Loading...
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