Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil 09/17/2007 d AGENDA RENTON CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING September 17, 2007 Monday, 7 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL 3. PROCLAMATION: Mayor's Day of Concern for the Hungry- September 22, 2007 4. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: a. Return to Renton Car Show Report b. Sister City Cuautla Delegation 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 6. AUDIENCE COMMENT (Speakers must sign up prior to the Council meeting. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. The comment period will be limited to one-half hour. The second audience comment period later on in the agenda is unlimited in duration.) When you are recognized by the Presiding Officer, please walk to the podium and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. NOTICE to all participants: pursuant to state law, RCW 42.17.130, campaigning for any ballot measure or candidate from the lectern during any portion of the council meeting, and particularly, during the audience comment portion of the meeting, is PROHIBITED. 7. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are distributed to Councilmembers in advance for study and review, and the recommended actions will be accepted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for further discussion if requested by a Councilmember. a. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 9/10/2007. Council concur. b. City Clerk reports two appeals of Hearing Examiner's decisions regarding Grant Ave. Townhomes Site Plan application(SA-07-018); appeals filed on 8/23/2007 by Robin Jones and by Kovach Architects, each accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. c. Community Services Department requests approval of a lease with Communities in Schools of Renton for space on the fifth floor of Renton City Hall; revenue generated over five-year term is $30,139.92. Refer to Finance Committee. d. Development Services Division recommends approval to waive the development,building, and impact fees per City Code owner-occupied housing incentive for The Chelsea condominium project, 513 S. 2nd St., and the Blakey Townhomes project, 604 Morris Ave. S. Estimated total fees for The Chelsea are $53,512.97 and $56,404.55 for Blakey Townhomes. Refer to Finance Committee. e. Hearing Examiner submits recommendation regarding appeal filed on behalf of Norma J. Randall concerning the Vineyards Construction, LLC latecomer agreement for sewer main extension along NE 7th Pl. (LA-06-002). Hearing Examiner recommends including the appellant's property in the latecomer agreement. Council concur. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Topics listed below were discussed in Council committees during the past week. Those topics marked with an asterisk(*)may include legislation. Committee reports on any topics may be held by the Chair if further review is necessary. (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) a. Committee of the Whole: Downtown Wayfinding Implementation; 2008 Piped Utility Rate Proposal & System Development Charges;National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit New Program Request b. Community Services Committee: Airport Advisory Committee Appointments 9. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Ordinance for first reading: Exception for stormwater piping in geologically hazardous areas (Public hearing held on 12/4/2006) Ordinances for second and final reading: a. Approving the Anthone'Annexation(1st reading 9/10/2007) b. Establishing R-4 zoning for the Anthone'Annexation area(1st reading 9/10/2007) c. 2007 Budget amendment related to the airport noise study contract with Harris,Miller, Miller& Hanson (1st reading 9/10/2007) d. Tree retention and removal (1st reading 9/10/2007) e. Animal regulations (1st reading 9/10/2007) f. Cluster development(1st reading 9/10/2007) g. Residential development design standards (1st reading 9/10/2007) 10. NEW BUSINESS (Includes Council Committee agenda topics; call 425-430-6512 for recorded information.) 11. AUDIENCE COMMENT 12. ADJOURNMENT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA (Preceding Council Meeting) Council Conference Room 4 p.m. Emerging Issues in Public Safety Council Chambers Approximately 4:30 p.m. Downtown Wayfinding Implementation; 2008 Piped Utility Rate Proposal & System Development Charges; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit New Program Request ‘104.0„Hearing assistance devices for use in the Council Chambers are available upon request to the City Clerk • CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE TELEVISED LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 21 AND ARE RE-CABLECAST TUES.&THURS.AT 11 AM&9 PM,WED.&FRI.AT 9 AM&7 PM AND SAT.&SUN.AT 1 PM&9 PM RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting September 17, 2007 Council Chambers Monday, 7 p.m. MINUTES Renton City Hall CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kathy Keolker called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL OF TONI NELSON, Council President; DAN CLAWSON; DENIS LAW; TERRI COUNCILMEMBERS BRIERE; MARCIE PALMER; DON PERSSON; RANDY CORMAN. CITY STAFF IN KATHY KEOLKER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative ATTENDANCE Officer; LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; ALEX PIETSCH, Economic Development Administrator; TERRY HIGASHIYAMA, Community Services Administrator; SONJA MEJLAENDER, Community Relations and Event Coordinator; MARTY WINE, Assistant CAO; PROVISIONAL DEPUTY CHIEF MARK PETERSON, Fire Department; CHIEF KEVIN MILOSEVICH and COMMANDER TIM TROXEL, Police Department. PROCLAMATION A proclamation by Mayor Keolker was read declaring September 22, 2007, to Mayor's Day of Concern for be "Mayor's Day of Concern for the Hungry" in the City of Renton and strongly the Hungry- 9/22/2007 urging all citizens to join the Emergency Feeding Program and the local food banks in their efforts to nourish those who are hungry. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION. CARRIED. Emergency Feeding Program Executive Director Arthur Lee, Renton Salvation Army Captain Terry Masango, and Renton Salvation Army Social Services Director Lisa Robinson accepted the proclamation with appreciation. Captain Masango encouraged citizens to participate in the annual countywide food drive on September 22. SPECIAL Jim Medzegian,member of the Return to Renton Car Show Steering PRESENTATIONS Committee, reported on the 17th Annual Return to Renton Car Show held on Community Event: Return to 7/7/2007. He acknowledged the presence of steering committee members in the Renton Car Show, audience, and shared highlights of the show. Mr. Medzegian noted that the Contribution of Proceeds to steering committee wants to hold the 2008 show in downtown Renton, and is Police Department working with City staff towards that end. He presented Police Chief Milosevich with some commemorative items and a check in the amount of$16,000 for the Renton Police Department's youth fund. Chief Milosevich indicated that the proceeds from the car show will help sponsor various youth programs. Community Services: Sister Community Relations and Event Coordinator Mejlaender and Renton-Cuautla City Cuautla, Jalisco, Mexico, Sister City Committee volunteer Celeste Brady, who provided the Spanish Renton Visit translation of the presentation, welcomed the three-member delegation from Renton's sister city Cuautla, Jalisco,Mexico. Sister City Committee Co-Chair Andee Jorgensen introduced the delegates, acknowledged the members of the Sister City Committee present in the audience, and described the events and activities the delegation will participate in during their visit. Cuautla delegate and Mayor(Presidente Municipal) Gregorio Iturralde Ton-es extended his best wishes to Renton for a fruitful and successful year, and expressed appreciation for the sister-city relationship between the two cities. Mayor Keolker and Council President Nelson presented each delegate with a certificate of appreciation and an official City of Renton pin. September 17,2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 314 ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2007 and beyond. Items noted included: * Renton residents are invited to a community meeting and presentation on September 26 to learn about airport noise effects and to provide input for the airport noise study which is jointly funded by the cities of Renton and Mercer Island. * Kids ages four to twelve are invited to compete in the annual Soccer Challenge on October 4 at Ron Regis Park. Pre-registration is required. * Beginning this week, Washington State Department of Transportation crews will be paving and preparing the shoulders for future widening on southbound SR-167 in Renton. The I-405 Widening Project is the first stage of improvements on I-405 between I-5 and SR-167. AUDIENCE COMMENT Ross Osborne (King County) spoke about the feasibility of an off-leash dog Citizen Comment: Osborne - park in Renton, questioning whether the Narco site (1500 Houser Way S.) is a Off-Leash Dog Park possible location for this type of park. Community Services Administrator Higashiyama noted the possibility of using the site as a temporary off-leash dog park, and stated that she will be happy to discuss the topic of a dog park with Mr. Osborne. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of 9/10/2007. Council concur. 9/10/2007 Appeal: Grant Ave City Clerk reported two appeals of Hearing Examiner's decisions regarding Townhomes Site Plan, Jones & Grant Ave. Townhomes site plan application; appeals filed on 8/23/2007 by Kovach Architects, SA-07-018 Robin Jones and by Kovach Architects, each accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee.* Community Services: City Community Services Department requested approval of a lease with Hall Lease (5th Floor), Communities in Schools of Renton for space on the fifth floor of City Hall; Communities in Schools of revenue generated over five-year term is $30,139.92. Refer to Finance Renton Committee. Development Services: Fees Development Services Division recommended approval to waive the Waiver, The Chelsea&Blakey development,building, and impact fees per City Code owner-occupied housing Townhomes incentive for The Chelsea condominium project, 513 S. 2nd St., and Blakey Townhomes, 604 Morris Ave. S. Estimated total fees for The Chelsea are $55,852.85 and $56,404.55 for Blakey Townhomes. Refer to Finance Committee. Appeal: Vineyards Hearing Examiner submitted recommendation regarding appeal filed on behalf Construction Latecomer of Norma J. Randall concerning the Vineyards Construction,LLC latecomer Agreement, Green, LA-06-002 agreement for sewer main extension along NE 7th Pl. Hearing Examiner recommended including the appellant's property in the latecomer agreement. Council concur. *Mayor Keolker reported receipt of an added item of correspondence related to the appeal of the Grant Ave. Townhomes site plan (item 7.b.) from Sally Brick, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP, who represents the applicant Tridor, Inc. She noted that the correspondence also needs to be referred to the Planning and Development Committee. September 17,2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 315 MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED WITH THE ADDED ITEM OF CORRESPONDENCE. CARRIED. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Council President Nelson presented a Committee of the Whole report regarding Committee of the Whole the downtown wayfinding system manufacture and installation contract. The EDNSP: Downtown Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve Wayfinding System and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign a contract with Sea Reach, Ltd. Installation, Sea Reach for$221,180 to manufacture and install the prioritized components of the downtown wayfinding system that will improve the system of signage into and around downtown Renton. The Committee further recommended that a public meeting be set for 10/15/2007 to discuss the downtown wayfinding system design and color scheme. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.* Responding to Mayor Keolker's inquiry, Council President Nelson explained that the purpose of the public meeting is to view actual color samples and materials for the gateway signs in particular, and to invite comment from the public. *ROLL CALL: FIVE AYES: NELSON, CLAWSON, LAW, BRIERE, CORMAN; TWO NAYS: PALMER, PERSSON. MOTION CARRIED. Community Services Community Services Committee Chair Corman presented a report Committee recommending concurrence in Mayor Keolker's appointments to the Airport Appointment: Airport Advisory Committee as follows: Todd Banks (Airport-at-Large alternate Advisory Committee position) for a term expiring 5/7/2010, and Matthew Devine (Talbot Hill neighborhood alternate position) for a term expiring 5/7/2008. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following ordinance was presented for first reading and referred to the ORDINANCES Council meeting of 9/24/2007 for second and final reading: Development Services: Private An ordinance was read adding a Subsection 4-3-050C5D.iv to the table entitled Stormwater Utilities in "Exempt Activities permitted within Critical Areas and Associated Buffers" to Geologically Hazardous Areas Chapter 3, Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code to add an exception for stormwater piping in a geologic hazard area. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 9/24/2007. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance#5301 An ordinance was read annexing approximately 4.89 acres of property generally Annexation: Anthone', Talbot located immediately south of S. 55th St. and immediately east of Talbot Rd. S.; Rd S & S 55th St Anthone' Annexation. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5302 An ordinance was read establishing the zoning classification for approximately Annexation: Anthone R-4 4.89 acres, generally located immediately south of the south side of S. 55th St. Zoning on the north and immediately east of Talbot Rd. S., annexed within the City of Renton to R-4 (Residential - four dwelling units per acre)zoning; Anthone' Annexation. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL September 17,2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 316 ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5303 An ordinance was read amending the 2007 Budget by transferring$50,000 from Airport: Noise Study, Harris the 2007 Airport 608 Hangar Expansion Project and $99,000 from the 2007 622 Miller Miller&Hanson, Hangar Rehabilitation Project to fund the contract with Harris,Miller, Miller& Budget Amend Hanson to perform an airport noise study. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5304 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 4-4, Citywide Property Development Planning: City Code Amends Standards, Chapter 4-7, Subdivision Regulations, Chapter 4-8,Permits - re R-4 Zone &Tree Retention General and Appeals, Chapter 4-9, Permits- Specific, and Chapter 4-11, &Animal Regulations Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code by changing the regulations for tree retention and removal. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5305 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2,Zoning Districts -Uses and Planning: City Code Amends Standards, and Chapter 4, Citywide Property Development Standards, of Title re R-4 Zone &Tree Retention IV(Development Regulations) of City Code to amend the regulation of animals. & Animal Regulations MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5306 An ordinance was read amending Section 4-2-110A, Development Standards Planning: City Code Amends for Single Family Residential Zoning Designations, and Note 10 of Section 4-2- re R-4 Zone &Tree Retention 110D, Conditions Associated with Development Standards Table for Single & Animal Regulations Family Residential Zoning Designations of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts- Uses and Standards, of Title IV(Development Regulations) of City Code relating to cluster development. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Planning: City Code Amends An ordinance was read amending Chapter 4-2, Zoning Districts -Uses and re R-4 Zone &Tree Retention Standards, Chapter 4-4, Citywide Property Development Standards, and & Animal Regulations Chapter 4-8, Permits- General and Appeals, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code relating to the design standards for residential development. Moved by Briere, seconded by Clawson, Council adopt the ordinance as read.* Councilmember Palmer indicated that the Master Builders Association has expressed concerns regarding this ordinance and wants to offer suggestions before the ordinance is finalized. She suggested allowing more time for the association's input. Councilmember Clawson indicated that the association had plenty of opportunity to provide input and did provide input on the ordinance. Mayor Keolker reviewed the public involvement in the development of the ordinance, as detailed in a memorandum to the Mayor and Council dated 9/5/2007 from Economic Development Administrator Pietsch. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL SUSPEND THE RULES AND ALLOW GARRETT HUFFMAN, SOUTH KING COUNTY MANAGER FOR THE MASTER BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF KING AND SNOHOMISH COUNTIES, TO COMMENT ON THE MATTER. CARRIED. Mr. Huffman stated that a similar situation in Snohomish County resulted in a list of 20 different architectural feature options. He indicated that in this case, the association's membership is frustrated since their comments have not always September 17,2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 317 been incorporated into the work document. Mr. Huffman further indicated that the membership is being limited in what they are able to do, and feel that the product will decrease rather than increase in attractiveness as a result of this. He suggested further discussion on the matter. In response to Councilmember Corman's inquiry, Mr. Huffman stated that the association represents a majority of the master builders that will comply with these rules. Mr. Corman agreed that more time is needed to review the design guidelines. Explaining that the ordinance concerns standards to be incorporated in new construction such as window trim and building modulation, Councilmember Briere indicated that the matter has been under review for months and the Master Builders Association's membership has had opportunity to comment. Following further discussion on the matter, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, CALL FOR THE QUESTION ON THE MOTION TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE. CARRIED. *Roll call: three ayes: Nelson, Clawson, Briere; four nays: Law, Palmer, Persson, Corman. Motion failed. NEW BUSINESS Council President Nelson noted the need for clothing by the Renton Clothes Human Services: Renton Bank, and she encouraged citizens to donate clothing to this organization, which Clothes Bank served 437 people in August. Police: Regional Jail Reporting that in 2012, the King County jail will no longer accept misdemeanor bookings from King County cities, it was MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL REFER THE TOPIC OF A REGIONAL JAIL TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Fire: Emergency Response Mayor Keolker relayed a citizen concern regarding private information being Times for Medical Aid released to Councilmembers in relation to the review of the medical aid response data, and she stated for the record that the personal information has been redacted. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 8:33 p.m. tiYLcli (�2e Bonnie I. Walton, CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann September 17, 2007 Aria. RENTON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR Office of the City Clerk COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 17, 2007 *REVISED* I COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATE/TIME AGENDA COUNCIL WORKSHOP FRI., 9/21 Benson Hill Communities Annexation 9 a.m. Transition Plan Approximately 2008 Budget Priorities 1 p.m. *7th Floor Conferencing Center* COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MON.,9/24 Emerging Issues in Transportation& (Nelson) 5:30 p.m. Economic Development; *Council Conference Room * Approximately 2008 Utility Rates 6:15 p.m. *Council Chambers* COMMUNITY SERVICES (Corman) FINANCE MON., 9/24 Vouchers; (Persson) 4 p.m. Interfund Loan for Fund 318; Owner-Occupied Housing Incentive Waiver of Fees; Lease with Communities in Schools of Renton for Space on Fifth Floor of City Hall PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT THURS., 9/20 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments; (Briere) 1 p.m. Multi-Family Housing Property Tax Exemption for Harrington Square; Whitworth Ave. S. Street Vacation; Annexation Meeting Notification Practices PUBLIC SAFETY WED., 9/19 Graffiti on Private Property; (Law) 4 p.m. Marine Patrol Contract; Medical Aid Response Times TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) WED., 9/19 Seaplane Base Dredging Contract Addendum (Palmer) 3:30 p.m. with Parametrix; Local &Regional Transportation Issues (briefing only) UTILITIES THURS., 9/20 Hazen 565-Zone Reservoir Bid Award; (Clawson) 3:30 p.m. Hazen 565-Zone Consultant Contract; Utility Systems CIP (briefing only) NOTE: Committee of the Whole meetings are held in the Council Chambers unless otherwise noted. All other committee meetings are held in the Council Conference Room unless otherwise noted. ,•1\-) C OF �-+;N T N '� Mayor 0 Kathy Keolker P r W herea a; the City of Renton recognizes adequate nutrition as a basic goal for each citizen; and W he.Yec no parent should have to send a child to school hungry, no baby should be without the comfort of feedings needed for mental and physical growth, no elderly person's health should be jeopardized by lack of appropriate foods; and W hereat, food banks, emergency, and hot meal programs working with the City of Renton, local churches, social service agencies, and hundreds of volunteers are striving day in and day out to stem the rising tide of hunger, but still need more help; and W hetrecw, we believe that when the citizens who are not involved hear of the especially desperate needs of the hungry as winter approaches and their low incomes must stretch to cover increasing fuel, electricity, and rental costs, leaving even less money for monthly food purchase, an outpouring of community assistance will follow; and r.► W heYec ', the Emergency Feeding Program of Seattle and King County coordinates an annual food drive to help support the efforts of their program and the area's food banks in fighting hunger, which will be held at grocery stores throughout King County on Saturday, September 22, 2007; No-w, The.reforeJ, I, Kathy Keolker, Mayor of the City of Renton, do hereby proclaim September 22, 2007, to be a Mayor'kDay of C w for the'Iiw, y in the City of Renton, and strongly urge all citizens to join the Emergency Feeding Program and our local food banks in their efforts to nourish those who are hungry. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Renton to be affixed this 17th day of September 2007. e ,ait/i(Aj / -e-‘)Vel,- — , y ($.1%*, 441, t KNag, athy Keolk � { Mayor of the City of Renton, Washington ��>� ' 1 23 ENTc� 1055 South Grady Way Renton,Washington 98057-(425)430-451'z t14' V This paper contains 50%recycled material 30%pot Ain.m?r� �� AHEAD O E THE CURVE �ti`sY 0 ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND ti LEGAL, LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT • MEMORANDUM DATE: September 17, 2007 TO: Toni Nelson, Council President Members of the Renton City Council FROM: Kathy Keolker, Mayor Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Administrative Report In addition to our day-to-day activities, the following items are worthy of note for this week: GENERAL INFORMATION • City of Renton residents are invited to a community meeting and presentation on September 26 from 7 to 9 p.m. to learn about airport noise effects and to provide input for the airport noise study, which is jointly funded by the City of Renton and the City of Mercer Island. In April of 2007, the two cities entered into an agreement to jointly fund a noise study to determine the effects of several different airport development options and to work together to solicit public input, draft the scope of work for the study, and share the results with residents. The community meeting will be held in Council Chambers at Renton City Hall. The Renton Airport Advisory Committee (RAAC) will meet at 5 p.m. in the Council Chambers prior to the community meeting. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT • The Community Services Department invites kids ages 4 to 12 to compete in the annual Soccer Challenge on October 4 at Ron Regis Park. This competition is open to all boys and girls and includes ball throw-in, distance kick, goal shooting, and ball dribbling. Contestants will compete within their own age division (based on participant's age as of December 31, 2007). Pre- registration is required. Call 425.430.6700 to register and for more information. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS & STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT • The first job fair for The Landing will be held this Thursday, September 20th, from 2:00 to 7:00 p.m. at Renton Technical College, 3000 NE 4th Street, Roberts Campus Center, Building I Foyer. Hiring managers from Lowe's, Staples, and Target (retailers coming to The Landing) will be available at the job fair, which is sponsored by the City of Renton, Renton Chamber of Commerce, Renton Technical College, Renton School District, Puget Sound Training Center, Washington State University-Extension, BuRSST, and WorkSource Renton. For more information, call WorkSource Renton: 206-205-3500 or go to w«w.wsrenton.oru. Administrative Report September 17,2007 Page 2 FIRE DEPARTMENT • Mrs. Cheryl Webber-Veldwyk donated $10,000 to the Renton Fire Department's Memorial Aid Car Fund in a ceremony held on Thursday, September 13th, at Station 12. The money will be used to purchase Automatic External Defibrillators for the community to increase the chances of survival during sudden cardiac arrest. One year ago, Mrs. Webber-Veldwyk's 18-year-old daughter collapsed from sudden cardiac arrest. Responding Renton Fire Department and King County Medic One crews performed CPR and administered external shocks with a defibrillator. She survived the incident and is now enrolled in the premedical program at the University of Washington. PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • Beginning this week, Washington State Department of Transportation crews will be paving and preparing the shoulders for future widening on southbound SR 167 in Renton. During the week of September 15th through 21st, there will be nightly closures of up to two southbound lanes and the HOV lane between the I-405/SR 167 Interchange and SW 41st Street. The I-405 Renton Widening Project is the first stage of improvements on 1-405 between I-5 and State Route 167. This work, which will occur from September 2007 to spring 2010, will help relieve congestion by adding lanes and improving merging conditions for the drive in and out of Renton and Tukwila. For more information on these construction projects, drivers can check for updates by going to w \\.sdol.wa. w\ or calling Keith Woolley, City of Renton Transportation Division, at 425-430- 7318. CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL 0 Ata I AI#: • , " .r+,Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 9/17/2007 Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/City Clerk Staff Contact Bonnie I. Walton Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Appeals of Hearing Examiner's decisions dated 8/9/2007 Correspondence.. regarding Grant Avenue Townhomes Site Plan Ordinance Application. (File No. LUA-07-018, SA, ECF) Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business • City Clerk's letter (9/7/2007) Study Sessions • Appeals - Robin Jones (8/23/2007) Information Kovach Architects (8/23/2007) • Response to Request for Reconsideration (8/23/2007) • Request for Reconsideration - Robin Jones (8/9/2007) • Hearing Examiner's Report & Decision Robin Jones (8/9/2007) Kovach Architects (8/9/2007) Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Planning and Development Committee Legal Dept Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: N/A Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the Grant Avenue Townhomes Site Plan application was filed separately on 8/23/2007 by Robin Jones, for himself, and by Kovach Architects, each accompanied by the required $75 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council to take action on the Grant Avenue Townhomes Site Plan application appeals. cc: Jennifer Henning Larry Warren Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh Uti�Y o� CITY OF RENTON is ♦ _ • City Clerk Kathy Keolker,Mayor Bonnie I.Walton September 7, 2007 APPEALS FILED BY: 1) Mr. Robin Jones, 1626 Grant Av 5, Renton, WA 98055 2) Kovach Architects, Attn: Austin Kovach, 101 West Main St., Monroe, WA 98272 RE: Appeals of Hearing Examiner's decisions dated August 9, 2007 regarding site plan approval for constructing 36 townhome units on a 2.11 acre site, located at 1600 Grant Av S, known as the Grant Avenue Townhomes. (File No. LUA-07-018, SA,ECF) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, two written appeals of the hearing examiner's decision on the Grant Avenue Townhomes Site plan application have 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 immediately 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 September 17, 2007. NOTICE.IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Developn-i ment Comttee.at2:00 p.m. on Thursday, October, 18, 2007, in the Council Chambers,' 7` Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055:South Grady. Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The recommendations of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full council at a subsequent Council meeting. Copy of the appeals and the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations is attached. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of each 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. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425-430-6510. Sincerely, idetefr Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Attachments 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98057-(425)430-6510/FAX(425)430-6516 R E N T Q N. AHEAD OF THE CURVE 6)This paper contains 50%recycled material.30%post consumer City of Renton Municipal Code; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110—Appeals 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170,the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council—Procedures 1. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council,upon a form furnished by the City Clerk,within fourteen(14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten(10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. 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 unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council deteinilnes that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 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 submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F1, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If,upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified,the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, 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. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving,modifying or rejecting a decision NIS of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION N,,,,, APPLICATION NAME 6,o,„, I Av.., Tow./t o u sr 019,1 Pt;t FILE NO. 1- ANAN interested partyherebyfiles its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recd mendation of the The undersignedr PP AUG 23 2007 Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated 9 A w 9 N ,1- ,20 0i-. RECEIVED 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY CITY CLERKS OFFICE APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE(IF ANY): / 19 l'ie Name:7rt r. Rn b �,, 7o NQS Name: Address: 16 a ti &i N E AVP S. Address: RPS j W* `92c5S Phone Number: Ua S ' a $ t 394, Phone Number: Email: Po I(0 IH 5 N •(OWN Email: 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets,if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. Error: Sep A 11.2(L Pd S tit°P I Correction: Nosiw Conclusions: No. Error: SPP /}H Q(l,eri Sheet Correction: Other: No. Error: Ser 511Pe Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REOUES CED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation,if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: See hNgctted, SL►re (' Rdto,N T0NP5 a3 of '441111°' Ap ntfRepresenta iiSignature Type/Printed Name Date NOTE: Please refer to Title IV,Chapter 8,of the Renton Municipal Code,and Section 4-8-110P,for specific appeal procedures. CC , iJ4h- �e'N, 71y -ify hfs , pe� s[��Cs d Robin Jones Appeal ,411,0104 SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS The City Council has required that approval of a site plan "requires the additional finding that the project complies with the intent and policies of the Land Use and Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan." RMC 4-9-200F (emphasis added) . The Hearing Examiner evidently believed that mere compliance with a minimum setback was all that was required, and did not make any finding or conclusion that the minimum setback complied with the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council has directed staff to review the impacts of a proposed development on surrounding properties, specifically seeking to avoid undesirable impacts of proposed structures that could impair the enjoyment of surrounding uses and structures, and to mitigate unnecessary and avoidable impacts of new construction on views from existing buildings. RMC 4-9- 200F(1) (a) , (f) . The intent of the site plan review process is to "minimize discordant and undesirable impacts of development . . . off-site" and to "protect neighboring owners . by assuring that reasonable provisions have been made for such matters as sound and sight buffers, light and air, and those other aspects of site plans which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses ." RMC 4-9-200A(2) (1) , (6) (emphasis added) . The specific decision criteria include conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, ' mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties, and provision of adequate light and air. RMC 4-9- 200E (1) (a) , (c) , (g) . "The Hearing Examiner shall give substantial weight to any discretionary decision of the City rendered pursuant to this Chapter/Title. " RMC 4-8-110E (7) (a) . The staff report found that the proposed development would have structures 44 feet 5 inches from finished grade to the roof peak, adjacent to Robin Jones home in Heritage Village, which consists of only two-story buildings . Report and Decision of Administrative Site Plan Review, dated April 4, 2007 (hereinafter, "Decision") , at pages 6-7. The developer proposed a setback of only thirteen (13) feet. Staff proposed a setback of twenty-five (25) feet, to which the Hearing Examiner should have given substantial weight. The staff properly considered the Comprehensive Plan, as required by RMC 4-9-200F. In particular, staff noted that Policy LU-186 requires " [n]ew stacked flat and townhouse development in Residential Multifamily designations should be compatible in size, scale, bulk, use, and design with existing multi-family developments in the vicinity." Decision at page 6. Staff was 1 The code also requires conformance with land use regulations, but the Examiner required that (and only that) . RMC 4-9-200E (l) (b) . '.4rr1 ' concerned that the new development would not be compatible in times of size, scale, and bulk. The impact would be "significant." Decision 10.2 Staff found that "the mass and bulk [of the development] is significantly greater than, and not compatible with, the Heritage Village structures ." Decision 11 . Jones testified that the Heritage Village homes have their living rooms and kitchens facing the new development, which staff considered in stating the development also could have a negative impact "in terms of reduction of available natural light." Decision 12 . Staff also required landscape screening "to provide partial building screening, without light blockage, at maturity of vegetation. " Decision 11 . The Hearing Examiner erred in not giving substantial weight to the staff' s review and decision, and in ignoring the requirement to consider policies in the Comprehensive Plan and as required in site plan review, which he required nothing more than compliance with the minimum setback set forth in the land use regulations . The Hearing Examiner made the following specific errors: 1 . He used as a criteria to reverse a conclusion that the staff made a "mistake, " see Conclusion 4 or was "mistaken, " Conclusion 5, rather than the requirements set forth in RMC 4-8-110E (7) (b) . 2 . He did not consider the development' s size, scale, or lowle bulk in comparison to Heritage Village, as required by Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-186. See Conclusion 6. 3. He did not give substantial weight to the fact that the staff found impacts even if they were incorrect in how close Heritage Village was to the property line. See Conclusion 7 . 4 . He required a "strong basis" for increasing the land use minimum setback regulations, rather than giving substantial weight to the staff' s interpretation of the comprehensive plan and judgment, and the City Council' s criteria for site plan review. Conclusion 7. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED Uphold the decision to require no building (including any part of a deck) built closer than twenty-five (25) feet from the property to the south, by reversing the Hearing Examiner' s decision that would allow buildings over forty (40) feet high to be located within thirteen (13) of the adjacent property. 2 The developer argued that staff was incorrect in looking at how close Heritage Village was to the property line, but the actual decision makes clear that the impact was an issue, even if the existing buildings were not particularly close to the property line. APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION APPLICATION NAME 1— A\lt\IAAt- V6-IES FILE NO. LW\ -�1G CITY OF RE T The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated QitCFusf a T1+ , 20 01- . AUG 23 2007 RECEIVED 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY CITY CLERKS OFFICE APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): 3 7 r'. 1 ' Name: Kama- At\ arrvG''1' Name: Address: IOL IOS< tt 444. 411;1.a@--- Address: 'k1,014 t Phone Number: 7-4.0 O •1 AL{ 15Lb Phone Number: Email: kU.b'1't141 P_ 4 Tic q- M1-41-tI WTS.C-oe-t Email: 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. 6 Error: ',(E4:- AAS ' Correction: *1200 Conclusions: No. Error: Correction: Other: No. Error: Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: >( Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: NNAltA V-60.-CW" f1Z3/61" *41.11 App lant/Representative Signature Type/Printed Name Date TOTE: Please refer to Title IV,Chapter 8,of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F,for specific appeal procedures. '`err.` Nth 8/23/07 CITY OF RENTON Development Services Devision 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 (425) 430.7200 Fax. (425) 430.7231 Project Name: Grant Avenue Homes Project Description and Location: 1600 Grant Avenue South Subject: Hearing Examiner Report and Decision LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF Notification of Appeal We are choosing to Appeal the decision that the buildings connot exceed the 35-foot height limit. Item 8 of the conclusions states " While this ofice could remand the application for further revie in this regaurd, the process has been delayed due to scheduling issues and it appears reasonalble to scale the height down" While it is not a technical difficulty to change the pitch of the roof to bring the hight of the bulding down to meet the standard hight limit, We feel that it does adversly effect the asthetics of the project. Respectfully yours, Austin Kovach Kovach Architects , �. �fy P)07,e,A / ( .1y 70 - CITY JF RENTON • ♦ Hearing Examiner e- Kathy Keolker,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman *4004 August 23, 2007 Robin Jones 1626 Grant Avenue S, Ste. G-206 Renton,WA 98055 Re: Grant Avenue Townhomes Site Plan Appeals LUA 07-018, SA-A, ECF Dear Mr. Jones: This office has reviewed your correspondence regarding this matter. Based on a review of the entire record this office finds no reason to alter its original decisions. The SEPA analysis was appropriate and based on the potential impacts of this development on the environment. There was appropriate review of geotechnical issues and traffic issues. The Site Plan was approved by the City and while this office reversed the City's requirement that the project be moved further from its southern property line and that certain units be combined, , NS nothing in the record reflects that the City decision approving the Site Plan was otherwise erroneous. An appeal of this decision may be taken to the City Council by paying a$75.00 fee and filing appropriate documents with the City Clerk within 14 days of this decision. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufma Hearing Examiner FK/nt cc: Mark Barber, Senior Assistant City Attorney Jennifer Henning,Development Services Elizabeth Higgins, Development Services Sally Brick, K&L Gates Andrew Kovach,Kovach Architects Tridor,Inc. All Parties of Record 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-6515 RENTON _.. ____ AHEAD OF THE Ci1RVF Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Robin H. Jones 1626 Grant Ave S Apt# B203 Renton, WA 98055 09 August 2007 RE; Response to Tridor Inc.'s, Post Hearing Brief Documents Grant Ave Town Houses: LAU-07-018, SA-A.ECF 1. OVERVIEW; In considering the Post Hearing Briefs on the Grant Avenue Town Homes Project Ni..► submitted by Tridor, Inc. (Respondent)the Hearing Examiner must be consistent in his standards of review. The Respondent asks the Hearing Examiner to alternate between two opposing viewpoints. a. In the conclusion of the Administrative Site Plan Post Hearing Document the Respondent notes: "The Applicant committed nearly two years and considerable resources arriving at a site plan and project design that would conform with City Requirements and expectations and deliver an attractive, high-quality project that complements its surroundings. In the fmal hour, and based on a false actual premise, and inapplicable illegal provision, and/or the concerns of only one neighbor,the city changes the rules of the game and imposed a Setback Condition and fundamentally undermines the Project. The Setback Condition is unreasonable and unlawful and should be reversed. The implication presented is that Tridor Inc. was not in close communication with the City of Renton and was completely surprised by the action. b. In the Environmental Site Plan Post Hearing Document the Respondent notes: "City Staff reviewed technical reports prepared by three professional consulting firms hired by Tridor, Inc. (Tridor)to conducted evaluations of the Project proposal. City staff worked with these consultants to define the cases of the studies". Page 4. 14400, 1 "The study scope for the Traffic reports was developed in coordination with the Development Engineering supervisor at the City of Renton" Page 4. "The technical analyses prepared by profession environmental consultants and reviewed by City staff' Page 9. The implication presented is that Tridor Inc. was in close communication with the City of Renton. c. The Respondent is selectively arguing that they were working in conjunction with City of Renton and then they were not. In reviewing the Post Hearing Brief written by the Respondent the Hearing Examiner must decide which viewpoint is correct and apply that standard to both Appeals. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL The Renton City Hearing Examiner under RCW 4-8-110.E.7 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..." v. Clearly erroneous in view of the entire record as submitted; or..."iv. Arbitrary or capricious. " As stated at the hearing, I do not present myself as an expert, nor do I doubt the skills or experience of the consultants used. What I presented are observations of local , 1011 conditions and ongoing environmental issues that the City of Renton was not aware of when making their initial Environmental Determination. In the Post Hearing Brief the Respondent does restate the credibility and results of the different studies, but they do not directly answer the two central issues of the environmental appeal. a. That the Traffic Engineer Study minimized potential issues associated with the physical properties of the road, in conjunction with actual year round conditions that were raised. The solutions presented were not realistic and are difficult to implement. The City of Renton when making the Environment Site Review was not aware of these conditions b. That the time of year and methodology of the Geological Study could hardly fail not to produce the positive results that are restated in the Post Hearing Brief. These results are not representative of the local conditions thru out the majority of the year. The City of Renton when making the Environment Site Review was not aware of these conditions. All environmental issue were not known at the time of the Environmental Site Review by the City of Renton and the Respondent has not directly addressed the issues raised at the Hearing. A new Environmental Site review is needed. 41000 2 3. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL The Hearing Examiner must begin his analysis of the Respondents appeal on the premise that the City of Renton is correct on all parts of the appeal and that the Respondent must address all areas of the Administrative Site Plan Review. Additionally, the Hearing Examiner must ensure that the concerns of the impacted neighbors are not arbitrarily dismissed based on the Respondent's perception. a. The crux of the Respondent's arguments are based on a new site survey completed on July 01, 2007. The Hearing Examiner should view the new arguments as selective and singular in their approach, addressing only one part of the problem, but with no context to the whole. It does not address the Administrative Site Review in its entirety. Furthermore, it is exceptionally difficult to evaluate the accuracy or impact of the presented survey because there is no linkage to the overall Site plan, no linkage to the requested changes requested by the City of Renton to the detached four-plex, and it is difficult to discern the base reference points associated with the setback distances given. Lastly, RCW 44-8-060 (b) implies that changes to plans beyond a 10% mark should be considered new plans ...'revisions requested by an applicant to a vested, but not yet approved, application shall be deemed a new application when such revisions would result in a substantial change in the basic site design plan, intensity, density, and the like, involving a change of ten percent (10%)or more in area or scale." The Hearing Examiner in reviewing the new information must determine whether the sites plan, with all this additional information, has become a new plan; beyond the scope of what was discussed at the public hearing. b. The Hearing Examiner should disregard the Respondent's assertion that there is only a "Lone Neighbor Opponent" involved. Clearly noted in all documents supporting these appeals are the parties of record,which include: 1. Charlie Wolf, 1708 SE 16th Place, Renton, WA 98055 2. Betty &Raymond Barry, 1625 Jones Drive SE,Renton, 98055 3. Cathy Joss 1626 Grant Avenue, B -103, Renton, 98055 Ms. Joss is the President of Heritage Village Association;the other two parties are the owners of the adjacent properties to the North of the proposed development. All neighboring parties to the proposed development are represented, all parties have demonstrated interest in the development thru their parties of record request, and I am in communication with them all. The fact that only one person was at the Hearing Examiner's Hearing is reflections of the time of the hearing, during working hours, verse the level of interest and commitment. 