HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity of Renton, Former Fire Station 13 Recommendation
h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\fire sta 13 rezone lua11-007.doc
BEFORE the HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore for the
CITY of RENTON
RECOMMENDATION
FILE NUMBER: LUA11-007, ECF, R
APPLICANT: City of Renton
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
OWNER: Same as Applicant
TYPE OF CASE: Rezone (not requiring a Comprehensive Plan amendment)
from R-10 to R-14 (Former Fire Station 13 Rezone)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: GRANT
DATE OF RECOMMENDATION: April 22, 2011
INTRODUCTION 1
The City of Renton (City) seeks rezone from R-10 to R-14 of a 20,000 square foot (SF) site.
The City filed the rezone application in early February, 2011. The Renton Department of Community and
Economic Development, Planning Division (Planning) deemed the application to be complete when filed.
(Testimony)
The subject property is located at 17040 108th Avenue SE.
The Renton Hearing Examiner Pro Tempore (Examiner) viewed the subject property on April 19, 2011.
1 Any statement in this section deemed to be either a Finding of Fact or a Conclusion of Law is hereby adopted as such.
HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore RECOMMENDATION
RE: LUA11-007, ECF, R (Former Fire Station 13 Rezone)
April 22, 2011
Page 2 of 8
h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\fire sta 13 rezone lua11-007.doc
The Examiner held an open record hearing on April 19, 2011. Planning gave notice of the hearing as
required by the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). (Exhibit 8 2)
The following exhibits were entered into the hearing record during the hearing:
Exhibits 1 - 6: As enumerated in Exhibit 7
Exhibit 7: Staff Report
Exhibit 8: Hearing notice documentation
The action taken herein and the requirements, limitations and/or conditions imposed by this decision are, to
the best of the Examiner’s knowledge or belief, only such as are lawful and within the authority of the
Examiner to take pursuant to applicable law and policy.
ISSUES
Does the application meet the criteria for approval of a rezone not requiring a Comprehensive Plan
amendment as established within the RMC?
No testimony or evidence was entered into the record by the general public either in support of or in
opposition to the application.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The City seeks to change the zoning of the former Fire Station 13 site so that it will match the zoning
of the lands that surround it. The rectangular, nearly half-acre site is located on the east side of 108th
Avenue SE, approximately midway between SE 170th and SE 172nd Streets, in the Benson Hill area.
(Exhibit 4)
2. The site itself is now vacant. The surrounding area exhibits a variety of zones and uses. The parcels
immediately surrounding are all zoned R-14 and exhibit a mix of single-family residences, home-
based or small businesses, or vacant land. Beyond the immediate parcels are more single-family
homes, multi-family structures, a neighborhood business area to the north, and a larger business area
to the south. Multiple zones are found within a quarter-mile area, including R-8, R-10, R-14, CN,
and CA. (Exhibits 2, 4, and 7)
3. This site is not located in the Aquifer Protection Zone. (Exhibit 7, p. 3)
2 Exhibit citations are provided for the reader’s benefit and indicate: 1) The source of a quote or specific fact; and/or 2)
The major document(s) upon which a stated fact is based. While the Examiner considers all relevant documents in the
record, typically only major documents are cited. The Examiner’s Decision is based upon all documents in the record.
HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore RECOMMENDATION
RE: LUA11-007, ECF, R (Former Fire Station 13 Rezone)
April 22, 2011
Page 3 of 8
h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\fire sta 13 rezone lua11-007.doc
4. Subsection 4-9-180F2 RMC sets forth the review criteria for a rezone which does not require a
Comprehensive Plan amendment. Those criteria and the facts associated with each are:
A. RMC 4-9-180F2a: “The rezone is in the public interest, and”
Facts: Approval of the requested rezone will eliminate a small island of R-10 zoning in the
midst of a large area of R-14 zoning. (Exhibit 2) Making the area zoning consistent serves
the public interest.
B. RMC 4-9-180F2b: “The rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any
substantial property rights of the petitioner, and”
Facts: Making the zoning of this site the same as that of all the parcels which surround it will
provide the City with the same property rights as its surrounding neighbors.
C. RMC 4-9-180F2c: “The rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the
properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof, and”
Facts: The City’s State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Responsible Official, the
Environmental Review Committee, issued a threshold Determination of Nonsignificance
(DNS) for the requested rezone on March 21, 2011. (Exhibit 6) The DNS was not appealed.
(Exhibit 7, p. 3)
D. RMC 4-9-180F2d: “The rezone meets the review criteria in subsection F1 of this Section.”
Those criteria are:
i. RMC 4-9-180F1a: “Is consistent with the policies set forth in the Comprehensive
Plan; and”
Facts: The Comprehensive Plan designation for the area in which the parcel is located
is Residential Medium Density (RMD). (Exhibit 3) The RMD designation is intended
to create the opportunity for a diverse neighborhood with a variety of housing and
ownership options.
