Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4242 East Valley Road Rezone1 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 Rezone Recommendation - 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: 4242 East Valley Road Rezone LUA16-000734 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION I. SUMMARY The applicant has applied for a rezone of 0.89 acres at 4242 East Valley Road from Commercial Office to Commercial Arterial. It is recommended that the City Council approve the requested rezone and extend the Commercial Arterial rezone to a surrounding area that totals 8.81 acres and is all also currently zoned Commercial Office. Extending the rezone to surrounding areas will avoid approving what could potentially be an illegal spot zone. Extending the rezone will also make the other properties in the area more conforming, as numerous uses in the recommended rezone area are currently retail, which is not authorized in the currently applicable Commercial Office zone. The few office uses in the rezone area would not be rendered nonconforming as a result of the rezone, since office uses are also permitted in the Commercial Arterial zone. II. TESTIMONY Paul Hintz, Renton senior planner, summarized the proposal. Mr. Hintz stated that staff’s primary recommendation is for adoption of Option 3 in the staff report (extending the requested rezone to 8.81 acres) and its secondary recommendation is for adoption of Option 2 (extending the rezone to 3.59 acres). In response to examiner questions, Mr. Hintz noted that both Options 2 and 3 would not create any nonconforming uses. Offices are permitted uses in the Commercial Arterial zone. Mr. Hintz could not comment on traffic impacts by the rezone. He wasn’t aware of any level of service problems with the transportation facilities in the rezone areas under consideration. In response to examiner questions about changes in circumstances, Mr. Hintz testified that it’s his understanding that squatting and vandalism in the vacant building of the applicant’s property is a recent development occurring over the last few years. He noted that another change in circumstances is a change in market forces that has made the applicant’s property less desirable for office use. Mr. Hintz didn’t know when the applicant’s 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 Rezone Recommendation - 2 property was last rezoned. Mr. Hintz isn’t aware of any other vacant buildings in the vicinity of the applicant’s property. The building has been vacant for four years. No one else testified. III. EXHIBITS The 9 exhibits identified at page 3 of the November 14, 2016 staff report were admitted into the record during the hearing. The November 14, 2016 staff report was admitted as Exhibit 10. The staff power point was admitted as Exhibit 11. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant/Owner. Kaya Hasanoglu is the applicant/owner. The applicant/owner’s address is 2125 1st Ave, No. 2105, Seattle, WA 98121. 2. Hearing. A hearing on the subject applications was held on November 15, 2016 in the Renton City Council meeting chambers. Substantive: 3. Project Description. The applicant has applied for a rezone of 0.89 acres at 4242 East Valley Road from Commercial Office (CO) to Commercial Arterial (CA). The rezone is requested to allow retail uses within an existing 9,072 square foot two-story commercial building that has been vacant for several years. The CO zoning district is generally intended to allow professional, administrative and business offices. The requested CA designation generally provides for a wide-variety of retail sales, services, and other commercial activities along high-volume traffic corridors. Staff considered three options in response to the application (refer to the map below copied from the staff report). Option 1: rezone of the subject site (shown in red) from CO to CA; Option 2: rezone of the subject site and other parcels within the block (shown in green) from CO to CA; and Option 3: rezone of the subject site (red), the other parcels within the block (green), and the three parcels within the adjacent block to the west that abut SW 43rd Street (shown in yellow). 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 Rezone Recommendation - 3 Option 1 is 0.89 acres in size, Option 2 is 3.59 acres and Option 3 is 8.81 acres. 4. Surrounding Uses. The property is located along the southern City of Renton limits, bounded by a City-owned lot and by WA State Route 167 to the east, a CO-zoned property with commercial uses to the north, East Valley Road to the west followed by a block of commercial properties zoned CO, as well as SW 43rd Street and commercial properties located in the City of Kent to the south. The location of uses within the Options 2 and 3 rezone areas is identified in the vicinity map below, copied from the staff report. 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 Rezone Recommendation - 4 5. Impacts of Rezone. The proposed rezone is likely to result in significant benefit by reducing nonconforming uses and enabling reasonable use of developed properties. These benefits increase with increases in the size of the rezone area. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated from any of the rezones, except that limiting the rezone to the applicant’s parcel could result in an illegal spot zone as concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 6. Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows: A. Benefits of Rezoning Applicant’s Property. Rezoning the requested parcel to CA would enable the property owner to use the property in a more economical manner. The property has remained vacant for several years while surrounding properties zoned CA have thrived. This difference in occupancy has lead staff to conclude that the CO zone does not authorize uses that are desired by prospective businesses. Further, as noted in the staff report, vacant buildings are subject to squatting, vandalism and theft, which are deleterious to the public. Approving the rezone will also increase tax revenues, which is also in the public interest. B. Benefits of Option 2 and 3 Rezone. Adopting the Option 2 and 3 rezones would also be beneficial as it would decrease the number of nonconforming uses in those areas. The Option 2 and 3 areas contain numerous retail uses that are currently nonconforming, likely because they predate the CO zoning. Amending the zoning designations of Options 2 and 3 would render those retail uses conforming, which would enable the businesses to more easily expand, grow and change. By 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 Rezone Recommendation - 5 contrast, the office uses in Options 2 and 3 would not be rendered nonconforming, since they are authorized uses in the CA zone. According to staff testimony during the hearing, rezoning the properties in Options 2 and 3 would not render any businesses nonconforming. All of the uses identified in the vicinity map in Finding of Fact No. 4 are permitted in the CA zone, except for the City utility building if it’s an office building (in which case it would be authorized as an administrative conditional use in the CA zone). Even if a business were rendered nonconforming, it could still continue to operate, but as previously mentioned there would be constraints on modifications and expansions. In this regard it is also important to note that notice of the public hearing was mailed to all properties within Options 2 and 3 and no written or verbal testimony was submitted expressing any concern over the rezones under consideration. C. Adequacy of Public Infrastructure/Services. There wasn’t much information presented on the impacts of the proposed upzones to public infrastructure and services. From the little information in the record it appears more likely than not that the adequate public services and facilities will be available to accommodate any increased demands created by the modestly sized rezones. Approving the rezones would presumably increase traffic, as retail use generally generates more traffic than office use. Staff had not conducted any traffic analysis to assess traffic impacts of the rezone, but was not aware of any level of service problems within the vicinity of any of the rezone options. There is also no information on impacts to other public services and infrastructure. However, the staff report does identify that the City of Renton serves all of the rezone areas under consideration with water, sewer and storm water facilities. Given the modest size of the proposed rezones and the service capacity of City utilities, it is determined that more likely than not the proposed upzones will not exceed public service and infrastructure capacity. D. Critical Areas. There are no critical areas on-site, so any increase in land use intensity facilitated by the rezone should not pose a threat to any environmentally sensitive areas. 6. Change in Circumstances. There has been a change in circumstances since the last time any of the rezone areas under consideration have last been zoned/rezoned. As testified by staff, the marketability of the property in the rezone areas under consideration has likely changed since the properties were zoned for commercial office use. The applicant’s property has been vacant for several years since the applicant couldn’t find any commercial office tenants. The surrounding properties have for the most part developed as retail uses. This all strongly suggests that there is much less demand for office use in the subject CO areas than was anticipated when the properties were zoned CO. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Authority. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies a rezone request as a Type IV application, which requires the hearing examiner to make a recommendation to the City Council after holding a public hearing. 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 Rezone Recommendation - 6 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The applicant’s 0.89 acre parcel is designated Employment Area in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Options 2 and 3 are also designated Employment Area. The applicant’s parcel and all property within Options 2 and 3 are designated CO. The Employment Area Comprehensive Plan designation is implemented by both the CA and CO zones, as well as several other zoning designations. 3. Review Criteria. Rezone standards are subject to RMC 4-9-180(F)(2). Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. REZONE CRITERIA RMC 4-9-180(F)(2)(a): The rezone is in the public interest, and 6. The criterion is met for Options 2 and 3. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposed rezone would not create any adverse impacts and would in fact be highly beneficial to the businesses of the area by rendering numerous nonconforming business conforming and also enable more economically productive use of the applicant’s property. Option 1 (limiting the rezone to the applicant’s property) is likely not in the public’s interest because it would qualify as an illegal “spot zone”. A spot zone is well described in Narrowsview Preservation Association v. City of Tacoma, 84 Wn.2d 416, 421 (1974), in which the court ruled: “We have recently stated that illegal spot zoning is arbitrary and unreasonable zoning action by which a smaller area is singled out of a larger area or district and specially zone for use classification totally different from and inconsistent with the classification of the surrounding land, not in accordance with the comprehensive plan” If the City Council limited the rezone to the applicant’s property, it would create a small island of CA zoning completely surrounded by CO zoning ot the east, west and north, with the City of Kent adjacent to the south. Such a rezone would likely qualify as a spot zone. RMC 4-9-180(F)(2)(b): The rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner, and 7. The criterion is met for all three options for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5. Under Option 1, the rezone would enable the applicant to find businesses to occupy his vacant builidng. For Options 2 and 3, the rezone would render numerous nonconforming businesses conforming and would also make the properties more marketable for business development. RMC 4-9-180(F)(2)(c): The rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof, and 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 Rezone Recommendation - 7 7. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the rezones for all three options would not create any significant adverse impacts and would in fact be highly beneficial to the properties within the rezone areas as well as the City as a whole by increasing tax revenues and promoting economic development. RMC 4-9-180(F)(2)(d): The rezone meets the review criteria in subsection F1 of this Section. 8. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with all standards imposed by subsection F1. Subsection F1 requires consistency with the comprehensive plan. For the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 20 of the staff report, the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Subsection F1 also requires either that (1) the subject property was not specifically considered in the last area land use analysis and area zoning or (2) that circumstances have significantly changed since the most recent zoning of the area. The staff report notes that the rezone of the property was not considered in the last rezone of the area, which was done in 2015. Finally, Subsection F1 requires that the rezone “meet the review criteria in RMC 4-9-020”. RMC 4-9-020 sets the review criteria for comprehensive plan amendments. The comprehensive plan criteria focus upon impacts to growth and employment rates, adequacy of public infrastructure, consistency with comprehensive plan objectives and impacts upon environmentally sensitive areas. As previously concluded, all of the proposed rezones under consideration are consistent with the comprehensive plan. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are adequate public services and infrastructure to serve the rezones under consideration and the rezones would not adversely affect any environmentally sensitive areas. The proposed rezones should have a beneficial impact upon employment rates, since it will facilitate business development in the rezone areas. 9. Washington courts have arguably adopted a somewhat different set of rezone standards than those currently incorporated in the Renton Municipal Code. For rezones, Washington appellate courts require that the proponents of a rezone must establish that conditions have substantially changed since the original showing and that the rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. See Ahmann-Yamane, LLC v. Tabler, 105 Wn. App. 103, 111 (2001). If a rezone implements the Comprehensive Plan, a showing that a change of circumstances has occurred is not required. Id. at 112. As to “implementing the Comprehensive Plan”, it is somewhat debatable whether the courts require that the rezone is necessary to implement the plan as opposed to being simply consistent with the comprehensive plan. In the application under review, the requested rezone is not necessary to implement the comprehensive plan since the current CO designation is consistent with the comprehensive plan land use designations for the property under review. However, the proposed rezones under review are certainly consistent with comprehensive plan because the CA designation is also consistent with the comprehensive plan land use designations for the property under review. In order to remove any doubt, it is best to apply the change in circumstances standard when a rezone isn’t necessary to implement the comprehensive plan. In this case, there is the requisite change in circumstances as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. All rezone options meet the judicial criteria for a rezone (excluding the spot zone issue addressed in Conclusion of Law No. 6). 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 Rezone Recommendation - 8 V. RECOMMENDATION The hearing examiner recommends that the City Council approve the Option C rezone (8.81 acres) as identified in Finding of Fact No. 3. DATED this 1st day of December, 2016. City of Renton Hearing Examiner VALUATION NOTICES Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.