Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/09/2018 - Wilson's response to City's limited Motion for ReconsiderationJuly 9, 2018 VTA EMAIL Mr. Phil 4lbrechts Renton Hearing Examiner 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Ref: Wilsons' Response to City of Renton's Limited Motion for Reconsideration of Examiner's Decision on Request for Extension (Wilson Park 1, LUA 09-140) Dear Sir: We are writing to oppose the City of Renton's Limited Motion for Reconsideration, filed July 3, 2018. Although we believe the record supported granting our request for an extension to July 5, 2019 in full, the Examiner's Final Decision (which essentially preserved the original plat approval period and extended the plat approval only as needed to mitigate for the time spent on our extension request) was not an improper abuse of discretion, was supported by the record, and should not be reconsidered as the City requests. As the Examiner found, we faced "uncertainties" and put our plans "on hold to a certain extent as [we] waited for a decision" on our extension request.' The extension, if granted, would have lowered the risks associated with construction and obtaining final plat approval and would have increased the property value. Thus, no buyers were willing to close or settle on a purchase price until we knew whether we had an extension. Further, although we considered our options if the extension were denied, we did not want to give up the value of the entitlements or rush to begin construction ourselves, in case the extension was later granted_ In short, both we and potential buyers remained in limbo and unable to act until we knew the plat's expiration date. At heart, the City's arguments fault us for being proactive and putting good faith effort into the plat and our request. The City argues that the Code allows a requestor to submit an extension request up to 30 days before plat expiration, and the fact that we received the Final Decision before the Code's submission deadline means we cannot show any burden from the decision- making process. But the Code's 30 -day submission deadline is a deadline, not a recommended or wise practice. The City should not be punishing requestors who submit their extension request before the deadline, precluding that party from claiming any burdens suffered during the decision-making process. The City also argues we suffered no burden because the City received recent inquiries from potential buyers of the plat, suggesting that marketing continued. But as discussed above, buyers were unwilling to close until the plat's expiration date was decided, and the uncertainties surrounding the plat's expiration date burdened our efforts. Again, the City should not be punishing parties for exerting good faith (though impaired and unsuccessful) efforts to work toward final plat approval while an extension request is pending. Final Decision at p. 1, lines 15-16; p. 2, lines 15-16. Finally, the City suggests the Examiner should reconsider the Final Decision because there is a chance we may construct the improvements necessary to obtain final plat approval. The City's argument is absurd. The City granted preliminary plat approval for Wilson Park 1; that approval remains valid and has not yet expired; and we are undisputedly entitled to construct and work toward final plat approval. The Examiner's limited extension to November 16, 2018 only preserved our plat approval and maintained the status quo, extending the approval only as needed to mitigate for the time spent on our extension request. On the other hand, the City's Motion for Reconsideration effectively cuts into our plat approval period. First, if granted, the City's Motion would deprive us of the time during which we were unable to move forward while awaiting a decision on our extension request and the City's Motion. Second, even if the Motion is denied, the time taken to resolve the Motion re -raises the uncertainty surrounding the expiration date and burdens our ability to move forward. We therefore request additional time to mitigate for the time spent resolving the City's Motion. In conclusion, the City's Motion is troubling, particularly its suggestion that potential construction and final plat approval is cause for concern and grounds for revising the Final Decision. The Motion demonstrates that the City's focus is not on our unusual circumstances or burdens, but rather on stopping this project. Although the City has revised its development regulations, the undisputed fact is that Wilson Park 1's approval is valid, approved, and vested to the prior regulations. Moreover, no City employee has ever raised concerns to us about the safety or soundness of Wilson Park 1 or 2's design. The City's desire to impose its revised regulations on Wilson Park 1 is not grounds for cutting the plat approval period short or arguing that construction should not commence. Therefore, we respectfully request that you deny the City's Motion and grant additional time to mitigate for the time spent resolving the City's Motion. Additionally, in the spirit of reconsideration and in light of the positions and motives expressed in the City's Motion, we respectfully request that you reconsider your decision to deny our original extension request, and grant our request to extend the plat approval expiration date to July 5, 2019 to coincide with the expiration of Wilson Park 2. Please let us know if you require any additional information, and thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Robert and Doravin Wilson z