103d OVOld NHYd M0811M 41¢ yWiw1,9 EXHIBIT 6 k nuc ia.i er ro e A & Noun WHEN Enos Emrscom mmosom ME ml ia.i er ro e A & AGENDA ITEM #1. a) 8 1 4 EXHIBIT 7 2 w U) 0 NZ w ZZ C')o N F' ZZ M UZ w0 CO LL Z 0W w LL w0 co 0 F - LL 0 Z 0 0 CL I g] 8 R tiY2.5 Ya 4 S g eb 6 aJ Fs\ 4 X11 2 w U) 0 NZ w ZZ C')o N F' ZZ M UZ w0 CO LL Z 0W w LL w0 co 0 F - LL 0 Z 0 0 CL I g] 8 R tiY2.5 Ya 4 S g S 6 aJ 8 r 8 Y s S 8 s 8 8 x R 8 S 8 8 BNOLL 3S-SB N9 _ i 63011d TWA — MMVd N091MM aJ 8 S 8 8 BNOLL 3S-SB N9 _ i 63011d TWA — MMVd N091MM J 8 S 8 8 BNOLL 3S-SB N9 _ i 63011d TWA — MMVd N091MM AGENDA ITEM #1. a) EXHIBIT 8 bpP"&$- 3 W N Wzn aK"e Aessss6 'sa Msix. as got no xmas st sss cetlE e eep JIM Lem— rO19i9d AI.Lt.f1105 uy_ ___—__--_ 1081E —__— W. \ _ Sow `' lter ' rr xw Z Z r u a Ry f 1 pwZR! LL Z C11- jp0 xDD 3urDa \ I 7.7 LU L= V xa> p 01 syr AE Hi a a l pipyz OSC_ a 11 W9 AOX 83d t/iy c K b .- y` y,' r• ^ice .. _ _._._ __...._ \ *Hz' s-// _ ' r r r rirri n s s _., xaer pro x°e aa row loo -Gays KVU MOLLM3137VABOLN3AM 331LL WA Boa f.° NUVd MOSIIM l°"+ N IMI,i B ypd g{:w:to 5o/.also wt.rltu0-.ml-.°0 [eoc\.rw\rw-ce9£\009t\9 AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Denis Law City of EXHIBIT 9Mayor Department of Community and Economic Development November 10, 2009 Alex Pietsch, Administrator Tom Redding Baima & Holmberg, Inc. 100 Front Street South Issaquah, WA 98027-3817 Subject: Wilson Park Preliminary Plat — LUA09-140 720 South 55th Street Street Modification requests Dear Mr. Redding: We have completed our review of your request for modifications to the street standards for the proposed Wilson Park Preliminary Plat located at 720 South 55th Street. The proposed residential subdivision is for 13 single family building lots and four additional tracts. The subdivision will be served by two access roadways south of the site to South 551h Street, connecting to a new street through the proposed project. You have requested modification for the internal roadway, including eliminating the required sidewalk from one side of the street, reducing the right-of-way width, and eliminating the requirement for a cul- de-sac. Clarification of the street improvement requirements for the two off-site access roadways is also requested. The proposal continues to be based on a waiver of the required connection to the north property line. The request to reduce the internal street right-of-way width to 37.5 feet is denied. However, the request to delete the sidewalk from one side of the internal street is approved, subject to providing an eight -foot (8') planting strip between the street and remaining sidewalk. The requirement for a cul-de- sac is modified to allow for a hammerhead turnaround and gated emergency access for secondary access. The proposal to waive the requirement to extend the public street to the north property line is also denied. City Code 4-6-050 (Street Standards) requires full street improvements for all adjacent rights-of-way for, within, and dedicated by a plat. The City can modify street improvements for new plats if there are practical difficulties in carrying out the provisions of the Street Improvement Ordinance. The Modification Procedures, as defined in Section 4-9-250D, clearly states the criteria for approval by the Department Administrator. In order for a modification to be approved, the Department Administrator must find that a special individual reason makes the strict letter of this Ordinance impractical, that the modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Ordinance, and that such modification: a) Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by this Ordinance, based upon sound engineering judgment; and b) Will not be injurious to other property(s) in the vicinity; and Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way 9 Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Mr. Tom Redding Wilson Park Preliminary Plat Page 2 of 3 c) Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code; and d) Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and e) Will not create adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity. The request to reduce the right-of-way width to 37.5 feet cannot be approved. The code allows for consideration of reduction to 42 feet in width in cases where the additional area provides for a more reasonable lot configuration. The reduction to 42 feet in width is approved, but we fail to find justification to reduce the public right-of-way in this new residential neighborhood to a lesser standard. The request to eliminate the sidewalk along the southerly side of the new internal roadway can be supported in this situation, provided there are equivalent value amenities provided in exchange for these improvements. This request is granted, subject to the provision of an eight- foot (8') wide planting Strip, including landscaping and street trees, on the northerly side of the street with the new sidewalk. The project site will be accessed by a single public street, which requires a cul-de-sac. The proposed secondary access will mitigate the dead-end roadway configuration for emergency vehicles, but will not be available for regular vehicles and delivery trucks. The requirement for a cul-de-sac is hereby waived, subject to providing a full hammerhead turnaround in public right-of-way and emergency secondary access through an approved gated system. The function of a hammerhead turnaround will be provided with the extension of the street to the north property line, as addressed below. The proposed street design for the plat fails to meet the requirement to extend the public street system through the plat to the northerly property line. The property north of the site is large enough for future platting, and will be connected to the public street system approved for this plat. The requirement for extension of the public street system through the proposed plat to the north property line remains. This extension is to be provided where Lot 8 is proposed, as an extension of the easterly north -south access roadway. The street improvements required for this preliminary plat, as modified in this decision, are as follows: Westerly off-site access roadway between S. 55th St and the development site: This street