Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
HEX Decision_16-000734
CC1BEFORETHEHEARINGEXAMINERFORTHECITYOFRENTONRE:4242EastValleyRoad)5FINDINGSOFFACT,CONCLUSIONSOFLAWANDRECOMMENDATION6Rezone)7)LUA16-000734)8)910I.SUMMARY1112Theapplicanthasappliedforarezoneof0.89acresat4242EastValleyRoadfromCommercialOfficetoCommercialArterial.ItisrecommendedthattheCityCouncilapprovetherequestedrezoneand13extendtheCommercialArterialrezonetoasurroundingareathattotals8.81acresandisallalsocurrentlyzonedCommercialOffice.Extendingtherezonetosurroundingareaswillavoidapproving14whatcouldpotentiallybeanillegalspotzone.Extendingtherezonewillalsomaketheotherpropertiesintheareamoreconforming,asnumeroususesintherecommendedrezoneareaarecurrentlyretail,15whichisnotauthorizedinthecurrentlyapplicableCommercialOfficezone.Thefewofficeusesin16therezoneareawouldnotberenderednonconformingasaresultoftherezone,sinceofficeusesarealsopermittedintheCommercialArterialzone.1718II.TESTIMONY19PaulHintz,Rentonseniorplanner,summarizedtheproposal.Mr.Hintzstatedthatstaff’sprimary20recommendationisforadoptionofOption3inthestaffreport(extendingtherequestedrezoneto8.8121acres)anditssecondaryrecommendationisforadoptionofOption2(extendingtherezoneto3.59acres).Inresponsetoexaminerquestions,Mr.HintznotedthatbothOptions2and3wouldnotcreate22anynonconforminguses.OfficesarepermittedusesintheCommercialArterialzone.Mr.Hintzcouldnotcommentontrafficimpactsbytherezone.Hewasn’tawareofanylevelofserviceproblemswith23thetransportationfacilitiesintherezoneareasunderconsideration.Inresponsetoexaminerquestionsaboutchangesincircumstances,Mr.Hintztestifiedthatit’shisunderstandingthatsquattingand24vandalisminthevacantbuildingoftheapplicant’spropertyisarecentdevelopmentoccurringoverthe25lastfewyears.Henotedthatanotherchangeincircumstancesisachangeinmarketforcesthathasmadetheapplicant’spropertylessdesirableforofficeuse.Mr.Hintzdidn’tknowwhentheapplicant’s26RezoneRecommendation-1 001propertywaslastrezoned.Mr.Hintzisn’tawareofanyothervacantbuildingsinthevicinityofthe2applicant’sproperty.Thebuildinghasbeenvacantforfouryears.Nooneelsetestified.4III.EXHIBITS5The9exhibitsidentifiedatpage3oftheNovember14,2016staffreportwereadmittedintotherecordduringthehearing.TheNovember14,2016staffreportwasadmittedasExhibit10.Thestaffpower6pointwasadmittedasExhibit11.7$IV.FINDINGSOFFACT9Procedural:101.Applicant/Owner.KayaHasanogluistheapplicant/owner.Theapplicant/owner’saddress11is2125iAye,No.2105,Seattle,WA98121.122.Hearing.AhearingonthesubjectapplicationswasheldonNovember15,2016intheRenton13CityCouncilmeetingchambers.14Substantive:153.ProjectDescription.Theapplicanthasappliedforarezoneof0.89acresat4242EastValley16RoadfromCommercialOffice(CO)toCommercialArterial(CA).Therezoneisrequestedtoallowretailuseswithinanexisting9,072squarefoottwo-storycommercialbuildingthathasbeenvacantfor17severalyears.TheCOzoningdistrictisgenerallyintendedtoallowprofessional,administrativeandbusinessoffices.TherequestedCAdesignationgenerallyprovidesforawide-varietyofretailsales,18services,andothercommercialactivitiesalonghigh-volumetrafficcorridors.1920Staffconsideredthreeoptionsinresponsetotheapplication(refertothemapbelowcopiedfromthestaffreport).Option1:rezoneofthesubjectsite(showninred)fromCOtoCA;Option2:rezoneof21thesubjectsiteandotherparcelswithintheblock(showningreen)fromCOtoCA;andOption3:rezoneofthesubjectsite(red),theotherparcelswithintheblock(green),andthethreeparcelswithin22theadjacentblocktothewestthatabutSW43FdStreet(showninyellow).23242526RezoneRecommendation-2 1234567$910111213141516171819204.SurroundingUses.ThepropertyislocatedalongthesouthernCityofRentonlimits,boundedbyaCity-ownedlotandbyWAStateRoute167totheeast,aCO-zonedpropertywithcommercialusestothenorth,EastValleyRoadtothewestfollowedbyablockofcommercialpropertieszonedCO,aswellasSW43tCStreetandcommercialpropertieslocatedintheCityofKenttothesouth.ThelocationofuseswithintheOptions2and3rezoneareasisidentifiedinthevicinitymapbelow,copiedfromthestaffreport.242526CC,Option1is0.89acresinsize,Option2is3.59acresandOption3is8.81acres.212223RezoneRecommendation-3 123456789101112131415161718A.BenefitsofRezoningApplicant’sProperty.RezoningtherequestedparceltoCAwouldenablethepropertyownertousethepropertyinamoreeconomicalmanner.ThepropertyhasremainedvacantforseveralyearswhilesurroundingpropertieszonedCAhavethrived.ThisdifferenceinoccupancyhasleadstafftoconcludethattheCOzonedoesnotauthorizeusesthataredesiredbyprospectivebusinesses.Further,asnotedinthestaffreport,vacantbuildingsaresubjecttosquatting,vandalismandtheft,whicharedeleterioustothepublic.Approvingtherezonewillalsoincreasetaxrevenues,whichisalsointhepublicinterest.B.BenefitsofOption2and3Rezone.AdoptingtheOption2and3rezoneswouldalsobebeneficialasitwoulddecreasethenumberofnonconformingusesinthoseareas.TheOption2and3areascontainnumerousretailusesthatarecurrentlynonconforming,likelybecausetheypredatetheCOzoning.AmendingthezoningdesignationsofOptions2and3wouldrenderthoseretailusesconforming,whichwouldenablethebusinessestomoreeasilyexpand,growandchange.By26005.ImpactsofRezone.Theproposedrezoneislikelytoresultinsignificantbenefitbyreducingnonconformingusesandenablingreasonableuseofdevelopedproperties.Thesebenefitsincreasewithincreasesinthesizeoftherezonearea.Nosignificantadverseimpactsareanticipatedfromanyoftherezones,exceptthatlimitingtherezonetotheapplicant’sparcelcouldresultinanillegalspotzoneasconcludedinConclusionofLawNo.6.Impactsaremorespecificallyaddressedasfollows:19202122232425RezoneRecommendation-4 CC1contrast,theofficeusesinOptions2and3wouldnotberenderednonconforming,sincetheyareauthorizedusesintheCAzone.Accordingtostafftestimonyduringthehearing,rezoningthe2propertiesinOptions2and3wouldnotrenderanybusinessesnonconforming.AlloftheusesidentifiedinthevicinitymapinFindingofFactNo.4arepermittedintheCAzone,exceptfortheCityutilitybuildingifit’sanofficebuilding(inwhichcaseitwouldbeauthorizedasanadministrative4conditionaluseintheCAzone).Evenifabusinesswererenderednonconforming,itcouldstillcontinuetooperate,butaspreviouslymentionedtherewouldbeconstraintsonmodificationsand5expansions.InthisregarditisalsoimportanttonotethatnoticeofthepublichearingwasmailedtoallpropertieswithinOptions2and3andnowrittenorverbaltestimonywassubmittedexpressing6anyconcernovertherezonesunderconsideration.C.AdequacyofPublicInfrastructure/Services.Therewasn’tmuchinformationpresented8ontheimpactsoftheproposedupzonestopublicinfrastructureandservices.Fromthelittleinformationintherecorditappearsmorelikelythannotthattheadequatepublicservicesandfacilities9willbeavailabletoaccommodateanyincreaseddemandscreatedbythemodestlysizedrezones.Approvingtherezoneswouldpresumablyincreasetraffic,asretailusegenerallygeneratesmore10trafficthanofficeuse.Staffhadnotconductedanytrafficanalysistoassesstrafficimpactsofthe11rezone,butwasnotawareofanylevelofserviceproblemswithinthevicinityofanyoftherezoneoptions.Thereisalsonoinformationonimpactstootherpublicservicesandinfrastructure.However,12thestaffreportdoesidentifythattheCityofRentonservesalloftherezoneareasunderconsiderationwithwater,sewerandstormwaterfacilities.Giventhemodestsizeoftheproposedrezonesandthe13servicecapacityofCityutilities,itisdeterminedthatmorelikelythannottheproposedupzoneswill14notexceedpublicserviceandinfrastructurecapacity.15D.CriticalAreas.Therearenocriticalareason-site,soanyincreaseinlanduseintensityfacilitatedbytherezoneshouldnotposeathreattoanyenvironmentallysensitiveareas.166.ChangeinCircumstances.Therehasbeenachangeincircumstancessincethelasttimeany17oftherezoneareasunderconsiderationhavelastbeenzoned/rezoned.Astestifiedbystaff,the18marketabilityofthepropertyintherezoneareasunderconsiderationhaslikelychangedsincethepropertieswerezonedforcommercialofficeuse.Theapplicant’spropertyhasbeenvacantforseveral19yearssincetheapplicantcouldn’tfindanycommercialofficetenants.Thesurroundingproperties20haveforthemostpartdevelopedasretailuses.ThisallstronglysuggeststhatthereismuchlessdemandforofficeuseinthesubjectCOareasthanwasanticipatedwhenthepropertieswerezoned21CO.CONCLUSIONSOFLAW231.Authority.RMC4-8-080(G)classifiesarezonerequestasaTypeIVapplication,which24requiresthehearingexaminertomakearecommendationtotheCityCouncilafterholdingapublic25hearing.26RezoneRecommendation-5 C12.Zoning/ComprehensivePlanDesignations.Theapplicant’s0.89acreparcelisdesignated2EmploymentAreaintheCity’sComprehensivePlan.Options2and3arealsodesignatedEmploymentArea.Theapplicant’sparcelandallpropertywithinOptions2and3aredesignatedCO.3TheEmploymentAreaComprehensivePlandesignationisimplementedbyboththeCAandCOzones,aswellasseveralotherzoningdesignations.3.ReviewCriteria.RezonestandardsaresubjecttoRMC4-9-180(F)(2).Applicablestandardsarequotedbelowinitalicsandappliedthroughcorrespondingconclusionsoflaw.6REZONECRITERIA$RMC4-9-18O(F)(2)(a):Therezoneisinthepublicinterest,and96.ThecriterionismetforOptions2and3.AsnotedinFindingofFactNo.5,theproposedrezonewouldnotcreateanyadverseimpactsandwouldinfactbehighlybeneficialtothebusinesses10oftheareabyrenderingnumerousnonconformingbusinessconformingandalsoenablemore11economicallyproductiveuseoftheapplicant’sproperty.12Option1(limitingtherezonetotheapplicant’sproperty)islikelynotinthepublic’sinterestbecauseitwouldqualifyasanillegal“spotzone”.AspotzoneiswelldescribedinNarrowsviewPreservation13Associationv.CityofTacoma,84Wn.2d416,421(1974),inwhichthecourtruled:14“Wehaverecentlystatedthatillegalspotzoningisarbitraryandttnreasonabtezoning15actionbywhichasmallerareaissingledoutofalargerareaordistrictandspecialtyzoneforuseclassificationtotallydifferentfromandinconsistentwiththeclassificationofthe16surroundingland,notinaccordancewiththecomprehensiveplan”17IftheCityCouncillimitedtherezonetotheapplicant’sproperty,itwouldcreateasmallislandofCA18zoningcompletelysurroundedbyCOzoningottheeast,westandnorth,withtheCityofKentadjacenttothesouth.Sucharezonewouldlikelyqualifyasaspotzone.1920RMC4-9-1$O(F)(2)(b):Therezonetendstofurtherthepreservationctndenjoymentofanysitbstantial21propertyrightsofthepetitioner,and22ThecriterionismetforallthreeoptionsforthereasonsidentifiedinFindingofFactNo.5.UnderOption1,therezonewouldenabletheapplicanttofindbusinessestooccupyhisvacantbuilidng.23ForOptions2and3,therezonewouldrendernumerousnonconformingbusinessesconformingandwouldalsomakethepropertiesmoremarketableforbusinessdevelopment.24RMC4-9-180(F)(2)(c):Therezoneisnotmateriallydetrimentaltotheputhlicwelfareoftheproperties25ofotherpersonslocatedinthevicinitythereofand26RezoneRecommendation-6 CC17.Thecriterionismet.AsdeterminedinFindingoffactNo.5,therezonesforallthreeoptionswouldnotcreateanysignificantadverseimpactsandwouldinfactbehighlybeneficialtotheproperties2withintherezoneareasaswellastheCityasawholebyincreasingtaxrevenuesandpromotingeconomicdevelopment.4RMC4-9-1$O(F)(2)(d):TherezonemeetsthereviewcriteriainsubsectionF]ofthisSection.68.Thecriterionismet.TheproposalisconsistentwithallstandardsimposedbysubsectionFl.SubsectionFlrequiresconsistencywiththecomprehensiveplan.ForthereasonsidentifiedinFinding7ofFactNo.20ofthestaffreport,theproposalisconsistentwiththecomprehensiveplan.SubsectionF]alsorequireseitherthat(I)thesubjectpropertywasnotspecificallyconsideredinthelastarealand8useanalysisandareazoningor(2)thatcircumstanceshavesignificantlychangedsincethemostrecentzoningofthearea.Thestaffreportnotesthattherezoneofthepropertywasnotconsideredinthelastrezoneofthearea,whichwasdonein2015.Finally,SubsectionFlrequiresthattherezone“meetthe10reviewcriteriainRMC4-9-020”.RMC4-9-020setsthereviewcriteriaforcomprehensiveplanamendments.Thecomprehensiveplancriteriafocusuponimpactstogrowthandemploymentrates,11adequacyofpublicinfrastructure,consistencywithcomprehensiveplanobjectivesandimpactsuponenvironmentallysensitiveareas.Aspreviouslyconcluded,alloftheproposedrezonesunder12considerationareconsistentwiththecomprehensiveplan.AsdeterminedinFindingofFactNo.5,13thereareadequatepublicservicesandinfrastructuretoservetherezonesunderconsiderationandtherezoneswouldnotadverselyaffectanyenvironmentallysensitiveareas.Theproposedrezonesshould14haveabeneficialimpactuponemploymentrates,sinceitwillfacilitatebusinessdevelopmentintherezoneareas.159.Washingtoncourtshavearguablyadoptedasomewhatdifferentsetofrezonestandardsthan16thosecurrentlyincorporatedintheRentonMunicipalCode.Forrezones,Washingtonappellatecourts17requirethattheproponentsofarezonemustestablishthatconditionshavesubstantiallychangedsincetheoriginalshowingandthattherezonemustbearasubstantialrelationshiptothepublichealth,safety,18moralsorwelfare.SeeAhmann-Yamane,LLCv.Tabter,105Wn.App.103,111(2001).IfarezoneimplementstheComprehensivePlan,ashowingthatachangeofcircumstanceshasoccurredisnot19required.Id.at112.Asto“implementingtheComprehensivePlan”,itissomewhatdebatablewhetherthecourtsrequirethattherezoneisnecessarytoimplementtheplanasopposedtobeingsimply20consistentwiththecomprehensiveplan.Intheapplicationunderreview,therequestedrezoneisnot21necessarytoimplementthecomprehensiveplansincethecurrentCOdesignationisconsistentwiththecomprehensiveplanlandusedesignationsforthepropertyunderreview.However,theproposed22rezonesunderreviewarecertainlyconsistentwithcomprehensiveplanbecausetheCAdesignationisalsoconsistentwiththecomprehensiveplanlandusedesignationsforthepropertyunderreview.In23ordertoremoveanydoubt,itisbesttoapplythechangeincircumstancesstandardwhenarezoneisn’tnecessarytoimplementthecomprehensiveplan.Inthiscase,thereistherequisitechangein24circumstancesasdeterminedinFindingofFactNo.6.Allrezoneoptionsmeetthejudicialcriteriafor25arezone(excludingthespotzoneissueaddressedinConclusionofLawNo.6).26RezoneRecommendation-7 001V.RECOMMENDATION2ThehearingexaminerrecommendsthattheCityCouncilapprovetheOptionCrezone(8.81acres)asidentifiedinFindingofFactNo.3.4DATEDthisPtdayofDecember,2016.PhiA.O1bcchts78CityofRentonHearingExaminer910VALUATIONNOTICES1112Affectedpropertyownersmayrequestachangeinvaluationforpropertytaxpurposes13notwithstandinganyprogramofrevaluation.14151617181920212223242526RezoneRecommendation-8