Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC_Street_Stds_Modification_ Request_Halinen_170523_v1.pdf May 23, 2017 City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way, Sixth Floor Renton, Washington 98057 Attn: Justin Johnson, Civil Engineer II, Public Works Plan Reviewer RE: My client Strada da Valle, LLC’s U.S. Bank Expansion project Project Location: 2500 East Valley Road, Renton (1) Request for a Modification from the Requirements of RMC 4-6-060 (STREET STANDARDS) Applicable to the Proposed Project and (2) Justification for the Modification Request Dear Mr. Johnson: I am writing on behalf of my client Strada da Valle, LLC (“Strada”) in follow-up to the meeting that Strada’s architect Rick Utt and I had last Thursday afternoon at City Hall with you and with Associate Planner Angelea Weihs of the Renton Planning Division concerning the above-referenced U.S. Bank Expansion project. Thank you for meeting with us. During the meeting, I pointed out to you from a draft of a color map exhibit I brought with me to the meeting (and otherwise explained) the following: (1) The extent of existing street right-of-way and the three-lane collector arterial street improvements (including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and landscape strips) along the entirety of the subject parcel’s long frontage of East Valley Road; (2) The fact that those existing improvements along the subject parcel and to the north and south of the existing subject parcel are relatively recent (having been constructed by the City of Renton pursuant to Local Improvement District No. 314 (LID 314) and paid for by the abutting property owners including my client); (3) The extent of additional frontage right-of-way dedication and the extent of widening and replacement/reconstruction/expansion of existing street improvements that RMC 4-6-060 (STREET STANDARDS) appears to call for on its face along the entirety of the subject parcel’s long ±496- foot-long frontage of East Valley Road; City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Attn: Justin Johnson, Civil Engineer II, Public Works Plan Reviewer May 23, 2017 Page 2 (4) The massive extent of reconstruction of existing public street improvements that compliance with RMC 4-6-060 would require and the fact that the cost would be tremendous; (5) The detriment to motor vehicle traffic that the code-required narrowing of the two general travel lanes would create with the extensive large-truck traffic on East Valley Road; (6) The significant adverse impact that such widening would have on Strada’s existing beautifully constructed office development on that parcel; (7) The lack of actual need that the U.S. Bank Expansion project will create for any of the required widening of right-of-way and reconstruction and expansion of existing East Valley Road improvements along the subject parcel’s frontage set forth in RMC 4-6-060; and (8) The lack of rough proportionality between the code-required right-of-way dedication and street improvements to the scale of the proposed small addition. Your response to what I showed you on the exhibit and what I explained to you was that modifications to the Street Standards are frequently granted. Also, you added that, in response to a modification request letter that documents these circumstances and requests that the City not apply the Street Standards requirement to the subject expansion project, you are willing to approve a request for such a modification. This letter is thus submitted as Strada’s request for such a modification. Background Information For a summary of the proposed U.S. Bank Expansion project, see the accompanying Project Narrative. Additional information concerning the circumstances relevant to this request is provided below in this section. The Extent of East Valley Road’s Existing Right-of-Way and Improvements Along the Subject Parcel’s Frontage The existing right-of-way width of East Valley Road from (1) the road’s centerline along Strada’s subject parcel east to (2) the subject parcel’s west edge is 36 feet. The existing right-of- way width of East Valley Road from (a) the road’s centerline west to (b) the right-of-way’s west edge opposite Strada’s East Valley Road frontage is 35 feet. (See attached EXHIBIT A, a color map exhibit created from the U.S. Bank Expansion project’s Overall Parcel Site Plan, Sheet A1.1.) City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Attn: Justin Johnson, Civil Engineer II, Public Works Plan Reviewer May 23, 2017 Page 3 Along the subject parcel’s East Valley Road frontage, the existing three-lane paved street section (two 12-foot-wide general travel lanes and a 12-foot-wide center left-turn lane) are centered along the road’s centerline. A concrete curb and gutter and a 6-foot-wide concrete sidewalk abutting the curb and a mature landscape strip behind the sidewalk exist on both sides of the road. (See, again, attached EXHIBIT A.) East Valley Road’s Existing Travel Lanes, Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Section Resulting from the Reconstruction of the Road’s Prior Section under City-Initiated LID 314 In 1979, by the passage of Resolution 2283 (see attached EXHIBIT B), the Renton City Council initiated proceedings for LID 314, which contemplated an extensive street improvements project to widen and improve East Valley Road from SW 16th Street to SW 41st Street as well as other streets in the vicinity. Section II of that resolution states: The entire cost and expense of said improvement unless hereafter timely modified or amended by the City Council, shall be borne by and assessed against the property specially benefited by such improvement to be included in the local improvement district to be established, embracing