HomeMy WebLinkAboutTopgolf Master Plan, Site Plan, Conditional Use, Variance & Street Mod - Reconsideration - LUA-19-0000941
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE, VARIANCE and SITE PLAN - 1
CAO VARIANCE - 1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Topgolf
Master Plan, Site Plan, Conditional Use,
Variance, and Street Modification
LUA19-000094, SA-M, SA-H, CU-H, V-A, V-
A, MOD
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DECISION UPON
RECONSIDERATION
Discussion
By letter dated August 30 2019 the Applicant has submitted a letter supported by City staff
requesting reconsideration of Conclusion of Law No. 20 and Condition No. 25 of the Final Decision
of the above-captioned matter. The conclusion and condition addressed RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i),
which requires master/site plan applicants to include “a detailed sequencing plan with development
phases and estimated time frames, for phased projects.” As noted in COL No. 20, the Applicant had
not submitted a phasing plan, so Condition No. 25 was imposed to require “a detailed sequencing
plan,” using the language of RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i). The Applicant asserts that the City Council
recently enacted Ordinance No. 5926 “to allow the phasing flexibility that Condition #25 would
undo.” In light of this interpretation of the ordinance, the Applicant requests that Condition No. 25
be stricken or in the alternative that the requirement for a “detailed phasing plan” be replaced by a
requirement for a general phasing plan. The Applicant also requests that a reference to the code
enforcement remedy of permit revocation be stricken from COL No 20.
As to “flexible” phasing, Ordinance No. 5926 doesn’t expressly exempt qualifying proposals from
the “detailed sequencing plan” requirement of RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i) and also doesn’t expressly
identify any intent to provide for flexible phasing. It does, however, only require that the space to be
used for Phase 2 development only need be identified with information on how the space would be
functionally integrated into overall mixed use development. The Applicant construes this flexibility
in the designation of Phase 2 space as also applying to and overriding the “detailed sequencing”
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE, VARIANCE and SITE PLAN - 2
CAO VARIANCE - 2
requirements of RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i), further noting that RMC 4-9-200(E )(1) provides that the
master plan review standards are only intended to provide general guidance. The Applicant’s
interpretation of Ordinance No. 5926 is not very well supported by the plain text of the ordinance
itself, since the designation of Phase 2 space in the master plan is separate from the timing
requirements for its development. However, given the staff’s support for the Applicant’s position
and its likely involved in the adoption of Ordinance No. 5926, it is reasonable to conclude that the
Applicant’s position reflects the legislative intent of the City Council. For this reason, Condition No.
25 will simply be replaced with a requirement to comply with RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i), giving staff the
flexibility to apply the standard as intended by the City Council in adopting Ordinance No. 5926.
As to references to permit revocation authority, that was just dicta included to provide assurance that
the phasing condition was enforceable. Staff had raised concerns in a past application about the
enforceability of phasing plan requirements. The reference to permit revocation authority in COL
No. 20 simply identified one of the remedies available in the City’s code enforcement code, and did
not serve as any binding interpretation or have any effect on the availability of that remedy or any
other. The Applicant requests that COL 20 be modified to specifically hold that permit revocation
does not apply. The authority to restrict future code enforcement actions in a land use decision is
highly dubious and will not be exercised here. The reference to code enforcement will simply be
stricken from COL No. 20.
DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION
COL No. 20 is stricken and replaced with “As conditioned.”
Condition No. 25 is replaced with the following:
The Applicant shall submit a phasing plan to the extent required by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i)
for approval by the planning manager prior to construction permit issuance.
DATED this 16th day of September, 2019.
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
As consolidated, RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III
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. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14-
day appeal period.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE, VARIANCE and SITE PLAN - 3
CAO VARIANCE - 3
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.