HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppeal 11-22-11.-.,
March 21, 2012
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUN"TY OF KING
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
)
) §
)
BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes
and says that I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over
the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter.
That on the 21st day of March, 2012, at the hour of 4:30 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and
placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail
to all parties of record, the Planning & Development Committee Report regarding the Horne
Rezone. (File No. LUA-11-023 ECF, R)
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 21st day of March 2012.
L
,,,,,,,,,,,,,
/ 11 11 cYN;/;--_
\.
,,, ........... :7;,., --:.
,,, / e,o"'Mls.r;· •• 1)-:;,_
~ <,:, / /v.o O,i\. '::. s-,, ?-•;,
_::,,._~--.:,,:::==---'/.---.l,\,......:'-,--------4~_;;.:,,;µ: _:-o';!, ""· ~ ~ i O ~
Cynthi R. M6ya t m ~~ ~, 'I. :;;. $: ~ ~ --. o • . .,:, ,1c ,!Ji: ~
Notary Public in and for the State of '::."" •• •• ~ / ,, -:. ~ • •• 14 / ,,
Washington, residing in Renton -:. 'f8 .......... ~, 11
---, rflNG,0'' 11'1
My commission expires: 8/27/2014 ,,.,,,,,,,;11111 1
·"
Dennis Rattie
600 Stewart Street, Suite 1920
Seattle, WA 98101
Dennis Rattie
5510 NE 21st Court
Renton WA 98059
Ed Horne
5604 NE 24th Street
Renton, WA 98059
Richard Wilson
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, PS
1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98101
Jay Bankson
569 Graham Avenue NE
Renton, WA 98059
Diane & Dennis Schwartzenberger
601 Shattuck Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057
Robert Wilson
21703 60th Street E
Lake Tapps, WA 98391
Chris Slatt
14511 25th Av SW
Burien WA 98166
Howard Friedrich
2401 Lyons Av NE
Renton Wa 98059
Doug Chin
King County Water & Land Res.
201 S Jackson Street #600
Seattle, WA 98104
Debra Rogers
5326 NE 22nd Court
Renton, WA 98059
Bruce Christopherson
5502 NE 24th Court
Renton,WA 98059
Newfourth, LLC
19244 39th Avenue S
SeaTac, WA 98188
Karen Walter, Mukleshoot Indian
Tribe Fisheries Division
39015 172"d Avenue SE
Auburn, WA 98092
Doug Prellwitz
14302 156th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Sherry Williams & Greg
Schwartzenberger
2706 NE 5th Court
Renton, WA 98056
Paul Mackay, Jr.
5625 NE 26th Street
Renton, WA 98059
Steve Beck
4735 NE 4th ST
Renton, WA 98059
Larry Ice
5307 NE 23rd Ct
Renton WA 98059
Happy Longfellow, President
Stonegate Homeowners Assoc.
5405 NE 24th Ct
Renton, WA 98059
Bryan & Kendra Vadney
5404 NE 24th Court
Renton, WA 98059
Tom Redding
Encompass Engineering & Surveying
165 NE Juniper Street, Suite 201
Issaquah, WA 98027
Claudia Donnelly
10415 147th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Duana Kolouskova
Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Koluskova
1601114th Avenue SE, Suite 110
Bellevue, WA 98004
Kolin Taylor
4735 NE 4th Street
Renton, WA 98058
William Kombol
30533 234th Avenue SE
Black Diamond, WA 98010
Madonna Messina
2218 Lyons Avenue NE
Renton, WA 98059
Mary Horne
5604 NE 24th St
Renton, WA 98059
Jean Rollins
2905 Ilwaco Av NE
Renton, WA 98059
Andrew Duffus
9605 143'd Av SE
Renton, WA 98059
... ~
Julie & Jim Bonwell
Katie Bonwell
2914 lyons Av NE
Renton, WA 98059
Lindsey Miller
King County Water & Land Res.
201 S Jackson Street #600
Seattle, WA 98104
Jerri Wood
12408 SE 981h Street
Renton, WA 98056
Don Althauser
King County Water & land Res.
201 S Jackson Street #600
Seattle, WA 98104
Roger Coates
14127 SE May Valley Road
Renton, WA 98059
Jeff Waller
15125 SE May Valley Road
Renton, WA 98059
Jeff Burkey
King County Water & Land Res.
201 S Jackson Street #600
Seattle, WA 98104
Tom Carpenter
15006 SE 139th Place
Renton, WA 98059
. .-, .. '
.. Del)is Law
:May~~-
March i9, 2612 • ,
:·· \'
. ' Rictiara R. Wilson .
.• _ ..
Hillis ClarkMartih-&Peterson PS
1221 Second Av~~ue, Suite 500 .·
~ . ' . . . . . . '
Seattle, WA98~0i ·. · · · ·· · ·
City Ele_rk·c Bo.i\nie I. Walton
: < •
.. · Re: Appeal by tneSti:megate 1-iomemr.iriers Association of Headng Exa,miner's dedsfon dated .. ·•
. 11/1/2011;-reg~rdfng the.Horne Rezone Request (File.:No. LUA,11-023) .. ·. . . . .·
. ' ''" . . .-. . . .-' . . . ' . . . . .. -. . . ·. -
Dear Mr. Wilson:· . '. '
· . At the regular Council ineeting of Ma.r€h 12/2012,.the Renton. City Council.tacik action on the ·.·. ' .. , ', . -. . . -' ' ' . . . . . .. · . . . . ' . ·. . .... -· ' . ·. -. . ·, .
· refere'riced ap'peal by _adqpting ttie recommendation ot the Planning and Development •· ·
·.· •.. ' Committee t~ reverse the Hearing Ex~min'er's detision o(Ndvehiberl, 2011. Enclcised is copy
. of th;~Planniniand Dev~)opme·nt·Committ~e repC>rt as adopted.-: .. · ... ·. . • . • . '. .•
Unle~s an ~ppeal of the decisidh of the City Couficil isfilE'd with King County S~perior Court as.·
>indicated in RentcirJ Jy'lunidpafCode, the decision of the city Cou~cll ls final. .. .
. . ',.__. ' .. , -; .. -..• ·i . . . .·: ~ • : . . ' ' . ~ . . . . ·. . ... : . ' . . ..
· If I can provide further infortnation, pleas~ feel free to co'ntact me;
.· Since·rely,
Bonnie L Walton ..
City Clerk'
-' . ·-'
Enclosure .·
· cc:, . Mayor Denis Law . .