as near as may be all property specially benefited by such improvement. There shall be included in the cost and expense of said improvements all cost items specified in RCW 35.44.020. (Emphasis added.) After a public hearing before the City Council (which I attended) in November 1979, during which there was much concern and opposition expressed by many regarding aspects of proposed LID 314, the City Council ultimately authorized the hiring of the consulting engineering firm Jones Associates Incorporated to prepare civil construction design drawings for the project. After further controversies concerning the project, the project was approved for construction and those drawings (74 numbered sheets plus a cover sheet) were completed in January 1981. The project was thereafter constructed during the mid-1980s. The City has on file an as-built set of those drawings under File No. 1999 (a PDF set of which I recently obtained many of the sheets of from the City). Six sheets from that as-built set (sheets that I had one of my legal assistants color highlight and annotate) are attached hereto as EXHIBITS C-1 thru C-6. EXHIBITS C-5 and C-6 are 11” by 17” reductions of the two plan and profile as-built drawing sheets that cover the segment of East Valley Road along which what is now the subject parcel [Lot 3 of the Strada da Valle Short Plat (City of Renton File No. LUA-02-042-SHPL, King County Recording No. 20110112900004)] fronts along the road’s east edge. (The location of the south boundary of Lot 3 has been noted in red on EXHIBIT C-5, and the location of the north boundary of Lot 3 has been noted in red on EXHIBIT C-6.) On those two exhibits, East City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Attn: Justin Johnson, Civil Engineer II, Public Works Plan Reviewer May 23, 2017 Page 4 Valley Road’s pre-construction pavement width (which, by scaling from the sheets, appears to have been only ±18-to-19 feet) has been yellow-shaded. That narrow pavement width was inadequate to handle large-truck traffic, a type of traffic that by 1979 was already quite substantial along East Valley Road, making LID 314’s widening of East Valley Road to 36 feet with two 12-foot-wide travel lanes and a 12-foot-wide center left-turn lane a pressing need. Pavement Section A at the top of EXHIBIT C-4 illustrates the three lanes, the concrete curb and gutter, and the 6-foot-wide concrete sidewalk that the City constructed as part of LID 314 along East Valley Road for nearly 8,300 lineal feet (from Station 10+91.50 to Station 94+09.50), including along the subject parcel’s 495.93-foot-long frontage. EXHIBITS C-5 and C-6 show the ultimately-constructed road improvements and 12-inch-diameter water main that the City constructed along the subject property. My client (under a different entity) already owned the subject property prior to 1979 and paid the subject property’s assessed share of the costs of LID 314 for the subject property (what is now Lot 3) and for the additional property immediately to the north that my client owned then and continues to own (which is now Lots 1 and 2 of the Strada da Valle Short Plat). The Strada da Valle Office Development That My Client Constructed Following the Completion of the LID 314 Improvements Shortly following the completion of the LID 314 improvements, in 1987 my client started the land use approval process at the City for a row of three single-story office buildings. Approvals and permits for those buildings and associated site improvements were secured and the project was completed in during August 1991. During January 2011, a three-lot short plat of the then-existing single parcel of land was approved by the City and recorded with the King County Recorder, creating a separate lot for each of the three buildings. Lot 3, the southernmost of the three lots, is the lot on which the U.S. Bank Expansion to the existing building (a building that Strada refers to as Building C) on that lot is now proposed. Each of the three buildings that my client constructed are of high-quality design and construction, using precast concrete panels. All the on-site parking lots and driveway aisles are concrete paved. The development was constructed at extra expense to last and maintain a high- quality appearance. In view of LID 314’s reconstruction of East Valley Road into a three-lane collector arterial just before work on my client’s design of the office development project got underway in 1987, my client constructed the project with the reasonable expectation of being able to use the project long-term (including being able to make minor expansions like the very modest-sized two-bay secure truck garage of the proposed U.S. Bank Expansion project) without facing the prospect of (1) the City requiring LID 314’s curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements having to be torn out and replaced, (2) the road substantially widened for what seems to be an unneeded City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Attn: Justin Johnson, Civil Engineer II, Public Works Plan Reviewer May 23, 2017 Page 5 bicycle lane (there are no bike lanes on any nearby portions of East Valley Road) and an unneeded parking lane, (3) the required replacement sidewalk having to be located so that it would come within two feet of the west edge of the west parking lot on Lot 3 (which would eliminate not only much of the City’s landscape strip but also nearly all of the landscape strip on my client’s property, a landscape strip in which a grass-lined stormwater infiltration swale is located that serves Lot 3’s west parking lot and driveway aisle and is an important part of the Lot 3’s overall stormwater system), and (4) street and pedestrian lighting. Overview of the