section shall be in dedicated public right-of-way. The pavement width can be reduced to 26 feet (26') in width, allowing for parking on one side of the street. Curb and gutter shall be provided along the westerly edge of the pavement. An eight -foot (8') wide planting strip shall be provided along the west side of the street, with a five-foot (5') wide sidewalk. New internal street system: This street section shall be in a minimum 42 -foot width right-of-way. Additional right-of-way is also required at all the intersections and turns in the roadway configuration. These radius dedications shall be for a 15 -foot radius. The pavement width can be reduced to 26 feet in width, allowing for parking on one side of the street. Both sides of the street shall be improved with curb and gutter. A sidewalk is not required on the southerly side of the new street. The face of the curb shall be installed three feet (3') from the southerly edge of the right-of-way. A five-foot (5') wide sidewalk shall be provided along the northerly and "outside" portion of the new internal street, with an AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Mr. Tom Redding Wilson Park Preliminary Plat Page 2 of 3 c) Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code; and d) Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and e) Will not create adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity. The request to reduce the right-of-way width to 37.5 feet cannot be approved. The code allows for consideration of reduction to 42 feet in width in cases where the additional area provides for a more reasonable lot configuration. The reduction to 42 feet in width is approved, but we fail to find justification to reduce the public right-of-way in this new residential neighborhood to a lesser standard. The request to eliminate the sidewalk along the southerly side of the new internal roadway can be supported in this situation, provided there are equivalent value amenities provided in exchange for these improvements. This request is granted, subject to the provision of an eight- foot (8') wide planting strip, including landscaping and street trees, on the northerly side of the street with the new sidewalk. The project site will be accessed by a single public street, which requires a cul-de-sac. The proposed secondary access will mitigate the dead-end roadway configuration for emergency vehicles, but will not be available for regularvehicles and delivery trucks. The requirement for a cul-de-sac is hereby waived, subject to providing a full hammerhead turnaround in public right-of-way and emergency secondary access through an approved gated system. The function of a hammerhead turnaround will be provided with the extension of the street to the north property line, as addressed below. The proposed street design for the plat fails to meet the requirement to extend the public street system through the plat to the northerly property line. The property north of the site is large enough for future platting, and will be connected to the public street system approved for this plat. The requirement for extension of the public street system through the proposed plat to the north property line remains. This extension is to be provided where Lot 8 is proposed, as an extension of the easterly north -south access roadway. The street improvements required for this preliminary plat, as modified in this decision, are as follows: Westerly off-site access roadway between 5.55`" St and the development site: This street section shall be in dedicated public right-of-way. The pavement width can be reduced to 25 feet (26') in width, allowing for parking on one side of the street. Curb and gutter shall be provided along the westerly edge Rf the pavement. An eight -foot (8') wide planting strip shall be provided along the west side of the street, with a five-foot (5') wide sidewalk. New internal streets stem. This street section shall be in a minimum 42 -foot width right-of-way. Additional right-of-way is also required at all the intersections and turns in the roadway configuration. These radius dedications shall be for a 15 -foot radius. The pavement width can be reduced to 26 feet in width, allowing for parking on one side of the street. Both sides of the street shall be improved with curb and gutter. A sidewalk is not required on the southerly side of the new street. The.face of the curb shall be installed three feet (3') from the southerly edge of the right-of-way. A five-foot (5') wide sidewalk shall be provided along the northerly and "outside" portion of the new internal street, with an AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Mr. Tom Redding Wilson Park Preliminary Plat Page 3 of 3 eight -foot (8') planting strip. The planting strip is to be landscaped, including street trees. Street lighting meeting code with required lighting levels shall be provided on the new internal street system. Street extension to north property line: A public street is required in the approximate location of proposed Lot 8. This street shall include a minimum of 42 feet in right-of-way. The street improvements for this extension shall include 26 feet of pavement, and curb and gutter along both sides of the street. Sidewalks are required along both sides of this street section, both five feet (5') in width. The sidewalk on the east side of the street can be constructed adjacent to the new curb. The west side of the street shall include a five-foot (5') planting strip landscaped with street trees. Easterly off-site access roadway between S. 55th St and the development site: This street section is initially to be used for secondary emergency access through a private roadway easement_ The pavement shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width through this roadway section. An emergency access gate, approved by the Renton fire Department, can be installed where this roadway enters the new plat. If this private easement is replaced in the future with dedicated public right-of-way, the emergency access gate shall be removed. A note to this effect is to be included on the final plat. You have 14 days from the date of this letter to appeal the administrative determination in accordance with City