Council'Presid~nt Rich Z~kker ..
Rocale Timmons
· 1'~rties. of R~c~rd ', ~·
·. -1055°SouthG,..;dyWay • Re~ton,Washington'98057 ~ (425) 430.,6510 / Fax(425) 43(}-6516 • nenfo~wa.gov_
. . '
. l
·'
PLANNING ANi;> .DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
. COMMITTEE REPORT
March 12, 2012
.. Horrie Rezone and Appeal .
. Referred i/9/2012 .
. The Planning and Development Committee recomnierids that the Renton City Counci.l reverse
. the decision of the Hearing Examiner and deny the Applicant/Respondent's request to rezone .
. . the ·subject propertiesR~l to R-4. The Comm~ee found a s~bstantial en:or iri.taw or fact:in the
. -Hearing. Examiner's reporf. · .. The Plann.irig ·and Development Committee further recommends
. that .the C::ity Council adopt tlie following amendment to the Hearing Examiner's Findings of
F~et, Conc/1,1sions of law, and Recomme~dation:· . ·. • · -< _··. · .· ... · · · · .. · ·_. _• . . . . . -. . . -. .. Co~du;ion 15 sh~tild be amended to r~ad: ;,City Staff contend that this area should not .
be. rezon~d to four dwelling ~~its pe~ net acre because this increased development
density would conflict with the recommendations of the May Creek Basin Action Plan .
. The Applicant noted tti~t there are no critical areas on the subject site. However'. the R-
1 design·ati6n is not determined solely by what is ori an individual's property. The RC1 ·
zoning desigriation is based on the area and whether there are sensitive ~reas in the
area, not only on an individual or subject property. FurthermOre, city policy does. not · .
require tliatthe site/lot contain "critica!°·areas, only that there is a critical area in the'
vicinity of the site/lot." . ', ·' . . ' . ' . ' . .
• All other conclusio11s should be deleted. · . -·. . · ·· . . . ·. . .. ·
• The Decision should be am~nded to ·recommend denial of the Applicant's r.ezone
cc: · ~ocale Tinirilons
Jennifer H~r:mirlg ·
· oiip Vincent
· ·. Lawrence J. Wari-En
... Denis Law
_·Ma~r
March f9, 2012 •. ·
. Richard Ri Wilson
Hillis Clark Martin &Peterson PS
1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500
S~at'tle, WA 9810i . ' · ~.' -·
.. · Re: . Appeal by the Stonegate Hoh,eowriers Association of Heari~g Examiner's d~ci,£ion dated .··.
11/1/2011,regardfng the H.orrie Rezone Request {File No. LUA-11-023)
Dear Mr. Wilson:
.At the regular Council me~tirig of Ma.rch 12, 2012, th~ Renton City Council took acti~n on the ..
'referenced appeal by adopti~g the rei:omrrieridation of the Planning and Df!ivelopme~t ..
. ' Committee tore~erse the Hearing Examiner's decision of Nmiehiber 1, 2011. Enclosed is copy .
. · of the Planning and Dev~lopment Committee report as adopted.· .· . · : . > . ·•. .
Unless an appeal of the decision ot'the City Council is.filed with King County S~perior Court as .
indicated in Renton Municipal Code, the decision of .the City Council is final. . .
. ' _, . ., . . ,, . . .
If I ~an provide further information, please feel free.to contact me.·
Sincere IV:
~j.CJ~·
Bonnie I. Walton·
City Clerk
Enclosure .'
cc:, Mayor Denis Law
CouncilPr~sident Rich Zwicker
Rocale Timmons·
Parties.of R~cord
. 1055 South Grady Way• Renton,Washington 98057 • (425) 43D-6510 / Fax(425) 430~516 • rentonwa.gov. . . . .
' . '
'
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
. COMMITTEE REPORT
March 12, 2012 .
. Horne Rezone and Appeal ·
Referred 1/9/2012
The Planning and Development Committee recommends tha{ the Renton City Council reverse .
the decision of the Hearing Examiner .and deny the Applicant/Respondent's request to rezone ..
. the subject properties R~l to R-4. The Committee found a substantialerror in.law or fact in the
· . Hearing· Exam.iner's report'.·. The Planning and Development Committee further recommends
. that the· City Council adopt the following amendment to the Hearing Examiner's Findings of
· F~et, Conclusions of Law, and Recam.mendation: · · · ·
. • Conclusion 15 should be amended to read: "City Staff contend that this area should not.
be_ rezoned to four dwelling units. p~;. net a~i'e because this increased development
density would conflict with the recommendations of the May Creek Basin Action Plan.
The Applicant noted that there are no critical areas on the subject site. Howeve~, the R-
1 designation is not determined solely by what is ori an individual's property. The R'l ·
zo~ing
0
designation is based on the area and whether there are sensitive areas in the
area, not only on an individual or subject property. Furthermore, city. policy does n~t ·
require that the site/lot contain "critical" areas, only that there is a critical area in the ·.
·. vicinity of the site/lot." . .. . . . . . . . .
• All other conclusions should be deleted. ·
• The Decision should bE! am~nded to recommend denlal of the Applicant's rezone
cc: · ~ocale Timrilons
Je_nnifer H~r.,ning ·
Chip Vincent
Lawrence J. Warren
-·
March 12, 2012
Monday, 7 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL OF
COUNCILMEMBERS
CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE
PROCLAMATION
Girl Scout Week -
March 12 to 16, 2012
APPEAL
Appeal: Horne Rezone,
Stonegate Homeowners'
Association, LUA-11-023
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
MINUTES
Council Chambers
Renton City Hall
Mayor Pro Tern Rich Zwicker called the meeting of the Renton City Council to
order and invited Girl Scout Troop 40546 to present the national and state
colors and lead the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
RICH ZWICKER, Mayor Pro Tern; GREG TAYLOR; RANDY CORMAN; MARCIE
PALMER; ED PRINCE; TERRI BRIERE. MOVED BY TAYLOR, SECONDED BY
CORMAN, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILMEMBER DON PERSSON.
CARRIED.
JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer; LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City
Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; ALEX PIETSCH, Community & Economic
Development Administrator; IWEN WANG, Administrative Services
Administrator; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Public Works Administrator; CHIP
VINCENT, Planning Director; ANGIE MATHIAS, Associate Planner; DEPUTY CHIEF
ERIK WALLGREN, Fire & Emergency Services Department; COMMANDER PAUL
CLINE, Police Department.
