HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc115 Pelly Ave >J. Renton. WA 98055 -Google Maps
Go ugle maps Address
EXHIBIT 3
http:11maps .google.com/map s?hl=en&tab=v.:l
Page 1 of I
To see all the details that are visible on the
screen.use the "Print" link next to the map
City of Renton
Plann,ng U1vision
JAN 1 'i-itl ,J
[812 010
I I
I
I
I
I
>-I
w
• __J I __J . <(
I
I
I
-1
I I I
I
I
i
19'-0"1 ~
--------------.,
I ' ' I
' I
/
~---------
1 '\.
'\.
I ~ '.,__. _____ __.4-----1-+--l
I Z
I Q
__J
I ~
I z
~
Cf)
X
U1
[i --
L-----
I I
}---------J---
I / I
/
--------------~
ADDRESS: 115 PELL Y AVE. N.
RENTON, WA. 9B055
PARCF L NUM3E R : 72 2500 -0 41 5
ZON ING: R-10
SITE PLAN SKETC~
111 = 20 1 -0 11
z • ~
U1 I-> 1-1
<( ~
>-J:
__J ><
__J w
Ul'
(L
I
Y of Rento h
p n nin g Di visiol
JAN 14 ZOW
.
I
}
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
__ _j
11')
t-....
al .... ::c >< w
City of Renton
Pi;inn ing Division
JAN 14 2010
\
,
I I I
I
.,-1
I
•
CERTIFICATE OF
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL
FOR A NONCONFORMING USE AND STRUCTURE
City of Renton File Number: LUA-97-044, CAP
Location: 119 and 121 Pally Avenue North
Business Name (If applicable}: North Renton Professional Building
Legal Description/King Countyl'5~so(sJ»roperty-ldentification-Number:-L-ots-?; ·
3 and-4, B10ci<24;-RentonFartn-Plat No. 3,-according to·Pll!t threreof-recorded in
Volume 11 of Plats, page 70, Records of King County, Washington.
Background: The City in June 1993 zoned the subject site to the R-10 Residential
Zone. Formerly, the site was zoned P-1, Public Use. The property owner requested a
conditional approval permit in order to permit Hie existing dental office use and building
to be nHtstablished in the event of a catascrophic loss to the structure.
Description of non-eonfonning use and structure granted Conditional Approval:
The subject site contains a "U-shaped' offic8 building (actually two "L-shaped"
structures with a common roof) on an approximately 10,000 square foot site. The
structure is wood-frame and brick veneer does not appear to meet the required 25-foot
rear setback.
Date of Conditional ApprovaUPeriod of ValidityfDate of Expiration: City Council
approved on April 1, 1996. This permit is valid from 14 days after the date of approval
until April 1, 2006. During this period, the property owner must comply with all of the
conditions listed on the attached "Declaration of Restrictive Covenants· recorded with
King County under #97052807 47 in order for this approval to remain valid. This permit
will expire on April 1, 2006 unless the original approval body grants an extension.
Conditions of Approval: See attached "Declaration of Restrictive Covenants" dated
May 2, 1997.
Transferability: This permit is transferable to, and binding upon, future purchasers,
heirs and assigns and runs with the land.
Benefits of this Permit This permit entitles the nonconforming structure and use to be
remodeled, reestablished, or rebuilt even though the cost to remodel· or reestablish the
use or structure would exceed 50% of the most recently assessed or appraised value.
// /; ,. I
proved by the City of Renton
Development Services Division Director
Date
. ' -.. -,-,c--· ~-.... ·"' -.-.. ~ -..
. ~.:::: / _ ... -...... ·-:r
I
!
j
l
I
i
I
!
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
,_,)
WHEN RECORDED R.ETI..•RN' TO: ~ Project File#-~----
. Pared T:ax Acrount #s =
Gran1or{S) Name·------<el
Office of lhe Ciry Oerk
Renron M1111icipal Building
200 Mill A venue South
Ri:nton. WA 98055
DECLARATION OF
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS RTSQ _______ --i-::;;l
C
WHEREAS, Pro Team Marketing, Inc. (formerly kno,m as Lyden, Ltd.), a Washington
corporation, is owner of the following real property in the City of Renton, County of King, S•ate
of Washington, DESCRIBED AS EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO.
__ WHEREAS,-the owner of said described property desires to impose· the following· -·
restrictive covenants running with the land as to use, present and future, of the attached described
real property.
NOW, THEREFORE, the aforesaid O\mer hereby establishes, grants and imposes
restrictions and covenants nmning with the land hereto attached described with respect to the use
i:>y the undersigned, their successors, heirs, and assigns as follows. In conjwiction with the gram
by the City of Renton to the ov.'IJer of this property of a conditional use permit, the following
restrictive covenants shall apply to this property:
l. The conditional approval permit for the existing use, a medical/dental
clinic, shall be in effect for a period not exceeding ten (10) years, If a catastrophic loss
of the original structure occurs within the conditional appro\'al permit period with losses
exceeding 50% of the assessed value of the structure, and the site is not redeveloped
"~thin nvo years of such a loss, the conditional approval permit for the non-confonning
use shall not be re-established.
2. New tenants shall be informed in writing abot!l the non-conforming status --
Al~-:]j~:fDf
s~w~r~g~d structure and the fact that this conditional approval permit for the
J.VO S!Hl 03A/3038
·.,,
-= 8
°' I-
I-I co
1-1
:::c >< w
, •. c.-.,.,.,
,r ~
not:-conforming use is initially granted for a period not exceeding ten (l 0) years, although
subsequent permits might be issued if conditions at the time still warrant.
3. The conditional approval permit for the existing structure, a one-story clinic
building, shall be in effect for a period not exceeding ten (iO) years. If a catastrophic
loss of the origi.nal structure occurs within the condiiional approval permit period and the
site is not redeveloped within...two-:rears-of-such-a-loss; "the condifibnal approval perm.it
for the non-conforming structure shall not be re-established.
4. The extent of the existing non-conforming building that may be replaced
with additional non-conforming structure shall not exceed the amount of the structure
accidentally damaged. In no case shall any portion of a structure that has been found to
have been intentionally damaged by the o;mer be allowed to be reestablished unless done
so consistent with all codes and regulations then in existence.
5. An application for site plan review shall be made if a catastrophic loss or
an accumulative loss greater than fifty percent (50%) of the assessed value of the structure
occurs during the life of this permit. The replacement structure shall be reviewed to
ensure that it is architecturally in character in terms of its roof treatment, setbacks, etc.,
with the surrounding area at that time and, that it complies "ith all relevant building
codes and the existing zoning codes then in place to the extent possible.
DURATION
These covenants shall run nith the land and e:qJire at the termination of the Conditional
Approval Permits referenced herein. If at any time said properties are made conforming as to
use and/or structure during the stated life of these covenants, the portion of thr covenants
2
.. :·•c, .. ·'.· . ..,,_.,•,,,' ,-••,·•
ii:~~'.£~
,:_\}f./{
I
j
_j__
l
!
I
!
l ;
pertaining to the nonconforming use, structure, or both, shall terminate without necessity of
further documentation.
Any violation or breach of these restrictive covemmts may be enforced by proper lega,
procedures in the Superior Court of King County by either the City of Renton or any property
o\\ners adjoining subject property-who are adversely affected by·,~id.breach~ -
------
-, INC.
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
-::I" co 8 I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that James J. Tomei ~igned this
n instrument, on oath stated that they were authorized to execute this instrument, and acknowledged
N it as the President of Pro Team Marketing, Inc. to be the free and voluntar/ act of such party for b the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument, and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal
"1 of said corporation. er-
DA TED this _£_ day of August, I 996.
wdd}:S 18
NAN·"·v·.·,-· ~ ...... j h.· . .".:
(Please print)
NOTARY PUBLIC in lU}4 !pr the State of
Washington, residing at /h!k«"/l
.My appointment expires ?'fb-/pJ
A/C S"e<V dd;;/ G}-h~.P r,~. r~:J,-,7 _
3
' !
l
' i
t
I
'· ;
----f
~ Map Title
0 .0 0 0.02 0.0 Miles
City of Renton, Washington
EXHIBIT 10
72240001 3~
1.12 .
72240'°135
1\b
f
72240001f
108
72240001'11
-, 104
R-10
72240~85
1010
130
CA
,enerated static output from an I nternet mapping si te and
1. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be
accurate, current. or otherwise reliable .
THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGAT I ON
Lakes and Rivers
Parcels
Zoning
Resou rce Conservation
Residential 1 du/ac
Residential 4 du/ac
Res,d ent,al 8 dulac
Residential Manufactured Homes
Residential 10 du/ac
Residential 14 du/ac
Res,d ent,al MulteFamily
Resi dential Mult~Family Traditional
Residential Mult~Family Urban Ce n
Center Vi llage
Center Downtown
Urban Center -North 1
Urban Center -North 2
Commercial Office/Reside ntial
Commercial Arteria l
Commercial Office
Commercial Neighborhood
Industrial -Light
Industrial -Medium
Industrial -Heavy
Street Names
Rights of Way
Streets
Roads
Juri sdi cti ons
Bellevue
Des M oine s
Issaquah
Kent
1 : 1,3 08
@8.5" X 11"
Notes
Enter Map Description
0
t I g -
~ J
-
~: ~ 5
-t-
-~
-
i
~ -_s::
1
"><
~
~
~ ~ u
~ y -
-.J '2 -3 !
J -c ~
..----
'><
\~
0
5
3
~
t :,
! ~
-----............... '
~~ --~
'-......._...._
-
.....
/
! ... ,~
T ~ -g ~~
~·
-+ --_:_a I
~
\~
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NUMBER:
HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING
September 28, 2010
North Renton Professional Building
LUAI0-003
Our comments on the Preliminary Report to the Examiner
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND
North Renton bounded by Bronson Way on the south, Logan Avenue North on the west,
North 61h. Street on the north and Houser Way on the east is an older, very unique,
primarily residential neighborhood on the edge of downtown Renton. There are twenty-
three non-residential buildings and uses within the area, some in appropriately zoned
locations and some that are not. The 115 Pelly Avenue North Building is the most
outstanding, attractive and well maintained small commercial building.