code. Appeals are to be filed in writing, with the City Clerk, and require a filing fee in the amount of $250.00. Appeals must be filed with the City Clerk before Tuesday, !'November 24, 2009, at 5:00 p -m. You may contact Kayren Kittrick at (425) 430-7299 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Neil Watts, Director Development Services Division cc: Alex Pietsch, Community & Economic Development Administrator Chip Vincent, Planning Director Kayren Kittrick, Development Engineering Supervisor Jerry Wasser, Associate Planner AGENDA ITEM #1. a) DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY City of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATED (DNS -M) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA09-140, ECF, PP APPLICANT: Steve Beck, Amberwood LLC PROJECT NAME: Wilson Park Preliminary Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and approval of a Preliminary Plat for the subdivision of a 108,884 square foot (2.5 acre) parcel in the R-1, R-8 and R-14 zones and in the Urban Separator Overlay. The original proposal encompassed 13 -lots and 4 -tracts (for open space and storm detention). The revised proposal encompasses 12 -lots and 3 -tracts (for open space). A portion of proposed Lot 12 would also contain an open space easement. A proposed stormwater vault would be located under the proposed access road. Proposed lots range in size from 4,500 to 13,006 square feet with a density of 7.99 dwelling units per acre. The proposed lots are intended for the future construction of single family residences. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 720 S 55th Street LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on March 12, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 110.6. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: February 26, 2010 February 22, 2010 Z Z,7, Gregg zi m rma , Administrator Mark eterson I terim Administrator Public or s D artment Date Fire Emer enc S. ices Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Alex Pietsch, Administrator Community Services Department Date Department of Community & Economic Development 2 .z /0 Date Date AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Denis Law Mayor O August 8, 2018 City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated July 15, 2018, regarding Wilson Park 1 Preliminary Plat. (File No. LUA-09-140 PP, ECF) To Parties of Record: Attached is copy of a letter from Parties of Record Luong Dang, Jonathan Vu, and Khanh Nguyen regarding the referenced appeal. Additionally, an email from Khanh Nguyen, Party of Record and President of the Geneva Court Homeowners' Association is also attached. A portion of the email has been redacted as it constituted new evidence in this closed record appeal. In the event Planning & Development Committee members may have inadvertently seen an unredacted version of the email, the members have been instructed to disregard any portions containing evidence outside of the record. I can be reached at (425) 430-6502 or jseth@rentonwa.gov. Sincerely, Jason A. Seth, CMC City Clerk Please note that if you signed up to be a Party of Recordfor this matter you are receiving a copy of this letter as a courtesy. Attachments cc: Hearing Examiner Chip Vincent, CED Administrator Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager Kyle Wunderlin, Planning Technician Judith Subia, Administrative Assistant Craig Burnell, Building Official Leslie Clark,Assistant City Attorney Ed Prince, City Councilmember Ryan Mclrvin, P& D Committee Chair Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Robert& Doravin Wilson, Appellants Parties of Record (10) 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 • (425)430-6510/Fax (425)430-6516 • rentonwa.gov AGENDA ITEM #1. b) CITY OF RENTOi August 7, 2018 AUG 082018 City of Renton RECEIVED City Council Planning and Development Committee iTY CLERK'S OFFICE 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated July 17,2018,regarding Wilson Park 1 Preliminary Plat. (File No. LUA 09-140 PP, ECF) Honorable Committee: This letter is sent in opposition to the Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision dated July 17, 2018. As Parties of Record living adjacent(down slope)to the subject Plat,we have followed both Wilson 1 and Wilson 2 for many years. We whole heartedly agree with the position City Staff made in their letter opposing an additional Extension dated May 22,2018. We support City Staffs statement from that letter: 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." We therefore request the City deny the Appeal and not extend approval of the preliminary plat of Wilson Park 1. Respectfully, Luong Dang Jonathan Vu Khanh Nguyen 623 South 531"d Place 622 South 53`d Place 616 South 53"'Place Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton WA,98055 1 1 J AGENDA ITEM #1. b) Julia Medzegian From: Jason Seth Sent: Wednesday,August 08, 2018 8:09 AM To: Julia Medzegian Cc: doravin@comcast.net'; Chip Vincent; Leslie Clark; 'Michael C.Walter' Subject:FW: Hearing about Wilson Park 1 Hi Julia, Please forward the Nguyen's comments to the Planning& Development Committee members. I have confirmed that Mr. Nguyen is a party of record. Jason Jason Seth, CMC City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 iseth@rentonwa.gov This communication may be subject to public disclosure laws of the State of Washington (RCW 42.56). From: Khanh-DQ Nguyen [mailto:ckhanh_c@hotmail.com] Sent:Tuesday,August 07, 2018 3:15 PM To:Jason Seth<JSeth@Rentonwa.gov> Cc: l_sk04@yahoo.com;Jonathan Vu <jonathanvinhvu@icloud.com>; Frieda Witt<hafwitt@comcast.net> Subject: Hearing about Wilson Park 1 Mr. Jason Seth City of Renton City Clek 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Dear Sir, Our name are Khanh Cong Nguyen and Duc-Quy Dang-Nguyen, homeowners of the house: 616 S. 53rd Place Renton WA 98055 I am also President of Home of Association of Geneva Court. We received a package from you about the extension hearing for Wilson Park 1, on 8/9/2018. We already consulted our neighbors and we all agreed to Deny The Extension for Wilson Park AGENDA ITEM #1. b) Please consider our concerns and requests. Thank you very much Khanh Nguyen & Duc-Quy Dang-Nguyen Home phones: (425) 272-2930 2 AGENDA ITEM #1. b) Wilson Park 1 – Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision [PROPOSED] - 1 Renton City Attorney 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425.430.6480 Fax: 425.430.6498 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL RE: Wilson Park 1 Preliminary Plat (File No. LUA- 09-140) Applicant’s Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision Denying Request for Extension of Plat Expiration City of Renton’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision [PROPOSED] After conducting a closed record appeal hearing on the above-reference matter, the City Council (the “City Council”) of the City of Renton, Washington (the “City”), hereby makes the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision. I. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Procedural History / The Record on Appeal. 1. On May 3, 2018, Robert and Doravin Wilson (the “Wilsons”) submitted a Request for Additional Extension Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code (“RMC”) 4-7-080 to the Hearing Examiner for the City (the “Hearing Examiner”). (See attached Exhibit A, Pages 006-026.)1 The request sought an additional 11-month extension of the plat expiration date for the 2010- 1 “Exhibit A” hereto is a copy of the Wilsons’ July 24, 2018 appeal, together with its Attachments A - H. Page numbers have been added to the bottom of each page for ease of reference. AGENDA ITEM #1. c) Wilson Park 1 – Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision [PROPOSED] - 2 Renton City Attorney 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425.430.6480 Fax: 425.430.6498 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 approved Wilson Park 1 preliminary plat (“Wilson Park 1”), which would have extended the plat expiration date from August 16, 2018 to July 5, 2019. 2. On May 22, 2018, the City’s Community & Economic Development Department (“CED”) submitted a Request for Denial of the Wilsons’ request for the 11-month plat extension. (Exhibit A, Pages 027-028.) 3. On June 7, 2018, the Wilsons responded to CED’s Request for Denial. (Exhibit A, Pages 029-040.) 4. On June 27, 2018, the Hearing Examiner issued a Final Decision (the “First Decision”) which expressly denied the Wilsons’ request but extended preliminary plat expiration by three months to November 16, 2018 “to account for the uncertainties attributable to the decision-making process in addressing the extension request.” (Exhibit A, Pages 041-043.) 5. On July 2, 2018, CED moved for a limited reconsideration of the First Decision, requesting that the Hearing Examiner eliminate the First Decision’s three-month extension and restore the August 16, 2018 plat expiration date. (Exhibit A, Pages 044-046.) 6. On July 9, 2018, the Wilsons submitted an opposition to CED’s motion for limited reconsideration. (Exhibit A, Pages 047-048.) 7. On July 11, 2018, CED submitted a reply in support of its motion for limited reconsideration. (Exhibit A, Pages 049-052.) 8. On July 15, 2018, the Hearing Examiner issued a Final Decision Upon Reconsideration (the “Final Decision Upon Reconsideration”) granting the City’s motion for limited reconsideration to remove the First Decision’s three-month extension. (Exhibit A, Pages 053-054.) The Final Decision Upon Reconsideration retained the August 16, 2018 plat expiration date for Wilson Park 1. AGENDA ITEM #1. c) Wilson Park 1 – Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision [PROPOSED] - 3 Renton City Attorney 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425.430.6480 Fax: 425.430.6498 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9. On July 24, 2018, the Wilsons filed this appeal to the City Council challenging the Hearing Examiner’s Final Decision Upon Reconsideration that denied their request for an 11- month extension of the Wilson Park 1 preliminary plat expiration date. Exhibit A, Pages 001- 054. B. Wilson Park 1 Eight-Year Approval Period. 1. Wilson Park 1 is a proposal for a 12-lot residential subdivision addressed as 720 South 55th Street, Renton. Exhibit A, Page 020 (Lot Diagrams Sample). Wilson Park 1 received preliminary plat approval on August 16, 2010. Exhibit A, Page 025 (Letter from J. Henning). 2. Preliminary plats are routinely valid for only five years. However, Wilson Park 1 received the benefit of a seven-year validity period under temporary plat extension legislation granted by the Washington State Legislature. Exhibit A, Pages 025-026 (Letter from J. Henning). Accordingly, the original Wilson Park 1 plat expiration date was August 16, 2017. Id. (The “plat expiration date” is the date on which the Wilson Park 1 preliminary plat would expire if the Wilsons had not yet submitted a final plat.) 3. The Wilsons requested a one-year extension to the Wilson Park 1 plat expiration date, and CED granted the request on July 26, 2015, extending the plat expiration date to August 16, 2018 and causing the Wilson Park 1 preliminary plat to be valid for eight years. Exhibit A, Pages 025-026 (Letter from J. Henning). And, under the Final Decision Upon Reconsideration, August 16, 2018 remains the plat expiration date. Exhibit A, Pages 053-054. 4. At issue in this appeal, the Wilsons requested a further 11-month extension of the plat expiration date, to July 5, 2019. Exhibit A, Pages 006-009. This request would have caused the Wilson Park 1 preliminary plat to be valid for a total of nine years. C. Platting Challenges Associated with Wilson Park 1 Were Resolved by December 2014. 