3 4. CONCLUSION In reviewing the Post Hearing Briefs written by the Respondents the Hearing Examiner must decide whether Tridor Inc. has been working closely with the City of Renton or has diverged to their own plan. One viewpoint must be applied as the standard to both Appeals. I ask the Hearing Examiner to required a new Environmental Site Review, which would address the issues, raised in the Environmental Appeal, which were unknown by the City of Renton at the time, and which are unanswered by the Respondents Post Hearing Brief. Additionally, I ask the Hearing Examiner to uphold the City of Renton's Administrative decisions because the Respondent's additional arguments are selective in nature and do not fully address all issues raised in the Administrative Review. The Respondent's appeal should be denied. Sincerely Robin H. Jones 4 August 9, 2007 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: Robin Jones 1626 Grant Avenue Renton,WA 98055 Grant Avenue Townhomes ERC Determination Appeal LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written requests for a SEPA Appeal hearing and the Applicant and Appellant request an appeal hearing on the underlying site plan for the project, examining available information on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the June 26, 2007 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, June 26, 2007, at 9:48 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Now Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file and the inclusive Appeal Exhibit No. 2: Power Point Presentation file containing the original appeal letter and other pertinent information. Exhibit No. 3: Mark Jacobs,Traffic Engineer Exhibit No.4: Bill Taylor,Taylor Engineering Resume Consultants Resume Exhibit No. 5: Drawing lE of Grant Ave Townhomes Exhibit No. 6: Site Plan for Grant Ave Townhomes project (1D) Parties Present: Mark Barber, Senior Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Higgins, Development Services Sally Brick, Attorney for Applicant, 925 4th Avenue, Seattle,WA 98104 Robin Jones, Appellant, 1626 Grant Avenue S., Apt. B-203, Renton, WA 98055 Name Robin Jones stated that he is arguing on two points in terms of the Environmental; first the ERC failed to correctly impose conditions to mitigate impacts related to the project on the traffic at the entrance. This is a Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018 SA-A, ECF August 9, 2007 Page 2 tough site plan that leads to a very narrow entrance, the traffic analysis was based on 25 MPH, which sign has been in place for a long time and most likely does not reflect the real traffic conditions. There has been a great deal of development and 25 MPH is not the realistic speed that is happening on that road. The issue is not traffic,but traffic is part of the problem. As you travel south on Grant Avenue the road curves and the entrance to the project is just behind the curve. The study itself recognizes that there are some stopping issues at the 25 MPH, which probably is not the speed of most vehicles on that road. The mitigation plan gets no better if you cut the vegetation,that vegetation is not on any land that is controlled by the applicant. The mitigation plan is not realistic and he would ask that a new traffic study be done. The second part of the environmental appeal is that the ERC failed to describe accurately the project and the impacts. The ERC did not understand the issues that Heritage Village is facing,nor did they accurately describe the project because they did not receive the full information from the plan. There currently are ground water issues at Heritage Village. The study that was done for this site did not look at the overall conditions,they picked a very optimistic location and time to do some of the tests. Initially Heritage was the sole property on that road, Steeple Chase was built to the south in the last five years. Since that time,Heritage has had significant drainage problems, about 18-months ago a spring came up on the south side. Is seems that once the property is built,no one wants to deal with issues, their plan is to raise issue before the property is built. They have been working with the City of Renton,the water has been tested, it is definitely not from a broken pipe, they are working on a solution,which consists of putting in a$5,000 French Drain, this would be the third one on the property. The parking lot is starting to shift and sink into the ground, the road was resurfaced in 2005 and there are cracks already in the middle of the roadway. To the north side there is a lot of standing water. The groundwater testing was done in May with validation in August,not the wettest months of the year. The location for the test pit was near a house,on high ground. Approximately three weeks prior to the test pits being dug, there was standing water on the property next door, the tests were not done in that area. They would like to have the test pit done again in a more rainy time of year, and a location that is more realistic to what it is going to impact. Mr. Barber had no questions. Ms. Brick inquired as to Mr. Jones expertise. Mr.Jones stated that he is not a registered professional civil engineer, traffic engineer or an expert in any capacity. However both his parents are geologists and he has grown up with years of geological knowledge. The City reached its conclusions after receiving many technical analyses prepared by professional environmental consultants for the applicant. The traffic study, geotechnical study and drainage study were reviewed by the respective departments at the City of Renton. Mr. Jones is appealing the mitigated DNS-M,but offers only unsupported lay opinions and generalized complaints,they cannot meet the heavy burden of proof to demonstrate that the DNS-M is clearly erroneous. The appeal should therefore be denied. Mark Jacobs, 7731 8th Ave SW, Seattle,WA 98106, stated that he is a Traffic Engineer and gave a detailed statement on how he completed his report on this project. All information was given to him by the architect for the applicant,he then contacted Kayren Kittrick at the City to identify the things they were interested in seeing in a traffic study. The major concern was sight lines at the site access. They looked at the possibility of relocating the access, the proposed access is going to provide the best stopping sight distance to and from the north and south. It meets the criteria for the posted 25 MPH as well as 30 MPH. He did recommend pruning some of the vegetation, some of the vegetation is actually within the 30-feet of right-of-way. It has been fairly well kept by the City of Renton,they may have the ability to remove even more of the vegetation after speaking with Puget Sound Energy. Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018 SA-A, ECF August 9, 2007 Page 3 Parking could occur in the future and he would suggest that parking restrictions be placed within 30 feet of the access point. Mr. Jones stated that Mr.Jacobs is very well qualified,however,he is trying to bring in is an understanding of the local environment. Mr.Jacobs stated that nighttime conditions are actually easier because there are headlights on vehicles and the vehicles can be seen from a greater distance than during daylight hours. The City of Renton has done a great job in maintaining vegetation, must better than some of the other agencies he has dealt with. Mr. Barber had no questions. Bill Taylor, PO Box 1787, Issaquah, WA 98027 stated his qualifications for the record. He was asked to do some site inspections and evaluations regarding water drainage. The analysis that was prepared concluded that it is a fairly standard sloping site and there are moisture issues. The topography does not slope towards the appellant's property, the Heritage property,rather this project tends to slope down to the roadway to the west where there is a natural draw that conveys the water from the general vicinity and further on to the west. He did not feel that the drainage would cause more problems to the Heritage property. There are two separate terms, standing water,which is surface water and ground water is sub-surface water. Ground water can come to the surface through a spring and that may very well be occurring on the Heritage property. That water is not the same that is on this property. Code requires that all water be discharged to the same place it was going prior to the development of the property. There was a question about the date on the TIR is the date of submittal,not the date of the inspection. Mr. Jones inquired if Mr. Taylor was aware of any of the drainage problems that Heritage was having when the plan for this site was prepared? Mr. Taylor stated that it was not part of their scope to explore drainage problems, they do solicit drainage problems that are on file with the City. The Heritage property was not explored in any detail due to it being uphill and not something that this project would impact. The inspection was not to evaluate the ground water,Mr.Jones may be referring to the Nelson Geotechnical Investigation that was not done by Mr. Taylor's company. They did walk the site after the site had been cleared,and a visual confirmation of the survey was done. The survey is much more accurate and is based on field measurements and elevations throughout the site. This inspection was done during the summer months. Ms. Brick summed up the testimony and stated that the geotechnical report stated that there were minor to moderate amounts of ground water at shallow digs and it was their opinion that the ground water they found did not represent a regional ground water table. The SEPA Appeal Hearing closed at 10:50 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: err 1. The appellant, Robin Jones, filed an appeal of a decision by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC). The appeal was filed in a timely manner. Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018 SA-A,ECF August 9, 2007 Page 4 2. The City reviewed the proposed Grant Avenue Townhomes, a 36-unit, multiple family complex proposed for 1600 Grant Avenue SE. The City issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M). 3. The complex would be located immediately north and adjacent to Heritage Village Condominiums where the appellant resides and owns a unit. 4. The appellant alleges that the DNS-M was inadequate and that the threshold deteimination was deficient. The allegations were that: The review failed to consider serious drainage and groundwater problems and particularly the additional impervious surfaces adding to drainage problems at Heritage Village Condominiums. The geotechnical evaluation was based on old, dated information, failed to account for newer developments in the area, is conclusionary and again, fails to address groundwater problems on adjacent property. The determination relies of faulty assumptions regarding groundwater and seismic activity. The traffic study is inadequate and suggests inadequate mitigation for sight distance problems for the entrance to the proposal-pruning vegetation not controlled by the underlying applicant. The appellant suggests that alternative proposals be considered to lessen or limit the impact of development on the environment and that the DNS-M be rescinded. 5. The appellant noted that the 25 mph speed limit used in the traffic analysis was not realistic and the traffic study did not recognize the whole picture. He is concerned that the curve in the road near the new entrance would create stopping and turning issues since most cars do not travel the 25 mph limit. The proposed mitigation measure was to trim vegetation in the vicinity of the curve/entrance and the appellant did not believe that was sufficient and the vegetation is not property controlled by the developer. 6. The appellant noted that his complex has suffered serious and expensive storm drainage problems. A French drain has been required and the parking lot is shifting and sinking. He attributed many of these problems to newer development in the area since his complex has been there for quite some time and did not suffer issues until more recent development occurred. He noted that there are standing water issues on the north side of his complex, the side where the new development would occur. The appellant alleged that the test pits were done in May and validated in August and should have occurred in wetter months. 7. The traffic engineer for the applicant's project testified that he used information about the project, the roadways and input from the City to determine what areas to emphasize. The City suggested"sight lines" would be an issue. Two main issues were the stopping sight distance and the entering sight distance. They measured the sight distance and explored moving the entrance but found the proposed location provided the best"stopping distance sight lines" both north and south. The sight distance met the criteria for both the posted 25 mph limit and for a 30 mph speed,which exceeded the posted limit. He noted that some of the vegetation is within the right-of-way and could be trimmed. He also noted that the sight distance is appropriate even if vegetation is not pruned. He expected the City could *4400 contact Puget Power to maintain additional vegetation. He also noted that nighttime situations should be better since headlights increase the distance at which vehicles generally see each other. Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018 SA-A, ECF August 9, 2007 Page 5 8. The person responsible for the drainage report and permit documents testified that the site is a fairly standard sloping site. The site slopes generally to the west and not toward the south,Heritage Village, where the appellant resides. The design of the proposed detention system will collect stormwater, using curbs, gutters to direct the flow to a detention vault. The water will then be released to its natural discharge point, which is not toward Heritage Village. Solving current issues on'the Heritage Village site is not part of the scope of their analysis and since the Heritage site is uphill from the subject site it was not an issue. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore,the determination of the Environmental Review Committee(ERC), the city's responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error. 2. The Determination of Non-Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267, 274; 1976, stated: "A finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Therefore, the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below,the decision of the ERC is affirmed. 3. The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have, therefore,made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test,the "arbitrary and capricious" test is generally applied when a determination of significance(DS)is issued.In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement. 4. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway, at 278). Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines"significant" as follows: Significant. (1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. (2) Significance involves context and intensity ...Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact....The severity of the impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great,but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. 4‘rrr 5. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term"probable." Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018 SA-A,ECF August 9, 2007 Page 6 Probable. "Probable"means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ... Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring, but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782). 6. Impacts also include reasonably related and foreseeable direct and indirect impacts including short-term and long-term effects. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(c)). Impacts include those effects resulting from growth caused by a proposal, as well as the likelihood that the present proposal will serve as precedent for future actions. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(d)). 7. The appellant has failed to demonstrate the information compiled for the traffic analysis, specifically, the sight distance to and from the proposed driveway was not adequately addressed and for the stormwater aspects of the project, specifically, stormwater impacts on his residence was not adequately reviewed. 8. The traffic assessment involved gleaning from the City the main issues, finding that sight distance was a major concern and measuring,reviewing and assessing the sight distance for entering and stopping vehicles from a new driveway along Grant Avenue. The assessment found that at the posted speed and at 5 mph over that speed,the sight distances were adequate. The review found even if pruning of certain vegetation near existing curves were not accomplished, sight distance was still adequate. 9. Similarly, the stormwater analysis does not reveal any deficits regarding the handling of stormwater for this project. While the complex the appellant resides in does apparently suffer from either groundwater or surface water problems,the proposal is not expected to exacerbate any of those issues nor is it required to address issues on the adjacent property. The stormwater information shows that stormwater reaching the subject site will be appropriately channeled by curbs and gutters and detained in a suitable vault for appropriate release at its natural point of discharge. The point of discharge should not affect the appellant's residence or complex due to the fact that Heritage Village sits higher than the subject site. 10. The appellant has not provided any meaningful proof that the ERC decision was wrong. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter, unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. This office was not left with a firm conviction that the ERC made a mistake. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating the ERC's determination was erroneous and the appellant has failed in meeting that burden. 11. The appealing party has a burden that was not met in the instant case. The decision of the ERC must be affirmed. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is affirmed. ORDERED THIS 9th day of August 2007. FRED J.KA AN HEARING EXAMINER Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018 SA-A, ECF August 9, 2007 Page 7 TRANSMITTED THIS 9th day of August 2007 to the parties of record: Mark Barber Elizabeth Higgins Sally Brick Senior Assistant City Attorney Development Services K&L Gates City of Renton City of Renton 925 4th Ave, Ste. 2900 Seattle, WA 98104 Robin Jones Andrew Kovach 1626 Grant Ave Kovach Architects Sarah E.McDonald Renton, WA 101 West Main Street PO Box 1825 TRANSMITTED THIS 9th day of August 2007 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Mark Peterson,Fire Marshal 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 King County Journal 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.,August 23, 2007. 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. 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$75.00 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.,August 23, 2007. 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. August 9, 2007 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANTS: Robin Jones 1626 Grant Avenue Renton,WA 98055 Andrew S. Kovach,Representing Tridor Inc. Kovach Architects 101 West Main St. Monroe, WA 98272 Grant Avenue Townhomes Site Plan Appeals LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written requests for a SEPA Appeal hearing and the Applicant and Appellant request an appeal hearing on the underlying site plan for the project, examining available information on file,the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the June 26,2007 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, June 26, 2007, at 10:50 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file and the inclusive Appeal Exhibit No. 2: Andrew Kovach Resume file containing the original appeal letter and other pertinent information by reference Exhibit No.3: Exhibit 1E, Drawing of Grant Avenue Exhibit No.4: Exhibit 1D, Site Plan for Grant Avenue Townhomes project Townhomes Exhibit No. 5: Exhibit 1F and 1G Exhibit No. 6: Photograph of tri-unit with attached single unit Exhibit No. 7: Preliminary Site Plan Exhibit No. 8: Heritage Village Site Plan Exhibit No. 9: Aerial of actual site at built in 1986 Parties Present: Mark Barber, Senior Assistant City Attorney Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 2 ,..W Elizabeth Higgins,Development Services Sally Brick,Attorney for Applicant, 925 4th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 Robin Jones, Appellant, 1626 Grant Avenue S., Apt. B-203,Renton, WA 98055 Andrew Kovach,Representing Tridor, Inc., 101 West Main St.Monroe, WA 98272 Sally Brick stated that this project was custom designed for this specific lot. The designs are more than what is normally seen in developments of the same category. In the City's decision they acknowledged that the architectural details creates a visually interesting structure that would make a positive contribution to the physical condition and visual experience of the neighborhood. This project does not max out the site and while it is a more attractive development than could be built on this lot it also is not the biggest development that could be put on this lot. It is less than the maximum density, less than the maximum site coverage and less than the maximum pervious surface coverage. Its height is seven and a half feet less than the City could approve during the site plan review. The project applicant and their architects have worked with the staff to come up with a project that looks at emergency exits, building envelopes, road width and on-site parking. Over time the number of units was reduced from 39 to 36. When the decision was returned there was one condition,which required the south side setback to be increased from the standard 13-feet to 25-feet. This would require a floor plan reduction of approximately 11,070 square feet which is 34% less than what was in the original plans. They are also appealing condition 2, the triplex condition, which requires the triplex unit which is attached to a single unit by a breezeway with a common roof to become a four-plex unit. According to the SEPA conditions,there are three parts to their argument; first the City has relied on a code provision that applies in situations where the abutting property is in a less intense zone. In this case the abutting property is in the same zone. After talking to the City,they now say it was an error to rely on that code provision and now agree with the applicant. Now they say they had discretion under a more general criteria. Their primary argument is that there is no legal basis for going beyond the standard setback. Second, even if the City did have discretion to do this,they can only impose reasonable conditions. This condition is unreasonable because it dramatically alters the scope of the project. Third,these allegations are not supported by the facts and therefore do not justify the condition. The City's Report and Decision states that they have relied on the code provision that state the setback provisions for residential multi-family specify that side yard setbacks should be 12-feet for a property this wide and because it is a 3-story development, one additional foot would be added, a 13-foot side yard setback is required. Further in the code there is a provision that expressly applies to residential multi-family developments. It states that properties abutting a less intense residential zone may be required to incorporate special design standards, which includes larger setbacks. It was her understanding after speaking with Mr. Barber,that they now agree that that provision is not a good basis for the setback. The Examiner asked Mr. Barber if the City no longer was relying on RMC 4-2-110F, who stated that that was an error and was the wrong citation. The City will not be relying on that particular citation. Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 3 Ms. Brick continued by stating that Mr. Barber had given her more citations that they will now be relying on in their case. These citations appear to be more generic in their overall site plan review criteria. Mr. Barber stated that the City is now relying on RMC 4-9-200A and E. Ms. Brick with the change there is a new basis for the setback conditions. The project was designed with those in mind, it was designed to address impacts to neighbors,privacy, visual effects,all of which have been addressed. These provisions do not appear to justify or give the City a legal basis for nearly doubling a setback. Can the City under some general discretion cut the height in half, can they cut by half the site coverage, where does this begin and end. The Examiner stated that zoning law in this state has more recently been subject to SEPA requirements. This overly of SEPA does actually give the City discretion to deny a project that would otherwise meet all the zoning planning requirements. Ms. Brick replied that there is a place in the code where the discretion is specifically limited to circumstances where the adjacent zone is less intense. That does not apply here. Site plan review is all about looking at the overall picture, whether that allows a setback to be nearly doubled is quite another matter. The code sets out several examples of the types of conditions that are appropriately applied to the site plan review. One of those places is RMC 4-9-200G.15c. Doubling this setback requires a loss in square footage of 678 square feet in eleven of the units, 722 square feet in another 5 units. That equates to a loss in project value of over 2 million dollars. There would have to be unique circumstances that provide a basis for imposing conditions over and above what otherwise might apply. The rationale that the City has relied upon,privacy, light, and visual impact,in this two- year process the applicant and the architects went through developing this project, they were working with the City to address all the issues so that the project did meet the site plan criteria. Andrew Kovach, Kovach Architects, 101 W Main Street, Monroe, WA 98272 stated that he is a licensed architect in Washington, with a degree in Landscape Architecture and has been in private practice since 1986. He is the design architect for this particular project. The site was challenging, the units are larger than typical in this area, there is below building parking. The site gently slopes to the east with a 12% slope. There have been lots of challenges with setbacks and getting the drainage to work. They have tried to create a project that fits into a neighborhood and looks like single-family homes. They have tried to make the site more livable,they have added more trees for privacy,boulevard plantings on both sides of the street as well as a lot of design elements on the buildings. The buildings have an Arts and Crafts look to them. They have worked on this project for over two years. Special features have been added to help soften this project to the development to the south. The back of each unit has as much detail as the front of the units. Using Exhibits 1F and 1G he showed how the setbacks would affect the units and how it would affect the usability of the unit itself. On the first floor,the den could be removed without any problems,however,on the second floor the additional setback requirement would take 90%of the main living space. The kitchen,dining and living areas and access to the upper level need to be there.The unit would be left with a substandard living space. It would not meet code for light,ventilation, and open area. If the units were reconfigured,there would be a possibility of building a 700 square foot unit on three floors,which would be financially unfeasible to approach. The center unit could be reconfigured to be more compact and would lose two of the upstairs '"iS bedrooms leaving the center unit a single bedroom unit. The minute the features begin to be reduced,the market sell price goes down and that would have a huge effect on the project. Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 4 They believed that per the code they would be allowed to have a single unit, City staff disagreed. They thought if they did a connection, it could be called part of the same building, which is what they did. They were trying to avoid doing a fourplex, it becomes a much larger building and too imposing. They would like to have it remain as a single unit and not be combined as a fourplex. Trying to resolve the issue with the City it was their suggestion that the two units be connected with a common roof. Ms. Brick stated that she had a letter from a licensed realtor that states their official opinion that this project would increase the values of homes in the general area. Mr. Barber cross-examined Mr.Kovach who stated that a preliminary site plan was done by their firm,and that the units on the south side show a setback of at least 25' or more. The initial site plan was done in schematic design stage that was an offering of what the project could be. As they worked on the project, criteria become more evident, aspects of that original plan led to the plan before us today. They cannot go back to that original plan due to the loss of parking and the square footage of the units,it was a much different project. They were required to make adjustments to the original site plan due to fire access turnaround was in an inappropriate place. At that point units were lost and so they moved forward. It was true that on the original plan, at least six units were able to be located in such a position that a setback of 25' or more was applied. Today's plan is a better plan. The City does believe this is a good project, there is just a disagreement on certain issues. In a pre-application conference a memorandum was submitted and stated that the applicant is cautioned that modifications may be made by official decision makers(Hearing Examiner, Zoning Administrator, Board of Adjustment, Board of Public Works and City Council). It further stated that review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The unusualness of this memorandum would be related to the timing. The initial site plan was submitted in 2005 and the site plan before us today was submitted in February of 2007. They had made several attempts for the application to be accepted over the course of a six-month period. That site plan had been discussed with the City and numerous changes were required. After working very close with the City the site plan was accepted. Rearranging these units on the site is just not attainable. Mr.Kovach described why the current site plan is as it is today, stating lack of parking as a major issue,they wanted parking for residents, guests, and Emergency vehicles. Upon questioning by Mr. Barber,Mr.Kovach stated south of this parcel is the Heritage Village Condominiums where Mr. Jones resides,to the north of this parcel is the BPA Easement, an area where there can be no construction, it is for power access only. Mr.Kovach thought it was a good idea to move the entire project to the north and leave the correct setback to the south,but in all likelihood, he didn't think it was possible. The Examiner stated that the triplex, it is the City's case,but he would like to know a little more about the City's arguments. Mr. Barber stated that the RM-F zone does not allow for single residences. Elizabeth Higgins stated that the RM-F zone does not allow a detached dwelling, which is a single-family residence or one family one-unit structure. What is allowed in the RM-F zone are attached dwellings. The problem is the definition of"attached". An attached dwelling is one or more one-family dwellings attached with ,, common roofs, walls or floors. (from RMC 4-11-040 Definitions) This is a common roof,whether a roof of a breezeway was intended to be defined equally with a roof of a structure, it is not articulated clearly. Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 5 The plan for Heritage Village was approved by the City of Renton,the north boundary of Heritage Village is the south boundary of the Grant Avenue project. The units are canted slightly with the parking almost reaching the property line. The aerial photograph of the area appears to show that Heritage Village was closer to its north property boundary than allowed because there are no setbacks shown. The boundaries on an aerial photograph may not be accurate. A survey was submitted by the applicant, which shows the north edge of the asphalt parking lots (that are seen on the aerial)are along the boundary lines. The units are closer to the ends of the parking lots than were proposed. For some reason,the Heritage project was not built with the setback from the north property line that is shown on the plan. It is quite a bit closer to the north property boundary. This raises concerns as to where the Grant Avenue property would be constructed if it were only 13-feet from the property line. There were at least two errors in the staff report; first was on page 5 of 16, Section C, the code citation should have been RMC 4-9-200. The citation was wrong, however, the criterion was correct. Secondly, on page 11 of 16,which states "the discretion available when two projects are abutting one another and one is in a lower density zone than the other", that was not an applicable citation to use in this instance. The Examiner asked if doubling the setback for this project was necessary? Ms. Higgins stated that the alternative,when looking at either the existing development or the proposed project, would be mitigated by this project alone and the answer would have to be no. The alternative to denying the project would be to provide the relief of the larger setback. The Examiner stated that the trees that are in existence and the additional ones that are to be planted seem to be providing an acceptable buffer. Is there anything being added with the additional setback distance when the trees buffer the space between the two projects. Upon questioning by Mr. Barber, Mr. Robin Jones stated that with regard the light, shading, air and privacy they are actually talking about fourteen units out of a 30-unit association, that are being affected by this new construction. It is profound, the areas affected are not bedrooms,they are the living rooms, dining rooms and kitchens, which are north facing and the impact of losing light is profound. There are problems with the boundaries, they have been aware of that from the association. Having a wall of buildings thirteen feet away will have profound impact on the light,a fence will have impact on the lower levels. Upon questioning by Ms.Brick, Mr. Jones stated that the windows on the south and west sides of the buildings in Heritage Village are the bedrooms. The trees outside are on the lower level windows for the living areas and they do block some light to the upper and lower levels,but not solidly as a building would. Closing arguments were given by: Ms. Brick stated that the key basis articulated in the staff report regarding the setback condition has now been withdrawn. The City has alluded to some further general provisions and made no attempt to describe how those provisions give them discretion to nearly double any standard setback. This does raise the question about where the City's discretion begins and ends. The development standards must mean something and if this general language can authorize the City in the final hour, at the end of a more than two year process,that involves considerable expense to develop a project, to double the setback provision,it raises the question about what else they can do to the site plan review at other development stages. It does not appear that the City has a legal basis , 4400 for imposing specific conditions of the site plan review that nearly doubles the standard setback in the zone where the abutting zone is exactly the same zone. Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 6 Even if there was a legal basis for doing this,the impacts of lighting, air and privacy have already been addressed in the project design and in the existing features of the site. This condition amounts to a significant limitation to the development that is otherwise permitted by the code. The code requires that site plan conditions be reasonable,this condition is not reasonable and it should be repealed. Finally on the triplex condition there are instances where the code may not specifically address the situation but does afford an opportunity to devise a structure that meets the technical definition. That is what has been done here under the advisement of the City. To change it would involve additional expense and would not add anything, in fact it would detract from the visual standards. Mr. Barber stated that the appellant has a heavy burden to overturn the City's decision,they must show that it was clearly erroneous or arbitrary and capricious. The City's decision is entitled to substantial weight,he quoted from Renton Municipal Code 4-1-090.C. The next issue is in regards to the pre-application memo, the applicant was cautioned that there could be modifications that could occur from subsequent decision makers and also that there could be revisions to their potential site plan and other design changes required by City staff. It further indicated that the comments on development and permitting issues would be based upon codes in effect at the date of review. RMC 4-9-200. A &E were adopted by ordinance and subsequently amended well before the time period of this application being filed for development. Both parcels are in the RMF zone. Looking at the development standards, it is almost as if what's occurring is a discussion that if you meet the minimum that is all that is required, there is no more review or discussion that can occur. Regarding setbacks, the code (RMC 4-2-110 F) states "minimum side yard". The Examiner commented that over the two-year period, doubling the setback substantially changes the design of these buildings. A den does not get removed along with two bedrooms and maybe a kitchen depending on the orientation of the building, without expecting the site plan to go through a substantial reorganization or renovation. It seems that there should have been a hint of this change prior to the final site plan. It seems to have taken the applicant/appellant by surprise. Mr. Barber stated that he could not speak to that issue, there is no testimony from the City's side on that issue in the record. However,the code further talks about purpose and intent and how that affects the site plan review stage. The site plan process is the detail management of project elements,with an additional purpose to ensure quality development. Policy LU 188 was cited, it talks about evaluating project proposals in residential multi- family designations to consider the transition to lower density uses where multi-family sites abut lower density zones. It further states that taller buildings, greater than two stories, should have larger side yard setbacks. By requiring the 25-foot setback,the City is complying with the site plan review process as mandated by the Renton Municipal Code in that it is following the Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies that are specified and referred to specifically in RMC 4-9-200 A and RMC 4-9-200 E. Ms. Brick further stated that the Comprehensive Plan is a guide and not a document designed for making specific land use decisions. Mr.Jones stated that he was not able to view the full plan until just a few days ago,his arguments are more of a general nature. The general concern comes from the overall project,this piece of land has been up for sale a number of times and they have known that a development would eventually be built on the site. The focus ,,, appears to be how to get the most bang for the buck on this piece of property. The scope narrows and the neighbors next door go by the wayside. He would argue that the increased setback is not reasonable to the appellant because it turns it into a bad business deal. It has been argued that there is no impact here,there is an Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 7 impact, a 3-story building 13-feet away from our homes does create impacts, light, sight, views, and air. There is no guarantee that they will not be able to look into each other's living room. They have argued that this will be great because his property values will go up,he disagrees,perhaps if they were building single family homes, but condo properties are based on the price of what the last units sold for,it doesn't matter what is next door,or how fancy it is, it is based on the selling price of the last unit sold. The greater worry is that his property values will go down, there are water problems in Heritage Village,he will have a less desirable piece of property to sell because he has a giant condo looking into his home, there is a muddy trench behind his home because he has lost the light. He has a reasonable expectation to be able to maintain the same lifestyle as he had prior to this new construction. He does appreciate what the City is doing. He quoted from the Code provisions previously cited in this hearing. 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 1:11 pm. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellants,Robin Jones for himself and Andrew S. Kovach for Tridor, Inc, filed appeals of an administrative decision approving a Site Plan for the Grant Avenue Homes. 2. Andrew S. Kovach(hereinafter Kovach)represents the applicant for the proposal. 3. The appellant Robin Jones (hereinafter Jones) owns a condominium unit on the adjacent property to the south and resides in that unit. 4. The appeals were filed in a timely manner. 5. Jones indicates that the very limited lot layout and awkward lot size results in high density buildings being too close to the common property line between Heritage and other properties and the Grant Avenue development. 6. Kovach,representing the applicant objected to two conditions imposed as a result of the Site Plan review process. There is an objection to: Condition 2: The site plan shall be revised to show the southeast triplex and detached unit as one fourplex structure. Revised plans must be submitted and shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division project manager prior to issuance of building permits. Condition 4: The site plan shall be revised,by reducing the size of the floor plans if necessary, to increase the south side yard building setback to a minimum of 25 feet where buildings 8 through 12 would be located. Revised plans must be submitted and shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division project manager prior to issuance of building permits. Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 8 Now, 7. Jones noted that 14 units would be affected by the proximity of the proposal to Heritage Village. The living areas such as living room, dining room and kitchen face the north or common property line. The loss of light would be profound according to him. He did testify that the trees probably block some light, too,but not as significantly as the proposed buildings. 8. Kovach objected to the almost doubling of the required 13-foot setback to 25 feet. There was also the objection that this project had been subject to ongoing City review and adjustments and that this significant increase in setback would entirely alter the project at this late date. It was noted that the reduction in area due to the increased setback would be approximately 11,070 square feet or approximately a 34%reduction and this breaks out to be approximately 678 square feet in each of 11 units and 722 square feet in each of 5 additional units. The appellant/applicant indicated that this would be a substantial loss in terms of economics making the project infeasible. 9. The density of the neighboring Heritage Village is 16.16 dwelling units per acre as opposed to the proposed density for the subject development at 17.06 dwelling units per acre. 10. The subject site is located in the RM-F zone. Heritage Village is also in the RM-F zone. 11. The RM-F zone requires a 20-foot front yard setback and 20 feet is proposed. Code requires 12 feet of side yard setback for lots 111 feet wide or wider and one additional foot for a 3rd story. This 158 foot wide lot would have to provide a side yard setback of 13 feet, which is what is proposed. A 15-foot rear yard is required and is proposed. 12. The building height permitted is 35 feet and 3 stories and with special amenities it may be 45 feet tall. The proposed height is 37 feet 3 inches or 2 feet 3 inches (2.25 feet)above the normally permitted height. Staff suggested increasing the south side setback along with the project's design features would allow the taller building. 13. Lot coverage may be 35 percent and 33 percent has been proposed. Impervious service cannot exceed 75 percent and 70 percent has been proposed. 14. The Staff Report addresses the two areas of concern raised by Kovach. They are: Page 11 of 16: "Site plan review affords the opportunity to require increased setbacks where proposed projects abut"a less intense residential zone"(RMC 4-2-110F). Although the density is comparable between the abutting projects, the mass and bulk of the Grant Avenue Homes is significantly greater than, and not compatible with, the Heritage Village structures. Staff recommends,therefore,that the site plan be revised,by reducing the size of the floor plans if necessary,to increase the south side yard building setback to a minimum of 25 feet where buildings 8 through 12 would be located. In addition,the detailed landscape plan shall indicate sufficient landscaping at locations where buildings of the two developments face each other to provide partial building screening,without light blockage, at maturity of vegetation. The detailed landscape plan must show the building and window locations on the abutting property in order to demonstrate this goal would be met. Now The proposed height of the Grant Avenue Homes(43 feet 11 inches to roof peak) would be considerably taller than the existing 2 story structures of Heritage Village. Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 9 This situation would also be mitigated somewhat by the wider setback." Page 2 of 16 "Thirty-six units would be constructed as a duplex(building#7), 10 triplex buildings (#1-6 and 8-11), and a fourplex building(#12) [Exhibit 4]. Submittal information items refer to both a"single unit building" (Site Access/Traffic Impact Fee Analysis Report) and fourplex(Site Data, sheet Al). The unit(s)in question appear on the site plan as a triplex connected to a single,detached unit by a breezeway. This is not a recognized unit type by the City of Renton. Single-family detached units are not permitted in the RM-F zone. Staff recommends that the "single"unit be either eliminated or added to the triplex to create a fourplex structure. This shall be a condition of the site plan approval." 15. The following definition referring to attached multiple family dwellings is applicable to this decision: 4-11-040 Definitions D: "DWELLING, MULTI-FAMILY: Dwelling, Attached: A one-family dwelling attached to one or more one-family dwellings by common roofs, walls, or floors. This definition may also include a dwelling unit or units attached to garages or other nonresidential uses.This definition does not include retirement residences,boarding and lodging houses, accessory dwelling units, adult family homes, group home I or group home II as defined herein." 16. Apparently,the City became aware that its citation of RMC 4-2-110F addressing abutting projects where one is in"a less intense residential zone"was inapplicable in this case since both projects are in the same RM-F Zone. The City then decided to rely on Section 4-9-200, and more probably 4-9- 200(A)(2)(6): "To protect neighboring owners and uses by assuring that reasonable provisions have been made for such matters as sound and sight buffers, light and air, and those other aspects of site plans which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses." CONCLUSIONS: 1. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the City Official was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious(Section 4- 8-110(E)(7)(b). The appellant Kovach has demonstrated that the action of the City should be reversed in the main. The appellant Jones has not shown the decision approving the project should be reversed. The decision is modified only in respect to the permitted height of the complex. Due to the general issues raised by the proximity of the two complexes, the proposal shall be restricted to the Code permitted height and not be allowed to attain additional height. The proposed height is 37 feet 3 inches or 2 feet 3 inches above the normally permitted height and it shall be reduced to 35 feet. 2. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious(Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities • and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472,478 (1966). Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 10 err 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255, 259 (1969). An appellate body should not necessarily substitute its judgment for the underlying agency with expertise in a matter unless appropriate. 4. Other than the height increase for the buildings of 2 feet 3 inches that staff approved subject to the increased south, side yard setback,which should not be approved,the appellant Jones has not demonstrated that staff made a mistake. The two properties have the same zoning and their densities are generally comparable. The impacts of multiple-family housing on similar multiple-family housing are not unique, unexpected or untoward. There are already a row of tightly planted trees that shade Jones property or screen the view so that the view to the north is not expansive at this time. Jones did not carry the burden necessary to show any clearly erroneous decision making. 5. On the other hand, appellant Kovach for the applicant has demonstrated that the City action was mistaken. There does not appear to be any justification for almost doubling the code mandated minimum setback in this case from 13 feet to 25 feet. As noted above, the two properties bear the same zoning category, RM-F. That zone allows a density of up to 20 units per acre, allows buildings to have 13 foot side yards unless there is less intense zoning on the adjacent property, allows greater lot coverage and greater impermeable area than is proposed. The property could support 42 units whereas the appellant Kovach has proposed 36 units. The two properties share almost identical densities. The proposed housing may be taller,permitted in the zone,but it is not more dense than its neighbor. 6. When a community adopts zoning that permits more density, urban-scale density, there are consequences and not all of them can be easily remediated or mitigated. The adoption of increased ``rr density requires the community to anticipate that adjacent properties will "mix it up." There will be shading, shadows, view blockage and loss of air and light to some extent. There will be tradeoffs between preserving trees, open space and providing reasonably sized units,reasonably designed units and reasonably dense development patterns. Some developers will maximize their footprints, using all of the ground space available under the specific zoning provisions and meet the setback requirements but not necessarily allow more generous setbacks. Others may be more generous but then they may sacrifice the density that seems favored by some provisions of the Growth Management Act. At the same time, the fact that older standards provided less setback or that errors in construction may have created less setback and, therefore,potential impacts, should not fall inappropriately or disproportionately on the adjacent property in all cases. In this case though, the appellant's project is not much more dense,meets or falls below limits set by code, appears to be well designed by exploiting,not inappropriately, its ground space. 7. The photographs of the rear of the adjacent Heritage complex, the size of the trees and the apparent separation between the trees and the Heritage buildings provide visual clues that show a setback more generous than staff suggests may exist. Staff did not measure the setback but used aerial photos to guess about the setback. It is not appropriate to base a decision on unknown factors. In addition,this office has to take notice of the fact that the cited basis for the original setback decision was the "less intense zone" that Heritage stood in. That proved to not be the case. The more generic basis that replaced does not appear to provide a strong basis for almost doubling the setback. The current applicant reduced its original proposal from 39 units to the current 36 units. The proposed density would be 17.06 dwelling units per acre while code permits a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre. The 2.11-acre site appears capable of supporting 42 units if maximum density were to be achieved. %rife 8. This office believes that staff was mistaken in applying the greater standards based on aerial overviews of the property and the fact that the two properties are zoned the same. At the same time, staff did Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 11 justify the greater height proposed by the applicant based on a presumably 25-foot setback. That cannot be justified as this point. The buildings have no need to tower over the Heritage complex more than they will at 35 feet. While this office could remand the application for further review in this regard,the process has been delayed due to scheduling issues and it appears reasonable to scale the height down when allowing the normal 13-foot setback. The buildings cannot exceed the 35-foot height limit of the RM-F zone. 9. It also appears that while staffs objectives in trying to more closely combine the "semi-attached" single- family unit to the triplex may be noble, code does not sanction that decision. This office can probably sympathize with the fact that the provisions requiring structures to be attached was not more clear in what aspects of a building or buildings needed to be attached to one another, code appears to allow a roof, even if only a breezeway roof attachment to suffice. Code writers may not have anticipated such latitude that might have been abused but it appears that the design meets the definition or limitations and the Site Review Process encourages flexibility. 10. In conclusion, one appellant,Jones,has not shown that approving a multiple family complex to be a neighbor of another multiple family complex was in any way erroneous. The applicant-appellant has demonstrated that staff made a mistake in seeking to almost double the required setback and requiring the merging of the "one-plex" to a more "attached" status with the triplex. At the same time, staffs decision to allow a 37 foot 3 inch building was based on the larger side yard and can no longer be sanctioned. DECISION: •rrr� The decision affirmed in part and reversed as noted in the above conclusions subject to: The buildings cannot exceed the 35-foot height limit of the RM-F zone. ORDERED THIS 9th day of August 2007. 