Extent of Additional Frontage Right-of-Way and New and Replacement Street Improvements that RMC 4-6-060 Appears to Call for along the Subject Parcel’s East Valley Road Frontage Attached EXHIBIT D (another color map exhibit created from the U.S. Bank Expansion project’s Overall Parcel Site Plan, Sheet A1.1) illustrates the extent of the widening of the segment of East Valley Road along the subject parcel’s frontage that would be needed to comply with the Street Standards. To provide a better understanding of what East Valley Road would ultimately look like if both sides of the road were widened/reconstructed under the current Road Standards, EXHIBIT D depicts where the following major elements of the road would lie on both sides of the road’s centerline if the current Street Standards were applied along that segment: (1) 11 feet of additional right-of-way along Strada’s property and 12 additional feet of right-of-way on the west side of the road (note that along Strada’s frontage such additional right-of-way would appear to extend into Strada’s Lot 3 west parking lot ±1 foot); (2) 10.5 additional feet of asphalt pavement along both sides of the road’s centerline [to accommodate a 5-foot-wide bicycle lane and an 8-foot-wide parking lane after narrowing of the road’s three existing lanes (note that no need for those lanes will arise due to the proposed two-bay truck garage portion of the U.S. Bank Expansion building addition project because the proposed use of that addition is secure package pickup and delivery within the garage by special trucks)]; (3) Both (a) a new 8-foot-wide landscape strip immediately behind the required new concrete curb and gutter and (b) an 8-foot-wide sidewalk behind that new 8-foot-wide landscape strip; and (4) Street and pedestrian lighting required under RMC 4-6-060I (STREET AND PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING STANDARDS). City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Attn: Justin Johnson, Civil Engineer II, Public Works Plan Reviewer May 23, 2017 Page 6 The Costly Massive Extent of Removal, Replacement, Reconstruction, and Expansion of Existing Public Street Improvements That Compliance with RMC 4-6-060 Would Entail As illustrated on EXHIBIT D, reconstruction of the east side of East Valley Road along the subject parcel’s frontage to what the Street Standards call for would necessitate at least the following: (1) The (a) removal of ±430 lineal feet of existing concrete curb and gutter and (b) replacement with the same length of new concrete curb and gutter (not accounting for additional curbing and gutter associated with transition tapering north of Lot 3); (2) The (a) removal of ±449 lineal feet of existing 6-foot-wide sidewalk abutting the back of the existing curb and (b) replacement of that sidewalk with the same length of new 8-foot-wide concrete sidewalk (encompassing ±3,600 square feet) along the east edge of an 8-foot-wide landscape strip called for between the new curb and gutter and the new sidewalk; (3) The (a) removal of a total of ±1,780 square feet of existing concrete entrance driveway pavement from the west end of two existing concrete driveway entrances and (b) replacement with ±1,070 square feet of proposed replacement driveway entrance; (4) The installation of ±5,200 square feet of new asphalt roadway pavement for the 10.5-foot pavement widening along the road’s east edge; (5) The installation of (a) new catch basins and/or drainage inlets at points along the gutter line of the new concrete curb and gutter (plus connecting drain pipes) and (b) stormwater detention and water quality facilities and/or low impact development drainage facilities to accommodate the stormwater runoff from the increased width of impervious surfaces that the frontage improvements required by RMC 4-6-060 call for (none of these catch basins, inlets, drain pipes, and other drainage facilities that would be needed are depicted on EXHIBIT D); (6) The installation of a transition taper to the north of the north driveway (the driveway that straddles the boundary between the north end of Lot 3 and south end of Lot 2) (a transition that presumably would involve an asphalt pavement triangle taper, interim curb and gutter, interim sidewalk, and interim drainage improvements); and City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Attn: Justin Johnson, Civil Engineer II, Public Works Plan Reviewer May 23, 2017 Page 7 (7) The installation of street and pedestrian lighting under RMC 4-6-060I (STREET AND PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING STANDARDS) within the required widened right-of-way. The Detriment to Motor Vehicle Traffic That Narrowing of the Two General Travel Lanes and Center Left-Turn Lane Would Pose to Motor Vehicle Traffic Many of the owners of parcels of land abutting East Valley Road did not protest or appeal LID 314 in order to have constructed two 12-foot-wide general travel lanes of a 12-foot width along with a 12-foot-wide center left-turn lane in substantial measure due to the substantial large- truck traffic (including truck-trailer combination traffic) that then already existed along the narrow East Valley Road that existed during the 1970s and early 1980s, especially because more such heavy large-truck traffic was then expected in the future (and has since materialized). A major subsequently constructed generator of such heavy large-truck traffic (right across East Valley Road from all three of Strada’s three buildings) is the Valley Distribution Center, a gigantic office/warehouse building (479,000 square feet in size and nearly 900 feet long from north to south). That building was constructed in 1996. Along roughly two-thirds of the Valley Distribution Center building’s