1. The Wilsons identified the following as significant platting issues associated with Wilson Park 1: AGENDA ITEM #1. c) Wilson Park 1 – Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision [PROPOSED] - 4 Renton City Attorney 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425.430.6480 Fax: 425.430.6498 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a. October 2010 to March 2011: Access and utility easement rights were jeopardized in October 2010, but resolved in March 2011 through acquisition of adjacent property, later known as Wilson Park 2. Exhibit A, Pages 007-008, 010-018 (easement and deeds). b. July 2012: The City approves the Wilson Park 2 preliminary plat. Exhibit A, Pages 026-026 (Letter from J. Henning). c. Shortly after July 2012: The Wilsons begin marketing the Wilson Park 1 and 2 plats. Exhibit A, Pages 030-035 (Declaration of S. Beck). d. June 2014: The Wilsons choose to design the engineering for the Wilson Park 1 and 2 plats to function together; City approves the engineering plans. Exhibit A, Pages 036-040 (Declaration of D. Offe). e. December 2014: Soos Creek Water and Sewer District approves the water plans for the plats. Exhibit A, Pages 022-023. f. July 2015: The City extends the Wilson Park 1 plat expiration date to August 16, 2018 (which, at the time of the extension, meant that three years remained to file for final plat before Wilson Park 1 expired). Exhibit A, Pages 025-026 (Letter from J. Henning). 2. The Wilsons submitted no evidence of any platting issues occurring since the City’s July 2015 granting of a one-year plat extension (extending the plat expiration date to August 16, 2018). 3. The only evidence in the record post-dating July 2015 is that the Wilsons continued marketing the Wilson Park 1 and 2 plats but had no prospective buyers follow through on purchase. Exhibit A, Pages 008-009, 029, 030-035. AGENDA ITEM #1. c) Wilson Park 1 – Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision [PROPOSED] - 5 Renton City Attorney 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425.430.6480 Fax: 425.430.6498 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 D. CED Explained that the Wilsons’ Requested 11-Month Additional Plat Extension Would Harm the City. 1. In response to the Wilsons’ request for an additional plat extension, CED submitted a request that the Hearing Examiner deny the request. Exhibit A, Pages 027-028. CED explained that the Wilson Park 1 was approved under a prior City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and does not meet current provisions of the Renton Municipal Code regarding zoning, stormwater, critical areas, tree standards, and retaining wall heights. Exhibit A, Page 028. 2. CED further explained to the Hearing Examiner that, in fact, the City adopted new retaining wall height regulations to address public concern that arose in an appeal associated with this very plat, Wilson Park 1. Exhibit A, Page 028. E. The Hearing Examiner Reconsidered His Original Decision Because No Evidence Supported It. 1. The Hearing Examiner issued the First Decision that expressly “denied” the Wilsons’ request for an extension but then went on to gratuitously defer plat expiration by three months on the unsupported assumption that the request for plat extension had created “uncertainties” for the Wilsons. Exhibit A, Pages 041-043. 2. Despite the First Decision having given a three-month extension plat extension, the Wilsons had not submitted any evidence regarding “uncertainties” or actions or inactions occurring as a result of awaiting the First Decision between the May 3, 2018 request and the June 27, 2018 issuance of the First Decision. 3. When the Wilsons responded to the City’s motion for limited reconsideration of the First Decision, they did not offer evidence that their platting efforts had been unusually or unduly delayed by the Hearing Examiner’s processing of their plat extension request. Exhibit A, Pages 047-048. AGENDA ITEM #1. c) Wilson Park 1 – Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision [PROPOSED] - 6 Renton City Attorney 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425.430.6480 Fax: 425.430.6498 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4. The Hearing Examiner’s Final Decision Upon Reconsideration removed the gratuitous three-month extension and restored the August 16, 2018 plat expiration date. Exhibit A, Pages 053-054. In the Final Decision Upon Reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner found that there was “nothing unusual” in the processing of the Wilsons’ request for additional plat extension and reconfirmed that the Wilsons had not met the Renton Municipal Code’s standards for granting a plat extension. Exhibit A, Page 054. II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. Standard on Appeal. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.F.4, on appeals to the City Council, no public hearing is held, and no new or additional evidence or testimony is accepted. The burden of proof rests on the applicant. RMC 4-8-110.F.5. The City Council may modify or reverse the Hearing Examiner decision only if the Hearing Examiner made a “substantial error in fact or law.” RMC 4-8-110.F.7. Thus, if the City Council does not find a “substantial” error, it should affirm the Hearing Examiner’s decision. B. The Wilsons Did Not Make the Required Showings of “Unusual Circumstances or Situations” that Made it “Unduly Burdensome” for Them to File the Final Plat on Time. 1. RMC 4-7-080.L.2 (“Additional Extensions”) applies to the Wilsons’ request to extend the Wilson Park 1 plat expiration by an additional 11 months. RMC 4-7-080.L.2 provides (emphasis added): Additional time extensions beyond this one-year time period may be granted by the Hearing Examiner if the applicant can show need caused by unusual circumstances or situations which make it unduly burdensome to file the final plat within the four (4) year time period. The applicant must file a written request with the Hearing Examiner and the CED Department for this additional time extension; this request must be filed at least thirty (30) days prior to the plat expiration date. The request must include documentation as to the need for the additional time period. 2. The Wilsons did not make a showing of “unusual circumstances or situations” that made it “unduly burdensome” for them to file for final plat by August 16, 2018. AGENDA ITEM #1. c) Wilson Park 1 – Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision [PROPOSED] - 7 Renton City Attorney 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425.430.6480 Fax: 425.430.6498 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a. For example, the resolution of the platting issues in December 2014 does not constitute an unusual circumstance or solution that made it unduly burdensome for the Wilsons to file for final plat within a further three and a half years, or by August 16, 2018. b. As a further example, the fact that the real estate market was still recovering when Wilson Park 2 was platted (July 2012) does not constitute an unusual circumstance or situation that made it unduly burdensome for the Wilsons to file for final plat within a further six years, or by August 16, 2018. 