Some time ago the dentist occupying the building entered into a conditional agreement to
purchase the building, but was advised by his attorney not to proceed because of its non-
conforming status. In recent months, he has again expressed a possible interest in
purchasing, but not unless the rebuild approval permit is renewed. There appears to be a
serious question as to whether or not financing can be obtained without the ability to
rebuild if more than fifty per cent of the building is damaged.
4.a.COMMUNITY NEED
To say that there are other buildings within the City that could be used for relocation
seems to ignore that this dental practice has been established in this specific location for
over fifty years and is extremely well established. Moving out of the North Renton area
would create a significant challenge and hardship. The neighborhood residents and
nearby Boeing employees are being well served. There appears to be only two other
medical facilities in the area. rt,\\~. v \'71 bk., y.c,c.~ wle.csk,
e.ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE
We believe that the current tenants pay the City B&O Tax and therefore
provide economic benefit to the City.
f.TIMELINES WITH EXISTING PLANS AND PROGRAMS
Due to the siz.e of the property and the nature of the request it would appear to be an
extremely modest delay to the one hundred per cent implementation of the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, it is our understanding that the City began a process
of looking at the zoning for the area and it has been put on hold. It is possible that new
zoning would allow the outright use for a small office building.
5.a.ARCHITECTURAL AND/OR HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE
The building is quite unique with its "U" configuration rather than the typical rectangle.
.b.ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING STRUCTURES
The building has a pitched roof, not a flat roof as stated in the report. Also, the building
is set back from the property lines on all four sides. Because of the mature, abundant,
professionally maintained landscaping and attractive brick exterior, the property is a
valuable asset to the immediate neighborhood.
c.POTENTIAL OF SITE FOR REDEVELOPMENT
Though "theoretically" the site could be redeveloped with three units, we believe it
extremely unlikely to be done. There are six houses in the block that have King
County Assessed Values ranging from $119,000 to $243,000. Even if they were worth a
a little more, it is difficult to believe that someone would build new houses that would
have to cost $400,000 or more with the existing houses as neighbors.
City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton
November 9, 2010
APPEAL Fl LED BY: Clifford E. Moon, represented by Aaron Vederoff
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the North Renton Professional Building
Permit application, 115 Pelly Avenue N. (File No: LUA"l0-003)
To Parties of Record:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing
··examiner's dedsion on the North Renton Professional Building has been filed with the City
Oe~ . .
.In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section4-8-110F, within five days of receipt ofthe
notice of appeal, or after all appeal periods with the Hearing Examiner have expired, the City
· Clerk shall notify all parties ofrecord of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may
submit letters limited to support of their positions regarding the appeal within ten (10) days of
the date of mailing of this notification. The deadline for submission of additional letters is by
5:00 p.m., Friday, November 19, 2010.
NOTICE IS.HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be
reviewed by the Council's.Planning and DeveloRment Committee ·at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday,
December 9, 2010, m the Council Chambers, 7 Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady
Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for
consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting.
Copy of the appeal and the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeal of Hearing Examiner
decisions or recommendations is att;iched. Please note that the City Council will be considering
the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a
showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been avail.able atthe
prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter
will be accepted by the City Council.
For additional information or assistance, please call me at 425A30-6510.
Sincerely,
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk
Attachments
1055 South Grady Way• Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-{;510 / Fax (425) 430-i;516 • rentonwa.gov
APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL
OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
FILE NO. u.rA -\CJ-003
The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of th1
Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated 2---l C,C.~Cl\Z_ , 20 ~().
1. IDENfIFICA TION OF PARTY
APPEILANT:
Name: W~) 8 Moo/0
Address: I 0 2h \ ~ % "Gl-A\/e "-'V
IAW"~ ¥7~ ~q"i,l55
Phone Number: ZM:,;,, "3'1l-°i'54o
Email: \i\.,-jcv00.C'T07i\-WC\1PO 42._ ~ Ce1M
REPRESENfATIVE (IF ANY):
Name: AA12e!L) \R,O~FF
Address: 17\\ -"31U-Avt> I.JI?
~1 vVA-~\l5
Phone Number: Z/Jr.,,, -S 2..'5 -~lZ...
Email: A\/l9t.7~...bfB2.,'-iA1--\oo , <:.c.:vi-1
2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary)
Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is basect:CITY OF RENTON
Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) NOV O 4 ZO 10 ~I}'"
No. Error: ----------------------,s,,,.,.,..,i;:Bit;JFr.,.iF,l)l\llf<'FB,..,..,.,,~-c1 IV CLEl1k~ FFICE
Correction:---------------------------
Conclusions:
No. 6-2. Error: ~ 'i'.)cll?S IJO"(" Metrr" ~ ~ ~ 6 .:.~DA-{~ R>.e
\nG'""" ~oL ~O'f'--~ c.,~ ~ "5W--OCt-v'2e";:
Other:
Correction: h"" '{J[/'l?5 1\,\.1Jl!1'"r ~~ o-.=-~ C-i&·r0e-£f4--~ v=;c
kf,..vJ ~'G m:-~ C-leLW'«iT ~ ~
No. Error:-----------------------------
Correction:---------------------------
3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief:
(Attach explanation, if desired) t lO 'l~
X Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relie \'2.1:?!a,I (.()
Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: . . !(rl,'tl,>v!'1tj)~ \---r--
Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows:
Other:
~V\J°"" A~ntative Signature Type/Printed Name
\\uleJ'[[)
Date
NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-1 lOF, for specific appeal procedures.
City of Renton Municipal Code; Title IV. Chapter 8. Section 110 -Appeals
4-8-IIOC4
The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of
the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13°82)
4-8-llOF: Appeals to City Council -Procedures
I. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the
Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party
aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the
City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the
date of the Examiner's written report.
2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City
Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal.
3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of
their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of
the notice of appeal.
4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the
City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or
recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of
appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982).
5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or
additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by
the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time
of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required,
the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional
evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant In the
absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional
evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or
testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by
the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before
the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993)
6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely
upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional
submissions by parties.
7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner
on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-l-050Fl, and after examination of the
record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it
may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the
decision of the Examiner accordingly.
8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an
application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the
Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a
recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may
remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the
application.
9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall
specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of
the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982)
10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision
of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames
established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997)
MVH-Renton Properties LLC
7711 -31 51 Ave NE
Seattle, Washington 98115-4727
November 4, 201 O
City Council
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98057-3232
Ref: North Renton Professional Building
LUA-10-003
115 Pelly Ave N
Council Members,
Clifford E. Moon
Aaron Vederoff
Stuart Hunting
On April 17, 2007, we initiated an application to renew a Rebuild Approval Permit for a
non-conforming medical/dental building rezoned to R-8 and R-10 zones in 1997. The
building and its uses conformed to zoning from 1957 to 1997. On October 21, 2010, the
Office of the Hearing Examiner, for the City of Renton, denied our request.
There are two rebuild approval criteria: one for non-conforming use and the second for
a non-conforming structure.
We believe that we meet four of the six criteria for non-conforming use: Community
Need, Location, Effect on Adjacent Property and Economic Significance. Further, we
believe we meet three of the five criteria for non-conforming structure: Compatibility with
Surrounding Structures, Condition of Building/Structure, and Development from
Development Regulations. These are the minimum requirements for the Rebuild
Approval Permit to which we have conformed for more than fifty years.
We request that you grant a ten year continuation of a legal non-conforming use and
structure on the subject property. A draft Restrictive Covenants is attached for your
review and approval.
DRAFT
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
GRANTOR: MVH -Renton Properties, LLC, a Washington Corporation, is
owner of the subject property located in the City of Renton, County
of King, State of Washington.
GRANTEE: City of Renton
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
Renton Farm Plat #3
Situate in the NW Quarter of Section 17, Township 23, Range 5, in
the City of Renton, King County, Washington.
RESTRICTIONS and COVENANTS
MVH -Renton Properties, LLC, on its own behalf and on behalf of its successors
and assigns, and in consideration for a conditional approval permit allowing the
continuation of a legal non-conforming use and structure on the Subject Property,
hereby establishes, grants and imposes the following RESTRICTIONS and
COVENANTS running with the land:
1. The conditional approval permits (Permits) for the existing structure (one-
story clinic building) as well as use (a medical/dental clinic), shall be in
effect for a period not exceeding ten (10) years from date of issuance.
2. If a catastrophic loss of the original structure occurs within the Permits'
period with losses exceeding 50% of the assed value of the structure, and
the site is not redeveloped within two years of such loss, both Permits will
expire on the second anniversary of the date of the loss. The percentage
of the non-conforming building that may be replaced with a legal non-
conforming structure shall not exceed the amount of the structure
accidently damaged.
3. MVH -Renton Properties, LLC, or its successor in interest, shall notify
new tenants, in writing, of the non-conforming status of the existing use
and structure.
'
4. MVH -Renton Properties, LLC, or its successor in interest, shall notify
new tenants, in writing, of the remaining period of the Permits.
5. The Permits referenced herein are void and will not apply to any portion of
the structure that is found to have intentionally damaged by the owner or
its agents or assigns. Any redevelopment will be required to be in
compliance with all then existing codes and regulations.
6. Any redevelopment pursuant to Paragraph 2 must comply with the
requirements for a site plan review. The replacement structure shall be
reviewed to ensure that it is architecturally in character in terms of its roof
treatment, setbacks, etc., with the surrounding area at that time and, that it
complies with all relevant building codes and the existing zoning codes
then in place to the extent possible and as otherwise permitted by the
Permits.
7. MVH -Renton Properties, LLC, or its successors or assigns, may request
subsequent Permits. Such Permits may be issued if the conditions at the
time still warrant such conditional approval of the use and structure. New
restrictive covenants will be required to be recorded. Said covenants will
require the approval of the City Attorney.