east edge, a row of very long trailers load and unload at loading docks. [See the 06-27-2016 Google Earth aerial view exhibit (Photo 1), below.] Narrowing of East Valley Road’s two existing travel lanes from a width of 12 feet to 10 feet and narrowing of the existing center left-turn lane from a width of 12 feet to 11 feet would pose increased hazards to motorists having to deal with such large trucks along East Valley Road, especially along Strada’s three lots where such trucks turn into and out of the Valley Distribution Center. The City should exempt this already fully completed segment of East Valley Road (at least the portion lying north of SW 27th Street) from the widening provisions of the Road Standards. City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Attn: Justin Johnson, Civil Engineer II, Public Works Plan Reviewer May 23, 2017 Page 8 Photo 1 The Significant Adverse Impact That Widening East Valley Road Would Have on Strada’s Lot 3 Office Development Widening East Valley Road to comply with the Street Standards would virtually eliminate Strada’s existing landscape strip on the subject parcel’s west 10 feet by replacing 8 feet of it with a new sidewalk and leaving about a mere ±two-foot-wide gap between the west parking lot’s west curb and the new sidewalk. That new sidewalk would also force the relocation of four existing light poles, which would lie within the new sidewalk. Not only would that new sidewalk (1) create the odd ±two-foot-wide gap between the west parking lot’s west curb and the new sidewalk and (2) force the relocation of the four light poles, it would also eliminate the ±260-lineal-foot length of the two existing grass-lined stormwater infiltration swale segments in the subject parcel’s existing west landscape strip (see EXHIBIT D for those two swale segments). Those infiltration swale segments infiltrate the stormwater runoff from the subject parcel’s west parking lot. The elimination of those two swale segments would necessitate construction of replacement stormwater facilities. Such replacement facilities would be especially expensive because of (1) the subject parcel’s concrete-paved parking lot(s) (which would have to be cut through in order to install any replacement facilities) and (2) the existing fully developed surface improvements throughout the parcel (including City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Attn: Justin Johnson, Civil Engineer II, Public Works Plan Reviewer May 23, 2017 Page 9 landscape strips and the linear stormwater detention pond near the parcel’s south boundary). Those two existing conditions of the subject parcel appear to necessitate an underground stormwater system replacement rather than a substitute infiltration swale or retention pond or other low impact development drainage facilit(ies). The Lack of Impact That the U.S. Bank Expansion Project Would Have on East Valley Road and Thus the Lack of Need for Any Widening, Improvements, and/or Reconstruction of East Valley Road under RMC 4-6-060’s Requirements The proposed U.S. Bank Expansion project is a ±2,673-square-foot building addition that is to be constructed along part of the north end of the existing ±28,065-square-foot single-story office building that is located on the overall 3.08-acre (±134,174-square-foot) subject parcel, Lot 3 of the Strada da Valle Short Plat. Nearly all the proposed building addition’s space (a floor plate of ±2,411 square feet) will be constructed for use as a high-security two-bay truck garage for pickups from and deliveries to the existing building to be handled through the garage. (See the orange-shaded portion of the proposed building addition as shown on attached EXHIBIT D.) [Only a ±252-square-foot portion of the addition to the south of the parking garage floor plate (a portion of the addition that will lie beneath what is currently much of the existing building’s north eave at the interface of the addition to the existing building) will increase only slightly the size of the space in the building available for office use. (See the yellow-shaded portion of the proposed building addition as shown on attached EXHIBIT D.)] Were it not for the need for high security concerning the pickups and deliveries, the proposed building addition would neither be needed nor built because the pickups and deliveries could be handled like any others made by a typical commercial delivery service that would park its delivery vehicle for a moment in the parking lot while a delivery service employee walked in and out of the existing building to make the pickup and delivery. Note that pickups and deliveries of packages to and from an office building are customarily incidental and subordinate to an office use. Because the two-bay garage addition is proposed as an unheated space for use for pickups and deliveries by delivery trucks, in view of the Renton Municipal Code’s definition of accessory uses 1 the garage addition will be an 1 The paragraph labeled ACCESSORY USES in subsection A (CATEGORIES OF USES ESTABLISHED) under RMC 4-2-050 (PERMITTED LAND USES ESTABLISHED) states as follows: ACCESSORY USES: Uses customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use and located upon the same lot occupied by the principal use or on an abutting/adjacent lot that is under the same ownership as the principal lot. Some accessory uses are specifically listed, particularly where a use is only allowed in an accessory form, whereas other accessory uses City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Attn: Justin Johnson, Civil Engineer II, Public Works Plan Reviewer May 23, 2017 Page 10 accessory use to the primary use (office use) of the rest of the building. Note also that, for traffic volume calculation