3. Extending the Wilson Park 1 plat expiration date beyond August 16, 2018 would cause a public detriment because the plat is currently vested to outdated provisions of the Renton Municipal Code as to zoning, stormwater, critical areas, tree standards, street standards, and retaining wall heights. 4. In the Final Decision Upon Reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner did not make any substantial error of fact or law. III. DECISION The Hearing Examiner’s July 15, 2018 Final Decision Upon Reconsideration is AFFIRMED. The Wilson Park 1 preliminary plat expiration date remains August 16, 2018. Respectfully submitted this 9th day of August, 2018. ____________________________________ Leslie Clark, WSBA No. 36164 Senior Assistant City Attorney On behalf of the City of Renton Community & Economic Development Department encl: Exhibit A AGENDA ITEM #1. c)             Exhibit “A”  to City of Renton’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of  Law, and Decision  AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 001 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 002 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 ofthe development issues had been resolved by December 2014 (when Soos Creek Water District approved final design), with 3.5 years ofthe 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 003 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 ofour plat approval period remaining. In its motion to revoke the limited extension,the City argued that the extension should be revoked to deprive us ofthe 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 004 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 005 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 006 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 007 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 008 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 009 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) w y tic .! AFTER RECORDING MAIL TO: e T , ROBERT D.WILSON 20080327002018 PAGEONUEOFTO@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 ofRenton, 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 ofthe said Parcel B; Road and Utility 1:sisement-Page 1 Exhibit "A" - Page 010 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 ofthe said Parcel A, described as follows: An easement for ingress, egress and utilities lying 25 feet on each side ofthe 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 ofthe South 318 feet of said Southeast Quarter ofthe 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 ofthe East 317.00 feet ofthe West 1003.00 feet ofthe Southeast Quarter ofthe 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 011 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 012 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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` 01A.9 'i`i, i Print . . -: Craig D. hielbar zU ` i„ , .• % NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at Puyallupt/.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 aLeday of March, 2008. f gS10NF+ '+, Wit, s O O AR % : Printer g D. hielbaryraig NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of pi qi BUB-\g 2' Washington,residing at Puyallup i ,''++F`30-0.`' My Commission Expires: 8/30/2009liftfu ‘NN Road and Utility Easement-Page 4 Exhibit "A" - Page 013 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 MundorfPratt 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. Exhibit "A" - Page 014 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 ofthe 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. Exhibit "A" - Page 015 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) I r1 , 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 ofT., ' 1..•;, cc' Q3 , Washington,residing at . `IJjc ftt OA. S My commission expires: //—!(1— /3 F WASHING S'1C1catiPra aPad6c 8aa4'Flc K.OmmuIi\TtWCs Deddot Exhibit "A" - Page 016 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) Ti /14 at 3/ 2 off'Ce tier 1111 1111111111 20110317000372Afterrecordrngjreturnto: NORT!{AOINT ESC D 63.00PAGE-001 OF 002RobertWilsonandDoravinWilson03/17/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 DEEDorderno.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 ($250,000.00), in hand paid, bargains, sells, and conveys to Robert Wilson and Doravin Wilson, husband and wife the following described real estate, situated in the County of King, state of Washington: THE EAST 317 FEET OF THE WEST 1,003 FEET OF THE SOUTH 318 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST,W.M., IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON; EXCEPT COUNTY ROAD; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Abbreviated Legal: (Required if full legal not inserted above) PTN OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST,W.M Tax Parcel Number(s): 3123059119 Bargain and Sale Deed Page 1 of 2 LPB-15-05(Itr) (rev. 4/2009) Exhibit "A" - Page 017 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) A i . r f CTD Ailey 3 zoo) Geffen .) Dated: March?4. ZOii Prime Pacific Bank, N.A. cwt// By: CXµ O QpIts:St-i.:•‘ r, '-')' State of Washington , County of oJnohof'Y1/S SS: I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that C.hLU&C is the person who.appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument, on;oath stated that(he/she) is authorized to execute the instrument and 1acknowledgeditasthe . SCG of Prima Pacific Bank, N.A.to be the free and voluntary act ofuch party for the uses and purposes mentioned In the instrument. Dated: .3 _i jD/f Given under my hand and official seal the day and year last above written. Notary Public in nd for the State of WIC? Residing at o LL Wo/My Appointment expires: O(,` // C. M. PICKRELL NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON I COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 9, 2011 1 . 