8. These Restrictive Covenants shall run with the land and expire at the
termination of the Permits referenced herein. If either the use, the
structure, or both, are made conforming during the Permits' period, the
covenants pertaining to the previously nonconforming use, structure, or
both, shall terminate without necessity of further documentation.
9. Any violation or breach of these Restrictive Covenants may be enforced in
King County Superior Court by the City of Renton or any adjoining
property owner who is adversely affected by said breach.
MVH -Renton Properties, LLC
By~~~~~~~~~
Aaron Vederoff, Member Manager
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF ______ _
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Aaron Vederoff signed this
instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute this instrument, and
acknowledged him as the Member Manager of MVH -Properties, LLC to be the
free and voluntary act of such party for uses and purposes mentioned in the
instrument, and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation.
DATED this __ day of ______ , 2010
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of
Washington, residing at _____ _
My appointment expires. _____ _
I
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Submitting Data:
Dept/Div /Board:
Staff Contact:
Subject:
AJLS/City Clerk .//
Bonnie I. Walton ,
Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision date 10/21/2010
regarding the North Renton Professional dg Rebuild Permit
application; 115 Pelly Av. N. (File No. L 11.-10-003) /
Exhibits:
• City Clerk's appeal notificatio etter (11/9/2010) /
• Appeal to Council from Cliffdrd Moon, MVH -Renton
Properties, LLC. (11/4/2010)
• Hearing Examiners' Report & Decision (10/21/2010)
Recommended Action:
Refer to Planning and Development Committee V/
Fiscal Impact: N/A
Al#:
r Agenda of: /
November 22
Agenda Status
Consent ............... .
Public Hearing ....... .
Correspondence ...... .
Ordinance ............ .
Resolution ............ .
Old Business ......... .
New Business ........ .
Study Sessions ....... .
Information ........... .
Approvals:
Legal Dept .......... .
Finance Dept ....... .
Other. ................ .
Expenditure Required .. . Transfer/Amendment ....... .
Amount Budgeted ....... . Revenue Generated ........ .
Total Project Budget ... . City Share Total Project .. .
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
il L(-10
V
• Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Decision on the North Renton Professional Bldg Rebuild Permit
application; 115 Pelly Av N., was filed on November 4, 2010, by Clifford Moon, MVH -Renton Properties,
LLC, accompanied by the required $250.00 fee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Council to take action on the appeal regarding the North Renton Professional Bldg Rebuild Permit
application.
Rentonnetlagnbill/ bh
./
Denis Law,
Mayor
November 9, 2010
APPEAL FILED BY:
r
.· t' . .._,.._,
City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton
Clifford E, Moon, represented by Aaron Vederoff
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the North Renton Professional Building
Permit application, 115 Pelly Avenue N. (File No. LUA-10-003)
To Parties of Record:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing
examiner's decision on the North Renton Professional Building has been filed with the City
Clerk.
In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-llOF, within five days of receipt of the
notice of appeal, or after all appeal periods with the Hearing Examiner have expired, the City
Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may
submit letters limited to support of their positions regarding the appeal within ten (10) days of
the date of mailing of this notification. The deadline for submission of additional letters is by
5:00 p.m., Friday, November 19, 2010.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be
reviewed by the Council's Planning and Develogment Committee at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday,
December 9, 2010, in the Council Chambers, 7 Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady
Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The recommendation ofthe Committee will be presented for
consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting.
Copy of the appeal and the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeal of Hearing Examiner
decisions or recommendations is attached. Please note that the City Council will be considering
the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a
showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the
prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter
will be accepted by the City Council.
For additional information or assistance, please call me at 425-430-6510.
Sincerely,
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk
Attachments
1055 South Grady Way• Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov
APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL
OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
FILE NO. LV-A -\l)--003
The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of th(
Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated 2--1 (j C'tt-'8~ , 20 l0.
1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY
APPELLANT:
Name: Qv~) 8 lVU)OD
Address: I 02.h \ -~~-k,.,v t....V
~-~ \0 ~, LU'\-°1Sl55
PhoneNumber: 2fT&. "?:>'1l-°i~
Email: it\.tCUtJ~"MOC\1PO (2_t4-0L, ~
REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY):
Name: AAlWD \A?/,l~Ff"
Address: 1'11\ -3>1-U-~ VI?
~ v\A-"\<3" \ lS
Phone Number: Zlrl,, "5 2.';5 -G:,I'\ l L
Email: -A-V19tJOUJ:ff(2.'i~ , <2.eJvi-1
2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary)
Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is basect:CITY OF RENTON
Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) NOV O 4 2010 fi:;o,,
No. Error: ------------------.,..n-u-;Bl<t'F>'lr.f.:>Fj\1]¥F+ii.D:"l:"T7"'1..----Ci IV GLE#K~ OFFICE
Correction:---------------------------
Conclusions:
No. 6-7-.. Error: :i:t""" 'l)c)l;:6 '-'01" Mein-A. ~ ~ 6 1'.:-~CI.U'U.~ Fe~
0V: tJOL ~0y-·~ ~ ~ -s~~
Other:
Correction: t"r l'.)c,2?5 1U~ "RW.. Cl'F--n,w--~ Tt...Ae-114-~ t."7C
kf-.,vJ ~'Is; m;:.-~ C,eti."Q:'.l,l-tvt-·n.vt_ ~
No. Error:-----------------------------
Correction:---------------------------
3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief:
(Attach explanation, if desired) f \0 '<~
X Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relie l2E'la,l e,11)
Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: _ _ A11t~v1"(! _ _iJalil,11, ,..,.-
Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows:
Other:
~VuWV\
Appellanpresentative Signature Type/Printed Name
l\/of(z;,10
Date
NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-11 OF, for specific appeal procedures.
City of Renton Municipal Code: Title rv. Chapter 8. Section 110 Appeals
4-8-J 10C4
The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of
the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82)
4-8-llOF: Appeals to City Council -Procedures
I. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the
Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party
aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may snbmit a notice of appeal to the
City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the
date of the Examiner's written report.
2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City
Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal.
3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of
their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of
the notice of appeal.
4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the
City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or
recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of
appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982)
5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or
additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by
the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time
of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required,
the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional
evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the
absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional
evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or
testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by
the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before
the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993)
6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely
upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional
submissions by parties.
7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner
on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-l-050Fl, and after examination of the
record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it
may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the
decision of the Examiner accordingly.
8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an
application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-l -050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the
Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a
recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may
remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the
application.
9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall
specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of
the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982)
10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision
of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames
established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997)
MVH-Renton Properties LLC
7711 -31st Ave NE
Seattle, Washington 98115-4727
November 4, 2010
City Council
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98057-3232
Ref: North Renton Professional Building
LUA-10-003
115 Pelly Ave N
Council Members,
Clifford E. Moon
Aaron Vederoff
Stuart Hunting
On April 17, 2007, we initiated an application to renew a Rebuild Approval Permit for a
non-conforming medical/dental building rezoned to R-8 and R-10 zones in 1997. The
building and its uses conformed to zoning from 1957 to 1997. On October 21, 2010, the
Office of the Hearing Examiner, for the City of Renton, denied our request.
There are two rebuild approval criteria: one for non-conforming use and the second for
a non-conforming structure.
We believe that we meet four of the six criteria for non-conforming use: Community
Need, Location, Effect on Adjacent Property and Economic Significance. Further, we
believe we meet three of the five criteria for non-conforming structure: Compatibility with
Surrounding Structures, Condition of Building/Structure, and Development from
Development Regulations. These are the minimum requirements for the Rebuild
Approval Permit to which we have conformed for more than fifty years.
We request that you grant a ten year continuation of a legal non-conforming use and
structure on the subject property. A draft Restrictive Covenants is attached for your
review and approval.
DRAFT
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
GRANTOR: MVH -Renton Properties, LLC, a Washington Corporation, is
owner of the subject property located in the City of Renton, County
of King, State of Washington.
GRANTEE: City of Renton
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
Renton Farm Plat #3
Situate in the NW Quarter of Section 17, Township 23, Range 5, in
the City of Renton, King County, Washington.
RESTRICTIONS and COVENANTS
MVH -Renton Properties, LLC, on its own behalf and on behalf of its successors
and assigns, and in consideration for a conditional approval permit allowing the
continuation of a legal non-conforming use and structure on the Subject Property,
hereby establishes, grants and imposes the following RESTRICTIONS and
COVENANTS running with the land:
1. The conditional approval permits (Permits) for the existing structure (one-
story clinic building) as well as use (a medical/dental clinic), shall be in
effect for a period not exceeding ten (10) years from date of issuance.
2. If a catastrophic loss of the original structure occurs within the Permits'
period with losses exceeding 50% of the assed value of the structure, and
the site is not redeveloped within two years of such loss, both Permits will
expire on the second anniversary of the date of the loss. The percentage
of the non-conforming building that may be replaced with a legal non-
conforming structure shall not exceed the amount of the structure
accidently damaged.
3. MVH -Renton Properties, LLC, or its successor in interest, shall notify
new tenants, in writing, of the non-conforming status of the existing use
and structure.
4. MVH -Renton Properties, LLC, or its successor in interest, shall notify
new tenants, in writing, of the remaining period of the Permits.
5. The Permits referenced herein are void and will not apply to any portion of
the structure that is found to have intentionally damaged by the owner or
its agents or assigns. Any redevelopment will be required to be in
compliance with all then existing codes and regulations.
6. Any redevelopment pursuant to Paragraph 2 must comply with the
requirements for a site plan review. The replacement structure shall be
reviewed to ensure that it is architecturally in character in terms of its roof
treatment, setbacks, etc., with the surrounding area at that time and, that it
complies with all relevant building codes and the existing zoning codes
then in place to the extent possible and as otherwise permitted by the
Permits.
7. MVH -Renton Properties, LLC, or its successors or assigns, may request
subsequent Permits. Such Permits may be issued if the conditions at the
time still warrant such conditional approval of the use and structure. New
restrictive covenants will be required to be recorded. Said covenants will
require the approval of the City Attorney.