purposes, vehicle trips by delivery trucks are not considered as separate trips from other vehicle trips of the primary office use but, rather, as part of the office use as a whole. The garage addition will not be a new trip-generating structure but, rather, a secure enclosed space during which pickups and deliveries can be made. Thus, the trips to and from the two-bay truck garage portion of the building should be treated as exempt from the requirements of RMC 4-6-060 (STREET STANDARDS). Because that is the case (and because the ±252-square-foot office portion of the building addition is negligible and is itself exempt from the requirements of the Street Standards under RMC 4-6-060D.1 2), the proposed overall building addition (1) will not impact a public problem creating any justification (an “essential nexus”) for application of any of the right-of-way widening and the improvement and reconstruction requirements of RMC 4-6-060 (STREET STANDARDS) and (2) should be considered exempt from those requirements. The Lack of both (1) an “Essential Nexus” between (a) the U.S. Bank Expansion Project and (b) the Code-Required Right-of-Way Dedication and Street Improvements Intended to Solve Certain Public Problems and (2) “Rough Proportionality” between (a) the Code-Required Right-of-Way Dedication and Street Improvements and (b) the Extent of the Project’s Impact on the Public Problems In Benchmark v. City of Battle Ground, 94 Wn. App. 537, 972 P.2d 944 (1999), the City of Battle Ground imposed as a condition of plat approval on a 20-acre subdivision proposal a requirement that the developer “make half-street improvements to a street adjoining the subdivision on one side, even though the subdivision did not directly access the street.” Benchmark at 94 Wn. App. 540; emphasis added. The Court of Appeals held that in this circumstance the constitutional requirement of an “essential nexus” between the proposed are determined by the Development Services Division on a case-by-case basis per RMC 4-2- 050C4 and C6, Accessory Use Interpretations and Unclassified Uses. (Italics and underlining added.) 2 Note that the ±252-square-foot office portion of the addition encompasses only 9.42% of the overall ±2,673- square-foot addition to the existing building. The project value of the overall addition project (including all the site infrastructure work and landscaping to be done in conjunction with the actual construction of the addition itself) is $487,000. Because (a) 9.42% of the $487,000 overall expansion project value (including associated non-building-addition site-infrastructure work and landscaping) is only $45,875 and (b) the actual value of the ±252-square-foot office portion of the building addition itself (separate from the site-infrastructure work and landscaping that is proposed in conjunction with the actual building addition work within the addition’s footprint) will be substantially less than $45,875, the office space portion of the addition is exempt under RMC 4-6-060 D.1. City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Attn: Justin Johnson, Civil Engineer II, Public Works Plan Reviewer May 23, 2017 Page 11 development and the required improvement was not met and that, accordingly, the improvement requirement was invalid. Note that the “essential nexus” requirement of Fifth Amendment takings analysis had been established in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 837, 107 S. Ct. 3141, 97 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1987). The Washington Court of Appeals in Benchmark explained that: Further, to satisfy the Fifth Amendment, the government must establish that its proposed condition is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public problem. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 391, 114 S. Ct. 2309, 129 L. Ed. 2d 304 (1994). And this requires "some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development." Dolan, 512 U.S. at 391. We have identified four factors in these concepts: (1) a public problem; (2) a development that impacts the public problem; (3) governmental approval of the development based on a condition that tends to solve the problem; and (4) rough proportionality between the proposed solution and the development's impact on the problem. Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn. App. 505, 520-23, 958 P.2d 343 (1998). Benchmark at 94 Wn. App. 540 (emphasis added). The Dolan “rough proportionality” test involves the last of these four factors listed by the Washington Court of Appeals. For the reasons stated beginning on page 9, above, under the subsection titled The Lack of Impact That the U.S. Bank Expansion Project Would Have on East Valley Road and Thus the Lack of Need for Any Widening, Improvements, and/or Reconstruction of East Valley Road under RMC 4-6-060’s Requirements, Strada contends that: (1) Because the two-bay truck garage portion of the addition is not a new trip- generating structure the garage portion of the addition should be considered exempt from the requirements of RMC 4-6-060 on that basis and (2) (For the reasons explained in footnote 2 on page 10, above) the 252- square-foot portion of the building addition to be used as office space is exempt under RMC 4-6-060D.1). Assuming, for the sake of argument, that either or both (1) the two-bay truck garage portion of the building addition is not effectively exempt from the requirements of RMC 4-6-060 or (2) the 252-square-foot portion of the building addition to be used as office space is not exempt under RMC 4-6-060D.1, conditioning project approval on compliance with the requirements of RMC 4-6-060 would, under the Dolan rough proportionality test, be both (a) unlawful under RCW 82.02.020 (and applicable