0,4L0___, FRED J. KA AN HEARING E INER TRANSMITTED THIS 9`h day of August 2007 to the parties of record: Mark Barber Elizabeth Higgins Sally Brick Senior Assistant City Attorney Development Services K&L Gates City of Renton City of Renton 925 4th Ave, Ste. 2900 Seattle,WA 98104 Robin Jones Andrew Kovach 1626 Grant Ave Kovach Architects Sarah E. McDonald Renton,WA 101 West Main Street PO Box 1825 Monroe,WA 98272 Renton,WA 98057 Aaron Redhage Cathy Joss Tridor, Inc 1626 Grant Ave S,#B-102 1626 Grant Ave S,#D-103 PO Box 747 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Bellevue,WA 98009 Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 12 "'" Mark Jacobs Bill Taylor Charlie Wolff 7731 8th Ave SW PO Box 1787 1708 SE 16th Place Seattle, WA 98106 Issaquah,WA 98027 Renton,WA 98055 Betty&Raymond Barry 1625 Jones Drive SE Renton,WA 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS 9th day of August 2007 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Mark Peterson, Fire Marshal 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 King County Journal 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.,August 23,2007. 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 Norrie 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. 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$75.00 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.,August 23, 2007. 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. 'err► voiliicvvI tY.YJ rAA LvuvcJrvcc n a L JC411ILI: LQJUUG K&L I GATES Kirkpatrick&Lockhart Preston Gates Ellisua 925 Fourth Avenue Suite 2900 Sea tle, WA 98104-1158 r 21)&623.7580 www.klgates,com September 17, 2007 Added �Oiiep1oi denc6 CITY OF RENTON 9/7-aoo y SEP 1 7 2007 relaf ed 40 i4gendacITYCLE RECEIVED Bonnie I. Walton Item 7i, Vla f4y e City Clerk City of Renton !/ t/ CC; Mari' 1055 South Grady Way ,© Council Renton, WA 98057 Ciiy/M y Alii 1kkth Re: Appeals of Hearing Examiner's Decisions Dated August 9,2007 Regarding Site Plan Approval for Grant Avenue Townhomes (File No. LUA-07-018, SA, ECF) Dear Ms. Walton: We represent Tridor, Inc. the Applicant for Grant Avenue Townhomes. In accordance with RMC 4-8-110F.3, please find attached Tridor's comments in support of its position regarding appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision. Tridor's comments address the appeal filed by Mr. Robin Jones, and also support the position taken in the Applicant's own appeal. Very truly yours, KIRKPATRICK&LOCKHART PRESTON GATES ELLIS LLP 11.41F61.110 By Sally Brick SBB:tlt cc: Mr. Robin Jones Kovach Architects vai iri cJvr lY.YJ ran LUVUGJrULL 11 a L UA1LJ LLl" ztd11LI IQ.�UU3 BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR GRANT AVENUE TRIDOR, INC. COMMENTS TOWNHOMES File No. LUA-07-018, SA, SUPPORTING POSITIONS ON ECF APPEAL I. INTRODUCTION The Applicant, Tridor Inc., committed nearly two years and considerable resources working with the City to arrive at a site plan for the Grant Avenue Homes project ("Project") that would conform with City requirements and deliver an attractive, high-quality project that complements its surroundings.' The Applicant was taken by surprise when the final Site Plan Approval included not the standard 13' setback on the south sideyard but instead nearly doubled that to impose a 25' setback. The Hearing Examiner held unequivocally that City Staff were mistaken on two counts when they imposed this much greater setback: 1) City staff based their decision on a "guess" about the proximity of the neighboring Heritage Village condominiums to the property line (and subsequent evidence showed that guess to be wrong by 12-20 feet);2 and 2) The Code provision cited as the basis for the decision applies only to situations where the adjacent property has less intense zoning, and that is not the case here (as the City ultimately conceded). H.E. Concl. ¶8. Mr. Jones, the sole opponent of the Project, does not in any way demonstrate that the Hearing Examiner committed a substantial error in fact or law in reversing the 25' setback based on these mistakes. Rather, Mr. Jones' appeal indicates a misunderstanding I See, Minutes of Hearing,H.E.Decision,pg 3(Andrew Kovach). 2 See, Tridor Post-Hearing Brief,and in particular the professional surveys in Exhibit 1. The surveys demonstrate that the Heritage Village buildings are,in fact,between 12.3 feet and 20.3 feet from the TRIDOR COMMENTS- 1 toy/ 1 /LVV 1Y.Y0 rnn cvOULJIVLL n K L hHILJ LLY JLH11L1 4004 of the Hearing Examiner's role and/or a misunderstanding of the applicable legal tests or standards of review. He also appears to misinterpret the Hearing Examiner's legal reasoning. Mr. Jones' appeal has no merit whatsoever and should be dismissed. The Renton City Council should, however, carefully reassess the Hearing Examiner's decision to disallow the proposed Project height because the standard 13' sideyard setback is being applied: (1) The Code grants Staff clear discretion to approve additional height of up to 10 feet where, as here, amenities such as roof pitch are provided. RMC 4-2-110F, n.5, n.6. There is nothing in the Code to suggest that additional height should be disallowed because the standard Code setbacks are being applied. The Code criteria for additional height do not mention setbacks. Id. (2) Moreover, the Hearing Examiner's reasoning is fundamentally flawed: his rationale for reversing the height is that the Project will now be closer to Heritage Village than the City assumed. H.E. Concl. ¶ 8. However, due to the City's mistaken guess about the proximity of Heritage Village, the Staff assumed a combined 25' setback. Staff Testimony.3 That same combined setback will in fact be achieved with a 13' Project setback (taken together with the actual 12-20' setback at Heritage Village). (3) Furthermore, the proposed height allows a roof pitch that is designed to mimic single family housing in the area and create architecturally well-proportioned structures.4 To deny this pitch would reduce compatibility with the neighborhood —not enhance it in any way. common property line with the Project site. The average distance of the Heritage Village buildings from the property line is 15.2 feet. 3 See Minutes of Hearing, H.E. Decision, pg 4-5, Elizabeth Higgins; see also Tridor Post-Hearing Brief, Exhibit A,partial transcript of E.Higgin's Hearing Testimony: "The concern was that,the assumption with a 13 foot setback is that there is a corresponding setback on the abutting project,but it appeared from all of the evidence that we had that in fact there wasn't a corresponding setback on the abutting project and therefore instead of something like two 13 foot setbacks or a 13 foot and a whatever it was in 1986,it might have been 10 feet or it could have even been...I don't know,I can't tell from the scale of the drawing what the intention was,but instead of a two 13 or 23 or 26 feet,that there would only be 13 feet between these two buildings and with the taller buildings being three stories it would be an even more significant impact because of the narrow space ... Unfortunately, it's the people who come in later that have to make up the difference." 4 Testimony of Kovach Architects. TRIDOR COMMENTS-2 09/17/2007 14:46 FAA 2066237022 K & L GATES LLY SEATTLE tJUU4 of the Hearing Examiner's role and/or a misunderstanding of the applicable legal tests or standards of review. He also appears to misinterpret the Hearing Examiner's legal reasoning. Mr. Jones' appeal has no merit whatsoever and should be dismissed. The Renton City Council should, however, carefully reassess the Hearing Examiner's decision to disallow the proposed Project height because the standard 13' sideyard setback is being applied: (1) The Code grants Staff clear discretion to approve additional height of up to 10 feet where, as here, amenities such as roof pitch are provided. RMC 4-2-110F, n.5, n.6. There is nothing in the Code to suggest that additional height should be disallowed because the standard Code setbacks are being applied. The Code criteria for additional height do not mention setbacks. Id. (2) Moreover, the Hearing Examiner's reasoning is fundamentally flawed: his rationale for reversing the height is that the Project will now be closer to Heritage Village than the City assumed. H.E. Concl. ¶ 8. However, due to the City's mistaken guess about the proximity of Heritage Village, the Staff assumed a combined 25' setback. Staff Testimony.3 That same combined setback will in fact be achieved with a 13' Project setback (taken together with the actual 12-20' setback at Heritage Village). (3) Furthermore, the proposed height allows a roof pitch that is designed to mimic single family housing in the area and create architecturally well-proportioned structures.4 To deny this pitch would reduce compatibility with the neighborhood—not enhance it in any way. common property line with the Project site. The average distance of the Heritage Village buildings from the property Iine is 15.2 feet 3 See Minutes of Hearing, H.E. Decision, pg 4-5, Elizabeth Higgins; see also Tridor Post-Hearing Brief, Exhibit A,partial transcript of E.Higgin's Hearing Testimony: "The concern was that,the assumption with a 13 foot setback is that there is a corresponding setback on the abutting project,but it appeared from all of the evidence that we had that in fact there wasn't a corresponding setback on the abutting project and therefore instead of something like two 13 foot setbacks or a 13 foot and a whatever it was in 1986,it might have been 10 feet or it could have even been...I don't know,I can't tell from the scale of the drawing what the intention was,but instead of a two 13 or 23 or 26 feet, that there would only be 13 feet between these two buildings and with the taller buildings being three stories it would be an even more significant impact because of the narrow space ... Unfortunately, it's the people who come in later that have to make up the difference." 4 Testimony of Kovach Architects. TRIDOR COMMENTS-2 UU/1(/ZUU1 14:4b FAA ZU66ZJ(UZZ r. & L LIA1AJ LLY JL'A11LL' tgcUUD II. MR.JONES'APPEAL Mr. Jones bears the burden of proof. RMC 4-8-110.F.9. The City Council must uphold the decision of the Hearing Examiner unless Mr. Jones has shown that the Hearing Examiner committed a substantial error in fact or law. RMC 4-8-110.F.7. Mr. Jones does not come close to that threshold. Alleged Error#1 Mr. Jones erroneously suggests that the Hearing Examiner did not apply the decision criteria in RMC 4-8-11-E(7)(b), and he thereby indicates a misunderstanding of the legal test. Jones Appeal, Alleged Error 1. Mr. Jones is concerned that the Hearing Examiner analyzed whether "mistakes" were made. Id. In fact, that is precisely what the Hearing Examiner was supposed to do under the terms of RMC 4-8-11-E(7)(b). That provision states: The 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 iv.Arbitrary or capricious. The Hearing Examiner identified the last two criteria as being the most applicable, and explained(with reference to case law)that they concern either a disregard for the facts or a mistake. H.E. Concl., ¶2-3. Specifically, the Hearing Examiner explained that an action is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. H.E. Concl. ¶3 (citing Ancheta v. Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255, 259 (1969). Similarly, he explained that a decision is arbitrary and capricious when it is willful and unreasoning in disregard of the facts and circumstances (citing Northern TRIDOR COMMENTS-3 UV/IA/Gk./1J( 14.4( PAA LVOOLJ(VLL I\ K L UAIL'J LLr JrA11LL' IQJUU6 Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472, 478 (1976)). H.E. Concl.¶2. These are indeed the tests that the Hearing Examiner went on to apply. He analyzed whether City staff made a mistake in nearly doubling the south sideyard setback and/or whether they disregarded the facts and circumstances. In particular, the Examiner reviewed the factors suggesting that the City should have applied the Code-mandated setback: the two properties bear the same zoning category, they share almost identical densities, the zone allows greater lot coverage and greater permeable area than is proposed, and the project appears to be well designed in regard to its ground space. H.E. Concl. ¶115-6. Moreover, the Examiner analyzed and based his decision on two fundamental errors underlying the City's 25' setback; (1) City staff did not measure the setback of the neighboring property but guessed instead(based on aerial photos) and thus based their decision on unknown factors; and (2) City staff proceeded on the erroneous basis that the neighboring property was in a less intense zone than the Project site. H.E. Concl.¶7. He was thus explicitly concerned with whether facts had been disregarded or mistakes had been made. The evidence in the record clearly supports the Hearing Examiner's conclusion as to mistake. City staff testified that, based on aerial photos only, they had assumed that there was only a negligible setback between Heritage Village and the common boundary line with the Project site.5 Staff further testified that, the Code's standard 13' setback assumes a somewhat similar setback on the neighboring property, and their (wrong) guess as to a negligible Heritage Village setback therefore meant that the Project setback had to be increased to compensate.6 Professional surveys in the record demonstrate there is in fact a setback of between 12.3 feet and 20.3 feet from the property line with the S Supra n.3-Minutes of Hearing,H.E.Decision,pg 4-5,Elizabeth Higgins;see also Tridor Post-Hearing Brief,Exhibit A. TRIDOR COMMENTS-4 09/17/ZUU7 14:4"! FAA ZUUbZ3YUZZ K & L GA'1'k5 LLY 5KA1TLF Ia.JUU7 Project site (on average 15.2 feet). Accordingly, with the standard 13 foot setback for the Project, there would be the 25+ foot combined setback anticipated by the Code and desired by the City in this case. The factual underpinnings for the City's decision are undeniably wrong. As to the second mistake, the City conceded at the Hearing that the Code provision cited as basis for the 25' setback did not in fact apply because the two properties have identical zoning. H.E. Minutes, pp. 2, 5. The Code identifies only one situation where a setback may be increased during Site Plan Review, i.e., where the property abuts a less intense residential zone. RMC 4-2-110F. The City agreed that reliance on that provision was"an error."Id. For these reasons, Mr. Jones' first alleged error lacks merit and should be disregarded. Alleged Error#2 In an apparent selective reading of the Hearing Examiner's Decision, Mr. Jones erroneously suggests that the Hearing Examiner failed to consider the Project's size, scale and bulk in comparison to Heritage Village. Jones Appeal, Alleged error #2. As indicated above, the Hearing Examiner addressed in some detail how the features of the Project support application of the Code's standard 13' setback — and he specifically considered impacts of the Project's size, scale and bulk on Heritage Village. He discussed how the impacts of the Project on similar multiple-family housing are not unique, unexpected or untoward; how there is already a row of tightly planted tress that shade Heritage Village and screen the view such that the view is not expansive at this time; how the Project proposes only 36 units whereas 42 are allowed under the Code; that its lot coverage is less than permitted; and, how the two properties have almost identical densities. H.E. Concl. 74-6. Thus,on its face,Mr. Jones' second alleged error has no merit. 7 Supra n. 2—Exhibit 1,Tridor Post-Hearing Brief. TRIDOR COMMENTS-5 11 OG L Vt11G.7 LLC JGt111LL. I UU5 1 Alleged Error#3 Jones' Appeal further demonstrates a misunderstanding of the legal tests in suggesting that the Hearing Examiner should have disregarded the fundamental mistake (concerning the Heritage Village setback) because the Staff found that the Project would have some impacts. Alleged Error #3. Under the terms of the Code, and in accordance with established caselaw, the Hearing Examiner must overturn a decision when, "although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. H.E. Concl. ¶3. Thus, the Hearing Examiner could not properly ignore evidence of an underlying mistake and focus selectively on other findings by the City Staff. Hearing Examiner must base his decisions on the entire evidence. In this case that entire body of evidence • includes the City Staff's concession that they assumed Heritage Village was not built with the required setback from the common property line with the Project site, that this assumption was part of the fundamental rationale for nearly doubling the Project south sideyard setback (to make up the difference), and the professional surveys showing the actual 15.2' average setback. 8 Moreover, there is nothing about the Hearing Examiner's approach to suggest that substantial weight was not given to the City Staff's impact analysis. There was in fact little for the Examiner to give substantial weight to. The City's decision contained only conclusory statements about impacts to Heritage Village. The analysis regarding light and air impacts is merely two sentences; it contains only a conclusion, and not any analysis as to how that conclusion was reached: 7.Provision of adequate light and air. The development could have a negative impact on the north Heritage Village Condominium units, in terms of reduction of available natural light.. The recommended condition requiring an increased setback should reduce this potential impact however. Staff Report, pg 12, ¶7. Moreover, the Staff Report agreed that the architectural design and details of the Project result in visually interesting structures that promote a sense of human scale, and "ensure that the property would make a positive contribution to the 8 See n.2 and 3 above. TRIDOR COMMENTS-6 U0/1//LUU/ 14:40 raA LUOOLO/UGG !1 6L L lxt1DJ LLY JCH11Lt LEJ UUO • physical condition and visual aesthetic of the neighborhood." Staff Report, at 3, 13. The Hearing Examiner properly considered all the evidence before him, which included the Staff Report, but also photographic evidence at the Hearing which showed already compromised light and views. H.E. Concl. ¶4. Accordingly, alleged appeal error#3 also has no merit. Alleged Error#4 Mr. Jones' fourth alleged error largely repeats arguments made under Alleged Errors 1-3; to the extent it raises anything new it also indicates a misunderstanding of the role of the Hearing Examiner, the standards of review he must apply, and how they were applied in this case. Mr. Jones is apparently concerned about the Hearing Examiner's conclusion there was not a "strong basis" for the setback decision. Jones suggests that the Examiner somehow substituted this test for the comprehensive plan and site plan review criteria. In fact, the Hearing Examiner is precisely referencing those generic criteria in the sentence of concern: "The more generic basis [i.e. comprehensive plan and site plan review criteria] that replaced [the more specific criterion originally cited] does not appear to provide a strong basis for almost doubling the setback."H.E. Concl.¶7. The Examiner is referring to the City's ultimate concession that the cited basis for the 25' setback, i.e., RMC 4-2-110F, does not apply because the Project site and the Heritage Village property to the south are zoned the same. H.E. Minutes,pg. 2, 5. RMC 4-2-110F authorizes the City to increase the standard 13' setback in one specific situation: when the property abuts a less intense residential zone. Thus, at the Hearing, the City was forced to argue that, despite the one specific authorization in RMC 4-2-110F (that does not apply), the more generic references to neighborhood impacts in the comprehensive plan and site plan review criteria somehow also provide legal authority for nearly doubling a standard setback. H.E. Minutes,pg. 3 (Mr. Barber). Accordingly, Mr. Jones is mistaken in suggesting that the Examiner ignored these criteria. The Examiner's reference to "the more generic basis"indicates that he expressly considered them. Moreover, he rightly concluded that those more general, qualitative criteria do not authorize such a departure from the standard setback. It is a well- established legal principle that where the legislative drafters explicitly limit a rule(i.e. the TRIDOR COMMENTS-7 UV/1(/LVV/ 14.4.7 PAA LVVVLJ/VLL 11 OG L VAiDJ LLA JL'/111LL wJ ViV setback may be increased) to one specific factual situation (i.e. where the adjoining zone is a less intense zone), and omit to apply it to any other situation (i.e. where the properties are zoned the same), the reviewing body should assume the omission was intentional. Washington Natural Gas Co. v. Public Util. Dist. No. 1, 77 Wn.2d 94, 98, 459 P.2d 633 (1969); Kitsap County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd., 158 P.3d 638, 645(2007). Accordingly, in this case, the Hearing Examiner properly held that those generic provisions did not provide a strong basis for expanding the standard setback. III. APPLICANT APPEAL Code's Height Approval Provisions Unrelated to Sideyard Setback The Hearing Examiner erred in reversing approval for an additional 2.25' in height simply because the standard sideyard setback is being applied. There is nothing in the Code to suggest that additional height is contingent on a greater-than-standard setback being imposed. The Hearing Examiner wrongly conflated these two notions. Rather, the Code provides that up to 10' additional height may be approved where there are additional amenities such as pitched roofs, and provided compatibility with adjacent residential development: In all districts except the "U" and "T," more stories and an additional ten feet (101 in height may be obtained through the provision of additional amenities such as pitched roofs, additional recreational facilities, underground parking, and/or additional landscaped open space areas, as determined through the site plan review process. In the "F" District, additional height for a residential dwelling structure may be obtained through the site development plan review process depending on the compatibility of the proposed buildings with adjacent existing residential development. In no case shall the height of a residential structure exceed forty five feet(45'). RMC 4-2-110F, n.5, n.6 (emphasis added). In this case, the additional 2.25' accommodates a steeper pitch, which mimics the pitch of the existing single-family residential development in the area and thereby enhances compatibility. The approval thus fell squarely within the City's discretion. TRIDOR COMMENTS-8 09/17/2007 14:5U FAX 205ti23/U22 it & L GA1ba LLY JIA17Lb w,j V 1 1 Hearing Examiner Overlooked Staff's Mistake About Combined Setback Furthermore, the Hearing Examiner based his reversal on an erroneous assumption that, with a 13' setback, the Project would be closer to Heritage Village than Staff had assumed when they approved the additional height. Specifically, the Hearing Examiner held that since the City justified the extra height on the basis of a 25' setback, that extra height should no longer be allowed with a 13' setback. Concln. ¶8. This reasoning is fatally flawed. The Examiner has overlooked the fact that Staff were mistaken about the Heritage Village setback (assuming it was negligible) when they approved the extra height. The Staff thus assumed a combined 25' setback between the two buildings. The evidence in the record now shows that even with a 13' Project setback there will in fact be the combined 25'+ setback that the City assumed.9 The 15' average setback at Heritage Village (which the City did not know about) combined with the 13' Project setback, will create the desired space. Thus, to the extent that the 25' combined setback was used by the City to justify the greater height, that factual basis still exists. The fundamental premise of the Hearing Examiner's decision is therefore invalid. In addition, it is not at all clear that City Staff's approval of the height limit was contingent on the 25' setback. The Staff Report did not directly discuss its rationale for allowing the additional 2.25' in height. Rather, in seeking to justify the nearly doubled setback, the Staff Report simply commented that the proposed height would "be mitigated somewhat by the wider setback." Staff Report, pg 11. Thus, there is not the tight correlation between height and setback that the Hearing Examiner assumed. Additional Height Enhances Neighborhood Compatibility Moreover, the additional 2.25' height enhances compatibility with the neighborhood, and other goals of the Site Plan Review process. The proposed height reflects the roof pitch which is part of the overall careful design of the Project, intended to ensure well-proportioned structures and enhance aesthetics. Flattening of the roofs would look like a project-wide afterthought (or miscued design) and would detract from the full potential of what the Project could contribute to the surrounding neighborhood. As indicated above, the Staff Report agreed that the architectural design and details of the 9 Seen.2 and 3 above. TRIDOR COMMENTS-9 Project result in visually interesting structures that promote a sense of human scale, and "ensure that the property would make a positive contribution to the physical condition and visual aesthetic of the neighborhood." Staff Report, at 3, 13. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that the additional couple of feet would make any difference to neighborhood impacts. To the contrary, the Hearing Examiner found that existing tightly planted trees are already a controlling factor regarding light and views at Heritage Village. H.E. Concln. ¶4. The Hearing Examiner thus did not demonstrate that the City's height approval was (i) in violation of constitutional provisions; or(ii) in excess of their authority or jurisdiction; 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(iv) arbitrary or capricious. RMC 4-8-11-E(7)(b). Rather, as set out in this submission, the Hearing Examiner committed substantial errors in law and fact in reversing the height approval. RMC 4-8-110.F.7. IV. CONCLUSION Mr. Jones has failed to show that the Hearing Examiner committed a substantial error in fact or law. The City Council should approve the Hearing Examiner's decision to apply the standard 13' south sideyard setback. Conversely, the Hearing Examiner did commit substantial errors in law and fact in overturning the City's 2.25' additional height approval. His decision in that regard should be reversed. Respectfully submitted this 1;1 IL day of September, 2007 KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART PRESTON GATES&ELLIS LLP • A' By '�. A. ally : k, wss X2567 Attorney for Appellant, Tridor, Inc. TRIDOR COMMENTS- 10 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL —7j CO Al#: Submitting Data:41141• For Agenda of: September 17,2007 ''` Dept/Div/Board: Community Services/Facilities Staff Contact: Peter Renner,Facilities Director Agenda Status Ext. 6605 Consent X Subject: Public Hearing. Lease Agreement with Communities in Schools for Correspondence. space on the fifth floor of the Renton City Hall. Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Lease Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Finance Committee Legal Dept x.... Finance Dept.x... Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... None Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated $30,139.92 over the five-year lease term. Total Project Budget City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: Communities in Schools of Renton, Washington, a nonprofit corporation,wishes to renew its lease for space in Renton City Hall. In the last lease period, it reduced the amount of space it was using to accommodate the needs of the Community Services Department, from 375 sq.ft. to 299 sq.ft. and that fact is reflected in this Lease. The business terms of the proposed Lease have been favorably reviewed by City staff. Legal and Risk Management reviews have also been performed. The Lease includes building services, office furnishings, fax/copier use and use of common areas. The lease rate starts at$18.80 per square foot and escalates 4%per year. This compares favorably with market rates for renewal leases in this area that do not include tenant improvements or other inducements. Lease provisions allow for relocation to any other similar space in the building and for either side to terminate with a six-month written notice. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Lease with Communities in Schools of Renton and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the Lease. H:\Peter Renner\Peter Renner 2007\AgBi11CIS.doc 9/11/2007 9:26:37 AM - � COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT ♦1 ® N�O� MEMORANDUM DATE: August 30, 2007 TO: Toni Nelson, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Kathy.c- Keolker, Ma or FROM: Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Peter Reimer, Facilities Director, Ext. #6605 SUBJECT: Lease with Communities in Schools of Renton Issue: Should the Council authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign a Lease with Communities in Schools of Renton (CIS) for space in Renton City Hall? Recommendation: Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the Lease. "— Background: • CIS has occupied space in City Hall since the City moved here. In 2002, a Lease between CIS and the City of Renton formalized the tenancy relationship. That Lease has expired and CIS wishes to renew. • CIS reduced the amount of space they lease from 375 square feet to 299 square feet during the original lease period. • CIS has been paying the new lease rate, with a one-time credit for the space they vacated in the last lease period, since the old lease expired. • The lease includes the following business points: o The Lease is a five-year contract. o There is an early termination provision for either party, with a six-month written notice. o There is a relocation provision, at City expense, to allow for potential City staff expansion needs on the floor CIS currently occupies. o Lease rates include use of common areas, fax and copier use, and City furnishings. o There is no tenant improvement allowance. o The lease rate for the 299 feet starts at $18.80 for first year and increases by 4%per year to $21.77 in the final year of the contract. o There is no broker involved in this transaction. o Revenue generated over the term of the lease would total $30,139.92. `Joey City of Renton Memorandum Lease with CIS August 30,2007 Page 2 of 2 Conclusion: Communities in Schools of Renton provides outstanding benefits to our City's schools, students, and their families. Further, this lease provides the City with ongoing revenue and does not counteract the City's potential need to regain space for its own employees. cc: Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Michael Bailey,Finance&IS Administrator Larry Warren,City Attorney 'Ned H:\Peter Renner\Peter Renner 2007\InfoPaperClSLease.doc 8/30/2007 1:25:28 PM O 00 0 t, ,,..i3 ire i( g� I , 1 0 1.-- ('' CZ 0 a i / Cs. - n 0, 1 0 _ 0 0 0 0 zto 1a 0 - I 4 { , 1 • • �E j 1• J 0 :::::0.:::: . . .•... . 0 .T V ......:.... ...i......40i.::, : :.::::::::.:: :::::::::.:.:::.: . . . . . . e • •:.:.:•:•:• • :•:• :•:•:•:• . .:.: .:.:::, ::: , „:„:„:„:„:„ , ..„:„„:„„:„ _ , T 48 0 0 I-1 0. - , _umnimmom...7; •••=1.1. . . _. . ..._. . ..•.;•........ EHIBIT A Legal Description 1055 South Grady Way That portion of Government Lot 10, Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, and of Block 17, Town of Renton, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 1 of Plats, page 135, in King County, Washington, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the centerline intersection of South 5th Street and Main Avenue South; thence south 00°46'18"west 327.80 feet along the centerline of Main Avenue South; thence south 00°45'13"west 663.94 feet along said centerline of Main Avenue South to a point on the south line of said Government Lot 10; thence south 89°18'37"west 30.01 feet along said south line to a point on the westerly margin of said Main Avenue South; thence north 00°45'13"east 53.02 feet along said westerly margin to a point on the north line of the south 53.00 feet as measured at right angles to said south line of Government Lot 10 and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence south 89°18'37"west 230.63 feet along said north line; thence north 00°46'08" east 95.14 feet to the northwesterly corner of a tract conveyed to Mike Ruklic by Deed recorded under King County Recording Number 568802; thence south 89°18'37" west 57.00 feet along a line parallel to said southerly line of Government Lot 10; thence north 00°46'08"east 148.79 feet to a point on the southeasterly margin of South Grady Way; thence north 45°40'13" east 193.72 feet along said southeasterly margin to a point of curvature; thence continuing along said southeasterly margin northerly 264.78 feet along the arc of a non-tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 756.20 feet, the radius point of which bears north 44°19'16" west through a central angle of 20°03'40 to a point of intersection with the westerly margin of said Main Avenue South; thence south 00°45'13"west 589.92 feet along said westerly margin to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT that portion conveyed to the City of Renton for road purposes by Deed recorded under King County Recording Number 8709020544. OFFICE LEASE RENTON CITY HALL 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 This Lease is made this day of 2007, by and between the City of Renton, Washington, a Washington municipal corporation ("Landlord"), and Communities in Schools of Renton,Washington Nonprofit corporation ("Tenant"),who agree as follows: 1. Fundamental Terms. As used in this Lease, the following capitalized terms shall have the following meaning: (a) "Land" means the land on which the Building is located, situated in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington,which is described in Exhibit A. (b) "Building" means the building in which the Premises are located, commonly known as Renton City Hall, the street address of which is 1055 South Grady Way,Renton, WA 98055. (c) "Premises" means that certain space cross-hatched on Exhibit B, located on the fifth (5th) floor of the Building in the Community Services Department area. (d) "Agreed Areas" means the agreed amount of rentable square feet of space in the Building and the Premises. Landlord and Tenant stipulate and agree for all purposes under this fir,. Lease that the Building contains approximately 112,000 rentable square feet of space (the "Building Area") and that the Premises contain approximately 296 square feet of space (the "Premises Area"). Landlord and Tenant further agree that the Building area may exclude portions of the Building which are used for other than office purposes, such as areas used for retail purposes. (e) This agreement includes access by the Tenant to common areas of the Building to include, but not limited to: conference rooms, file storage rooms, parking garage, weight room, and restrooms. (f) "Commencement Date" means April 1, 2007, or such earlier date as provided in Section 4 hereof. (g)"Expiration Date"means March 31, 2012. (h) "Minimum Monthly Rent" ($18.80/rsf with a 4% per year escalation factor) means the following amounts as to the following periods during the Term: Period Monthly Amount Year 1 $463.73 Year 2 $482.27 Year 3 $501.56 Year 4 $521.62 Year 5 $542.48 1 • (i)"Permitted Use"means use for purposes of general business and administrative offices for Communities in Schools of Renton. (j)"Prepaid Rent"is ZERO. (k)"Security Deposit" is ZERO. (1) "Landlord's Address for Notice" means Finance Department, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055. (m) "Landlord's Address for Payment of Rent" means Finance Department, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Way,Renton, WA 98055. (n)"Tenant's Address for Notice"means Communities in Schools of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton, WA 98055,on and after the Commencement Date. (o)"Landlord's Agent"means Community Services Department,City of Renton, WA. (p)"Broker(s)"means Facilities Division,City of Renton. (q)"Exhibits"means the following Exhibits to this Lease: Exhibit A: Legal Description of the Property. Exhibit B: Outline Drawing of the Premises 2. Premises and Appurtenances. Landlord leases to Tenant and Tenant leases from Landlord the Premises for the Term in an AS IS condition. *sod 3. Term. The Term shall commence on the Commencement Date and expire on the Expiration Date, unless sooner terminated pursuant to this Lease. 4. Minimum Monthly Rent; Late Charge. (a)Minimum Monthly Rent. Tenant shall pay to Landlord the Minimum Monthly Rent without deduction, offset, prior notice or demand, in advance on the first day of each month during the Term. Minimum Monthly Rent for any partial month shall be prorated at the rate of 1/30t of the Minimum Monthly Rent per day. Minimum Monthly Rent is exclusive of any sales, franchise, business or occupation or other tax based on rents (other than Landlord's general income taxes)and should such taxes apply during the Term,the Minimum Monthly Rent shall be increased by the amount of such taxes. All Rent shall be paid to Landlord at Landlord's Address for Payment of Rent or at such other address as Landlord may specify by notice to Tenant. (b)Late Charge. Tenant acknowledges that the late payment by Tenant of any Rent will cause Landlord to incur administrative, collection, processing and accounting costs and expenses not contemplated under this Lease, the exact amount of which are extremely difficult or impracticable to fix. Therefore, if any Rent is not received by Landlord from Tenant by the fifteenth (15th) calendar day after such Rent is due, Tenant shall immediately pay to Landlord a late charge equal to five percent(5%) of the amount of such Rent or Fifty and No/100ths Dollars ($50.00), whichever is greater. Landlord and Tenant agree that this late charge represents a reasonable estimate of such costs and expenses and is fair compensation to Landlord for its loss caused by Tenant's nonpayment. Should Tenant pay said late charge but fail to pay 2 contemporaneously therewith all unpaid amounts of Rent, Landlord's acceptance of this late charge shall not constitute waiver of Tenant's default with respect to Tenant's nonpayment nor "'rw' prevent Landlord from exercising all other rights and remedies available to Landlord under this Lease or under law. 5. Credit. It is understood and agreed that Tenant is entitled to a one-time credit of$711.90, based on an adjustment of rental space made during calendar year 2006, in which Tenant relinquished certain of its previously rented space from Landlord. 6. Personal Property Taxes. If required, Tenant shall pay prior to delinquency all personal property taxes assessed against and levied upon trade fixtures, furnishings, equipment and all other personal property of Tenant contained in the Premises or elsewhere. If possible, Tenant shall cause such trade fixtures, furnishings, equipment and all other personal property of Tenant to be assessed and billed separately from the Property. The City is not responsible for paying personal property taxes from rent proceeds. 7.Indemnity. (a) Generally. Tenant shall hold Landlord harmless from and against any and all damages arising out of any injury to any persons or property occurring in, on or about the Premises or the Property resulting from the acts or omissions of Tenant or its authorized representatives. Landlord shall hold Tenant harmless from and against any and all damages arising out of any injury to any persons or property occurring in, on or about the Premises or the Property resulting from the acts or omissions of Landlord or its authorized representatives. A party's obligation under this Section to indemnify and hold the other party harmless shall be limited to the sum that exceeds the amount of insurance proceeds, if any, received by the party being indemnified. (b) Concurrent Negligence of Landlord and Tenant. Notwithstanding Section 7(a) above, in the event of concurrent negligence of Tenant, or its authorized representatives, on the one hand, and that of Landlord, or its authorized representatives, on the other hand, which concurrent negligence results in damage to any persons or property occurring in, on or about the Premises or the Property, either party's obligation to indemnify the other party as set forth in Section 7(a) shall be limited to the extent of the negligence of the indemnifying party, or its authorized representatives, including the indemnifying party's proportional share of costs and attorneys' fees incurred in connection with any claims, actions or proceedings brought with respect to such damage. (c) Waiver of Worker's Compensation Immunity. The indemnification obligations contained in this Section shall not be limited by any worker's compensation, benefit or disability laws, and each indemnifying party hereby waives(solely for the benefit of the indemnified party) any immunity that said indemnifying party may have under the Industrial Insurance Act, Title 51 RCW and similar worker's compensation, benefit or disability laws. (d) Provisions Specifically Negotiated. LANDLORD AND TENANT ACKNOWLEDGE BY THEIR EXECUTION OF THIS LEASE THAT EACH OF THE INDEMNIFICATION PROVISIONS OF THIS LEASE (SPECIFICALLY INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THOSE RELATING TO WORKER'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND LAWS) WERE SPECIFICALLY NEGOTIATED AND AGREED TO BY LANDLORD AND TENANT. Nosy, 3 8. Commercial General Liability and Property Damage Insurance. Tenant, at its cost, shall maintain commercial general liability insurance (including contractual liability and products and completed operations liability) with liability limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. Landlord shall be additional named insured on such insurance policy. 9. Waiver of Claims; Waiver of Subrogation. Landlord and Tenant release each other, and their respective authorized representatives, from, and waive their entire claim of recovery for,any claims for damages to the Premises and the Building and to Tenant's alterations, trade fixtures and personal property that are caused by or result from fire, lightening or any other perils normally included in an"all risk"property insurance policy whether or not such loss or damage is due to the negligence of landlord, or its authorized representatives, or of Tenant,or its authorized representatives. Landlord and Tenant shall cause each insurance policy obtained by it to prove that the insurance company waives all right of recovery by way of subrogation against either party in connection with any damage covered by such insurance policy. 10. Other Insurance Matters. CISR shall continue to be listed as "additional insured, which is primary and noncontributory" under the Renton School District's policy. Should CISR obtain its own primary insurance coverage, the coverage will include naming the City of Renton as an "additional insured which is primary and noncontributory". 11. Destruction and Condemnation. If during the Term the Premises are partially or totally destroyed by any casualty or taken by condemnation, then the Term shall terminate as of the date of such destruction or taking. The insurance proceeds or award for the Premises, the Building and the Property, shall belong to and be paid to Landlord, Tenant hereby assigning to Landlord Tenant's interest therein, if any. 12. Assignment and Subletting. Tenant shall not voluntarily assign or encumber its interest in this Lease or in the Premises, or sublease any part or all of the Premises,without Landlord's prior consent. Any assignment, encumbrance or sublease without Landlord's consent shall be voidable and, at Landlord's election, shall constitute a default by Tenant under this Lease. 13. Default. The occurrence of any of the following shall constitute a default by Tenant under this Lease: (a) Failure to Pay Rent. Failure to pay Rent when due, if the failure continues for a period of thirty(30)days after notice of such default has been given by Landlord to Tenant. (b) Other Defaults. Failure to perform any other provision of this Lease, if the failure to perform is not cured within thirty(30) days after notice of such default has been given Landlord to Tenant. If the default cannot reasonably be cured within thirty(30)days, then Tenant shall not be in default under this Lease if Tenant commences to cure the default within thirty(30) days and diligently and in good faith continues to cure the default. 14. Remedies. If Tenant commits a default, Landlord shall have the right to terminate Tenant's right to possession by any lawful means, in which case this Lease shall terminate and Tenant shall immediately surrender possession of the Premises to Landlord. In such event Landlord shall be entitled to recover from Tenant all damages incurred by Landlord by reason of Tenant's default including without limitation thereto, the following: (i) the worth at the time of award of any unpaid Rent which had been earned at the time of such termination; plus(ii)the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid Rent which would have been earned after termination until the time of award exceeds the amount of such rental loss that Tenant proves 4 could have been reasonably avoided, and (iii) any other amount necessary to compensate Landlord for all the detriment proximately caused by Tenant's failure to perform its obligations under the Lease, including reasonable attorney fees. 15. Termination and/or Relocation for Convenience. Landlord and its authorized representatives shall have the right to relocate Tenant to another part of the Building with similar access and support services for landlord's convenience provided landlord pays the cost of relocation. Both parties have the right to terminate this lease for convenience with six months written notice provided to the other party. 16. Transfer of Landlord's Interest. If Landlord sells or transfers the Property, both parties, on consummation of the sale or transfer, shall be released from any liability thereafter accruing under this Lease. If any security deposit or Prepaid Rent has been paid by Tenant, Landlord shall transfer such Security Deposit or Prepaid Rent to Landlord's successor and on such transfer Landlord shall be discharged from any further liability with respect to such Security Deposit or Prepaid Rent. 17. Attorneys' Fees. If either party shall bring any action for relief against the other party, declaratory or otherwise, arising out of this Lease, including any action by Landlord for the recovery of Rent or possession of the Premises, the losing party shall pay the successful party a reasonable sum for attorneys' fees which shall be deemed to have accrued on the commencement of such action and shall be paid whether or not such action is prosecuted to judgment. 18. Surrender. On expiration or ten (10) days after termination of the Term, Tenant shall surrender the Premises and all Tenant's improvements and alterations to Landlord broom clean and in good condition. Tenant shall remove all of its personal property within the time period stated in this Section. Tenant, at its cost, shall perform all restoration made necessary by, and repair any damage to the Premises caused by, the removal of personal property, to the Landlord's reasonable satisfaction within the time period stated in this Section. Landlord may, at its election, retain or dispose of in any manner any of Tenant's personal property that Tenant does not remove from the Premises on expiration or within ten (10) days after termination of the Term as allowed or required by the provisions of this Lease by giving ten (10) days notice to Tenant and title to any such personal property that Landlord elects to retain shall vest in Landlord. If Tenant fails to surrender the Premises to Landlord on expiration or ten(10)days after termination of the Term as required by this Section, Tenant shall pay Landlord rent in an amount equal to twice the monthly Rent for the entire time Tenant thus remains in possession and Tenant shall hold Landlord harmless from all damages resulting from Tenant's failure to timely surrender the Premises, including without limitation, (i)any rent payable by, or any damages claimed by, any prospective tenant of any part or all of the Premises, and (ii) Landlord's damages resulting from such prospective tenant rescinding or refusing to enter into the prospective lease of part or all of the Premises by reason of Tenant's failure to timely surrender the Premises. 19. Miscellaneous Provisions. This Lease sets forth the entire agreement of the parties as to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior discussions and understandings between them. This Lease may not be amended or rescinded in any manner except by an instrument in writing signed by a duly authorized officer or representative of each party hereto. This Lease shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. In the event any action is brought to enforce any of the provisions of this Lease, the parties agree to be subject to exclusive in personam jurisdiction in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, in and for the County of King, or in the United States District Court for the District %mew of Washington and agree that in any such action venue shall lie exclusively at Seattle or Kent, 5 Washington. No waiver of any right under this Lease shall be effective unless contained in writing signed by a duly authorized officer or representative of the party sought to be charged with the waiver and no waiver of any right arising from any breach or failure to perform shall be NIS deemed to be a waiver of any future right or of any other right arising under this Lease. Time is of the essence in the performance of all covenants and conditions in the Lease for which time is a factor. Dated the date first above written. Landlord: Tenant: The City of Renton, Washington,a Communities in School of Renton,a Washington municipal corporation Washington NonProfit Corporation By: By: Kathy Keolker Robert E. McBeth Title: Mayor Title: Board Chair Date Executed: Date Executed: ATTEST: Title: City Clerk Date Executed: (Notary Attached) Nod 6 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ...• COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she signed this instrument, on oath, stated that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument, and acknowledged it as the Board Chair of Communities in Schools of Renton, a Washington nonprofit corporation, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal this day of , 2007. Notary Public (Print Name) Residing at My Commission Expires: soap 7 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL ' AI#: ,041#'111-767, 1114,0* Submitting Data: For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. PBPW/Development September 17, 2007 Services/Current Planning Staff Contact Jennifer Henning, x7286 Agenda Status Elizabeth Higgins, x7382 • Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Waiver of fees as per RMC 4-1-210B, "Owner- Correspondence.. Occupied Housing Incentive" Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper(including request letters, site maps,press Study Sessions release, and fee estimates) Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Finance Committee Legal Dept Finance Dept Other • Fiscal Impact: N/A 11111 Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: Project proponents of The Chelsea [condominiums] and the Blakey Townhomes are entitled to waiver of development,building, and impact fees for projects under RCM 4-1-210B, "Owner-Occupied Housing Incentive,"with Council approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve waiver of development,building, and impact fees for The Chelsea and Blakey Townhomes projects. • C:\DOCUME-1\BWalton\LOCALS—1\Temp\Fee Waiver Agenda Bill(rev 01).doc\STLtp Cti`S PLANNING/BUILDING/ ,,. ♦ ;- ® ♦ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1'�NrcO� ISSUE PAPER DATE: September 7, 2007 TO: Toni Nelson, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: 0)1C/04-Kathy Keolker, Mayor cd FROM: Gregg Zimmermai Tt ministrator STAFF CONTACT: Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager(7286) SUBJECT: Request for Fee Waiver - The Chelsea [Condominiums] and Blakey Townhomes ISSUE: In an August 16, 2007 letter to the City, Mr. Murray Kahn of Gordian Development requested waiver of fees for a 24-unit condominium development proposed for downtown Renton. (Exhibit 1) This project, "The Chelsea," has received site plan No✓ approval and a conditional use permit for construction at the southeast corner of South Second Street and Morris Avenue South. The project meets the parameters of Renton Municipal Code 4-1-210, "Waived Fees," in that it is more than four units, it will consist of"for sale" units, and is within the Center Downtown zone. (Exhibit 2) On August 29, 2007, a similar letter was received from Ms. Emily Buchwalter of Medici Architects, AIA, designer and developer of the Blakey Townhomes. (Exhibit 3) Ms. Buchwalter has also requested waiver of fees. The Blakey project, located at 604 Morris Ave S in South Renton, is a five unit attached townhouse project on five individual lots. (Exhibit 4)The project has received site plan and short plat approval. The Blakey also meets the requirements of RMC 4-1-210, "Waived Fees,"because it consists of more than four units, which will be for sale, and it is zoned Residential Multi-family- Traditional. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the applicants' request to waive fees, including building permit fees, utility system development charges, public works plan review and inspection fees, and impact mitigation fees, subject to the review and approval of land use, environmental, building, and construction permits in compliance with applicable codes and laws. Authorize reimbursement of any fees applicable for waiver that have been paid prior to approval of waiver. Council/ September 7,2007 Page 2 of 2 BACKGROUND SUMMARY: Renton Municipal Code 4-1-210, "Waived Fees," allows the City Council to waive any and all fees. Specifically, RMC 4-1-210.B, "Owner-Occupied Housing Incentive,"was adopted in 2001 (amended in 2004 to extend the program),to encourage owner-occupied housing in the Center Downtown (CD), Residential Multi-family, Urban (RM-U), and Residential Multi-family, Traditional (RM-T) zones (Exhibit E). This effort to increase homeownership in these zones was initiated following the construction of several apartment-type housing developments in or near downtown. The fee-waiver was adopted as an incentive to increase homeownership. The incentive of waived fees of several thousand dollars per unit are intended to positively impact development decisions being made in Renton. As Mr. Kahn points out in his letter,the financial feasibility of The Chelsea is based on, and somewhat dependent upon,the fee waivers. Waiver of fees has also been a consideration of Ms. Buchwalter in planning the Blakey project. The estimated total fees for The Chelsea are $53,512.97. If waived, these fees would represent a savings of$2,229.71 per unit for the developer(Exhibit F). The fee estimate for the Chelsea is somewhat lower than other projects because The Chelsea is being assessed as a"mixed-use" development, and therefore already receives some fee advantages. The projected total fees for the Blakey Townhomes are $56,404.55. If waived, these fees would represent a savings of$11,280.91 per unit for the developer(Exhibit G). The fees for the Blakey project are higher than commercial or multi-family projects because as townhouses the fees are calculated as"attached single family"units. The current expiration date of the fee waiver is October 1, 2007, unless renewed by the City Council. A City Council approval must be granted prior to the date of expiration or modification in order for the requested waiver to be effective. CONCLUSION: The proposed mixed-use development, The Chelsea, with 24-units of condominium housing and 1,102 sf of retail space and the Blakey, with 5 townhouses, meet the criteria for waiver of building permit fees, utility system development charges, public works plan review and inspection fees, and impact mitigation fees. The projects would provide additional new homeownership opportunities in the Urban Center to support the City's ongoing downtown redevelopment efforts and the 2008-2012 Business Plan Goals. Exhibit cc: Lys Hornsby,Utility Systems Director Jim Seitz,Transportation Planning Supervisor H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev&plan.ing\ERH\Fees\Fee Waiver Issue Paper.doc\SLtp • • • DEVELOPMENT PLANNING • • • Gordian CITY OF RENTON • • ■ Development AUG 2 0 2007 `"•ime August 16, 2007 RECEIVED Elizabeth Higgins Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 6th Floor Renton, WA 98057 Re: Grandfather of Waived Fees Under RMC 4-1-210, Waived Fees The Chelsea LUA07-023 Elizabeth, Pursuant to our conversation last week as well as my various conversations with Mark Santos- Johnson, I would like to formally request that The Chelsea be "grandfathered" to receive the benefits of waived mitigation fees pursuant to RMC 4-1-210,Waived Fees. As we have discussed, we purchased this site in the City of Renton and evaluated its financial feasibility based on the applicable regulations and code that has been in place since our original application was submitted: • On February 23, 2007, our completed project application for the Chelsea was submitted to the city. • On April 12, 2007 we received our Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated, which `taw was not appealed. • On July 24th, we received our Site Plan Approval and its appeal period also expired without appeal. • Our completed Building Permit Package is imminently scheduled for submittal on Monday, August 20, 2007. My understanding is that the City Council is poised on September 6th, to increase the minimum number of units that a project must have in order to qualify for the current waived fee incentive. If the City Council's Planning and Development Committee approves the proposed increase from four to thirty units, our project will no longer qualify for the waived mitigation fees, as is now the case. Please initiate an agenda bill to request council's action to grandfather our project. Thank you very much for your support and direction regarding this matter. Sincerely, Murray Kahn Manager: Gordian Development LLC &South 2nd Street LLC Cc: City of Renton: Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager, Mark Santos-Johnson, Senior Economic, Development Specialist, Cc: Kent Smutny, TSA Architects EXHIBIT err Cc: John Sugden, First Pacific Marketing 1 2291 NE 60th Street Murray A.Kahn Phone:206-227-4352 Seattle,Washington 98115 murray@gordiandevelopment.com Fax:206-676-0016 www.gordiandevelopment.com E3 - 7 T23N R5E E 1/2 i .M4 - j \ \ C A , ,. c, , c. - -c• - , \ ', IL(P) - \ \ rd P . , . \ 'i - fX -se, ct •-ce i LIC-Ni -. ,.IV _ .. V . , \ \ \ . . . co."------ .-------------1..'., ----- '''''11- 1 1 IM(P) ,,,.,„,„ ., R-10(P) -- - •cx i, Airport Way c ' '\44R_8 Rt,?_-----co „,,N , 41ilitii: 11111.111ENINNE \ 171111 Cp--f TA-------7-7- - ” ------ - ---- _ --,..- . S-7 TObin St. , , \ ', •7 .,!. 1 1 CD • RAn-7.„ s„: '''', .1--7P---7---1R3 CD 0 z ..< \ , Ctoik. ,., . -- Cip CA' •••- - \-.. 'N. L--7 e4 -10 , ,,.. .''' u CP RK-U s\ P21 CD(P) ;,-, - . - - -ct C P. . . 62ITE-- RM-U 1-1 --•, •• ...1 t7). kl ,. . - CA a ir) ,—..1 CD b) g C A' ' - -nd St. cr •' S 2nd St. / . -2114. Z . tel . ' 1'--C]-i-.1f—r_ , --F.D Err- I . eJ . • - , 7 - - - ' -, CA 711 --cp.-0D,,CDcf) CD. _lair, „„ .; . , CD - C1)'-- r1 - Go '.•, r•I a) CD icp or=1 Nod . . S 3rd St. CD-" 1 cp-*1 - ..z ' -- . , 1 • rstaL...„ , N , '10E- I CD-.. ., CD ICD 1 CD . i.cei ;-, --1CD .51.....) ,-) - \C"arct: P1. 0 . -., 7—... --7-- ,,, CD CD(P) ec CD CD u CD _CD A CD GM . _ . . ....= , ‘..1., .. -..j . . li . _ 9,) C A CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD lig CD 5.-. -r,"--.• D J3' CD •-- - a) ' CD lig -P- i - CD(p) CA- -' ' :ID' ..ga Igi —..-= cl- .-..• .. id • ‘, . ,.- . l"— ' .'" • I - H Z -H X Hi X ---- Ce S -6-,,h St - 1 .:, - ' \ • -- — Rm-U , I' .0 1- 7--- f- • -F--r-- 1 CD k 11 -1 I I I RM-6/ ./-:\ nc...- A _._, c . m - . . . . C A -CAA TIOU k lij . C D'. -:,%:: , .ico CA C ty, -------- A--\ /CA - CA C A 'gad G3 - 19 T23N R5E E 1/2 7 ....ig0 4r, EXHIBIT oaZONING ———— Renton City Limit's 1:4800 + P/B/PW TECHNICAL SERVICES ' 02/28/07 18 T23N R5E 2 Medici Architects Architecture,Programming,Accessible Design&Interior Design August 29, 2007 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON City of Renton Elizabeth Higgins AUG 3 0 2007 Senior Planner Development Services Division RECEIVED 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washinton 98055 Re: Blakey Townhomes Dear Ms. Higgins, After having our conversation yesterday, I would like to formally request that the Blakey Townhomes be "grandfathered" to receive the benefits of waived mitigation fees pursuant to RMC 4-1-210, Waived Fees. To date we have paid building permit fees of$4,455.05 and utilities permit fees of $565.00. My understanding is that we are entitled to have these fees reimbursed. Ntior On June 18, 2007 we received the letter from you stating that the appeal period had ended for the Hearing Examiner's Blakey Townhomes Short Plat approval. No appeals were filed. On August 16, 2007 we received the final permit approval on the Civil drawings. My understanding is that the City Council is poised on September 6th to increase the minimum number of units that a project must have in order to qualify for the current waived fee incentive. If the City Council's Planning and Development Committee approves the proposed increase from four to thirty units, our project will no longer qualify for the waived mitigation fees, as is now the case. Please initiate an agenda bill to request council's action to grandfather our project. Thank you very much for your support and direction regarding this matter. Sincerely, Emily Buchwalter Medici Architects, AIA 'gore 2233 102"d Place S.E.Bellevue WA 98004 Tel:(425)453-9298 Facsimile:(425)452-8448 EXHIBIT 3 E3 - 7 T23N R5E E 1/2 ,f/ /:-:7 zi E . M-F i \ y 'al R-P Ix i \ JCA ' IL(P)‘ -6-_-c7_ 12- ,__1__„ i0 _l_^, \ ro• w ---71. : to to co CO i - 1 1 I 1 '1111111i rd Pl. UC-NL \ , .-......-..w ,., IP r \ \ ,c.:,......... ..._<.., t ..•.,_.7,,,. _ ,\... ,- ce co co i 1 i 03 C I MAirPpOrt Way • 1 I CA 1 ' ' S 1 IIMMEMINEI '''':,,,HF4-10(P) \ii::e C CD ''',... \R_8 L< , N t Fr C A fc_e, ._. ,... \- • r i 1 TObi.11 St. I 1R-$ ' ' : R.. 8 I ii Id\ r4 CA CD 6 Ragin \ .-. CD. c/D ,..,_, ..-) . 1 ' \ 4' Q) L) CD - l ,. ,' ..., - Psi mi -_., 0.- RM-U "I'L,.. A CD(P) i = • RM- .I. C A e) c.) ... ....._ . . . ,_ co 5 . • —,,. RM-Up _ .CA C D CD- - o 1-3 1 \ ' C A - --------._ S 2nd St. ._ c CD S 2nd St,. / , r— ----1 ee) CD. I 1 'glo r4 ,.., Fl C A 1 ,op-ci ,J..CDu CO C oo _Lr --,,,,,,a; CD orA vid ›, 1.4 CA ' S 3rd St. CD- CD.,4 -- ce) , -h.j.....,. UI 4. 1;*-- n A , : , CD:5 CD.r4 CD v, I CD I -71a) .5.y..9 , kr-1 S 3rd: Pl. , 0 :: 1$.9 7-----Z ----- CD CD(P) ' 0 CD YU1 CD'gCD 9 CD CD - ,,,, CD CDC1 CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD ,111 CD,u) r tPe.; C A Tr CD:I, 6 co ›- ri 1 - • CD ,./ X M A ..< CA .4 CO ' Agg irg tt gl .. _ ci ,.: cD(.75) cc C A ----- ,,. rn ::: 1 . i_ 1 1 I .' .': 1 X k" X *- X : ct 'Q) 1 .-1 •- x, - i T ff, cD A CA f ,-1-1 cg LC : CC •airz: 7\ c A A 7-1100 t cli a13:,:‘, \ --Ico i CA cifi . CA Cy/ -------77E1\ , - /, A \- CA G3 - 19 T23N R5E E 1/24?. ? EXHIBITZ - --- Renton dity Lbnite 1:4800 1+*6+ ONitcmIG icAL sEavicEs 18 T23N R5E 4 4\---/0 02/28/07 southcountyjournal.com-R -- 'on lures homeowners downtown - City aives mitigation, p.. Page 1 of 2 pal 4. c vo ,,,..,..,..., „lir Tv Y, Jtfu imh.AH , , 4.,_,„ _ „, „T.- ;IP,,4-,:['.,-,•,,::: F1: ,,!'ii4,-,1,i„ S C w online ly." . c'a Local news ou h unt ureal or i i 3 �"i: R i :faRenton lures homeowners downtown - City waives ,� 4 i,,, , , � mitigation, permit fees for developers jg €i t -, = � r. 2001-08-14 ,0 �4:: by Wendy Giroux -,k,,A41"-'0''''',:,''." r, Esq e9 -' ��Journal Reporter c;i F 17-1111 -1e la >;��P'; . RENTON--City officials want more homeowners living in the i ti ,' downtown area,in condominiums and townhouses. ` , -,-.0 $ To that end,the City Council voted last night to waive mitigation - , t om. x fees and building permit fees on multi-family,owner-occupied ,, rt�_'`k' housing in the downtown area for three years. E Cla c "I think this is really going to satisfy a lot of people who live in x.Y r...y3��A town who always ask,why is it all apartments. said S'rn - t .,;,','''''''''Z'''', Councilwoman Toni Nelson at last night's finance committee 1 '`'.` 4` , meeting. Nome o till,. 5 sem<< ,-:., ° psi; 6 ' ; :e , Encouraging new,higher-density housing is key to the city's plan ° A; ',Z644',':&':,,-_‘� for revitalizing the downtown,said Sue Carlson,administrator of Ee-- .4". "" 3 economic development,neighborhoods and strategic planning. - °' kt. rf`- , The city will earn back the fees it waived through property tax, Real Estate Excise Tax and construction sales tax revenues within °f" €g about two years,Carlson estimated. rc4 � t�al° 07-�� -ek guild*� }, v "Because this is a for-sale product,we'll have a higher return on that type of tax.This will create some incentive for developers,"she said. I'. Census' iI iigrmatinn The waived fees would take some of the risk out of building condos and townhouses,which may be slower to sell because the market for such housing hasn't yet been established. The proposed"incentive district" would have defined boundaries, last about three years and be reviewed each year by the council. Several developers,including Centex Homes,have approached the city about building row houses,townhouses and condos downtown. Centex has two parcels under option but has not closed the sale on either property.A company official told the city that while they believe condos in downtown Renton will sell,there's no available ,EXHIBIT err sales data to show it would be a good investment,Carlson said. 5 http://southcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/62991 8/14/2001 southcountyjournal.com-Renton '-res homeowners downtown - City waivPc mitigation, p.. Page 2 of 2 An estimate on one of the possible developments shows that about $98,570 in fees would be waived on a 37-unit project,but that the city would receive about$110,340 in tax revenue for a net revenue Nied of about$11,770. The average price of the units being considered is about$270,000, and a marketing analysis showed a typical buyer would likely have a higher-than-average income and either be single or a couple with no children. "We do want to establish a market for people living in the downtown as opposed to renting,"Carlson said. Developers like Dally Homes have built or been issued permits to build 457 new rental apartment units since 1997. Another of the city council's goals is to maintain an even balance of rented homes and owner-occupied homes city-wide. Wendy Giroux covers Renton.She can be reached at wendy.giroux@southcountyjournal.com or 253-872-6683. South County Journal 600 South Washington, Kent WA 98032 ;,, Hours:Monday-Friday 8:00am to 5:00pm Phone: 253-872-6600 Fax:253-854-1006 All materials Copyright©2001 Horvitz Newspapers,Inc. Any questions?See our contact page. http://southcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/62991 8/14/2001 Estimated Waived Fees for The Chelsea, LUA07-023 513 South Second St 24 condominium units (fees calculated as a mixed-use/multi-family development) FEE COST Fire Mitigation $9,312.00 Transportation Mitigation 10,650.00 Parks Mitigation 8,508.24 Impact Fees $28,470.24 Water System Development $2,162.16 Wastewater System Dev. $1,124.64 Surface Water Fee $1,983.26 System Development $5,270.00 Public Works Plan Review $2,340.00 Building Plan Review 7,789.21 Plan Review $10,129.21 Construction Peiiuit unknown at this time Igo" Building Permit $11,983.40 Partial Permit Subtotal* $11,983.40 Total $55,852.85 Total estimated fees per unit requested to be waived = $2,327.20 EXHIBIT 6 c Estimated Fees for Blakey Townhomes, LUA07-028 604 and 604-1/2 Morris Ave S 5 condominium units (fees assessed for"single family attached" units) FEE COST Fire Mitigation $2,440.00 Transportation Mitigation $1,479.75 Parks Mitigation $1,772.55 Impact Fees $5,692.30 Water System Development $7,824.00 Wastewater System Dev. $4,068.00 Surface Water Fee $3,036.00 System Development $14,928.00 Public Works Plan Review $565.00 Building Plan Review 4,455.05 Plan Review $5,020.05 Construction Permit $16,343.00 Building Permit 14,421.20 Permits $30,764.20 Total $56,404.55 Total estimated fees per unit requested to be waived = $11,280.91 EXHIBIT 7 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL , e, Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 9/17/07 Noe /17/07 rr Dept/Div/Board.. Hearing Examiner Staff Contact Fred J. Kaufman, ext. 6515 Agenda Status Consent • X Subject: Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Latecomer Agreement Appeal Ordinance File No. LA-06-002 Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation Study Sessions Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept Council Concur Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... N/A Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. I SUMMARY OF ACTION: � The hearing was held on July 31, 2007. The Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation on the a" Latecomers Agreement Appeal was published on August 14, 2007. The appeal period ended on August 28, 2007. No appeals were filed. The Examiner recommends including the appellant's property in the latecomer agreement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:. Approve the Latecomers Agreement Appeal recommendation as outlined in the Examiner's Report and Recommendation. Nisoe Rentonnet/agnbil/ bh August 14, 2007 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION APPELLANT: Cynthia Green for Norma J. Randal 5008 NE 2°a Street Renton,WA 98059 Latecomers Agreement Appeal LA-06-002, LLA PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written requests for a hearing and examining available information on file,the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the July 31, 2007 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, July 31, 2007, at 9:04 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. err The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Staff file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: The City Clerk's file(Blue)by appeal letter and site information,by reference. reference. Exhibit No.3: Packet presented by the Assistant City Exhibit No.4: Photo showing Ms. Green standing in Attorney corner of front yard facing NE 7th Street. Exhibit No 5: Photo showing the front of the house Exhibit No. 6: Same photo as Exhibit 4,but without Ms. Green. Exhibit No. 7: Layout diagram of the Vineyards Exhibit No. 8: Diagram showing more detail of Development Exhibit 7 Parties Present: Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney, City of Renton Dave Christensen, Utility Engineering Supervisor Cynthia Green and Norman Green, Appellants Cliff Williams, Representing the Vineyards ,,: Ms.Nielsen opened by stating they would like to clarify that the specific issue before the Examiner is governed under RMC 955,in particular C and after speaking to the appellants it is her understanding that they are Latecomers Agreement Appeal LA-06-002,LLA August 14,2007 Page 2 NotiO proceeding under the Benefit prong, which comes under Sub 3 sub c. A copy of which was provided to the Examiner. Norman Green, 5008 NE 2"d Street,Renton 98059 stated that he spoke with the City Attorney and they are not challenging the amount,the challenge has to do with the benefit and methodology of that. Cynthia Green, 5008 NE 2nd Street, Renton 98058 stated that this appeal is based on what they perceive to be as the lack of benefit to the property. The geography of her mother's property does not make the connection to the extension practical. It is impractical, there is an existing sewer main on Field Avenue, one parcel south of her property, which potentially would be available and connecting to that one geographically would be far simpler. Her mother stated that she first had knowledge of this because of a letter she received dated April 16, 2007. They filed an appeal on behalf of her mother but still remain unsure of the City's policy and procedure to determine the benefiting properties for sewer assessment. They believed that the assessment would result only to those properties where the sewer main extended the entire frontage of the property. They now understand that you can actually access a sewer from just one corner of the property. If the sewer were to be extended further along NE 7th the cost of the extension along her mother's property could be born once again and any extension of sewer along Field Ave would also be eligible for an assessment against her mother's property when and if that were to occur. At the northwest corner of the property on NE 7th Place is where the sewer line terminates. There is a significant variation in elevation between the property and the road. The actual property frontage on Field Avenue is level with the surface of the road and that would be the logical sewer connection given the opportunity to connect to a sewer. There also is an existing sewer main just one parcel south of this property on Field Avenue, she believed ,4100 that there would be some development and proposed future development of sewer extensions. After some discussion with Staff and looking at the property, it is apparent that the sewer line was made beyond the normal requirement to serve the Vineyards development. There is no basis to object or challenge the amount of the assessment, it is unclear of the methodology used by the developer to provide for equal fees from all properties, including the properties that are developer owned. Should this review come to a conclusion that their appeal is not justified, they would like to see the Latecomers assessment methodology be based on the construction cost of that portion of the sewer extension beyond the developer's property. Number 438 is the last manhole at the developer's property. They further understand that the proposed Latecomers assessment carries with it an interest obligation of some amount and at some rate unknown to them. Ann Nielsen objected and moved the strike the last comment. Today's hearing is solely on the benefit only and not regarding the cost. This assessment would not be assessed until such time that the appellants connect, it is wholly the choice of each property owner as to whether they connect. Should their septic system fail,they would have to connect to the sewer,but not necessarily this particular connection. Field may in fact be a better connection for them. The Examiner inquired into the possibility that these people could be assessed multiple times. Would the cost be based on this Latecomer or would there be another fee based on extending the line to the east? Dave Christensen, City of Renton,Wastewater Utility Supervisor stated that they would only pay one assessment. There may be multiple assessments that ride on the property,but until the facility they connect to and they benefit from then at that time they would pay the appropriate fee. As a corner lot with a single house Latecomers Agreement Appeal LA-06-002, LLA August 14,2007 Page 3 on it, it could only be subject to a single fee. After a period of 15 years runs after the recording and acceptance fees are paid, should the homeowner then decide to connect,there would be no fee, it is presumed at that point that the system has paid for itself and there is no fee attached to connecting to the system. Mr. Green does challenge the methodology used by the City to determine the benefit to the properties and being able to determine that benefit to the property has to include how that benefit is distributed among the properties, not the cost of how it is done,but the methodology on how it is done. The Examiner stated that it is a fine line,the benefit is obviously the property would have sewer service if it connected. The fact of the number of homes that gain the benefit makes the distribution different. The more homes the benefit would vary up or down,that seems to be a valid basis. There was a change in methodology and that was part of the original packet and was available to all parties prior to appeal hearing. Mr. Green stated that he did not receive any kind of packet of information. The Examiner stated that it was in the City file, and if an appeal was filed, the appellant has the right to review the file for all pertinent information. Mr. Green continued that his mother-in-law indicated that she had not received any other information regarding this issue. Neither the developer nor the City contacted her prior to the construction to inform her of the decision to extend the sewer main beyond the development and the impact that extension would have on her property. Nifty Upon questioning by Ms.Nielsen, Ms. Green stated that she did not currently reside at the property in question. The house is a rental. The house is currently on a septic system and they believe that the house would remain on the septic system. They have no intentions at this time to connect to the Vineyards Latecomer sewer line. In all probability if they were to connect to a sewer line, they would choose to connect to the line in Field Avenue. The sewer connection designated as "437"is accessible to the property but impractical. It is their contention that the difference in elevation between the two connections is significant and that the benefit is relevant to the cost incurred to connect to the sewer. If it cost more to put the sewer in than the benefit it extends, then there is no benefit. Ms. Nielsen moved to dismiss for a lack of case or controversy. The appellants have indicated that they are currently running on septic,they have no intention of connecting to what is currently known as the Vineyards Latecomers Agreement. The assessment would come into being only at such time as the appellant would decide to connect to a sewer system. The Examiner stated that he disagreed, their septic could fail, or the City may change its ordinance and require people to hook up and abandon septic systems. He believes there is a case and controversy at the moment. Dave Christensen stated that he would be keeping his comments strictly to the concept of benefit. The extension did not come across the full front of the property on NE 7th Place. A sewer line merely has to be directly available for connection in order for a benefit to be received. The subject property from manhole 437 has a stub that is provided. If they prefer to connect to the stub in Field Avenue NE, the City has no objection with them doing that. If they chose through an extension of their own to make a connection to Field Avenue then the Latecomer from manhole 437 would not be triggered. They would pay whatever fees are due and owing on the ftsie facility that was constructed in Field Avenue NE. In regards to topographical challenges, gravity is available, their concern has to do with side slope that runs along NE 7th Place,his experience would not find this to be a Latecomers Agreement Appeal LA-06-002, LLA August 14, 2007 Page 4 Ned major challenge, in some ways it is easier because they can lay the sewer at a much shallower depth because there is good gravity service available, it would only require a 36-inch deep trench. Cliff Williams,Vineyards Construction,PO Box 2401, Kirkland,WA 98083 stated that he would like to clarify a couple of items. This sewer extension was done in two phases;phase one the sewer came up from the existing sewer manhole and up Duvall Place NE in order to develop properties that they owned, at the end of December 2006 they began work on the extension. They owned Lot 6 and had no intention of subdividing Lot 6,they were going to put one house on the lot and service this house from the sewer that had just been installed. While they had ownership of Lot 6, it was not a part of the short plat development. If a home was to be built on Lot 6, they would be required to extend the main along Lot 6, which would require the sewer being extended up along NE 7t. The City encouraged them to extend the sewer to the furthest end that it could ever be extended on NE 7th . They have been told they must extend the sewer along all frontage even though it is not needed along NE 7`i'. In the end they did hook up to the sewer in NE 7th because it was more convenient. Lot 22 is also on a corner,and if a property is responsible for the sewer extension along its full frontage then Lot 22 (the Green/Randall lot) would fall into the same category. It appears that the septic field is located in the back of that lot and it would be very easy to make a connection to the sewer through the back yard. There is no project for sewer extension in Field Avenue at this time. The extension is taking place north of 7th Place. 