A proclamation by Mayor Law was read declaring March 12 to 16, 2012 to be
"Girl Scout Week" in the City of Renton and encouraging all citizens to join in
this special observance by recognizing the many achievements and
contributions of Girl Scouts in the Renton community. MOVED BY BRIERE,
SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION. CARRIED.
Girl Scouts of Western Washington Cadet Leader Heather Smith accepted the
proclamation. She stated that 2012 marks 100 years of Girl Scouts, an
organization that helps foster courage, confidence and character for girls. Ms.
Smith listed some of the troop's accomplishments, including collecting food,
wrapping presents, ringing bells for the Salvation Army, raising money and
supplies for homeless children in the Kent School District, and volunteering at a
local animal shelter. She thanked Council for joining the Governor and other
officials in recognizing the work Girl Scouts do for the community.
MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL SUSPEND THE RULES AND
ADVANCE TO ITEM 5., APPEAL, ON THE AGENDA. CARRIED.
Planning and Development Committee Chair Prince presented a report
regarding the Horne Rezone appeal. The Committee recommended that the
Renton City Council reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner and deny the
Applicant/Respondent's request to re-zone the subject properties R-1 (one
dwelling unit per net acre) to R--4 (four dwelling units per net acre). The
Committee found a substantial error in law or fact in the Hearing Examiner's
report. The Committee further recommended that the City Council adopt the
following amendment to the Hearing Examiner's Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Low, and Recommendation:
March 12, 2012
PUBLIC HEARING
·Annexation: Windstone V,
North of Sunset Blvd N & East
of Jericho Ave NE
Renton City Council Minutes Page 67
• Conclusion 15 should be amended to read: "City Staff contend that the
area should not be re-zoned to four dwelling units per net acre because this
increased development density would conflict with the recommendations
of the May Creek Basin Action Plan. The Applicant noted that there are no
critical areas on the subject site. However, the R-1 zoning designation is
based on the area and whether there are sensitive areas in the area, not
only on an individual or subject property. Furthermore, City policy does not
require that the site/lot contain "critical" areas, only that there is a critical
area in the vicinity of the site/lot."
• All other conclusions should be deleted.
• The Decision should be amended to recommend denial of the Applicant's
re-zone request.
MOVED BY PRINCE, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
COMMITIEE REPORT. CARRIED.
This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in
accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Pro Tern Zwicker opened.the
public hearing to consider the 60% Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation
Proceedings petition and zoning for the proposed Windstone V Annexation; 4.3
acres located south of NE 16th St., if extended, west but not abutting 148th
Ave. SE, north of NE Sunset Blvd., and east of Jericho Ave. NE, if extended.
Community and Economic Development Administrator Alex Pietsch introduced
Associate Planner Angie Mathias. Ms. Mathias reported that the annexation
site is within the City's potential annexation area and contains single-family lots
and vacant land. She remarked that there are no regulated slopes, and there is
a Class IV waterway along a significant portion of the eastern boundary. Ms.
Mathias stated that public services are currently provided by Eastside Fire,
Water District #90, Renton sewer service, and the Issaquah School District.
Reviewing the site's zoning, Ms. Mathias stated that existing King County zoning
is R-4 {four dwelling units per gross acre). She stated that the City's
Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Residential Low Density and that the
area was pre-zoned as R-5 {five dwelling units per net acre). However, R-5 is no
longer a valid zone so new zoning will have to be adopted as part of the
annexation process.
Regarding the fiscal impact analysis, Ms. Mathias reported that currently there
would be $5,034 in revenues and $3,843 in costs annually to the City's
Operating Fund, which would change to $16,881 in revenues and $14,107 in
costs if the projected additional eight dwelling units are built over the next ten
years. Additionally, Ms. Mathias reported that there would be $1,137 in
revenues and $478 in costs to the City's Capital and Enterprise Funds, which
would change to $11,776 in revenues and $6,310 in costs if the projected build-
out occurs over the ten-year period.
Concluding, Ms. Mathias stated that the proposed annexation is generally
consistent with City annexation policies and Boundary Review Board objectives,
and the City's best interests and general welfare would be served by this
annexation.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE REPORT
_ March 12, 2012
Horn·e Rezone· and Appeal
Referred 1/9/2012
APPROVED BY
CITY COUNCIL . .
Date 03c I ;1. -,;l..O / .2
The Planning and Development Committee recommends that the Renton City Council reverse
the de.cision of the Hearing Examiner and deny the Applicant/Respondent's request to rezone
the subject propertie~ R~l to R-4. The Committee found a substantial error in law or fact in the
Hearing Examiner's report.· The· Planning and Development Committee further recommends
that ·ttie City Council adopt the· following amendment to the Hearing Examiner's Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Low, and Recommendation:
• Conclusion 15 should be amended to read: "City Staff contend that this area should not,
be rezoned to four dwelling units per net acre because this increased development
density would conflict with the recommendations of the May Creek Basin Action Plan.
The Applicant noted that there are no critical areas on the subject site. However, the R-
1 designation is not determined solely by what is on an individual's property. The R'l
zoning designation is based on the area and whether there are sensitive areas in the
area, not only on an individual or subject property. Furthermore, city policy does not _
require that the site/lot contain "critical" areas, only that there is a critical area in the _
vicinity of the site/lot/' ·
• All other conclusions should be deleted.
• should be amended to recommend denial of the Applicant's. rezone -
cc: Rocale Timmons
Jennifer Henning
Chip Vincent
Lawrence J. Warren
•.
CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENl _.JMMITTEE
.,.... °"'"'Th ~--< 1§.:fP'i ,' ~Llfi Sn-· ;R · _,_ ~1.$.!..W '-:dl.!.!.L
MEETING DATE & TIME: __ __,T.,_,h.,,_ur,..,,s~da=y~, ~M=a~rc=h~0=8~, 2=0~1=2-"@~4.,_,:=00"-""prn"-'------------
£Ed Prince
~Terri Briere Rich Zwicker
~ Randy Corman
I AGENDA
1. Horne Rezone Appeal
CITIZENS IN ATTENDANCE
Item#
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE
Item# Na,ne (please print clearly)
I 1{,{'(--J[.e 1 i1vJ,'-10'V_j
I '. ,, ,.-'1 \..Vurre,..__
I , /,:,~t1if~ uer--'
'
CITY OF RENTON
MAR 14 2012
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Contact Info (Extension#)
J;;.10 . v=-v (p '
)' 1 z. qd}
.....