Washington appellate court case law construing RCW 82.02.020) and (b) unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Attn: Justin Johnson, Civil Engineer II, Public Works Plan Reviewer May 23, 2017 Page 12 Why? Because of the lack of rough proportionality between (i) the proposed requirements of the Road Standards and (ii) the development’s impact on problems that the requirements are intended to solve. Note that even if neither the two-bay truck garage portion of the building addition nor the 252-square-foot portion of the building addition to be used as office space is treated by the City as exempt from the requirements of RMC 4-6-060, the code-required right-of-way widening and frontage improvements along the entire length of the subject property are not roughly proportional to (but, rather, are highly disproportional to) the development’s impact on problems that the requirements are intended to solve. Because RMC 4-6-060’s requirements for right-of- way widening and frontage improvements are linear, in the next paragraph I have calculated below the ratio of (1) the proposed length of the building extension to (2) the length of the subject parcel’s frontage to serve as a reasonable proxy for estimating the extent of the building addition’s impact on problems that the requirements are intended to solve. Applying RMC 4-6-060’s requirements would impose (1) 495.93 lineal feet (i.e., the length of the subject parcel’s East Valley Road frontage) of right-of-way widening and frontage improvements and reconstruction on (2) an addition that (a) extends only 42 feet north of the 300-foot-long existing building’s northernmost face on (b) a 495.93-foot-long parcel that has already been fully developed from end to end. As I calculate, the ratio of frontage right-of-way widening and improvements per lineal foot of building addition would be a whopping 495.93 lineal / 42 lineal feet = 11.8 to 1. A directly proportional ratio would be 1:1 (i.e., one lineal foot of frontage right-of-way widening and improvements per lineal foot of addition extension) for the 42-foot-long extension. (For comparison, note that the ratio of frontage right-of-way widening and improvements per lineal foot of the existing building with no addition would be 495.93 lineal feet / 300 lineal feet = 1.65 to 1, a ratio that is only 14 percent of the ratio of for the 42-foot-long addition.) In view of the above-calculated ratios, (i) the 11:8 to 1 ratio that would result from application of the code requirements to the 42-foot-long addition would not meet the Dolan rough proportionality test and (ii) insistence by the City that it will nevertheless require the improvements called for under RMC 4-6-060 would be (A) unlawful under RCW 82.02.020 (and case law construing that statute) and (B) unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for failing to meet the Dolan rough proportionality test. Of course, if the two-bay truck garage portion of the building addition is either (1) exempt [as above, on pages 9 and 10 I contend that it is because (a) the proposed garage use is an accessory use intended to provide security for delivery truck pickups and deliveries and (b) without the need for such security there would be no market demand for the security garage at all] or (2) should not otherwise be considered as subject to RMC 4-6-060, then (i) the garage portion of the building addition would not be counted and (ii) the length of the City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Attn: Justin Johnson, Civil Engineer II, Public Works Plan Reviewer May 23, 2017 Page 13 existing building extension for purposes of analysis under RMC 4-6-060 would not be increased at all (because, as can be seen on attached EXHIBIT D, the office portion of the addition will lie between and not extend to the north of the portions of the existing building’s north façade at the west and east end of the façade). With no applicable increase in the existing building’s length, the ratio of frontage right-of-way widening and improvements per lineal foot of building addition would be infinite (i.e., 495.23 lineal feet of frontage / 0 lineal feet of building length addition = ∞). Justification for the Requested Modification The modification criteria of RMC 4-9-250D are set forth in subsection 2 thereof as follows: 2. Decision Criteria: Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Title, the Department Administrator may grant modifications for individual cases provided he/she shall first find that a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical, that the intent and purpose of the governing land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan is met and that the modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Code, and that such modification: a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives; b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code; e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. (Ord. 4517, 5-8-1995; Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004; Ord. 5137, 4-25- 2005; Ord. 5369, 4-14-2008) (Emphasis added.) The applicability of these criteria to the subject circumstances, and application to the subject circumstances of those criteria that are applicable, are discussed below. City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Attn: Justin Johnson, Civil Engineer II, Public Works Plan Reviewer May 23, 2017 Page 14 A. Explanation of the Practical Difficulties that Strada Suffers in Carrying Out the Requirements of RMC 4-6-060 and Specific Reasons That Make those Requirements Impractical, Reasons Stemming from Special Circumstances Applicable to the Subject Parcel Tremendous practical difficulties that applicant Strada would suffer