8. These Restrictive Covenants shall run with the land and expire at the
termination of the Permits referenced herein. If either the use, the
structure, or both, are made conforming during the Permits' period, the
covenants pertaining to the previously nonconforming use, structure, or
both, shall terminate without necessity of further documentation.
9. Any violation or breach of these Restrictive Covenants may be enforced in
King County Superior Court by the City of Renton or any adjoining
property owner who is adversely affected by said breach.
MVH -Renton Properties, LLC
By _________ _
Aaron Vederoff, Member Manager
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF _______ _
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Aaron Vederoff signed this
instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute this instrument, and
acknowledged him as the Member Manager of MVH -Properties, LLC to be the
free and voluntary act of such party for uses and purposes mentioned in the
instrument, and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation.
DATED this __ day of ______ , 2010
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of
Washington, residing at _____ _
My appointment expires. _____ _
October 21, 2010
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMJNER
CITY OF RENTON
Dec.i~ion
REPORT AND RECOMMENI>A'FION
OWNER:
APPLICANT/CONTACT:
LOCATION:
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT:
PUBLIC HEARING:
MVH-Renton Properties, LLC
c/o Aaron Vederoff
7711 -31~ Avenue NE
Seattle, WA 98115
Clifford E. Moon
MVH-Renton Properties, LLC
16261 36th Avenue NE
Lake Forest Park, WA 98155
North Renton Professional Building
LUA-10-003
115 Pelly Avenue N
The applicant is requesting a Rebuild Approval Permit for a
non-conforming medical office use and office building located
in the R-8 and R-10 zones.
Development Services Recommendation: Deny
The Development Services Report was received by the
Examiner on September 21, 2010.
After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining
available information on file with the application, field
checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
MINUTES
The following minutes are a summary of the September 28, 2010 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, September 28, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor
of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Neighborhood Detail Map
application, proof of posting, proof of publication and
other documentation nertinentto this request.
Exhibit No. 3: GooQ:]e Mao ImaQ:e Exhibit No. 4: Site Plan Sketch
/-1 {~
North Renton Professional Buildmg
File No.: LUA-10-003
October 21, 2010
Page 2
Exhibit No. 5: Photoo-raoh of East Face of Building
Exhibit No. 7: Photograph of North Face of Building
Exhibit No. 9: Restrictive Covenant for the 1997
Conditional Apnroval
Exhibit No. 11: Photograph looking Northeast
showing the Family Medical Clinic just south of the
Renton Professional Buildin1t
Exhibit No. 13: Photograph looking East on Pelly
Avenue N showing the Renton Vision Clinic also with
a flat roof.
Exhibit No. 15: Typed statement given by Mr.
Vederoff.
Exhibit No. 6: PhotoPTaph of West Face of Building
Exhibit No. 8: 1997 Certificate of Conditional
Amiroval
Exhibit No. 10: Zoning Map showing R-8 and R-10
zone desimations
Exhibit No. 12: Photograph looking West on Pelly
Avenue N, shows Clinic on the south with a flat roof.
Exhibit No. 14: Photograph looking Northwest
showing the alley side of the Renton Professional
Building
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Community and
Economic Development, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The applicant is
requesting a rebuild approval permit for a non-conforming medical office use. The building is located at 115
Pelly Ave N, the parcel is a split zone, the northern portion is R-8 and the southern is R-10.
This permit, if approved, would allow the non-conforming structure to be remodeled, re-established or rebuilt
even though the costs of the re-establishment of the use would exceed 50% of the most recently appraised value.
Without this permit the businesses within the structure would be permitted and allowed to remain. The
applicant would be subject to the RMC in terms of what they can do with maintenance and rebuild.
The Examiner questioned if a tenant moved out and another one moved into that space, would the space not be
considered vacated.
Ms. Dolbee stated that that was correct.
The site is located on the west side of Pelly Avenue N and is north ofN l'' Street, which is in the North Renton
Neighborhood.
This building was established in ·1957 as a clinic and contains various medical offices. The building is
approximately 3,921 square feet with 19 parking stalls in the northern parking Jot and some diagonal stalls off
the alley in the rear. Access to the site is via Pelly Ave Nor the alley which intersects with North 1" Avenue.
There is mature landscaping along the front of the property and some landscaping on the north side of the
building. No changes to the structure have been proposed by the applicant as part of this permit.
North of the site is single-family residential homes zoned R-8, to the east is single-family residential homes with
the exception of one piece of property which currently houses a vision clinic. To the south is the R-10 zone with
an existing Renton Family Practice Clinic. On the west is more single-family residential buildings zoned R-10.
The subject site is exempt from SEP A review because the structure currently exists and no changes are
proposed.
North Renton Professional Building
File No.: LUA-10-003
October 21, 2010
Page 3
There are two rebuild approval criteria; one for the non-conforming use and the second for the non-conforming
structure. In reviewing the non-conforming use issue there are six factors to be considered and four must be
complied with for approval; Community Need, the continuation of this use at its current location would result in
an overconcentration of a particular use within the area surrounding the site; Location, the subject location is
suitable for the existing use; Effect on Adjacent Property, no comments from surrounding neighbors were
received, there is a large amount of mature landscaping along Pelly Ave N to screen the front of the building
however, there is only a fence to the north and no screening is provided across the alley; Historical Significance,
the building is not associated with a historical event or activity; Economic Significance, the subject building
does not provide a substantial benefit to the community from employment or tax revenues; and timeliness with
existing plans and programs. The approval of the Rebuild Approval Permit would result in a delay of the
implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The criteria for a non-conforming structure include five criteria and three must have been satisfied in order to
approve the permit; Architectural and/or Historic Significance, the existing office building does not represent a
unique architectural style there are many office buildings with this style of architecture; Architectural
Compatibility with Surrounding Structures, this building is not a part of a unified streetscape of similar
structures that are unlikely to be replicated; Potential of Site for Redevelopment, the redevelopment of the
subject site would be economically feasible; Condition of Building/Structure, the building has been well
maintained and is not considered to be a threat to the public health, welfare or safety; Departure from
Development Regulations, the existing building does not pose a threat to the public health, welfare or safety.
The North Renton Building complies with two of the six criteria for non-conforming use and two of the five
criteria for non-conforming structure.
The Examiner questioned the fact that they did receive a permit back in I 997 which expired and they are now
looking to re-new this permit.
Ms. Dolbee stated that was correct and that the criteria had not changed since that time. Under the existing code
they can continue this use and they can continue to maintain the structure. If approved the Conditional
Approval Permit would allow the structure to be re-built should, for example, the structure bum to the ground
and the cost to rebuild the structure was beyond the cost of the assessed value.
Aaron Vederoff, 7711 31'1 Avenue NE, Seattle 98115 stated that he is one of three owners of the building, He
manages the building, collects the rents and pays the bills. His comments were written out and covered only the
points that the owners take issue with, either disagree or actually say they are not correct.
Item # 1: Project Description/Background; there are 23 non-residential uses and buildings within the area. This
building is the most outstanding, attractive and well maintained small commercial building in the area. It is
important to get this permit approved; the understanding is that the use may continue without any problem. The
dentist currently occupying the building entered into a conditional agreement to purchase the building but was
advised by his attorney not to proceed because of the non-conforming status. The dentist is still interested in
buying the building but not unless the Rebuild Approval Permit is renewed. There appears to be a question as to
whether financing can be obtained without the ability to rebuild if more than 50% of the building is damaged.
Item #4a: Community Need; the ability for relocation seems to ignore the fact that this dental practice has been
established in this location for over 50 years and is extremely established. Moving would create challenge and
hardship.
Item #4e: Economic Significance; the current tenants do pay B&O tax and therefore provide economic benefit to
the City.
North Renton Professional Buildmg
File No.: LUA-I 0-003
October 21, 2010
Page 4
Item #4 f: Time lines with Existing Plans and Programs; it appears to be an extremely modest delay to the I 00%
implementation to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Further it appears that the City began the process of looking
at the zoning for the area and it has been put on hold. It is possible that the new zoning would allow the outright
use for a small office building.
Item #5a: Architectural and/or Historical Significance; the building is unique with the "U" configuration rather
than the typical rectangle.
Item #5b: Architectural Compatibility with Surrounding Structures; the building does have a pitched roof, not a
flat roof as stated in the report. The building is set back from the property lines on all four sides and is a
valuable asset to the immediate neighborhood.
Item #Sc: Site Potential for Re-Development; the site could be redeveloped with three units; it seems to be
extremely unlikely to be done. There are six houses in the block with an assessed value ranging from $119,000
to $243,000; it is difficult to believe that someone would build new houses that would cost $400,000 or more
with the existing houses as neighbors.
Clifford Moon, 16261 36th Avenue NE, Lake Forest Park 98155 stated that he is also one of the owners and
proceeded to show additional photos of the area. The Conditional Use permit that was part of the building
expired in June 2007. The City was contacted in April 2007 to begin this process, it has taken three years to get
to the hearing today. They would like to continue the current status of the building.
The Examiner stated that if the building was totally lost to fire or whatever, the expectation would be that the
new construction would be upgraded to meet the existing codes. This issue is forced by the potential resale of
the building where a purchaser would be subject to the same constraints as currently exist with redeveloping the
property.
Mr. Vederoff stated if there was a complete bum down of the building, the concern as the City would be can
somebody economically redevelop it with three housing units.
The Examiner stated that at the same time someone at that point in redeveloping a dental office clinic as a
modem structure would also be very expensive as well as a loss of income while it is being developed. Those
are the trade-offs, the code is designed to help move out non-conforming uses ultimately. This building is well
maintained and there is no problem with that.
Mr. Vederoff continued stating that they were asking for the IO year permit as previously. He has seen in other
agreements such as this that there is no time limit. This seems unusual where a time limit is given.
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this prnject. There was no one else wishing to speak, and
no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 9:41 a.m.
North Renton Professional Building
File No.: LUA-10-003
October 21, 2010
Page 5
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. The applicant, Clifford E. Moon, filed a request for a Rebuild Approval Permit to allow replacement of
a legal non-conforming use in the event of a substantial loss.
2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation
and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit # 1.