Policy LU-163. Areas may be conserved for Residential 14 (R-14)
zoning where the site meets the following criteria:
1) Adjacent to major arterials(s);
2) Adjacent to the Urban Center, Highlands Center Village, or
Commercial Corridor Designations;
3) Part of a designation totaling over 20 acres (acreage may be in
separate ownership);
HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore RECOMMENDATION
RE: LUA11-007, ECF, R (Former Fire Station 13 Rezone)
April 22, 2011
Page 4 of 8
h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\fire sta 13 rezone lua11-007.doc
4) Site is buffered from single-family area or other existing,
potentially incompatible uses; and
5) Development within the density range and of similar unit type is
achievable given environmental constraints.
Although the site is on a minor arterial, if considered as part of the R-14 area that
surrounds it, the R-14 area is adjacent to State Route 515, a major arterial. The R-14
area as a whole is also adjacent to a Commercial Corridor designation and totals over
20 acres, meeting the second and third criteria. Since there are no critical areas, and
the surrounding neighborhood already contains a mix of uses, it is reasonable to
expect that development on the site could achieve the required density range of the R-
14 zone (10 to 18 units). (Exhibits 2, 4, and 7)
ii. RMC 4-9-180F1b: “At least one of the following circumstances applies:
“i. The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered at the time
of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; or
“ii. Since the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the subject
property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other
circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material
change.”
Facts: The Fire Station 13 site was an extra-municipal “island” of City land
surrounded by unincorporated King County before the Benson Hill annexation
occurred in 2008. The Fire Station 13 site had an RMD Comprehensive Plan
designation and was zoned R-10.
In 2007, the City pre-zoned the Benson Hill area in anticipation of annexation.
Because the Fire Station 13 property was already a part of the City and had already
been assigned a land use designation (RMD) and zone classification (R-10), it was
not considered in the 2007 area-wide pre-zoning for the Benson Hill area.
When the Benson Hill area annexed into the City in 2008, the 2007 pre-zoning for
the area was implemented: All of the parcels around Fire Station 13 were also
designated RMD, but were zoned R-14. That left the Fire Station 13 site as the only
R-10 zoned parcel in the immediate area. 3 Fire Station 13 was also relocated to
another site at about the same time, leaving the subject property vacant. (Exhibit 7, p.
2)
3 The Staff Report refers to this as “a spot-zoning situation”. (Exhibit 7, p. 2) Strictly speaking, this is not improper “spot-
zoning.” The judicially created spot-zoning doctrine refers to a situation in which a small area is zoned differently from
the area surrounding it and not in conformance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Since both the R-10 and the R-14
zones serve to implement the Comprehensive Plan’s RMD designation, the existence of the small R-10 zoned parcel,
although not particularly logical or desirable, is not an example of improper spot-zoning.
HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore RECOMMENDATION
RE: LUA11-007, ECF, R (Former Fire Station 13 Rezone)
April 22, 2011
Page 5 of 8
h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\fire sta 13 rezone lua11-007.doc
5. Any Conclusion of Law deemed to be a Finding of Fact is hereby adopted as such.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK 4
The Examiner is legally required to decide this case within the framework created by the following
principles:
Authority
A rezone not requiring a Comprehensive Plan amendment is a Type IV application which is subject to an
open record hearing before the Examiner. Following the hearing, the Examiner issues a recommendation on
the application which is subject to the right of reconsideration before action by the City Council. [RMC 4-
08-070H3a, 4-8-080G, 4-8-100G4, and 4-9-180D]
The Examiner may
grant or deny the application, or the Examiner may require of the applicant such conditions,
modifications and restrictions as the Examiner finds necessary to make the application
compatible with its environment and carry out the objectives and goals of the Comprehensive
Plan, the zoning regulations, the subdivision regulations, the codes and ordinances of the
City of Renton, and the approved preliminary plat, if applicable. Conditions, modifications
and restrictions which may be imposed are, but are not limited to, additional setbacks,
screenings in the form of landscaping and fencing, covenants, easements and dedications of
additional road rights-of-way. Performance bonds may be required to insure compliance with
the conditions, modifications and restrictions.
[RMC 4-8-100G3]
Review Criteria
The review criteria for rezones are found at RMC 4-9-180F2 and have been set forth in the Findings of Fact,
above.
The Local Project Review Act [Chapter 36.70B RCW] establishes a mandatory “consistency” review for
“project permits”, a term defined by the Act to include “building permits, subdivisions, binding site plans,
planned unit developments, conditional uses, shoreline substantial development permits, site plan review,
permits or approvals required by critical area ordinances, site-specific rezones authorized by a
comprehensive plan or subarea plan”. [RCW 36.70B.020(4)]
(1) Fundamental land use planning choices made in adopted comprehensive plans and
development regulations shall serve as the foundation for project review. The review of a
4 Any statement in this section deemed to be either a Finding of Fact or a Conclusion of Law is hereby adopted as such.
HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore RECOMMENDATION
RE: LUA11-007, ECF, R (Former Fire Station 13 Rezone)
April 22, 2011
Page 6 of 8
h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\fire sta 13 rezone lua11-007.doc
proposed project’s consistency with applicable development regulations or, in the absence of
applicable regulations the adopted comprehensive plan, under RCW 36.70B.040 shall
incorporate the determinations under this section.