in carrying out the requirements of RMC 4-4-060 and specific reasons why those requirements are impractical include (without limitation) the following: (1) The massive and overwhelming expense of compliance with the grossly disproportional requirements of RMC 4-4-060 in the context of the small proposed U.S. Bank Expansion project (an expense that more than outweighs the benefit of the proposed building addition)—see, generally, all the pages above, and see, especially, the text in the subsections of this letter titled (a) The Costly Massive Extent of Removal, Replacement, Reconstruction, and Expansion of Existing Public Street Improvements That Compliance with RMC 4-6-060 Would Entail (beginning on page 6, above), (b) The Significant Adverse Impact That Widening East Valley Road Would Have on Strada’s Lot 3 Office Development (on page 8, above), and (c) The Lack of both (1) an “Essential Nexus” between (a) the U.S. Bank Expansion Project and (b) the Code-Required Right-of-Way Dedication and Street Improvements Intended to Solve Certain Public Problems and (2) “Rough Proportionality” between (a) the Code-Required Right-of-Way Dedication and Street Improvements and (b) the Extent of the Project’s Impact on the Public Problems (beginning on page 10, above), and (2) The grossly disproportional right-of-way widening requirement of RMC 4-4-060 in the context of the proposed U.S. Bank Expansion project. B. Comments Concerning Meeting the Intent and Purpose of the Governing Land Use Designation of the Comprehensive Plan The governing land use designation of the subject parcel of land is the Employment Area (EA) designation. The intent and purpose of that designation are set forth in Policy L19 and Goal L-K, which state as follows: City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Attn: Justin Johnson, Civil Engineer II, Public Works Plan Reviewer May 23, 2017 Page 15 Policy L-19: Employment Areas – Place areas primarily used for industrial development, or a mix of commercial and industrial uses such as office, industrial, warehousing, and manufacturing, with access to transportation networks and transit, within the Employment Area (EA) Land Use Designation. Employment Areas provide a significant economic development and employment base for the City. Maintain a variety and balance of uses through zoning which promotes the gradual transition of uses on sites with good access and visibility to more intensive commercial and office uses. Goal L-K: Provide an energetic business environment for commercial activity providing a range of service, office, commercial, and mixed use residential uses that enhance the City’s employment and tax base along arterial streets and in Centers. (Emphasis added.) Granting the modification under the circumstances set forth in the Background Information section of this letter (which starts on page 2, above) will enable Strada to construct the U.S. Bank Expansion project and thereby allow U.S. Bank to (1) conduct special administrative office operations requiring a secure two-bay truck garage for pickups and deliveries and (2) remain a tenant in the existing building. Granting the modification will thus meet the intent and purpose of Goal L-K concerning providing a range of office uses that enhance the City’s employment and tax base along arterial streets. C. Comments Concerning the Issue of Whether the Modification Is in Conformity with the Intent and Purpose of the Code Subsection A of RMC 4-4-060 contains the following purpose statement: A. PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this Section to establish design standards and development requirements for street improvements to ensure reasonable and safe access to public and private properties. These improvements include appropriately scaled sidewalks related to the urban context, a range of landscape buffers, curbs, gutters, street paving, monumentation, signage, and lighting, to be developed with complete streets principles. Complete streets principles are to plan, design, and operate streets to enable safe and convenient access and travel for all users including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and people of all ages and abilities, as well as freight and motor vehicle drivers, and to foster a sense of place in the public realm with attractive design amenities. City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Attn: Justin Johnson, Civil Engineer II, Public Works Plan Reviewer May 23, 2017 Page 16 (Emphasis added.) The overarching purpose of RMC 4-6-060 is set forth in the first sentence of above- quoted subsection A (PURPOSE). Under LID 314, the City of Renton constructed at the expense of adjacent property owners the existing street improvements along East Valley Road, undoubtedly with the goal of ensuring reasonable and safe access to public and private properties in mind, and the City clearly met that goal in constructing the LID 314 improvements. In view of both (1) the paragraph immediately above and (2) the facts, circumstances, and applicable legal principles described in the above subsection of this letter titled The Lack of both (1) an “Essential Nexus” between (a) the U.S. Bank Expansion Project and (b) the Code- Required Right-of-Way Dedication and Street Improvements Intended to Solve Certain Public Problems and (2) “Rough Proportionality” between (a) the Code-Required Right-of-Way Dedication and Street Improvements and (b) the Extent of the Project’s Impact on the Public Problems (beginning on page 10, above), the requested modification is in harmony with both the overarching purpose of RMC 4-6-060 and the applicable legal principles applicable to the subject facts and circumstances. D. Comments Concerning Each of the Remaining