3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official determined that the
proposal is exempt from environmental review.
4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter.
5. There was no opposition from the public regarding the subject proposal.
6. The subject site.is located at 115 Pelly Avenue North. The subject site is located on the west side of
Pelly one parcel north of North !st Street. An alley runs along the rear or west side of the parcel
between Pelly and Wells Avenue North.
7. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as
suitable for the development of single family and medium density multifamily uses, but does not
mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan.
8. The subject site is currently zoned R-8 (Single Family-8 dwelling units/acre) for the north portion and
R-10 (Residential; 10 units per acre) for the south portion.
9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 156 enacted in May 1909.
10. There is R-10 zoning south and west of the subject site and R-8 zoning directly east across Pelly and
north and northwest of the subject site.
11. Single family uses are located north, northeast and west of the subject site. Renton Vision Clinic is
across the street in an R-8 parcel. Renton Family Practice Clinic is located directly south on another R-
IO parcel.
12. The subject site is approximately 15,000 square feet. The existing building is approximately 3,921
square feet.
13. The building is a one-story, U-shaped building. The building has a pitched roof. The staff report noted
it had a flat floor line.
North Renton Professional Buildmg
File No.: LUA-10-003
October 21, 2010
Page 6
14. The building is served by 19 on-site parking stalls and 5 parallel spaces on the street. There are 11 stalls
located near the north property line. There is landscaping between the parking and the adjoining single
family home. There are also stalls west of the building. These stalls directly back onto the alley.
Single family uses are located on the west of the alley. Code does not permit direct maneuvering from
an alley into parking for commercial uses. These alley-accessed parking stalls are legally non-
conforming like the building and uses.
15. The site contains mature landscaping in front of the building both along the street and within the niche
created by the U-shaped building. A fence and narrow landscape strip provides some separation along
the north property line. There is no landscaping along the alley where the applicant has a series of
parking stalls.
16. The purpose of a rebuild approval permit is to allow nonconforming uses and/or structures that became
nonconforming as a consequence of Code amendments in June l 993 and thereafter, to be re-established
and/or rebuilt in certain zoning districts where they would normally be prohibited because the costs
associated with re-establishing the use and/or structure exceed fifty percent (50%) of their most recently
assessed or appraised value prior to the loss or damage.
17. The City issued a Rebuild Approval Permit for the subject site in 1997 (City file# LUA97-044). This
permit expired 10 years after its issuance on June 26, 2007.
18. The applicant has indicated that the current zoning has restricted the building's sale as a commercial
entity and may encumber its refinancing. The applicant noted the unkempt nature of the alley for the
properties west of the alley. There have been no complaints about the current use.
19. A density calculation is not required for this analysis. Staff estimated that if the property were
redeveloped with some conforming residential uses there might be a potential for three units.
20. The development of one single family home would generate approximately 10 trips. Three residential
units, depending on the nature of the use or uses, could generate approximately 30 trips. Staff estimates
that the clinic would generate more traffic than one single family use and probably more than a three
unit development.
CONCLUSIONS
I. Section 4-9-120 contains the criteria for approving a rebuild approval permit:
E REVIEW CRITERIA FOR NONCONFORMING USES:
The Reviewing Official may issue a rebuild approval permit only when the continuance of
the use is determined to be in the public interest and such uses are: (1) found to be
compatible with other existing and potential uses/structures in the general area; or (2) can be
made to be compatible with the application of appropriate conditions. The Reviewing
Official shall consider the following factors when considering a request for a rebuild
approval permit for a nonconforming use. In order to grant the permit, at least four (4) of
these factors shall be complied with:
1. Community Need: There shall be a community need for the proposed use at its present
location;.and the continuance of the nonconforming use should not result in either the
North Renton Professional Building
File No.: LUA-10-003
October 21, 2010
Page 7
detrimental overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the area
surrounding the site.
2. Location: The existing location is or can be made suitable for the existing use.
3. Effect on Adjacent Property: The existing nonconforming use has not resulted in
undue adverse effects on adjacent properties from noise, traffic, glare, vibration, etc., (i.e.,
does not exceed normal levels in these areas emanating from surrounding permitted uses).
4. Historical Significance: The existing use was associated with a historical event or
activity in the community and as a result has historical significance.
5. Economic Significance: The existing use provides substantial benefit to the
community because of either the employment of a large number of people in the community,
the generation of considerable retail and/or business/occupation tax revenues to the City, or
it provides needed affordable housing.
6. Timeliness with Existing Plans and Programs: Because of the anticipated market
timing for permitted uses in the zone, retention of the existing nonconforming use would not
impede or delay the implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
F REVIEW CRITERIA FOR NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES:
The Reviewing Official may issue a rebuild approval permit only when the continuance of
the structure is determined to be in the public interest and such structures are:(]) found to be
compatible with other existing and potential uses/structures in the general area; or (2) can be
made to be compatible with the application of appropriate conditions. The Community and
Economic Development Administrator shall consider the following factors, when
considering a request for a rebuild approval permit for a nonconforming structure. In order to
grant the permit, he/she shall find that at least three (3) of the following criteria have been
satisfied:
1. Architectural and/or Historic Significance: The structure represents a unique regional
or national architectural style or an innovation in architecture because of its style, use of
materials,. or functional arrangement, and is one of the few remaining examples of this.
2. Architectural Compatibility with Surrounding Structures: The nonconforming
building or structure was part of a unified streetscape of similar structures that is unlikely to
be replicated unless the subject structure is rebuilt per, or similar to, its original plan.
3. Potential of Site for Redevelopment: Redevelopment of the site with a conforming
structure is unlikely either because the size of the existing lot may be too small to be
economical, or because the characteristics of adjacent permitted uses (that might normally be
expected to expand to such a site) currently might preclude their expansion. Typically,
economic hardship would not be considered for a variance, but is a consideration here.
4. Condition of Building/Structure: If nonconforming as to the provisions of the City's
Building Code, the building or structure and surrounding premises have generally been well
maintained and are not considered to be a threat to the public health, welfare, or safety, or
they could be retrofitted so as not to pose such a threat.
5. Departure from Development Regulations: If nonconforming with the provisions of
the City's development regulations, the building or structure does not pose a threat to the
public health, welfare or safety, or could be modified so as not to pose such a threat. (Ord.
5450, 3-2-2009)
G DECISION OPTIONS:
The approving body may grant, with or without conditions, or deny a requested rebuild
approval permit. Such a permit, if granted, typically would carry conditions with it
pertaining to how a damaged structure would be allowed to redevelop. The approving body
may, for example, limit the term and duration of the rebuild approval permit as well as
impose conditions.
North Renton Professional Buildmg
File No.: LUA-I 0-003
October 21, 2010
Page 8
H CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Conditions imposed by the approving body shall reasonably assure that nuisance or hazard to
life or property will not develop. A rebuild approval permit for a nonconforming use and/or
structure may, for example, be conditioned upon the provision and/or guarantee by the
applicant that necessary public improvements, facilities, utilities and/or services needed to
support the use/structure will be provided, or the provision of other features that would make
the use/structure more compatible with its surroundings.
I EXPIRATION:
Conditions imposed relating to the duration of a permit for a use or structure should also
reflect reasonable amortization periods for any substantial upgrades to the premises that are
required by City Code.
2. This office has to reluctantly agree with staffs recommendation in this matter. There are two sets of
criteria. One set of criteria refers to non-conforming "uses" while the other refers to non-conforming
"structures." Those criteria that so carefully outline what is permissible do not sanction the permit the
applicant has requested. It does not meet at least four of the criteria found above for use nor three
criteria for structure. At the same time, this office has to reconfmn what staff reported regarding this
building and the uses it houses -the building may be maintained in a normal fashion and the established
uses and similar uses within it are all legally allowed to remain and may continue operation. Code and
courts have generally encouraged the conversion of non-conforming structures and uses to conforming
to current codes. Granting a permit to avoid conversion is not entertained lightly and Code provisions
require that the criteria be appropriately satisfied. The use does not satisfy the criteria for approving the
requested permit.
Non-Conforming Uses Criteria
3. While the use obviously serves the needs of patrons -both immediate neighbors and other patrons of the
buildings and its uses, those needs can be served by a building and uses in the commercial zones found
nearby. The nearby vicinity provides the CN zone a block north and east of the site, the CA zone a
block east of the site or downtown Renton a block or two south of the site. There is no community need
for the uses at this specific location. In addition, there are two other legal non-conforming uses in the
immediate vicinity also serving medical patrons. One is immediately south of the-subject site and
another directly across Pelly east of the subject site. These uses together create an over-concentration of
non-conforming uses in an area of residential zoning.
4. The use has been established and, admittedly, well-maintained in the area for more than 50 years. The
use has not generated any complaints. The building is designed for its current uses. Landscaping helps
the use blend into the area although there is little to screen the building's alley parking from its
residential neighbors west of the alley. There is also limited separation between the north parking area
and the adjacent single family home. The applicant's comments on the state of those neighboring
properties across the alley could reflect neglect or just a reaction to being subjected to the applicant's
parking lot across the alley.
5. The use has been established in its location for a long time and neighbors are probably use to it. The use
does generate more traffic than a standard single family home and staff estimated it probably generates
more traffic than a limited number of residential uses. A conforming residential use or uses would
probably have less effect on neighboring properties but it does not appear that the use had adverse
impacts on those adjacent uses.
North Renton Professional Building
File No.: LUA-10-003
October 21, 2010
Page 9
6. While nicely maintained, neither the building nor contained uses have any historical or architectural
significance. The uses are routine medical clinics.
7. Staff found that the building and its uses do not provide affordable housing. While it employs a
complement of medical professionals and associates it does not provide retail uses and does not provide
any substantial tax revenues either from occupation or sales taxes.
8. Finally, the timeliness of existing plans and code amendments suggests that the use should have been
transitioned to a conforming use in 2007. Clearly, there has been no urgency in this area. The use is
established and the applicant had a permit to allow restoration until June 26, 2007. Realistically,
removing or renovating the existing building to provide residential uses will not occur if a permit were
granted to allow reconstruction in the event of loss. Providing a use consistent with both the
comprehensive plan's goals and the current zoning will not occur if a permit is granted. Frankly, it
probably will not occur without a permit approval either as the use is still flourishing.