Denis Law
Mayor
· .• February 17, 2012
. -· City Council
APPEAL FILED BY: King·County Water & La_nd Resou_rces, represented by Doug.Chin
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated Jamiary 9, 2012 regarding the May Creek
Drainage Improvement Project (LUA-11~065,.V-H, SP)
To Parties of Record:
The Renton City Council's Planning & Development Committee will meet to deliberate the above-
referenced item on the following date: -
Thursday, April 12, 2012
4:00 p.m.
7th Fioor/Couiicil Chambers
City of Renton
1055 South.Grady Way
Renton, Washington . .
· This Council Committee. meeting is open to the public, but it is not a public hearing. It is a
working session of the Planning &:Development Comm.ittee. !llo new testimony or evidence will
be taken. However, the partfes are expected to attend and be prepared to explain why ttie
Council Committee should uphold or overturn the decision of the Hearing Examiner.
If you have questions regarding these meetings, please phone Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison, at
425-430-6555.
nee, Chair
Plan.ning & Dev_elopment Committee
Renton City Council
Rentol"! City Hall • 1055 South Grady W~y • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentoriw~.gov
Doug Chin
King County Water and Land Resources
201 S. Jackson Street #600
Seattle, WA 98104
Andrew Duffus
9605 143'd Ave. SE
Renton, VI/A 98059
Roger Coates
14127 SE May Valley Road
Renton, VI/A 98059
Lindsey Miller
King County Water and Land Resources
201 S. Jackson Street #600
Seattle, WA 98104
Jeff VI/a lier
15125 SE May Valley Road
Renton, VI/A 98059
J.wniJu ~-enn,~
fu711d Luo.~
CA-hj AAor nee!
Happy Longfellow, President
Stonegate Homeowners Assoc.
5405 NE 24th Court .
Renton,VI/A 98059
Julie & Jim Bonwell
Katie Bonwell
2914 Lyons Ave. NE
Renton,VI/A 98059
Don Althauser
King County Water and Land Resources
201 S. Jackson Street #600
Seattle, WA 98104
Tom Carpenter
15006 SE 139th Place
Renton,VI/A 98059
Jean Rollins
2905 Ilwaco Ave. NE
Renton, VI/A 98059
Karen VI/alter
Vl/atersheds & Land Use Team
Leader
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries
Jeff Burkey
King County Water and Land Resources
201 S. Jackson Street #600 · '
Seattle, WA 98104
Jerri VI/cod
12408 SE 98th Street
Renton,VI/A 98056
·_,: \.
Denis law
· :: Mayor · . · "8 +:re.~+ .. ·
N .
·February 17, 2012. FEB20 2012.
· RECEIVIµ)
APPEAL FILED BY: ..
CITY CLERK'S OFFJi.:s .
Stonegate Homeowners Association by their attorney Richar.d ·
. Wilson; Hillis CllirkMartin & Peterson, PS . . .
-. .. . ·.'
. RE: . Appealof Hearihg E~aminer's d~dsi~n dated November 1, 2011, rega~cHng Home
Rezone Request. {File No. LUA0 11-023. EC,F, _R)
To Parties of Record:·
_The Renton City Coun~il's Planning & Development Committe~ will meet to deliberate the above-
reforenced item on the following date: . . . . . .
.· . . . . . .
. . . .
· · .. Thursday, _March 8, 2012 ·
. . 4:00 p.m; .
·. 7tfl Flooricoundl :chambers ·
· · City of R~nton ·
1055 South Grady Way .
. Renfori, Washington · .
This Co~ndl Committee meeting is open to the public, but it is not a public hearing. It is a .
working session of the Planriing &·Development Committee. No new testimony or evidence will.
be taken. However, the paitjesare expected to attend and be prepared to explain why the .
CouncH Committee should uphol.d or 011erturn the decision of the He;iring Examiner.
If you have questions regarding these ~eetings; please phone Julia Medzegian, Council liaison, at
425-430-6555.
n.
· . Ed.Prince, Chair .· . .
.. Piannfrig & Development Committee .
· Reriton,.City Council : · ··
-~eJ1~~n-(i~ ·Hall .-1055. South Grad}' Way· . • ~enton. Washington 98057 • rentonwa.Qov
i
December 7, 2011
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
)
) §
)
BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes
and says that I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over
the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter.
That on the 7th day of December, 2011, at the hour of 4:30 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and
placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail
to all parties of record, notice of appeal filed by Stonegate Homeowners Association by their
attorney Richard Wilson, Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, PS of the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation regarding the Horne Rezone. (File No. LUA-11-023 ECF, R)
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 7th day of December, 2011. r· . r·, ,11/ll////r--
(_
11t 11 -,(~TH1.~ ;;---
·1 ,1 C, •••••••• 'T -l . i .··~1-11ss,0>: .., ~ ,, .· 0 .,, ', ~-=:.. .,...____ , : v NO;r-<".;::-. 0 ~ ~ . ~ ~-~, Cynth a R. Moya ,.;s ~ (/) : ,. ;-;:, : )> ~ ··-•· -<>, ' m• , df h f '-p' \.,i'l'\ c;:,• ' Notary Public in an or t e State o ~ '""'-.. c5> "I.Jc .' ~
Washington, residing in Renton
My commission expires: 8/27/2014
~((\·,~ .. ,,
~9,_~·· .. ?,-14 .... ·;~ /
______ is, ,4 ~ HiN (/• / J' 11
,,,.,.,,,.//.,111/JI
.... _~.;
)'
Denis Law ·
.Mayor
December 7, 2011
APPEAL FILED BY:
. City Clerk -Bonnie !."Walton
: Stonegate Homeowners Association by their. attorney Richard Wilson,
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, ·ps
RE: Appeal of Hearin~ Exami.ner's d~cisi~n dated November 1, 2011: regarding Horn~ .
Rezone Request. (File No. LUA-11-023 ECF, R)
To Parties ofRecord:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton <:ity Code of Ordin~nces, written appeal ofthe hearing
examiner's decision on theHorne·Rezone Request has been filed with the City Clerk .. . . . . ..
In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-80 110F, within five ~ays 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 cif 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 sub.mission of addition~l letters is. by
. 5:00 p.m., Monday, December 19, 2011. · ·
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeai and other pertinent documents wiUbe
reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development C.ominittee at 2:00 p.rri. on Thursday, ·
January 12, 20i2,in the Council Chambers, 7th Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady . .
Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The reco.mrriendation of the Committee will be presented for
consideration by thefull Council at:a subsequent Couilcilnieeting. · ·
Copy of the appeal and the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeal of Hearing _Examiner
decisions or recommendation·s·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 eviderice 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 ine at 425-430-6510.