Decision Criteria (a through f), Which Are Listed on Page 13, Above Criterion a: Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives; Response to Criterion a: I do not see any “policy direction” of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element that bears on the subject modification request. Also, please note that the current Comprehensive Plan does not appear to contain a Community Design Element. (A previous version of the Comprehensive Plan did contain one.) Criterion b: Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; Response to Criterion b: Criterion b is inapplicable in the subject situation because, due to the reasons and circumstances set forth in the Background Information section of this letter (a section that extends from page 2 to page 13, above), Strada qualifies for and is fairly entitled to the requested City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Attn: Justin Johnson, Civil Engineer II, Public Works Plan Reviewer May 23, 2017 Page 17 modification to allow its U.S. Bank Expansion project proposal to be constructed without implementing any of the requirements of RMC 4-6-060. Please bear in mind that in the design and construction of the LID 314 improvements which exist along the subject street, the City and its consulting engineering firm undoubtedly considered safety, function, appearance, environmental protection, and maintainability based on sound engineering judgment. The LID 314 improvements were very substantially constructed. Criterion c: Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; Response to Criterion c: In view of (a) the minor scope and scale of the U.S. Bank Expansion project proposal and (b) the very substantial East Valley Road improvements that the City constructed during the mid-1980s under LID 314, the proposed modification will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity. Criterion d: Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code; Response to Criterion d: See my section B (Comments Concerning Meeting the Intent and Purpose of the Governing Land Use Designation of the Comprehensive Plan) from pages 14 to 15, above. Criterion e: Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; Response to Criterion e: As explained above, (1) in the design and construction of the LID 314 improvements which exist along the subject street, the City and its consulting engineering firm undoubtedly considered safety, function, appearance, environmental protection, and maintainability based on sound engineering judgment and (2) the LID 314 improvements were very substantially constructed. Continued use of those existing improvements for the minor building addition proposal is well justified and required under all the circumstances described in this letter. Criterion f: Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. Response to Criterion f: See the Response to Criterion c, above. CONCRETE PAVEMENT REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT AREA [±953 SF (FOR REPLACEMENT WATERMAIN INSTALLATION--SEE NOTE IN UPPER RIGHT CORNER)] PROJECT SITE AREA (±6,218 SF) EXHIBIT A Pre-existing concrete pavement and curbing to remain between building addition and wetland is > 61 feet wide. With color annotations by Halinen Law (05-20-2017) 6' CONCRETE SIDEWALK EXISTING ASPHALT-PAVED ROAD (36 FEET FROM FACE OF CURB TO FACE OF CURB) EXISTING 12' R/W LANDSCAPE STRIP EXISTING R/W LINE 35 FEET 36 FEET EAST VALLEY ROAD -- EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT B With Halinen Law 05/20/2017 color shading added. EXHIBIT C-1 With Halinen Law 05/20/2017 color shading added. EXHIBIT C-2 With Halinen Law 05/20/2017 color shading added. EXHIBIT C-3 With Halinen Law 05/20/2017 color shading added. EXHIBIT C-4 With Halinen Law 05/20/2017 color markup and labeling added. SOUTH BOUNDARY OF WHAT IS NOW LOT 3 OF THE STRADA DA VALLE SHORT PLAT (AFN 20110112900004), THE PARCEL ON WHICH THE U.S. BANK EXPANSION PROJECT IS PROPOSED. EXHIBIT C-5PRE-LID 314 ROAD PAVEMENT ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF WHAT IS NOW LOT 3 OF THE STRADA DA VALLE SHORT PLAT (AFN 20110112900004). APPROXIMATE WIDTH: 18 TO 19 FEET (BY SCALE). With Halinen Law 05/20/2017 color markup and labeling added. NORTH BOUNDARY OF WHAT IS NOW LOT 3 OF THE STRADA DA VALLE SHORT PLAT (AFN 20110112900004), THE PARCEL ON WHICH THE U.S. BANK EXPANSION PROJECT IS PROPOSED. EXHIBIT C-6PRE-LID 314 ROAD PAVEMENT ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF WHAT IS NOW LOT 3 OF THE STRADA DA VALLE SHORT PLAT (AFN 20110112900004). APPROXIMATE WIDTH: 18 TO 19 FEET (BY SCALE). EAST VALLEY ROAD -- IF FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS WERE TO BE INSTALLED PER RMC 4-6-060 (STREET STANDARDS) With color annotations by Halinen Law (05-22-2017) NEW R/W LINE EXISTING INFILTRATION SWALE (±260 LF) THAT IS PART OF THE EXISTING STRADA STORMWATER SYSTEM WOULD HAVE TO BE RELOCATED AND REPLACED WITH AN ALTERNATE SYSTEM 4 EXISTING LIGHT POLES THAT WOULD NEED TO BE RELOCATED NEW TOTAL R/W WIDTH = 94'NEW CURB-TO-CURB WIDTH = 57' ±450 LF NEW 8' SIDEWALK (±3,600 SF) NEW 8' PLANTING STRIP + 0.5' CURB TOP WIDTH EXHIBIT D 28.5' FROM L TO FACE OF CURBc LENGTH OF REPLACEMENT CURB AND GUTTER ON EAST SIDE OF ROAD: ±430 LF AREA OF 10.5-FOOT PAVEMENT WIDENING: ±5,200 SF NOTE: NEW ENTRANCE DRIVEWAY CONCRETE WOULD BE NEEDED IN ROUGHLY THE HATCHED AREA (±520 SF) NOTE: TRANSITION TAPERING WOULD BE NEEDED FOR SOME DISTANCE TO THE NORTH OF THE RECONSTRUCTED DRIVEWAY NOTE: NEW ENTRANCE DRIVEWAY CONCRETE WOULD BE NEEDED IN ROUGHLY THE HATCHED AREA (±550 SF) OFFICE PORTION OF PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION (±252 SF) TWO-BAY TRUCK GARAGE FLOOR PLATE PORTION OF BUILDING ADDITION (±2,411 SF) 300'42'