Non-Conforming Structures Criteria
9. The other criteria for non-conforming structure rebuild approval mirror in some cases the criteria found
above. The building is neither architecturally nor historically significant.
1 0. The one-story building is larger than nearby single family homes in area although it is not overly tall.
Yard conformity was not analyzed for this review but the building could be converted to residential uses
with potentially non-conforming yards. The building is not part of a unified streetscape and does differ
significantly from neighbor residential uses.
11. The applicant pointed out in the current economy that redevelopment to conforming residential uses
would be unlikely in the near term. Staff noted that redevelopment of conforming uses is possible even
if not an immediate result.
12. Again, this office has to emphasize that the building and its landscaping area well-maintained and would
not contribute to adverse impacts on health, safety or welfare.
13. Finally, this office cannot ignore the precedent of granting the permit. Two other non-conforming uses
are also located on this street. Approving this permit would create a precedent that would potentially
lead to similar additional requests, thereby further delaying the transition of three uses to conforming
land use patterns that area required by the comprehensive plan and the Zoning Code. The permit or
permits do not satisfy the requisite criteria and therefore, the permit must be denied. If on appeal the
City Council believes a permit is warranted, they might consider a reduced timeframe.
DECISION
The Rebuild Approval Permit is denied.
North Renton Professionai Builamg
File No.: LUA-10-003
October 21, 2010
Page 10
ORDERED THIS 21" day of October 2010.
TRANSMITTED THIS 21" day of October 2010 to the parties of record:
Vanessa Dolbee
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Clifford Moon MVH -Renton Properties, LLC
7711 31" Avenue NE MVH -Renton Properties, LLC
16261 36th Avenue NE Seattle, WA 98115
Lake Forest Park, WA 98155
Elizabeth P. Stewart
232 Pelly Avenue N
Renton, WA 98057
TRANSMITTED THIS 21" day of October 2010 to the following:
Mayor Denis Law
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison
Marty Wine, Assistant CAO
Gregg Zimmerman, PW Administrator
Alex Pietsch, CED Administrator
Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager
Stacy Tucker, Planning Division
Dave Pargas, Fire Marshal
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Planning Commission
Transportation Division
Utilities Division
Neil Watts, Development Services
Janet Conklin, Development Services
Renton Reporter
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section lOOGofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in
writing ou or before 5:00 p.m., November 4, 2010 Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the
Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the
discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written
request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This
request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may,
after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper.
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal
be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $250.00 and meeting other specified requirements.
Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City
Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., November 4, 2010.
North Renton Professional Building
File No.: LUA-I 0-003
October 21, 2010
Page 11
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the
executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You
may contact this office for information on formatting covenants.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur
concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in
private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both
the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council.
All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all
interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the
evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court.
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as
Appeals to the City Council.
/
ZONING
E4 • 8 T23N R5E W 1/2
S .CO.
I I.
"' "'
G4 • 20 T23N R5E W 1/2
P/D/PW Tl!CSN)C./u. liEILYICES =
C A'l[c .. -/!'"··, ..
_: ! :t
CDR(P)
. -----/
CDR
-----
RC
RC(P)
i :c::i
~-~ t
i
R:..B
~ ~ '1" F4 , .....
17 T23N R5E W V2 5317
N
I-
I-I ca
1-1 :c >< w
I
j
I I
I
I I I
>-'
ill
. --1 I --1 I~
I
I
I I I
I
I
·1
I
Q .
' .I)_ ->.. .IQ~
19'-0"1 ~
--------------;;, ' .
I ' I ,.
1' ---
I ' I ' . I
I ~ 'l:::,-,~~~~ ........ .....ll'r----~
I Z
I Q
--1
::i
I (l)
I ~
I Z
I (n fipoiii---ir-----1~
I X L-----
1 ill
I I
)-------'---J---
/ I
I // I
--------------~
I ADDRESS: 115 PELL Y AVE. N.
RENTON, WA. 98055
722500-0415 I PARCEL NUMBER:
I ZONING= R-10
SITE FLAN SKETCµ
z' ~
llJ I-> 1--1
<( f9
>-:c
--1 ><
--1 w
W'
{L
I
of Rentoh
p nning Divisio1
JAN. 14 ZDiD
I" = 20'-0" NORT!-1
,_
,.
!
\
\
!
I
I
I
_-;, .
J: 1'
~I
.. u~;
i.n
I-
I-I cc
1-1 :c >< w
City of Renton
Planning Division
JAN 14 ZOW
--·---::
~
<'
.0
DEPARTMENT OF COMl'v,~NITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: September 28, 2010
Project Name: North Renton Professional Building
~:~·\\ ";.f"'.;,r
Owner: MVH -Renton Properties, LLC, c/o Aaron Vederoff, 7711-31" Avenue NE;
Seattle, WA 98115
Applicant/Owner: Clifford E. Moon, MVH -Renton Properties, LLC; 16261 361h Avenue NE;
Lake Forest Park, WA 98155
File Number: LUAl0-003
Project Manager: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner
Project Summary: The applicant is requesting a Rebuild Approval Permit for a non-conforming
medical office use and office building, located in the Residential 8 dwelling
units per acre (R-8) and Residential 10 dwelling units per acre (R-10) zones.
The 3,921 square foot office building is located at 115 Pelly Avenue North.
The subject site was re-zoned in 1993 from Public Use (P-1) to R-8 and R-10
impacting the conformity of the office development. The rebuild approval
permit would allow the nonconforming structure and use to be remodeled,
reestablished, or rebuilt even thought the cost to remodel or reestablish
the use or structure would exceed 50% of the most recently assessed or
appraised values.
Project Lacation: 115 Pelly Avenue N
Exist. Bldg. Area SF: 3,921 SF Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): N/A
Site Area: 15,000 SF Tata/ Building Area GSF: 3,921 SF
Project Location Map
North Renton Office Bldg HEX Report
City of Renton Deportment of Com ,;ty & Economic Development Pre· ·,wry Report to the Hearing Examiner
LUAl0-003 NORTH RENTON PROFESSIONAL BLuu
Hearing Date September 28, 2010 Page 2 of 8
I A. EXHIBITS:
Exhibit 1: Project file ("yellow file") containing the application, reports, staff comments, and
other material pertinent to the review of the project.
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
Exhibit 4:
Exhibit 5:
Exhibit 6:
Exhibit 7:
Exhibit 8:
Exhibit 9:
Neighborhood Detail Map
Google Maps Image
Site Plan Sketch
Photograph of East Face of Building
Photograph of West Face of Building
Photograph of North Face of Building
1997 Certificate of Conditional Approval
Restrictive Covenant for 1997 Conditional Approval
I 8. GENERALINFORMATION:
1. Owner(s) of Record:
2. Zoning Designation:
MUH -Renton Properties, LLC, c/o Aaron
Vederoff, 7711-31" Ave. NE, Seattle, WA 98115
Residential 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) and
Residential 10 dwelling units per acre (R-10)
3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Designation:
4. Existing Site Use:
5. Neighborhood Characteristics:
Single Family Residential (RSF) and Residential
Medium Density (RMD)
General Office & Medical Office
North: Single Family Residential (R-8 zone)
East: Renton Vision Clinic & Single Family (R-8 zone)
South: Renton Family Practice Clinic (R-10 zone)
West: Single Family Residential (R-10 zone)
6. Access: Via Pelly Avenue North or the alley located
behind the building.
7. Site Area: 15,000 SF
I C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND:
Action Description Land Use File No. Ordinance Date
No.
Comprehensive Plan N/A N/A 5099 11/1/2004
Zoning N/A LUA94-031 4529 6/19/1995
Annexation N/A N/A 156 5/18/1909
Conditional Allow reconstruction in the LUA96-122 & N/A 8/5/1996
Approval Permit event of damage LUA97-044
HEX Report
City of Renton Deportment of Com' •ity & Economic Development
NORTH RENTON PROFESSIONAL BLv<i
Pre· ·oary Report to the Hearing Examiner
LUA10-003
Hearing Date September 28, 2010 Page 3 of 8
i D. PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Utilities: The subject building currently is served by the City of Renton and all utilities are in
place and existing. No changes to utilities are proposed.
2. Streets: Street improvements are not required at this time.
3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department.
E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE:
1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts
a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts
b. Section 4-2-060: Zoning Use Table
c, Section 4-2-110: Development Standards for Residential Zoning Designations
2. Chapter 8 Permits General and Appeals
a, Section 4-8-080 Permit Classification
3. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria
a, Section 4-9-120: Nonconforming Uses/Structures Rebuild Approval Permit
4. Chapter 10 Legal Nonconforming Structures, Uses and Lots
a. Section 4-10-050 Nonconforming Structures Uses
b. 4-10-060 Nonconforming Uses
5. Chapter 11 Definitions
F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
1. Land Use Element:
I G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS:
1. Project Description/Background
Non-Conforming Use
Residential Single Family Land Use Designation
Residential Medium Density Land Use Designation
The applicant is requesting a Rebuild Approval Permit for a non-conforming medical office use and
office building, located in the Residential 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) and Residential 10 dwelling
units per acre (R-10) zones. The 3,921 square foot office building is located at 115 Pelly Avenue North
and is surrounded on the north, east, and west by single family residential homes. However,
immediately south of the subject building is the Renton Family Practice Clinic and across the street
between two single family homes is the Renton Vision Clinic.
Under current conditions the Renton Professional Building has 19 on-site parking stalls and 5 parallel
spaces on the street. The site is currently accessed off of Pelly Avenue North and from the alley in the
rear. The existing site contains mature landscaping along the north property line and in front ofthe
building along Pelly Avenue North. No changes are proposed to the existing parking or landscaping as
a part of the subject application.