Sincerely,
Bonnie I. Walton
City Cle'rk
Attachments
1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 I Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov
Deririis Rattie
600 Stewart Street, Suite 1920
Seattle, WA 98101
Madonna Messina
2218 Lyons Avenue NE
Renton, WA 98059
Ed Horne
5604 NE 24th Street
Renton, WA 98059
Richard Wilson
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, PS
1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98101
Jay Bankson
569 Graham Avenue NE
Renton, WA 98059
' Diane & Dennis Schwartzenberger
601 Shattuck Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057
Robert Wilson
21703 601h Street E
Lake Tapps, WA 98391
Debra Rogers
5326 NE 22"d Court
Renton, WA 98059
Bruce Christopherson
5502 NE 24th Court
Renton,WA 98059
Newfourth, LLC
19244 391h Avenue S
SeaTac, WA 98188
Karen Walter, Mukleshoot Indian
Tribe Fisheries Division
39015 172"d Avenue SE
Auburn, WA 98092
Doug Prellwitz
14302 1561h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Sherry Williams & Greg
Schwartzenberger
2706 NE 5th Court
Renton, WA 98056
Paul Mackay, Jr.
5625 NE 26th Street
Renton, WA 98059
Bryan & Kendra Vadney
5404 NE 24th Court
Renton, WA 98059
Tom Redding
Encompass Engineering & Surveying
165 NE Juniper Street, Suite 201
Issaquah, WA 98027
Claudia Donnelly
10415 147th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Duana Kolouskova
Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Koluskova
1601114th Avenue SE, Suite 110
Bellevue, WA 98004
Kolin Taylor
4735 NE 4th Street
Renton, WA 98058
William Kombol
30533 234th Avenue SE
Black Diamond, WA 98010
. ·.·~..........-~~· ... ·.·••··· ....... .. ,;~·::-::--:::-~ ... ··::.:.. ...... : -. ' ··~~-... ; . .·.'N .. -.· ..... ..::.-·, ... ~.·-· .
CITY OF RENTON
Hillis uun
HCMP
Law Offices
Clark
Martin&
Peterson P.S.
NOV 2 2 2011.11:c;;;.,., j
RECEIVED i
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE I
Renton City Council
c / o Bonnie Walton, City <::!erk
Renton City Hall, 7th Floor
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
November 22, 2011
Via Messenger
Re: Notia of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Recommendation·,.. Horn, Rezone '&q11tst
ReZfJn< WA 11,-023, ECF
Dear Members of the Council:
Our law firm represents the Stonegate Homeowners Association ('SHOA'')
in connection with the proposed Home rezone request. The proponents seek to rezone
7.37 acres in the northeast comer of Renton from the R-1 zone to the R-4 zone.
The Renton planning staff strongly recommended that the rezone be denied. Despite that
recommendation, the City's Hearing Examiner Pro Tern issued her Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Recommendation advising appro".al of the rezone request.
On behalf of SHOA, we hereby appeal the Examiner's recommendation and enclose
the required $250 appeal fee. We urge the Council to reverse the Examiner and deny
the requested rezone.
1. Standing to Appeal
Under RMC § 4-8-110(F)(1), SHOA has standing to appeal the Examiner's
recommendation to the Council. The undersigned attorney testified on behalf of SHOA at the
Examiner's public hearing, as did two SHOA board members. In addition, the undersigned
submitted written comments on the proposed rezone to City staff before the hearing was held.
C,C. ', \._c~ \,0:)..cC """• Lx:q (:\,~ ..
I'.~~ ,.,,.o_:n~ i c.. e:. t>
$"-"'-;\.._,-1\-~"~;"i, Lt.~
c~.p , .. i.ne. .. "* , t..e 't>
\-\ er~c:"":i. b,y;.~.,,...,~e.,
1221 SecondAverue,Suite 500 I Seattle, WA 98101 I 206.623.1745 I f:206.623.n89 I hemp.com 17' MERITAS
I.AW 1"1.15 WDAlDWIOE
!
i
I
i
•,·•-.---.-.-. -· ---··
Renton City Council
November 22, 2011
Page 2 of 12
2. Background.
~-.·,_. -. ..• ;..!~--~ ..... , "" -.·· c.·.·
The background regarding the Home rezone request is generally described in the
Examiner's recommendation.1 The Council should be particularly mindful of the following:
• The owners of 12 noncontiguous lots in northeast Renton, totaling 7.4 acres,
have collectively applied for a rezone of their two groups oflots from R-1 to the
higher-density R-4 zone.2 Their two lot groupings are separated by an access tract
owned by SHOA (Tract I of the Stonegate plat), which is not part of the Home rezone
request.3
• May Creek is located just no_rth of this area, while the Greene Creek tributary directly
borders the site on the west.•
• The Stonegate community (annexed to Ren.ton in 1995) is located just west of the
Home properties and is also zoned R-1. Stonegate was developed at an overall gross
density of 1.38 dwelling units to the acre, not the 2 to 3 d.u./acre wrongly asserted by
the rezone applicants and erroneously accepted as fact by the Examiner.' ·
• The pre-annexation zoning adopted by the Renton City Council in 1997 designated
this entire area, including the Home lots, as R-1, to become effective upon
annexarion.6
• The City again reviewed the zoning of the Home lots in 2005 as part of the Planning
Commission's area-wide land use review. The commission recommended no change
in the 1997 R-1 pre-annexation zoning, and the City's R-1 designation for this area
remained unchanged. 7
1 Se, Examiner's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation (11/1/11) (''Examiner's
Recommendation'), p. 6.
2 Examine:r's Recommendation, p. 1.
3 S,, Exhibit ("Ex.') 3-G, p. 5.
4 Examiner's Recommendation, p. 6.
5 Erirniner's Recommend.ation,p. 4.
6 Examiner's Recommendation, pp. 1, 4.
7 Examiner~s Recommendation, p. 5.
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
. · .. -~-~-. ---~:.-: ...
Renton City Council
November 22, 2011
Page 3 of 12
... · .. ·'."'-'.'"! '~ --
• The Home lots were annexed to Renton in May 2009 as the MacKay annexation.•
Before annexation, two of the lots were zoned R-1 by King County, while the rest
were zoned R-4 in the County. But at the time of annexation, the Renton City Council
relllined Renton's pre-annexation R-1 zoning on all these lcits.9 ·
• One of the factors influencing the Council's decision to relllin R-1 zoning at the time
of annexation was the fact that this area is located in the May Creek drainage basin.
As noted io the 2001 May Creek Basin Action Plan, which Renton is committed tC:.
implement, the density of upland development is a key contributing factor to the
flooding that occurs in May Valley.10
• Because this area drains to May Creek, the Basin Plan recommends that existing
zoning densities -including adopted pre-zoning for future annexation areas like the
Home properties -should not be increased unless a qualified hydrologic analysis
demonstrates that stormwater runoff peaks and volumes can be fully mitigated to
pre-developed conditions.11
• The 2001 Basin Plan included this recommendation even though the plan recognized
that King County was about to adopt a more stringent and effective Surface Water
Design Manual (a manual subsequently adopted by Renton and other cities) that would.
better mitigate potential flooding impacts in the area.12
• The Current Planning staff recommended denial of the Home rezone because of its
failure to meet all but one of the applicable rezone oiteria in Renton's code.13
• Despite the staff recommendation, despite the long-term chronic concerns about
flooding in the area, and despite the fact that the Home rezone would constitute an
isolated island of R-4 zoning in the midst of an R-1 area of Renton, the Examiner
Pro Ten, (who is not an attorney) recommended approval of the Home rezone.14
s Examiner's Recommendation, p. 6.
9· Examiner's ~mmendation, p. 6. See Ex. 3-G, p. 3, a."ting Ex. 7, applicants' Home Rezone Project Naaative,
p. 3; Revised Sta1fReport (10/11/11) at p. 7 (hereafter ''SwfReport").
10 Ex. 4, May Creek Basin Action Plan (April 2001), p. 1-6. The Basin Plan was developed jointly by King
County and Renton. The Renton City Council adopted Resolution No. 3506, authorizing the mayor to enter into
an interlocal agrccment with the County to implement the May Creek Basin Plan. St>.ff Report at pp. 5-6.
11 Ex. 4, May Creek Basin Action Plan, p. 3-29.
12 Ex. 4, May Creek Basin Action Plan, p. 3-8.
" Staff Report, p. 8.
H Examiner's Recommendation, p. 18.
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
Renton City Council
November 22, 2011
Page 4 of 12
·····.,-~~-..
3. The Applicable Rezon_e Standards.
.... 1---~···· '-···
The properties included in the Home rezone request are all designated RLD
(Residential Low Density) on the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan Map. Both the R-1 and
R-4 zones are intended to implement the RLD designation. RMC §§ 4-2-020(q and (D).
The Home rezone proposal therefore does not require a comprehensive plan amendment.
Accordingly, the yardstick for evaluating the Home rezone proposal is set forth in
RMC § ~9-180(F)(2), as follows (emphasis supplied):
2. Criteria for Rezones Not Requiring Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The Reviewing Official shall make the following findings:
a. Tb, r,zon, is in the pub!it intmst, and
b. The rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any
substantial property rights of the petitioner, and
c. Tb, r,zon, is not matmaf!y detrimmtai m th, p11b!it uff= of the propmus of
other pmons kicaud in the vicimty tbmof, and
d Tb, r,zon, muts th, r,vin,, criteria in _S11bsection Ft of this Section.
This last subsection (F)(2)(d) requires that the criteria in subsection F(l) must also be met.
The F(l) criteria are as follows (emphasis supplied):
1. Criteria for Rezones Requiring a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The following findings shall be-made:
The proposed amendment meets the review criteria in RMC 4-9-020; and
a. Is consistmt with th, policies set forth i11 th, Compr.hmsive Pla,r, and
b. At least one of the following circumstances applies:
i. The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered at
the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; or _
ii. S inct th, most r,ctnt la11d use anafysis or th, ar,a zomng of th, S11bj,ct
propnry, authmzed p11b!it improvemmts, pmnitt.d privat, developmmt or other
circumstances affecti11g the fllbject propnry have 11ndergom n"gttijica11t a11d material
cha11g,.
Hillis Clark Mortin & Peterson P.S.
-· -·· ·" -~-. ..........,....~-·.
Renton City Council.
November 22, 2011
Page 5 of 12
',-. --=-~---~:, ... ·.·:
The referenced review criteria in RMC § 4-9-020 govern the processing of amendments to the
comprehensive plan. They don't apply here because the Home rezone doesn't require a plan
amendment 15 But·in order for the Home rezone to be approved, the other italicized criteria
in subsection (F)(l) must be satisfied. ·
And it is the Home rezone proponents who bear the burden of proving that the
applicable criteria have been met
In considering the evidence, we note that (1) ·there is no presumption
of validity favoring the action of rezoning; (2) the proponents of the
rezone have the burden of proof in demonstrating that conditions
have substantially changed since the original zoning ... ; and (3) the
rezone _must bear a substantial relationship to the public health,
safety, morals or welfare.16
4. The Examiner Misinterpreted and Misapplied the Applicable Rezone Criteria.
a. The Rezone Is Not in the Public Interest The first criterion in 4-9-180(F)(2) is
that a rezone must be in the public interest The Home rezone is not The rezone will create
an island of higher-density.R-4 zoning that is not in keeping with the density of the
surrounding R-1-zoned area. It will create an unfortunate precedent that other landowners
may use to seek upzoning of their R-1 properties in this vicinity, which could lead to far higher
densities in this area than the City has ever envisioned."
The isolated nature of the requested R-4 rezone, surrounded as it would be by
properties in Renton all zoned R-1, highlights the argument that this zone change would not
be in the public interest On, the contrary, it would constitute an illegal spnt zone under
Washington law, as discussed below under Heading 5.
The Examiner turned a deaf ear to all of this. Instead, in her Conclusion No. 8, ·
the Examiner erroneously adopted the rezone applicants' specious argument that the real
density of the Stonegate community is about three ci1L/ acre, that butldout densities in the area
are thus closer to 4 ci1L/acre than 1 d.u./acre, and that an R-4 rezone of the Home properties
would-therefore result in a density consistent with Stonegate's.18
15 The Examiner enoneously suggests that the criteria in RMC § 4-9--020 do apply. SttExaminer's
Recommendation, pp. 8-9, Conclusions 3 and 4. But since no comprehensive plan amendment is tequired. here,
those criteria arc not applicable.
16 Parl:ridge v. G!J of Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454,462,573 P.2d 359 (1978).
17 Even. the Examiner acknowlcdgcs that the Home rezone could be used as a precedent to question all of the
City's R-1 zoning in this area. Examiner's Recommendation, p. 8.
111 Examiner's Recommendation, pp. 10-11.
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
·,·_'·C.~7;~:.:...::.··.I
" j:
1!
Renton City Council
November 22, 2011
Page 6 of 12
;-,......,..·-.. ·.• .. ·.·-· ....
But this entire discussion of existing residential densities in the R-1 zone should
properly be on the basis of gross densities io the area, and the Examiner has totally ignored the
way gross density is calculated. To calculate gross density, an entire area is divided by the
number of dwclliog units. One can't siroply ignore open space areas in Stonegate and consider
only the densities of the residential lots. That results in a calculation of net density, not gross
· density." This is a fundamental flaw in.the Examiner's recommendation because she
concluded that R-4 densities on the Home lots would be compatible with the R-1 density of
the adjoining Stonegate community.20 The Examiner has equated apples with oranges.
Further, RMC § 4-9-!80(F)(2)(a) requires the Examiner to make a specific finding that
a rezone is in die public interest. While the Examiner discussed this criterion in general,
she never_ made the required speci.iic finding. Her decision thus fails to comply with Rentoo's
rezone criteria.
b. The Rezone Will Be Materially Detrimental to the Public Welfare of
Property Owners in Stonegate. The second criterion italicized above is that a rezone must
not be materially detrimental to the public wdfare of the properties of other persons located in
the vicinity thereof. The Home rezone will indeed be detrimental to the wdfare of Stonegate
property owners. Every Stonegate homeowner or representative who testified at the hearing
said as -much. 21 ·
And as noted, this rezone can be used as a precedent for further upzoniog in the area,
whicb could lead to a much denser devdopment pattern than has ever been contemplated by
those who have bought residences in the northeast Renton area. That outcome would indeed
be tnllterially detrimental to SHOA and its members of the Stonegate community.
Future pressure for additional R-4 upzoniog of this area is more than a hypothetical
threat. Under the Examiner's reasoning, every R-1 property owner in the area could seek a
similat R-4 rezone. The Ex?roiner recommended approval of the Home rezone because the
applicants purportedly provided "compdling expert testimony that the 2009 stormwater
regulations were adequate to protect critical areas." But under the May Creek Basin Action
Plan, existing densities should not be increased unless a qualified hydrologic analysis
demonsttates that stormwater runoff peaks and volumes can be fully mitigated to
pre-devdoped conclitions.22 And while the Home rezone applicants provided some testimony
on this issue, the Examiner based her recommendation of approval on Renton's updated 2009
19 See RMC § 4-11--040 (definitions of D,IUi!J,, Gron and D=i!J, Ne~.
20 Enminc:r's RCCOm.mendation, p. 11.
21 Testimony of Madonna Messina, Dcbonh Roger.;, Bruce Christophcrson, Dan Larlri.n, and Riclun! Wtlson.
See Examiner's Recommendation, p. 4.
22 s" fn. 10 mpra.
Hillis Clark Mortin & Peterson P.S.
' !
i ""i
I
I
'
· Renton City Council
November 22, 2011
Page 7 of 12
. ,.,_., ... ·· ... --;-;:-.... ::::.::--;-·:
stotmwater regulations and its critical areas ordinance, regardless of any specific
demonstration of full mitigation to pre-developed conditions on this site:
[I]he Applicant has amply demonstrated that new stormwater
regulations eliminate the underlying rationale for the R-1 designation
in this area, ie., protecting critical areas from stormwater run-off.23
······-:-~
This is a startling statement. Under the Examiner's reasoning, any R-1 owner can
simply point to Renton's 2009 stormwater regulations and then. assert that the May Creek
Basin Action Plan's requirements have been satisfied, without any specific demonstration via a
hydrological analysis. That is a dangerous precedent indeed, one that undercuts the Basin
Plan's emphasis on preserving very low densities in this area. Yet the Examiner dismissed the
Basin Plan as irrelevant to.her decision."
In addition; SHOA itself owns Tract I of the Stonegate plat (Assessor's Tax Parcel
No. 8035400590), ie., the 30-foot-wide strip running east-west directly in the middle of the
· Home rezone properties that is used for access purposes. While not.included as one of the
parcels for which R-4 rezoning is sought, Tract I lies completely within the boundaries of the·
Home rezone area Thus, SHOA itself is an additional property owner that objects to this
rezone as detrimental to ·its interests. ·
The Examiner dismissed these coticems out of hand, calling them unsubstantiated.
But the transformation of this area from its existing low-density nature, with major open
spaces, to a far denser suburban development pattern is a real threat .
c. Since the City's Most Recent Land Use Analysis of the Home Properties in
2009, There Has Been No Significant and Material Change in Circumstances Affecting
the Home Properties. ·
In her Conclusion No. 7, the Examiner asserts that the applicants supplied evidence of
a significant and material change in circumstances affecting their lots since the most recent
land use analysis of the subject properties, as required for a rezone under
RMC § 4-9-180(F)(l)(b).25 But the evidence cited by the Examiner fails to satisfy this test
Renton's code requires a significant and material change since the last area zoning or
"the most recent land use analysis or area zoning of the subject property." The City's most
recent land use analysis was in 2009, when the Home lots were annexed to Renton. At that
time, the City Council considered whether these lots should be zoned R-1 or R-4, and then
" Examiner's =ommendation, p. 12
" Examiner's =ommendation, p. 12.
25 Examiner's =ommendarion, p. 10.
Hillis Clark Mortin & Peterson P.S.
·. ' __ ,;.,:::·-~_.,.-~ .. · ..
Renton City Council·
November 22, 2011
·. Page 8 of12
deliberately continued its pre-annexation R-1 zoning of these lots."' Since that time, there has
been no showing of any significant and material change in circumstances that satisfies this
rezone test.
The Examiner points first to changes in the area that took place after Renton's
pre-annexation zoning was adopted in 1997. The changes cited arc the development of
Stonegate (which, as noted, was developed essentially at an R-1 density) and Wmdstone,
another development to the south. But these. "changes" occurred befor. 2009, the date of
"the most recent land use analysis or area zoning of the subject property." They therefore
don't qualify as changes that meet this rezone test.
The Examiner also cites improvements in public infrastructure since 2005, in the form
of a sewer line and lift station, as well as the installation of natural gas lines. Again, these
changes occurred well before 2009, the date of "the most recent land use analysis ... of the
subject property.'"' Thus, these utility improvements similarly can't be used to show a
significant and material change in circumstances. 28
The other factor cited by the Examiner to satisfy this criterion is King County's
adoption of a more stringent stormwater design manual in 2009 ."' But that circumstance is
hardly unique to the Home properties. It was a countywide change, and Renton's own
adoption of tighter stormwater regulations is likewise a regulatory change affecting the entire
city, not just these properties.