1 Exhibit "A" - Page 018 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) Wm,,s M U 7,t ( r mn 5mn8"c "y * IPUi evil- D, woi« a mNgE No f'Y'1 itl,cm El' N 1 Tov !V „X. 3 20!F Le tl're)-) @2r1 p NO^Uz-,A WJlZp Q C Z3w® wJ2w°o s=w> Z2wLv f i 1 h .;i' >rrrt. V 0 W m4' ; V Z x 0YrJagoio3.wP OZxx d• 4' a• 4 yIn( WmoZJ_ W3$Z.O wONz Zia aoo3 331,(7=WOJ ZOVz_ W¢.z N 0,--u) p 2yaw o<- o w „ Li',,,, aZ W WZN7 aCrOQ0 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 Wr >O¢¢Q¢¢.2ZZt2¢tr mZrOaU6000¢ N17,8 o UOLnZYOp3 1 z z -,-1--1_,,j a' cvnr,n.nocc, Vt7Q 3 N a m 3w Fa- e-,), 3 w 1It g KN A-co lg li•,8a0mss -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 hlz 3 & o koa !$fOII < 99th PLACE SOUTH Lcn_. C g Z J a oW44 G S oy IOpN0KCSSES)- 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 v g w w zLi. z N1f10s Qv021 1081v1 d Z m o za. g aGCo U 03¢ tii gWFrw > § r< u oW ' t-O W 6 &,,, KZ 0- W W D Z ' m ..se c33 W o s TO Src Y'c u i, _" 'Pg- a g: ! :.g Vieo' IgIWZCeQw 4.-1 :1;11<ti 0z r^ J 0 a oV m 0,971,0),01'9L9Z .Zb£1.10S R :. xM SO"8f£! 4o'£l8 i a7.1 w Qn ti min n N Y fr A OW •--- ,' '''' W O W U t-,gF ts UU¢ NJIh I j 1I^ ,OW ISINwUuUI ~ yWL`¢ 'S WO 2aNCu> yj Z 4Ha l 024iN 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 NNtlffI3.96,9£OON 33 1ZNRa o¢H w cMi H NN eJ4. ''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 Un 2W N NZZ O O at I i jn\L4 Y 1w4'FUU vl .wFL8 a u n SO'SZFI _ _,SO'SZfI _ n W3vi utu e e NV 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-no; 6 N3 1 Exhibit "A" - Page 019 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) BoFz§ti» C.-) rig II .- 8 $ o o J$ fIWu- 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 NJ W O Ln'1 E j y(P .tihril..La.- u li f f Z¢N.- 09waagcci2S /rY lli t 0 N fJ' J I- IN lig l\ It: 0.0717).015[9LA4J$0Llos n' c. o J 1+ y' ~ I O i 31 nsn- b I '(i'y c 1 f ' i i9O f N O in O Os m Os A dl rn s O,27,,,.T:S I d. • 4 91 1- j ” I 57.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 1 f.r & i n Q 1 _ 207.00' 01'13'42'°W b IWf175.00°92.0'LUtr) 1 F N I57.6' F, 63.9' I u G'I i TZFoaI o i w N 9Y 6w N t i' I 89.0' ost 76.5' 1 1 m Z i oo il Too b ip O 1, 1 89.0' S n) 76.5•' I 1' 11' 1' 1' 111' 41. R d l ai o S"' Ip N.NII I atnl1J'3\ IZ1 Ooo loo OOo a ____---_U _ —_ `\lss \\ LLa Q O I S I d /I o 4.ON 1 89.0' 69.5' ti i m u N I mUIIoa U) d oIN zIoO`I' 55.0' 55.0' 55.0' 55.0' 66.3' O os 1- z I 94.7' 1155 °N lIY G,Gi- w 7J6'2 _ 3-fJ xi¢ _ O o ps o U o 6 oaNNaJP co I O S.SS ~ p ,TI' O O O O o O p o J1 ® in ooJIosIOUyflSi0OaU pI_o fo, 2, N,_ s s mlrn3 i W OI oAF N4,\ N i=WW1— JV- N DOo 1 zz f o ' O •o O •o Oi < IAO o J, s 0 ; o4F ..Q. IfOOmoOAoOAo `n ®I I oVeI tO$ z2rfl ml 1 nom{20' REAR B.S.B.L. 0, ' b a I rnI__ . 1_ 56_0_- 56.056.0 _ 60.0'_L_ - ?, iiz 0.0 IIozt --2,—ILF;‘:- IisNW,,Ia UL=tY n c Iv WUFuUV 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 pyL6k4S-,?;8-8-8 . 8 wasIDIn0300000Pd'._. W,ONNr.-N I2 O" a 1 l'''''.S' I t P VEtUUUUUUo.& R17,d ri---i ' InL O 0ItIet Ie Ra,-,Exhibit "A" - Page 020 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) aim\ T V ti it ,.A S 8 S S f' n. J a 10 w 11 5 L7QN 4 41 rta Qat' J d W CrCCZZ¢ 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 fiW 0 1912 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.___Ai —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 bZ D y s 1 a i s :p: _ 0, j \ 11 m p 1"1gg L(Jf w m \.i=r ise 1 1—J Y-i -- X ' `a d aOT5 N y.i 7"p 1 V v,. I i_ 3 be ,x.arY'_0 hx o i aMsrIrva1,, 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.AftiNfOf((IYR+ _, '4 `Iii ,5b i ------, . F! ILLS l A sLz--- J• III I 4.K., lrs2,:j- g-gjriC`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.‘".. ...jA...Q. o IPA; I 1" a;?C:••.3 1 ONI211,310 3NI1 A1tl3d0 d tC 2' 6 } bl __4 fit° 8 itia 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 h. = Wmg eG UzX Ifl IGasrnao V) wm S y ijig3rvn uwaond J OO p w s€ z oExhibit "A" - Page 021 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) To .tilm), 3' ' '1? /P tier, I( c a c a El s 'vi I c8"E cv ice e, 8.u0 e a-c 7: = lymoCa 7, -i--.1WEl '-'.9N9V8.aOn w _ '17.4 U 3 c U ^i ' mOa ti ---1 - c C V'O.T W 8 - of.2, o at 73 El s02rywG8 ' !I mTd -E. O,y. m " = 71 o3R x ,..7.-1 -E >,-oW N E oI v; oag - yo_0 Q C> y 00 w U _I0C NOC sN ~ EC ,- 1q " vo TD --0 tea' o a 1 -1 O a ocoopi1.! QCSC0C..7 L 4 .-. ^I_ w R v E.a v'F j .r .-.I-21 mg toT E. 5. o - O f- ¢ 8 X o - I P c0U r W 2 O v V E L: .y • I nl V] C Lno8. C u 7 V410' V C 4. C C -f o; ,. ti I v a V 'JmTyO 'L.o _ _ m C(3 L, C E a p W a C --E1 C 9 CAA 4a7oaawaF-? 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 moano9Oa -. v 7 d a CJ ea. 5 c4UONII. 0 N3 ce n" wa 3 H E Exhibit "A" - Page 022 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 yuAvour, 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 023 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 07'14, Z...,,• z0 o 1 Ii •-•J;,-. ,-., ..-.1:2, ,-,,,,,, 2 rc' P',6-6• LI '?..''•--Z t4:1- 1Lx.,`,"; 9.:::,,,-, I ii- irij.,•!-,,i.-22,:1, t-,,,:,.L1,::, ;.--,12 2c 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 \'96'•' -.6.6. ! , ..•;-, •‘..1 '•,'.., 'ir;41' . I 7'7-7----i - jy-------li•, '-,5 b, ,4• .6,,..i -LI" 1,, ',. i- ',, 6. T-------77-777I '1I--- i•••=--'-' I 1-I-----,-4,,,4,,,..i.-7,I •.',-lif 1ff-,, t ' !1,6:.,=!t'!=,-71.',..:!-I ‘.,'••., I , i —, ,,-.:,-.7-1 ,,i 1 ,,-I "-'.1 ' . ! I '-:-,"•,--:-. 1 1• co7s=',..-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.—I1..... cr,i.i.. 1u., to Exhibit "A" - Page 024 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 025 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 026 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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.govExhibit "A" - Page 027 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) Mr.Phil Olbrechts Page 2 of 2 May 22,2018 First, the Wilsons' have not proved "unusual circumstances or situations"justifying a nine-yearplattingperiod. If the acquisition of the Wilson Park 2 property had only recently becomenecessary, 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 nocurrentorrecentcircumstancesorsituationsjustifyinganadditionalextension. Second,the Wilsons' have not proved that it was "unduly burdensome"for them to file a finalplatwithineightyearsofpreliminaryplatapproval. Rather than alleviate a burden, theWilsons' request indicates that delaying the Wilson Park I timeline to align with the Wilson ParkIItimelineisbasedinconveniencetothe applicant and marketability of a combineddevelopment. 