HEX Report
j
City of Renton Deportment of Com, 'ity & Economic Development
NORTH RENTON PROFESSIONAL BLvu
Hearing Date September 28, 2010
Pre' ·oary Report to the Hearing Examiner
WAl0-003
Page 4 of 8
Pursuant to the applicant's project narrative the North Renton Professional Building was developed as
a clinic in 1957 and is currently operating as medical/dental offices. Based on the City's permitting
system the following business have applied for and have active business licenses at the subject
location:, Daniel I Varadi, Dps, PIie Dental Practice, Vital Changes Inc, Medical Diagnostic Laboratory
Inc., Susan Word-Moynihan LMHC, and DBA-Traditional Family Healthcare.
The subject site was re-zoned in 1993 from Public Use {P-1) to R-10 impacting the conformity ofthe
office development (City file #LUA94-031). This particular rezone affected nine privately held
properties, and the goal of this rezone was to change the then current P-1 zoning classification to
zoning which is consistent with the zoning adjacent to each parcel. At the time of the Rezone the Land
Use Designation was RO and the proposed rezone was R-10. The purpose of a rebuild approval permit
is to allow nonconforming uses and/or structures that became nonconforming as a consequence of
Code amendments in June 1993 and thereafter, to be re-established and/or rebuilt in certain zoning
districts where they would normally be prohibited because the costs associated with re-establishing
the use and/or structure exceed fifty percent {50%) of their most recently assessed or appraised value
prior to the loss or damage. The City issued a Rebuild Approval Permit for the subject site in 1997
(City file# LUA97-044). This permit expired 10 years after its issuance on June 26, 2007.
Without the issuance of the subject rebuild approval permit the Renton Professional Office Building
and the business within the building would be permitted to remain, as the subject building and use
has been determined to be an existing legal non-conforming use and structure. However, the
applicant would be subject to the provisions of Chapter 10 Legal nan-conforming structures, uses, and
lots. The applicant has indicated that the current zoning has restricted the buildings sale as a
commercial entity and may encumber its refinancing.
2. Environmental Review
Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended),
the subject application is exempt from SEPA Environmental Review pursuant to WAC 197-11-
800(1)(b)(iii) The construction of an office building with 4,000 square feet of gross floor area, and with
associated parking facilities designed for twenty automobiles. In addition, the subject development is
already built and expansion is not a part of the subject permit.
3. Staff Review Comments
Representatives from various City departments have reviewed the application materials to identify
and address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official
file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this
report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of this report.
4. Consistency with Review Criteria for Nonconforming Uses -Rebuild Approval Permit
The Review Official may issue a rebuild approval permit only when the continuance of the use is
determined to be in the public interest and such uses are: (1) found to be compatible with other
existing and potential uses/structures in the general area; or (2) can be made to be compatible with
the application of appropriate conditions. The Reviewing Official shall consider the following factors
HEX Report
City of Renton Department of Comr ·ity & Economic Development Pre· wry Report to the Hearing Examiner
NORTH RENTON PROFESSIONAL BLu<i LUAl0-003
Hearing Date September 28, 2010 Page 5 of 8
when considering a request for a rebuild approval permit for a nonconforming use. In order to grant
the permit, at least four (4) of these factors shall be complied with:
a) Community Need: There shall be a community need Jar the proposed use at its present location;
and the continuance of the nonconforming use should not result in either the detrimental
overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the area surrounding the site.
The Renton Professional Building provides general office space and medical office space in the North
Renton Neighborhood area. There are other medical office buildings within the vicinity of the subject
site; however the demand for this particular office space and medical office space appears to be
needed as the spaces are leased. However, there are many other small scale general and medical
office spaces within the City currently and many are unoccupied, assumedly because of the current
economic environment. Many of these vacant spaces are located within zoning districts where such
uses are permitted out right and would not result in non-conformity. As such there is a community
need for the proposed use however, this use can be provided to the North Renton Neighborhood in
locations where the use is permitted in the zone. The continuation of this use at its current location
would result in an overconcentration of a particular use within the area surrounding the site.
b) Location: The existing location is or can be made suitable for the existing use.
South of the subject site is the Renton Family Practice Clinic and across Pelly Avenue is the Renton
Vision Clinic. In addition there are a small number of other commercial/office spaces within the
surrounding neighborhood. Furthermore, the subject use has been operating at its current location
since 1957 and has been a part of the neighborhood for more then SO-years. Based on the business
longevity in the neighborhood and the existing legal non-conforming medical office uses within the
sites' vicinity the subject location is suitable for the existing use.
c) Effect on Adjacent Property: The existing nonconforming use has not resulted in undue adverse
effects on adjacent properties from noise, traffic, glare, vibration, etc., (i.e., does not exceed
normal levels in these areas emanating from surrounding permitted uses}.
No comments were received from neighboring property owners expressing concern about noise,
traffic, glare, or vibration because of the continued operation of the subject office building. In
addition, the site has a large amount of mature landscaping along Pelly Ave N. to screen the front of
the building from the existing single family residences located across the street. However, the only
screening provided to the existing residential properties to the north is a fence and small landscape
strip and no screening is provided across the alley.
Traffic generated by general office and medical office theoretically would exceed the number of trips
as generated by a single family residence. However a portion of the site is zoned R-10 which permits
multi-family residential. The submittal requirements for a Rebuild Approval Permit do not required
the applicant to provide detailed density information. However, if one used the entire 15,000 square
foot lot and evaluated the residential development potential it appears the maximum amount of units
that could be provided would be three. Therefore staff anticipates, despite the ability to add multi-
family housing on the subject site, that traffic generated by an office building would exceed that
generated by a residential development. However, the existing structure does not appear to result in
undue adverse effects on adjacent properties from noise, traffic glare or vibration.
d) Historical Significance: The existing use was associated with a historical event or activity in the
community and as a result has historical significance.
HEX Report
City of Renton Department of Com 'ity & Economic Development Pre 1ary Report to the Hearing Examiner
NORTH RENTON PROFESSIONAL BLuu WAl0-003
Hearing Date September 28, 2010 Page 6 of8
The subject building is not associated with a historical event or activity m the community and
therefore would not have a historical significance.
e) Economic Significance: The existing use provides substantial benefit to the community because of
either the employment of a large number of people in the community, the generation of
considerable retail and/or business/occupation tax revenues to the City, or it provides needed
affordable housing.
The subject office building houses five small scale medical/dental offices that provide a variety of
services to the surrounding community. However, the subject space does not contain retail business
nor affordable housing. Currently there is no occupational tax collected by the City, however we do
collect an "FTE" tax based on the number of employees at a particular business. The exact dollar
about for the subject office building is unknown however based on the size of the building and its
businesses staff has determined that the Renton Professional Building does not provide a substantial
benefit to the community because of employment or tax revenues.
f) Timeliness with Existing Plans and Programs: Because of the anticipated market timing for
permitted uses in the zone, retention of the existing nonconforming use would not impede or delay
the'implementation of the City's Comprehensive Pion.
Policy LU-70 states that the transition of uses and structures from non-conforming to those that
conform to zoning and development standards should be implemented within three years of the
adoption of the 2004 Update, (i.e. 2007). Policy LU-73 states that non-conforming uses should
transition to conforming uses. The subject office building is a non-conforming use and permitting the
use to be re-built or remodeled even if the cost exceeds 50% of the most recently assessed or
appraised value would prolong the transition of the subject site to a residential use. Since the 2004
Comprehensive Plan update six years have passed, which exceeds Policy LU-70 transition of uses, by
three additional years. Based on the above policies approving the Rebuild Approval Permit would
result in a delay of the implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
5. Consistency with Review Criteria for Nonconforming Structures Rebuild Approval Permit
The Reviewing Official may issue a Rebuild Approval Permit only when the continuance of the
structure is determined to be in the public interest and such structures are: (1) found to be compatible
with other existing and potential uses/structures in the general area; or (2) can be made to be
compatible with the application of appropriate conditions. The Reviewing Official shall consider the
following factors, when considering a request for a rebuild approval permit for a nonconforming
structure. In order to grant the permit, he/she shall find that at least three (3) of the following criteria
have been satisfied:
a) Architectural and/or Historic Significance: The structure represents a unique regional or national
architectural style or an innovation in architecture because of its style, use of materials, or
functional arrangement, and is one of the few remaining examples of this.
The subject site contains a "U-shaped" single-story office building. The structure is wood-frame and
brick veneer. The subject building does not represent a unique regional or national architectural style
or an innovation in architecture because of its style, use of materials, or functional arrangement.
There are many other small scale office buildings built and in the same architectural style that still
exist today.
HEX Report
City of Renton Department of Com· 1ity & Economic Development
NORTH RENTON PROFESSIONAL BL_ .i
Hearing Date September 28, 2010
Pre'· :nary Report to the Hearing Examiner
LUAl0-003
Page 7 of8
b) Architectural Compatibility with Surrounding Structures: The nonconforming building or structure
was part of a unified streetscope of similar structures that is unlikely to be replicated unless the
subject structure is rebuilt per, or similar to, its original plan.
The single-story office structure is unlike other structures on the same street and in the same area.
The majority of structures in the neighborhood are single-story and two-story single family
residential homes. These homes typically exhibit pitched roofs and architectural details typical of a
single family residence. The Renton Professional building has a flat roof and is set back from the
street in the center and not at the ends, which represents a significantly different style then the
surrounding homes. As such, the nonconforming building is not a part of a unified streetscape of
similar structures that are unlikely to be replicated.
c) Potential of Site for Redevelopment: Redevelopment of the site with a conforming structure is
unlikely either because the size of the existing lot may be too small ta be economical, or because
the characteristics of adjacent permitted uses (that might normally be expected to expand to such
a site) currently might preclude their expansion. Typically, economic hardship would not be
considered far a variance, but is a consideration here.
