HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_HEX_Final_Decision_Upon_Reconsideration_Cedar_Ridge_Church_Expansion_170908.,
• I ' .
Denis Law Mayor @
City Clerk -Jason A. Seth, CMC
September 8, 2017
Peter Harvard
Gabbert Architects Planners
20011 Ballinger Way NE, #211
Shoreline, WA 98155
Subject: Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon Reconsideration
RE: Cedar Ridge Church Expansion (LUA-16-000128)
Dear Mr. Harvard:
Enclosed please find the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon Reconsideration dated
September 6, 2017.
I can be reached at {425) 430-6510 or jseth@rentonwa.gov. Thank you.
Sincerely,
W,µ
Jason A. Seth, CMC
City Clerk
cc: Hearing Examiner
Jill Ding, Senior Planner
Jennifer Henning, Planning Director
Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager
Craig Burnell, Building Official
Jennifer Cisneros, Secretary, Planning Of vision
Julia Medzegian, City Council liaison
Parties of Record (5)
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • (425) 430-6510 I Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l l
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Cedar Ridge Church Expansion
Conditional Uses and Variance
)
)
) FINAL DECISION UPON
) RECONSIDERATION
)
)
)
LUAl6-000l28, ECF, CU-H, V-A ) _______________ )
SUMMARY
Upon reconsideration, the Applicant's February 8, 2017 request for reconsideration is
approved .. given new evidence that the Applicant's request is consistent with past interpretations of
staff of RMC conditional use provisions.
BACKGROUND
A Final Decision on the above-captioned matter was issued on January 25, 2017. By letter
dated February 8, 2017, the Applicant requested reconsideration on the basis that "We request a 5-
year maximum approval period, rather than the standard 2 years, renewable for 2 more years." City
staff requested that the hearing examiner delay issuance of a decision on the reconsideration request
to provide time to issue a formal interpretation on City development standards that govern the
expiration dates of conditional use permits. The examiner granted the request. A formal
interpretation, Interpretation CI-113, was issued on March 9, 2017. The appeal period for the
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION -l
I i
I
interpretation request ended April 7, 2017. No appeals were filed. On April 10, 2017, an Order on
2 Reconsideration Request was issued and distributed to the parties of record to give them an
3 opportunity to comment on the applicant's request for reconsideration. That deadline for providing
4 comment was April 20, 2017 and no comments were submitted.
5 ANALYSIS
6 Giving the deference due to staff interpretations of conditional use standards, it is concluded
7 that the Applicant's request for expiration extension should be granted. Interpretation Cl-113
8 recognizes that there is some ambiguity in RMC 4-9-030(F)(8) and (9) regarding the authority of the
9 hearing examiner to extend the expiration period of conditional use permits beyond four years. The
IO interpretation states that it has been a matter of past practice to construe these provisions as
11 authorizing expirations to extend beyond four years. This information was not previously in the
12 record and is appropriately considered after the close of the administrative record of the subject
13 applications because it is part of a formal City administrative interpretation subject to judicial notice
14 and that interpretation has been distributed to the parties of record for comment. In interpreting local
15 ordinances, RCW 36.70C. l 40(b) requires a court on judicial appeal to allow "for such deference as is
16 due the construction of a law by a local jurisdiction with expertise." For deference to be "due," a
I 7 local entity interpreting an ambiguous local ordinance bears the burden to show its interpretation was
18 a matter of preexisting policy. Ellensburg Cement Products, Inc. v. Kittitas County, 179 Wash.2d
19 737 (2014). Giving that due deference to the City's prior interpretations of its permit expiration
20 provisions, it is concluded that they can be interpreted as authorizing permit extensions beyond four
21 years.
22 The applicant gave no reason for requesting a five year permit term with two year extension.
23 In the absence of any justification, the request would normally be denied. However, it is recognized
24 that the applicant is a church and thereby it is reasonably assumed that the applicant works under
25 more challenging financing conditions than a typical private developer. For these reasons, the request
26 is deemed to be based upon good cause and the request is granted.
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION -2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DECISION
The Applicant's February 8, 2017 request for reconsideration is granted. The expiration
period for the conditional use permit application approved by the Hearing Examiner under LUA16-
000128 is extended to five years. The issuance date for the Final Decision of the variance and
conditional use permit applications of LUA 16-000128 shall be the issuance date of this decision for
purposes of appeal.
DATED this 6th day of September, 2017.
I
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type Ill applications
subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the hearing
examiner's decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the decision.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION -3