HomeMy WebLinkAboutJones Reconsideration Letter.pdf
February 17, 2021
Alex Morganroth
City of Renton
1055 S Grady Way
6th Floor
Renton, WA 98057
Re: Jones Short Plat Reconsideration Request – LUA20-000237
CORE Project No. 20081
Dear Mr. Morganroth:
We have reviewed the Conditions to the Decision on the Jones Short Plat (LUA20-000237) and believe
the following conditions were imposed in error of law, fact or judgement, and on that basis request
reconsideration and relief as follows:
Condition No. 3: In the Decision, the City acknowledges that the proposed lots meet all required setback
regulations, and that setbacks for the new homes would be verified at the time of building permit review.
However, the Decision goes on to “recommend” and then condition the Decision on a 61-foot front yard
setback for the proposed Lot 5. This condition is imposed solely “to ensure a consistent development
pattern and setback from the roadway should the lot to the south” redevelop. The Decision states, “The
modified front yard setback on proposed lot 5 would ensure that the associated home is sited in a similar
manner as future single-family homes on lots created on the adjacent site south” of the Property. This
condition has not been imposed pursuant to any regulation or any impact of the proposed development,
but instead is purely a desire of City staff based on the hypothetical development of a parcel to the south.
The apparent concerns of a non-cohesive future development are also unwarranted because any home on
proposed Lot 5 would naturally be oriented towards the street and future neighborhood. This condition is
a direct violation of RCW 82.02.020 because the condition imposed is not reasonably necessary as a
direct result of the proposed development. The condition is further unwarranted by any requirement under
Chapter 4-7 RMC or public health, safety, and general welfare consideration under RCW 58.17.110.
Notwithstanding the above, we would agree to replacing Condition 3 with a less restrictive condition that
would accomplish the City’s apparent desire for a cohesive future development. We propose: “A note
shall be recorded on the face of the final short plat to require that the front of any primary dwelling on Lot
5 must face to the west”. Alternatively, it could say “face Road A as designated on the face of the short
plat.”
February 17, 2021 Alex Morganroth Page 2
\\fileserv\cad\ACAD\2020\20081\Submittals\2021-02-04 response to short plat decision\Jones Reconsideration Letter.docx
Condition No. 5: The Property is underdeveloped and is currently host to a large number of trees. In
order to extend N 31st St. onto the Property to serve the proposed Jones Short Plat, the new right-of-way
(“ROW”) will necessarily displace the vast majority of these trees. As a result, Jones proposed to retain 6
of the existing 98 trees on the Property, with a substantial replanting element to meet the requirements of
Renton Municipal Code. This condition pre-empts Code and any future submittals by requiring “the
retention of at least eleven (11) existing trees” and that “a minimum of eight (8) trees shall be non-
invasive species.” Under RMC 4-4-130(H)(1)(e), “the Administrator may authorize the planting of
replacement trees on the site if it can be demonstrated to the Administrator’s satisfaction that an
insufficient number of trees can be retained.” The conclusion in the Decision and the condition imposed
are not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record in violation of
RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) and Benchmark Land Co. v. City of Battle Ground, 146 Wn.2d 685, 49 P.3d 860
(2002).
We recognize the City’s preference for retaining significant trees in lieu of replacement trees, but it is
premature for the City to conclude that Jones cannot demonstrate that an insufficient number of trees can
be retained, and particularly, to conclude that all 11 trees can be retained. As the condition states, “A final
tree retention plan shall be submitted at the time of Civil Construction Permit review for review and
approval by the Current Planning Project Manager.” The appropriate time to make this decision is when
Jones submits that final tree retention plan. We therefore request that this condition be stricken, or that the
condition be limited to requiring a final tree retention plan, in favor of the procedures set forth in Code for
making such a determination.
Condition No. 7: The Jones Short Plat proposes two new roads. Road A is an extension of N 31st St., and
Road B is an additional small tract to provide access to proposed Lots 2 and 3. These roads are and will
remain, in the foreseeable future, dead ends, which the Decision explicitly acknowledges as a result of the
construction of a large water tower immediately to the east of the Jones Short Plat Proposed Lot 5.
Condition number 7 nonetheless requires access to proposed Lots 1 and 4 to be from Road B, rather than
Road A.
The only reason the Decision gives is “to minimize the number of curb cuts on the new street (Road A),
which decrease the potential for vehicular/pedestrian conflicts.” This reason ignores the permanent dead-
end nature of Road A and is not supported by any traffic impact analysis or codified safety principle. This
requirement will result in changes to driveway locations and orientation of future homes on Lots 1 and 4.
The conclusion in the Decision and the condition imposed are not supported by evidence that is
substantial when viewed in light of the whole record in violation of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) and
Benchmark Land Co. v. City of Battle Ground, 146 Wn.2d 685, 49 P.3d 860 (2002). There is no reason to
fear vehicular/pedestrian conflicts in a five-lot dead-end street. Even if the southern parcel was developed,
and if access was given to Road A, this would mean 7 or 8 homes in one cul-de-sac or street end, a very
common occurrence throughout residential areas. There is no evidence that adding additional driveways
to Road A will create an unusual or dangerous risk of vehicle/pedestrian conflict.
Further, placing this restriction on the Jones Short Plat in anticipation of future connections to Road A
from the parcel to the south makes this condition a direct violation of RCW 82.02.020 because the
condition imposed is not reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development.
February 17, 2021 Alex Morganroth Page 3
\\fileserv\cad\ACAD\2020\20081\Submittals\2021-02-04 response to short plat decision\Jones Reconsideration Letter.docx
We request that this condition be stricken.
Condition No. 9: The Property is subject to a recorded access easement, ten feet wide, spanning the
length of the Property’s northern boundary, benefitting the parcel to the north. Condition number 9
requires Jones to extend, and thereby convert, Road B into an alley that extends to the northern boundary
and this easement, creating a looped road. This condition raises several concerns.
The condition references “adequate emergency access and rear-loading of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4,” but
nowhere does the Decision explain how or why the Jones Short Plat is not providing adequately for
emergency access. Also, rear-loading does not appear to be an identified goal under any residential
development regulation of the RMC.
Elsewhere, the Decision references a preference for looped roadway systems under RMC 4-7-150, but the
Decision does not explain how or why such a roadway is required of Jones, especially when doing so
would subtract substantially from the size of a proposed lot and increase impervious surface area. The
body of the Decision also suggests that Jones shall provide a public easement over this private driveway,
but this was not incorporated into the condition. Therefore, the Decision asks Jones to create a looped
road that should not lawfully be utilized by the public, but which might be anyways. Further, this
driveway is not proposed as a separate tract, and thus, if a public easement were given, the future
homeowners of Lots 2 and 3 would have a looped public access road over their property.
Converting a private driveway for an unrelated parcel to the north into public access, that is designed as a
driveway and not a street, is not supported by Code. The requirement for an additional public access
easement (if imposed) is also an unjustified delegation of property rights that could result in more traffic
through this otherwise dead end development, upending and conflicting with the City’s reasoning in
Condition 7 concerning minimizing pedestrian/traffic conflicts. If the parcel to the north is developed and
if it is determined that the existing access easement cannot be utilized as part of that development, the
underlying fee interest shall lie with the future owners of Lots 2 and 3, not with the public to develop a
future road on these Lots and over their back yards.
The preference for alley access is explicitly excepted from the R-6 zone under RMC 4-7-150(E)(5),
making this condition directly conflict with Code. One consideration in determining whether an alley is
not practical is Size, explicitly when the new development is a short plat. Jones submits that, being 1.32
acres in size, it is unreasonable to require this alley to be extended, creating additional impervious surface
and reducing the size of the proposed Lots.
The Decision goes on to discuss “connectivity on the site for future residents and emergency services”
without any discussion of how such traffic might impact an otherwise private, ten-foot-wide, access
easement, or how emergency vehicles might use such a narrow 10-foot corridor.
In sum, for the above reasons, this condition is a direct violation of RCW 82.02.020 because the condition
imposed is not reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development and operates as an
impermissible tax, fee, or charge on the development of land. The condition is further unwarranted by any
February 17, 2021 Alex Morganroth Page 4
\\fileserv\cad\ACAD\2020\20081\Submittals\2021-02-04 response to short plat decision\Jones Reconsideration Letter.docx
requirement under Chapter 4-7 RMC or public health, safety, and general welfare consideration under
RCW 58.17.110. The conclusions in the Decision and the condition imposed are also not supported by
evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record in violation of RCW
36.70C.130(1)(c) and Benchmark Land Co. v. City of Battle Ground, 146 Wn.2d 685, 49 P.3d 860 (2002).
We request that the condition be stricken.
Condition No. 11: The Jones Short Plat includes a tract of land on the south side of proposed Road A that
will remain undeveloped open space. Condition number 11 requires Jones to grant the City a public
easement over this tract. The Jones Short Plat is not required to provide any open space. The Decision
explicitly states that this public easement is “to preserve the ability for future single-family development
on the lot to the south.” Jones is not required by law to cede private property rights over this tract solely
for the benefit of a single parcel to the south of the Jones Short Plat. If and when such development
occurs, Jones and/or the future owners within the Jones Short Plat have the right to make that decision
and to receive consideration for granting such access.
This condition is a direct violation of RCW 82.02.020 because the condition imposed is not reasonably
necessary as a direct result of the proposed development and operates as an impermissible tax, fee, or
charge on the development of land. The condition is further unwarranted by any requirement under
Chapter 4-7 RMC or public health, safety, and general welfare consideration under RCW 58.17.110.
As a developer, Jones recognizes and respects the City’s desire to make provisions for future connection
to Road A by the lot to the south. To allow future owners of Tract B to make their own evaluations at a
later date without the need for a Short Plat Modification Application, we propose stating this allowance
on the face of the short plat, thereby eliminating issues raised by cases such as M.K.K.I., Inc. v. Krueger,
135 Wn. App. 647, 145 P.3d 411 (2006).
We therefore request that the condition be revised to read: “The face of the plat shall note that Tract B is
not designated open space pursuant to any requirement for approval of the Jones Short Plat and that the
owner(s) of Tract B may grant access for ingress/ingress and utilities over, under, and upon Tract B at the
time of their choosing. The final language shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning
Project Manager.” In the alternative, the condition should be stricken.
RCW 82.02.020 Considerations: With regard to RCW 82.02.020, we refer the Department to precedents
set forth in Isla Verde International Holdings, Inc. v. City of Camas, 146 Wn.2d 740, 49 P.3d 867 (2002),
Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights v. Sims, 145 Wn. App. 649, 187 P.3d 786 (2008), United
Development Corporation v. City of Mill Creek, 106 Wn. App. 681, 26 P.3d 943 (2001), and Burton v.
Clark County, 91 Wn. App. 505, 958 P.2d 343 (1998).
Thank you, for reviewing this Request for Reconsideration. We invite you to reach out to me and/or Wei
Yang to discuss the above and our concerns about the proposed conditions. We are interested in working
with the City and staff to come to an agreed result.
February 17, 2021 Alex Morganroth Page 5
\\fileserv\cad\ACAD\2020\20081\Submittals\2021-02-04 response to short plat decision\Jones Reconsideration Letter.docx
Sincerely,
CORE DESIGN, INC.
Michael L. Matheson, P.E.
Project Manager