The subject site is split zoned R-8 and R-10 and the applicant is not required to provide detailed
information about density with the subject application. However, based on an estimate utilizing the
measure tool on the City's Landlnfo Mapping System, the R-8 zone consumes approximately 5,000
square feet of the subject site and the R-10 zone consumes approximately 10,000 square feet of the
site. Theoretically (exclusive of a number of additional unknown factors) there is a potential for up
to three units on the subject site. There appears to be sufficient room on the site to place three
residential units that could be built architecturally compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Therefore, it appears the redevelopment of the subject site would be economically feasible.
d) Condition of Building/Structure: If nonconforming as to the provisions of the City's Building Code,
the building or structure and surrounding premises have generally been well maintained and are
not considered to be a threat to the public health, welfare, or safety, or they could be retrofitted so
as not to pose such a threat.
The existing building has generally been well maintained and is not considered to be a threat to the
public health, welfare, or safety.
e) Departure from Development Regulations: If nonconforming with the provisions of the City's
development regulations, the building or structure does not pose o threat to the public health,
welfare or safety, or could be modified so as not to pose such a threat.
The existing building does not pose a threat to the public health, welfare or safety.
I H. RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above review criteria the Renton Professional Building only complies with two of the
six criteria for Non-Conforming Use and two of the five criteria for non-conforming structures,
therefore staff recommends denial of the Renton Professional Building Conditional Approval
Permit, Project File No. LUAl0-003.
HEX Report
City of Renton Department of Com 1ity & Economic Development Prr ·nary Report to the Hearing Examiner
NORTH RENTON PROFESSIONAL B.~.S LUAl0-003
Hearing Date September 28, 2010 Page8of8
EXPIRATION PERIOD:
If the Hearing Examiner determines that the Rebuild Approval Permit is approved, staff recommends
an approval period not to exceed 10 years. However, pursuant to RMC 4-9-120! Expiration, Conditions
imposed relating to the duration of a permit for a use or structure should also reflect reasonable
amortization periods for any substantial upgrades to the premises that are required by City Code.
HEX Report
s
~
~ "' -i:z::
E
~ CD ...
:7-:,:
--a!
E4 · 8 T23N R5E W 1/2
ll···cD CDr:n
CD --·
t··, CD<;
~-----.S
·--(/..l -s ---co ·-. ·--
·-···· .--:-::I.
-~
G4 • 20 T23N R5E W 1/2
ZONING ----...,..,. "" UmJt,
P/B/PW TJCHNJCAL SERVICIS
Q2l28tO'l
..,i
enton
ivision
CDRCP) ~
RC
a,
. I.
"'
0 2gc po
1;4.eOO
.. ,., e;
. t>l
CDR
RCCP)
F4
17 T23N R5E W 1/2 5317
N
I-
I-I
i:a
1-1 ::c >< w
115 Pelly Ave N, Renton, WA 98055 -Google Maps
Got;gle maps Address
http:/imaps.google.comimaps''hl=en&tab=.,J
Page I of I
To see all the details that are visible on the
screen.use the "Print" link next to the map.
1/8/2010
M ....
1--4
CQ
1--4 :c >< w
>--'
ill
__[
__[
-<(
19'-0"1 ~
--------------.i
' ' );----
'
I
I
' ~'~-~~~~~~~~~--Jl--
/
/
Q
__[
:::)
[l
I,') z
f--
c!)
X
ill
L ____ _
I I
)---------J---
/ I
--------------~
ADDRESS: 115 FELLY AVE. N.
RENTON, WA. 9B055
PARCEL NUMBER: 722300-0415
ZONING: R-10
SITE PLAN SKETCl-t
:i I -=:I'
ill > -<(
>--
__[
__[
ill'
(L
'
Yof Rentt p . nning Divisio
JAN 14 ZDW
I-.... cc .... :c >< w
1" = 20'-0" NORTI-I
\ '
\
I
\
\
\
•
111
1-.... r.a .... ::r: >< w
City of Renton
Planning Division
JAN 14 1iliJ
.,_
CERTIFICATE OF
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL
FOR A NONCONFORMING USE AND STRUCTURE
City of Renton File Number: LUA-97-044, CAP
Location: 119 and 121 Pally Avenue North
Business Name (If applicable): North Renton Professional Building
Legal Description/King County Allse,111or'a~~roperty-ldentification Number: lots-~.
3 and 4, BIOCK 24, Renton Farm-Plat No. 3, according to Plat threreof-recorded in
Volume 11 of Plats, page 70, Records of King County, Washington.
Background: The City in June 1993 zoned the subject site to the R-10 Residential
Zone. Formerly, the site was zoned P-1, Public Use. The property owner requested a
conditional approval permit in order to permit the existing dental office use and building
to be re-established in the event of a catastrophic loss to the structure.
Description of non-conforming use and structure granted Conditional Approval:
The subject site contains a "LI-shaped" office building (actually two "L-shaped"
structures with a common roof) on an approximately 10,000 square foot site. The
structure is wood-irame and brick veneer does not appear to meet the required 25-foot
rear setback.
Date of Conditional Approval/Period of Validity/Date of Expiration: City Council
approved on April 1, 1996. This permit is valid from 14 days after the date of approval
until April 1, 2006. During this period, the property owner must comply with all of the
conditions listed on the attached "Declaration of Restrictive Covenants· recorded with
King County under #9705280747 in order for this approval to remain valid. This permit
will expire on April 1, 2006 unless the original approval body grants an extension.
Conditions of Approval: See attached "Declaration of Restrictive Covenants· dated
May 2, 1997.
Transferability: This permit is transferable to, and binding upon, Mure purchasers,
heirs and assigns and runs with the land.
Benefits of this Permit: This permit entitles the nonconforming struc:lure and use to be
remodeled, reestablished, or rebuilt even though the cost to remodel· or reestablish the
use or structure would exceed 50% of the most recently assessed or appraised value.
//
/
<. I
proved by the City of Renton
Development Services Division Director
Date
co
I-
t-I co
1-1 ::c >< w
-I ···
l
' I
I
j
I
I
l .j
\\'Hal RECORDED RETl'RN TO:
Office-of the City Oerk
Renton Municipal Building
100 Mi!! A venue South
Rcnlon. WA 980S5
DECLARATION OF
RESTRICTTVE COVENANTS
Project File !!.--,-------~
Parcel Ta.'( Account #s e>
Oran10r(s) Narne _____ -<d
RTSQ __ ~~~~~-;"-;J
WHEREAS, Pro Team Marketing, Inc. (formerly kno,m as Lyden, Ltd.). a Washington
corporation, is owner of the following real property in the City of Renton, County of King, ~(ate
of Washington, DESCRIBED AS EXHIBIT "A" A TT ACHED HERETO.
_WHEREAS,--the 0\1/ner of -said described property desires to impose the followini..:_~ _ _:_::~
restrictive covenants running with the land as to use, present and future, of the attached described
real property.
NOW, THEREFORE, the aforesaid o,mer hereby establishes, grants and imposes
restrictions and covenants running with the land hereto attached described with respect to the use
i:,y the undersigned, their successors, heirs, and assigns as follows. In conjunction with the grant
by the City of Renton to the owner of this property of a conditional use permit, the following
restrictive covenants shall apply to this property:
l. The conditional approval permit for the existing use, a medical/dental
clinic, shall be in effect for a period not exceeding ten ( 10) years. If a catastrophic loss
of the original structure occurs within the conditional approval permit period \,ith losses
exceeding 50% of the assessed value of the structure, and the site is not redeveloped
"'lthin two years of such a loss, the conditional approval permit for the non-conforming
use shall not be re-established.
2. New tenants shall be informed in writing abo,>t the non-conforming status
,u,;· ]j !})/1)1 s11w~r~ft1;r~1d structure and the fact that this conditional approval permit for the
AVO SIHl 03A/3J3!l
"
= 8
O'I .... ....
al .... ::c >< w
,-.
.. _j
nor:-conforming use is initially granted for a period not exceeding ten ( I 0) years, although
subseqnent permits might be issued if conditions at the time still warrant.
3. The cQnditional approval permit for the existing structure, a Qne-story clinic
building, shall be in effect for a period not exceeding ten (10) years. If a catastrophic
loss of the original strncture occurs within the conditional approval permit period and the
---~-----·>',i'·l->
site is not redevelojl,'d _ wirhin_tw.o..y.ear..s--0f-such-a-loss; 1hl,conditfona1 approval permit
for the non-conforming structure shall not be re-established.
4. The extent of the existing non-conforming building that may be replaced
with additional non-confonning structure shall not exceed the amount of the structure
accidentally damaged. In no case shall any portion of a structure that has been found to
have been intentionally damaged by the om1er be allowed to be reestablished unless done
so consistent with all codes and regulations then in existence.
5. An application for site plan review shall be made if a catastrophic loss or
an accumulative loss greater than fifty percent (50%) of the assessed value of the structure
occurs during the life of this permit. The replacement structure shall be reviewed to
ensure that it is architecturally in character in terms of its roof treatment, setbacks, etc.,
with the surrounding area at that time and, that it complies with all relevant building
codes and the existing zoning codes then in place to the extent possible.
DURATION
These covenants shall run ,\ith the land and expire at the termination of the Conditional
Apprnval Permits referenced herein. If at an~· time said properties are made conforming as to
use and/or structure during the stated life of these covenants, the portion of th~ covenants
2
pertaining to the nonconforming use, structure, or both, shall terminate without necessity of
further documentation.
Any violation or breach of these restrictive covenants may be enforced by proper lega,
procedures in the Superior Court of King County by either the City of Renton or any property
o\mers adjoining subject property-who are adversely affected by ·s:,id breach:
, INC.
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
q
co 8 I certify that l know or have satisfactory evidence that James J .. Tomei Jigned th.is
r'"l instrum~nt, on oath stated that they were authorized to execute this instrument, and acknowledged
N it as the President of Pro Team Marketing, Inc. to be the free and voluntar; act of such part'; for
Cf'
0 the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument, and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal
...0 of said corporation.
CJ'
DA TED this __£_ day of August, 1996.
(Please print)
NOT ARY PUBLIC in aIJ4 fj,r the State of
Washington, residing at /17!4«-/L
My appointment expires "31.>-ij<r
/JO Si?d' d/.,f:11/ {277,.-:.,.p c/! ~t.,,),-,7 _
3
l
!
1 r
i
f
'