(2) During project review, a local government or any subsequent reviewing body shall
determine whether the items listed in this subsection are defined in the development
regulations applicable to the proposed project or, in the absence of applicable regulations the
adopted comprehensive plan. At a minimum, such applicable regulations or plans shall be
determinative of the:
(a) Type of land use permitted at the site, including uses that may be allowed
under certain circumstances, such as planned unit developments and conditional and
special uses, if the criteria for their approval have been satisfied;
(b) Density of residential development in urban growth areas; and
(c) Availability and adequacy of public facilities identified in the comprehensive
plan, if the plan or development regulations provide for funding of these facilities as
required by [the Growth Management Act].
[RCW 36.70B.030]
Vested Rights
Renton has not enacted a general vested rights provision. Rezones are not the subject of any statutory vesting
provision. Washington has a judicially-created vested rights doctrine:
Washington does adhere to the minority rule that a landowner obtains a vested right to
develop land when he or she makes a timely and complete building permit application that
complies with the applicable zoning and building ordinances in effect on the date of the
application. Our vested rights rule also has been applied to building permits, conditional use
permits, a grading permit, and a [shoreline management] substantial development permit.
[Norco Construction v. King County, 97 Wn.2d 680, 684, 649 P.2d 103 (1982), citations omitted] The
vested rights doctrine has never been applied to rezone applications.
Standard of Review
The standard of review is preponderance of the evidence. The applicant has the burden of proof.
Scope of Consideration
The Examiner has considered: all of the evidence and testimony; applicable adopted laws, ordinances, plans,
and policies; and the pleadings, positions, and arguments of the parties of record.
HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore RECOMMENDATION
RE: LUA11-007, ECF, R (Former Fire Station 13 Rezone)
April 22, 2011
Page 7 of 8
h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\fire sta 13 rezone lua11-007.doc
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A rezone which does not require a Comprehensive Plan amendment must meet all four criteria in
RMC 4-9-180F2: The conjunctive “and” at the end of each criterion indicates that all must be met.
The fourth criterion incorporates the criteria in RMC 4-9-180F1. Those criteria are structured
differently: In order to meet Criterion F2d, an application must meet Criterion F1a and one or more
of the two criteria in F1b (because those two criteria are separated by the disjunctive “or”).
2. The evidence demonstrates convincingly that a rezone of the subject property from R-10 to R-14
meets the criteria in RMC 4-9-180F2a, F2b, and F2c as well as the criteria in F1a and F1bi, thus
meeting criterion F2d. The application meets all required criteria and deserves approval.
3. The requested rezone passes the “consistency” test: The R-14 density is fully consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan’s RMD designation and utilities are available. (Exhibit 7, p. 3)
4. Finally, the requested rezone simply makes a lot of sense. It will eliminate an historical anomaly and
bring consistency to the area’s residential zoning pattern.
5. Any Finding of Fact deemed to be a Conclusion of Law is hereby adopted as such.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the testimony and evidence submitted at
the open record hearing, and the Examiner’s site view, the Examiner recommends that the City Council
GRANT the requested rezone from R-10 to R-14. No conditions need be imposed on the rezone.
Recommendation issued April 22, 2011.
\s\ John E. Galt (Signed original in official file)
John E. Galt
Hearing Examiner Pro Tempore
HEARING PARTICIPANTS 5
Erika Conkling
5 The official Parties of Record register is maintained by the City’s Hearing Clerk.
HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore RECOMMENDATION
RE: LUA11-007, ECF, R (Former Fire Station 13 Rezone)
April 22, 2011
Page 8 of 8
h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\fire sta 13 rezone lua11-007.doc
NOTICE of RIGHT of RECONSIDERATION
“Any interested person feeling that the [recommendation] of the Examiner is based on an 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” file a request/motion for reconsideration with “the Examiner
within fourteen (14) days after the written [recommendation] of the Examiner has been rendered. The
[request/motion for reconsideration] shall set forth the specific errors relied upon.” [RMC 4-8-100G4] Any
request/motion for reconsideration shall be addressed to the Renton Hearing Examiner and filed with the
City Clerk. See RMC 4-8-100G4 and RMC 4-8-110E8 for additional information and requirements
regarding reconsideration.
NOTICE of CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
This Recommendation (or the Examiner’s Recommendation after reconsideration) will be considered by the
Renton City Council. Please contact the City Clerk for information regarding the scheduling of Council
consideration of this Recommendation. Please have the applicant’s name and City file number available
when you contact the city.