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 thefinalplattingprocess, 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 WilsonParkIplattingactiontimelineinlinewithWilsonPark2. Granting an additional extension for Wilson Park 1 would extend the life of a preliminary platthat, in the face of code amendments, no longer conforms to provisions of the RentonMunicipalCodeincluding 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 theCityhasadoptedanewcomprehensiveplanincluding new development standards associated with the residential zones. Furthermore, the public concern related to retaining walls thatstemmedfromanappealassociatedwiththis project resulted in the City considering and thenadoptingnewretainingwall height regulations. For the above reasons, the City respectfully requests that the Hearing Examiner deny theWilsons' 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 AdministratorEdPrince,Renton City Council President Leslie Clark,Senior Assistant City AttorneyRyanMclrvin,Renton City Councilmember Jay P. DerrJasonSeth,City Clerk Steve BeckShaneMoloney,City Attorney File—LUA09-140 c,k1 Y o; 4A4TQ . 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov Exhibit "A" - Page 028 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 ofour 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 029 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 030 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 031 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 the6 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 032 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 the6 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 033 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 034 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 ii4 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 035 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 036 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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. table6 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 037 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 038 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 039 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 040 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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. The17CityfiledaresponsedatedMay22, 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 "...ifthe applicant can show need caused by unusual circumstances or situations which20makeitundulyburdensometofilethefinalplat..." 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 approval23inAugust, 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 041 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 coordinate5developmentwereresolvedbyDecember, 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 3.58yearsofdelay. 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 certain15extentastheywaitedforadecisionontheirextensionrequest. 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 042 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 ofthis 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 purposes5notwithstandinganyprogramofrevaluation. 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 043 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 to18 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 044 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 satisfy7 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 potential23 buyers of the plat, suggesting that marketing of the plat continued. Even if the Wilsons had24 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 045 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 that7 compelled the City to urge denial of the extension request in the first place. For example within8 the three-month period, extensive site clearing and mass grading could commence resulting in9 tree removal, as well as construction of retaining walls, all of which would not be permitted10 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 Mf 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 046 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 4tid 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. Exhibit "A" - Page 047 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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'sargumentisabsurd. 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 neededtomitigateforthetimespentonourextensionrequest. 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 ' Exhibit "A" - Page 048 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) CITY OF RENTON JUL111zoneM 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 reconsidered16 and set aside. As explained in this Reply, the Response.does not successfully refute any issue17 raised by the City, and the City's Limited Motion for Reconsideration (the "Motion") of the18 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 049 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 and6 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 050 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 all6 its platting efforts while its extension request is pending.7 Third, the Response characterizes as "absurd" and "troubling"the City's opposition to8 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 under24 RMC 4-7-080.1. As to the latter,the City incorporates by reference its prior arguments: The25 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 051 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 052 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 ofPlat 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 Exhibit "A" - Page 053 AGENDA ITEM #1. d) 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 in2theconstructionandplanningofaproject, 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 their14attorneyandtheCity'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 Exhibit "A" - Page 054 AGENDA ITEM #1. d)