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 10:15 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellant, Norma J. Randall,represented by her daughter Cynthia Green filed an appeal of a decision by the City to an assessment for a Latecomer Agreement for a sewer extension. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. 2. The appellant's property is located at 733 Field Avenue NE in the City of Renton. The property is located on the southwest corner of Field Avenue NE and NE 7th Place (SE 121st Street,King County designation). 3. The appellant's property is currently served by an on-site septic system. It appears that that system functions adequately. 4. Cliff Williams,representing Vineyards Construction,LLC,the applicant for the Latecomer Agreement that would encumber the appellant's property developed a plat northwest of the appellant's property. At the City's request he extended the sewer needed by his plat to the east along NE 7th Place. 5. The sewer line runs along NE 7th Place and terminates at the western edge of the appellant's property. 6. The appellant argues that there is no benefit to her property from the proposed sewer line. The Latecomers Agreement Appeal LA-06-002, LLA August 14, 2007 Page 5 arguments are that the line terminates north of the western edge of the appellant's property,that the line is too deep and the angle to steep to serve the property. 7. According to City staff,a sewer connection from the line in NE 7th Place can be provided to the appellant's property. There is a stub from the main line to the corner of the appellant's property. It does not have to extend the full length of the appellant's property nor does it have to reach as far east as Field Avenue NE. Gravity feed would work from the appellant's property to the sewer line and the angle and depth of the line would not create any physical connection problems. 8. The appellant would not be required to connect to the sewer unless they wanted to do so or if the septic system failed and health conditions warranted a connection. 9. The assessment for the line would be$10,540.93. The assessment would only be charged the appellant if the appellant hooks up to the sewer line. 10. Some additional issues that were raised and clarified. These include the following: -If the line were extended further to the east,the assessment fee would not be changed or increased for the appellant. -If a sewer line were extended along the eastern edge of the property, in Field Avenue,the appellant could freely choose to hook up to that line,paying whatever rate was attached to that line, if it were built. -At the current time, there is no plan to extend a line along Field east of the appellant's property. -The latecomer agreement runs for 15 years. After that time,there would be no latecomer assessment if the appellant connected to the sewer(although other charges may be applicable) 11. The appeal letter did not challenge the assessment amount,the distribution method or assessment method. 12. The applicable criteria for an appeal of a latecomer assessment is contained in Section 9-5-5: "C. Appeal: 1. Within twenty(20)days of the date of the mailing, any property owner may submit an appeal in writing to the City Council, do City Clerk. An appeal must include a statement of claimed errors concerning the proposed assessment, and must be accompanied by a seventy five dollar($75.00)nonrefundable fee. Errors, which are not set forth in writing and which do not adhere to the criteria listed below will not be considered. 2. Objections by a benefiting property owner to the recording of a potential assessment against their property does not constitute a valid appeal. 3. Errors identified in an appeal must be related to cost,methodology for cost distribution,or benefit to the property as described below: a. Cost: If the benefiting property owner contests these costs,he or she must provide a basis for the claimed discrepancy, such as an estimate from a contractor or other reliable source. (Amd. Ord.4890, 2-5-01) b. Costs Methodology: If the benefiting property owner contests the cost methodology used,they have to show why it is not equitable and provide their suggested alternate method of assessment and the justification for Now its use in place of the staff recommended method. c. Benefit: If a benefiting property owner contests benefit,he or she must provide a statement or documentation on why a particular parcel has no Latecomers Agreement Appeal t+ LA-06-002, LLA August 14, 2007 Page 6 future potential benefit. (Amd. Ord.4890, 2-5-01) 4. Upon receipt of an appeal and the required fee,the City Clerk shall transmit the appeal and the official file to the City Council.The City Council may delegate to the Hearing Examiner the responsibility to hold a public hearing, establish the record and provide a written report containing a recommendation to the City Council.Following the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner shall issue a written recommendation which is mailed to parties of record.Pursuant to City Code Section 4-8-15 any party of record may request reconsideration within fourteen(14) days of the issuance of the Hearing Examiner's report. Following expiration of the reconsideration period,the Hearing Examiner shall submit his written recommendation to the City Council on the Council meeting agenda for concurrence.The City Council shall concur with, alter or deny the Hearing Examiner's recommendation." CONCLUSIONS: 1. The criteria for appealing a latecomer assessment demonstrates that the appellant has not shown that the property would not benefit from the installation of a sewer line in NE 7th Place. The appellant alleged that the property did not or could not reasonably benefit from the latecomer agreement because the line did not run the length of the appellant's north property line and that the sewer line was either too deep or access too steep but failed to demonstrate that either issue would potentially prevent a reasonable connection to the line covered by the latecomer agreement. 2. The record reveals that a connection from the appellant's property to the sewer line is possible from the easternmost manhole and that a stub was provided for just this purpose. 3. The record further reveals that a gravity connection from the appellant's property would not be hampered by either the depth of the sewer line or the possible steepness of the grade from the appellant's property to the sewer line. 4. The appellant's desire to hookup to a potential line along the eastern property line(Field Avenue NE) would not be thwarted by inclusion in the assessment roll. If such a line in Field were constructed the appellant could hook up to that as an alternative. 5. Clearly, until the appellant makes use of the line there will be no need to pay any fee to hookup. But the line would and could benefit the property if the septic system failed or the appellant chose to use the sewer. 6. The appellant has failed to show that there is no potential benefit from the sewer line covered by the latecomer agreement as required by Ordinance. Therefore,the City Council should include the appellant's property in the latecomer agreement. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should include the appellant's property in the latecomer agreement. Latecomers Agreement Appeal LA-06-002, LLA August 14, 2007 Page 7 ORDERED THIS 14th day of August 2007. FRED J.KA HEARING E INER TRANSMITTED THIS 14th day of August 2007 to the parties of record: Ann Nielsen Cynthia&Norman Green Cliff Williams Assistant City Attorney 5008 NE 2nd Street Vineyards Construction City of Renton Renton, WA 98058 PO Box 2401 Kirkland, WA 98083 Dave Christensen Norma J. Randal Utilities Engineering Supervisor 622 Nile Road City of Renton Naches, WA 98937 TRANSMITTED THIS 14th day of August 2007 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Mark Peterson,Fire Marshal Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Meckling,Building Official Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Planning Commission Airy 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 King County Journal 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.,August 28, 2007. 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. 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$75.00 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.,August 28, 2007. 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. Noise 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 Latecomers Agreement Appeal LA-06-002,LLA August 14, 2007 Page 8 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. CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON 400,0, ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADDING A SUBSECTION 4-3-050C5D.iv TO THE TABLE ENTITLED "EXEMPT ACTIVITIES PERMITTED WITHIN CRITICAL AREAS AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS" TO CHAPTER 3 "ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND OVERLAY DISTRICTS" OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON TO ADD AN EXCEPTION FOR STORM WATER PIPING IN A GEOLOGIC HAZARD AREA. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L Section 4- 3-05005d of the Table entitled `Exempt Activities Permitted Within Critical Areas and Associated Buffers" of Chapter 3 "Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts" is hereby amended by adding a subsection iv to read as Nobly follows: Storm Drainage Piping: Installation of new storm drainage lines in any geologic hazard area when a geotechnical report clearly demonstrates that the installation would comply with the criteria listed in RMC 4-3-050J2b and that the instillation would be consistent with each of the purposes of the geologic hazard regulations listed in RMC 4-3-050A4. Also, to qualify for the exemption, the report must propose appropriate mitigation for any potential impacts identified in the report. SECTION IL The Table modified in Section I above shall be further modified in Section 5d10 by adding an "X" to the column headed Geologic Hazard. SECTION III. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after its publication ltigo 1 ORDINANCE NO. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2007. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2007. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney ORD.13 80:08/17/07:ch 2 APPROVED BY -1 CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COMMITTEEE REPORT Date 9- /7-01007 September 17, 2007 Downtown Wayfinding System Manufacture and Installation Contract (Referred September 10, 2007) The Committee of the Whole recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign a contract with Sea Reach Ltd. for$221,180.00 to manufacture and install the prioritized components of the Downtown Wayfinding System that will improve the system of signage into and around Downtown. The Committee further recommends that a Public Meeting be set for October 15, 2007 to discuss the Wayfinding System design and color scheme. Air Toni Nelson, Council Presi a ent cc: Alex Pietsch,EDNSP Administrator Suzanne Dale Estey,Economic Development Director Mike Bailey,Finance Administrator Jennifer Davis Hayes,EDNSP Community Development Project Manager APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Dat® 9-0'a°07 COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT September 17, 2007 Airport Advisory Committee Appointments (September 10, 2007) The Community Services Committee recommends concurrence in Mayor Keolker's appointments to the Airport Advisory Committee: Todd Banks (Airport-at-Large alternate position) for a term expiring on May 7, 2010, and Matthew Devine (Talbot Hill Neighborhood alternate position) for a term expiring on May 7, 2008. •andy CormaniChair ?)7C2IAV Yed/041_,(__ Marcie Palmer, Vice Chair / ' Terri Briere, M ber C: Ryan Zulauf Rev 1/06 bh doped r C'ouner'vi � y O ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, C , NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC • ,� PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: September 5, 2007 TO: Toni Nelson, Council President Members of the City Council CC: ,ot!' , Mayor Kathy Keolker f� FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator 1)re SUBJECT: Public Review Process for the Proposed Design Features, Cluster Allowances, and Tree Retention Ordinances The proposed tree ordinance, architectural standards, R-4 cluster, and animal regulations were adopted unanimously via two Planning &Development Committee reports on June 25, 2007. 1) The tree ordinance provides for new regulations for retaining and replacing trees when land development occurs and modifying the thresholds for tree cutting permits for tree removal on developed properties. 2) The architectural standards create a very limited set of building standards that would apply only in the R-1, R-4, and R-8 zones. These standards address decorative trim around windows, eave projection standards,roof types, garage entry, and front entryway standards. The proposed regulations setting architectural standards are not a full set of design guidelines,but address only this focused set of minimum standards regulating the appearance of buildings. 3) The R-4 cluster provisions allow clustering to occur through the R-4 zone rather than only within 600 feet of the R-8 zone, as stipulated in the existing code. Requirements for open space and allowances for smaller lots sizes within the clusters to help create the open space are not changed. Critical areas are allowed to count as eligible open space. The maximum density in the R-4 zone is not changed. 4) The proposed animal regulations change the maximum number of large animals from one to two,but keep the minimum land area required as one acre. The regulations also change the process to review requests for more than the permitted number of animals from a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use to an Administrative Conditional Use. In addition, the non-conforming status of animals is allowed to be vested with the land, rather then expire when an animal dies or is replaced. These amendments originated as follow-up to recommendations of the East Renton Plateau Citizen Task Force. The work program started as an"emergency ordinance" in the referral, but when the Preserve Our Plateau Annexation(POPA) election failed, work was slowed h:\ednsp\title iv\general\tree retention\2007\cover memo re public involvement.doc Toni Nelson,Council Presic Page 2 of 2 September 5,2007 down and more time was taken to review the issues. The City received substantive comment only on the tree ordinance and architectural features proposals. The Master Builders Association(MBA) and several independent builders participated in the review of these proposals. The MBA staff supported the R-4 cluster changes without comment but did provide comments on both the tree and architectural features ordinance at the Planning Commission level. Changes in the tree proposal made by the Commission appear to address the concerns of the MBA, and no further comments were generated on this ordinance at the Planning and Development Committee level. However, the architectural features ordinance was amended in response to comments by the Planning and Development Committee. The Committee established a menu of features from which developers can choose to implement these requirements. In the current proposal the developer must meet 4 of 5 possible standards. The broader subject of design guidelines is a larger work program that is still on the docket for review. Work on this topic will require significant input from the public and the development community. A description and timeline of the process to date is presented in Attachment 1, History and Public Involvement. The MBA's and other organizations' comments were incorporated into the proposal. The ordinances as drafted reflect input received through May, June, and July 2007. Attachment 2, Progression of the Proposal, shows the progression of the proposal as input was received and considered. h:\ednsp\title iv\general\tree retention\2007\cover memo re public involvement.doc • Attachment 1: History and Public Involvement Comments from the MBA were considered at several points in the process: • November 5, 2006: Initial Meeting 17 builders and Mr. Huffman were invited to discuss the concerns and issues of design in new construction in R-4 and R-8 zones. The meeting was held in the Conferencing Center and was well attended. • February 26, 2007: Public Hearing on Initial Proposal at City Council MBA commented and raised issues. • March 7, March 21, and April 4, 2007: Planning Commission Work Sessions Mr. Huffman requested an opportunity for MBA comment on proposals on March 7, 2007, following up on the Public Hearing at the City Council meeting. The Planning Commission agreed to provide a forum for the MBA. Mr. Huffman and two other members: John Norris of Norris Homes and Evan Johnson of Wescott Homes prepared and presented a panel discussion on tree regulations and design/architectural standards proposals. Mr. Huffman submitted material from the National Association of Homebuilders on best practices in Tree Preservation. Mr. Norris discussed specific building materials related to fascia and trim detail. Staff sat in the audience. • April 4, 2007: Planning Commission Regular Meeting Staff presented a revised proposal that reflected issues presented during the panel discussion. Both tree and development standards affecting design were amended to reflect input. Staff did further research on industry standards for trim and fascia widths and cost. The Commission adopted the regulations that night. Two commissioners, Mr. Cho and Mr. Shearer, were absent and one, Mr. Taylor, abstained. The proposal was approved 2-1 with five members present and the chair not voting. Commissioner Osborn voted against the motion because she supported the staff recommendation rather than the Commission's amended version. • April 9, 2007: E-mail to Kevin Wyman, member of the MBA and former member of East Renton Plateau Citizens Task Force • April 23, 2007: Meeting and Site Visit with Kevin Wyman Staff gathered input regarding architectural standards. • May 10, May 17, and June 7, 2007: Planning & Development Committee Meetings Mr. Huffman signed in on May 17, 2007, and requested a menu of choices on architectural features. • June 21, 2007: Planning &Development Committee Meeting The proposal was revised to reflect Mr. Huffman's request for a menu and copies were made available. The Planning &Development Committee signed the report. Mr. Huffman telephoned, inquiring about the report and meeting. Staff sent email to Mr. Huffman with the menu style recommendation for architectural features attached. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\General\Tree Retention\2007\Cover Memo re Public Involvement Att 1.doc • June 28, 2007: Meeting with Mr. Huffman and representatives from Quadrant Homes and American Classic Homes Comments were incorporated into architectural feature language that did not affect content (notation regarding nominal treatment for trim and optional 5-foot setback for garage can be measured from a porch). A further opportunity for additional comment was provided with a July 5, 2007 deadline. • July 5, 2007 No additional input received. • July 17, 2007: Phone call from Mr. Huffman to Assistant Planner, Angie Mathias Mr. Huffman inquired as to input received from Quadrant Homes or American Classic Homes. He was informed that nothing was received. A subsequent email was received from Mr. Huffman forwarding comments from Mr. Tien Peng of Quadrant Homes (see attachment). The majority of these comments were outside the limited scope of the proposed amendments and more pertinent to a larger design guidelines work program. Clarification was added to the ordinance stipulating that a fascia gutter combination, which is a standard manufactured product, could be used to meet the required standard. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\General\Tree Retention\2007\Cover Memo re Public Involvement Att 1.doc Attachment 2: Progression of the Proposal Initial Architectural Features Requirements: o Roof o Decorative hip or gabled roof with a pitch at least one to two o Trim o Decorative trim measuring at least four inches on all windows and doors o Eaves and Fascia o Eaves projecting at least eighteen inches on at least seventy-five percent of the building with fascia measuring at least ten inches Architectural Features Requirements, as amended by the Planning Commission: o Roofs o Decorative hip or gabled roof with a pitch at least one to two o Shed roof o Trim o Decorative trim measuring at least four inches on all windows and doors o Eaves and Fascia o Eaves projecting at least twelve inches on at least seventy-five percent of the building with fascia measuring at least eight inches Architectural Features Requirement, as amended with input by the Planning and Development Committee, the request from MBA to develop a menu, and further input from MBA: 1. Roofs a. Decorative hip or gabled with a pitch greater than one to two (1:2) b. Shed roof c. Other decorative roof that creates visual appeal 2. Decorative Trim* a. Trim that measures at least four inches (4") surrounding all windows and detailing all doors b. Shutters and/or four inches (4") trim on all windows and four inches (4") trim detailing all doors 3. Eaves with Fascia* a. Eaves projecting from the roof of the entire building at least fifteen inches (15") with horizontal fascia or fascia gutter at least eight inches (8") deep on the face of all eaves. b. Eaves projecting from the roof of the entire building at least twelve inches (12") with horizontal fascia or fascia gutter at least eight inches (8") deep on the face of all eaves. In addition, at least two (2) different building materials are used on at least thirty percent (30%) of the total front façade. (For example, stone along the bottom portion of the front facade with hardie plank on the top.) H:\EDNSP\Title IV\General\Tree Retention\2007\Cover Memo re Public Involvement Att 2.doc 4. Garage a. Recessed from the front of the house and/or covered front porch at least five feet (5')** b. Alley accessed o Entry does not face a street o Represents no greater than 50% of the front facade at ground level c. Detached and no closer than six feet(6') to nearest point of primary structure 5. Covered Front Entryway a. Front porch measuring at least four feet (4')x six feet(6') that is covered, but not enclosed. b. Front entryway measuring at least four feet (4') x six feet(6') that is covered, but not enclosed. * Measurements for the four inches (4")window and/or door trim and the eight inches (8") fascia are nominal sizes. It is understood that the actual measurements of standard lumber is 3 1/2 inches for 4" boards and 7 1/4 inches for 8" boards. ** If using the recessed garage, the five feet can be counted from the front of a covered front porch, but not a covered front entryway. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\General\Tree Retention\2007\Cover Memo re Public Involvement Att 2.doc