Again, if the adoption of new stormwater regulations can be used to justify this rezone,
the same will hold true for any other R-1 owner in the area, who can likewise claim that the
updated stormwater regulations are sufficient in and of themselves to justify an upzone to R-4.
Simply put, both the rezone applicants and the Examiner have failed to make the required
showing that would satisfy the "changed circumstances" test.
26 f cstimony of Rocale Tnnmons, Renton Current Planning Division.
IT RMC § 4-9-lSO(F)(l)(b).
" Even if those utility.improvements had been made after 2009, they ;till wouldo't provide credible support for
an R-4 rezone. The entire adjacent Stonegatc community has sewer service, yet that community is zoned-R-1.
The availability of sewer service thus doesn't automatically result in R-4 zoning.
29 Ex~er's Recommendation., p. 10.
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
. \
·-·----·-·. ----· --------
Renton City"Council
November 22, 2011
Page 9 of 12
-... :::s-:-' .. :_"'..:_:.
d. The Examiner Misinterpreted and Ignored Applicable Comprehensive Plan
Policies.
The EXl!ll]lller's i:eco=endation addresses a number of Renton Comprehensive Plan
policies, as it must-· for under Renton's code, a rezone rri.ust be consistent with those
policies.'° The Current Planoiog staff correctly argued in the Staff Report, as well as at the
bearing, that the rezone failed to c~mply with several directly-applicable policies. Yet the
Examiner ignored the staff's expertise and pronounced herself satisfied that the rezone
complied with the Plan's policies. But a review of just three of those policies shows. that the
Examiner was wrong.
Policy LU-51. Zoning should be applied to areas for purposes of
resource protection, when appropriate, during the annexation
process.
The Staff Report correctly observed that this policy, when read in light of the
requirement that there be a significant and material change of circumstances in order to
approve a rezone, is not met. In its 1997 pre-anoexation zoning, and again in 2009 when it
anoexed the Home rezone properties, the Council applied R-1 zoning for purposes of
resource protection, in conformance with the May Creek Basin Action Plan. To disregard
that plan now, simply because Renton has adopted more stringent surface water regulations,
would undermine the City's ability to reject the next requested R-4 rezone in the area, since
that next site would also have to comply with the new regulations. But the point of the Basin
Plan is that maintaining very low densities will help preserve this area from· future flooding.
That remains true, regardless of what surface water regulations are in effect.
Policy LU-147. Adopt urban density of at least four (4) dwelling
units per net acre for residential uses except in anas with identified
and documented sensitive areas aod/ or areas identified as urban
separators.
This policy doesn't restrict lower-density zoning solely to lots or parcels that have
identified and documented sensitive areas within their borders. It calls for lower densities in
anas with such sensitive aod critical features. It is undisputed that the northeast Renton area,
considered as a whole, does have.such documented sensitive areas -May Creek and Greene
Creek, plus nearby wetlands. The Home rezone applicants attempt to argue that their.site
should be viewed in isolation, since very few of the Home lots have critical areas within their
boundaries. But those critical areas are just a few hundred feet north, in the case of
May Creek, or right next door to the west, in the case of Greene Cre_ek. That is why this entire
area has been zoned R-1, oat just the individual parcels that have critical areas on them.
'° RMC § 4-9-lSO(F)(l)(a), (F)(2)(d).
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
r
i
Renton City Council
November 22, 2011
Page 10 of 12
Again, to countenance one R-4 rezone in this area will only invite more R-4 rezones in the
future, similarly justified because a critical area may not be on a site but right next door.
That is not in keeping with this plan policy, which calls for the City to consider sensitive
features in the entire area, not just within the rezone parcels themselves.
Policy LU-141. Promote the timely and logical progression of
residential development. Priority for higher density development
should be given to development of land with infrastructure capacity
and land located closer to the City's Urban Center.
Tbis policy sensibly envisions that higher-density development in Renton should be on
lands located closer to the City's Urban Center, not on outlying properties in the farthest ·
northeast comer of Renton. The Council has implemented Policy LU-141 by recognizing that
this far comer of Renton should be developed at the very low R-1 density. Renton can
achieve its density and population goals by encouraging higher densities much closer to
downtown, as the City's planner confirmed at the rezone hcaring.31 There is thus no need for
a higher R-4 density here.
5. The Home Rezone Constitutes an Illegal Spot Zone .
. The Council should take a good look at its zoning map in the vicinity of the Home
lots. Within the city limits, this entire northeast comer of Renton is zoned R-1. Now assume
that the Home rezone is granted, creating two tiny enclaves ofR-4 zoning (separated by
SHOA's Tract I), amid the otherwise uniform R-1 zone. There is no existing R-4 zoning in
Renton adjacent to the Home rezone properties. The Home R-4 rezone thus does not
represent the logical expansion of a contiguous R-4 zone in the City.
Because of its inconsistency with both the surrounding R-1 zoning and the City's
Comprehensive Plan, the Home rezone should properly be labeled an illegal ,pot Z!mr.
Spot zoning has been consistently defined to be zoning action by
which a smaller area is singled out of a larger area or district and
specially zoned for a use classification totally different from and
inconsistent with the classification of surrounding land, and not in
accordance with the comprehensive plan. . . ·. When faced with a
challenge to a county's rezone action on the grounds the rezone
constitutes an illegal spot zone, the main inquiry ·,;f the· court is
whether the zoning ·action bears a substantial relationship to the
general welfare of the affected community. . .. Only where the spot
zone grants a discriminatory benefit to one or a group of owners to
3t Testimony ofRocalc TlID.IIlons, Renton Current Planning Division..
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
.. · .. .'XCf
'
Renton City Council
November 22, 2011
Page 11 of12
the detriment of thcir neighbors or the community at large without
adequate public advantage or justification will the county's rezone be ·
overtumed32
The Home rezone has all these earmarks of illegal spot zoning.
• · If granted, the Home rezone properties will indeed be zoned totally dijfmnt ftvm and
in.o11.1isterzt with the S11fflJ11rzdirzg R-1 lands, and wt in aaordarzce with the co,ppreherz.riue plan
because RID-designated areas are to be zoned R-1 when critical areas· would be
affected ·
• · This rezone bears no S11bstantial relatwnship 'to_ the general we/fan: of the affemd comm11rzity,
which is principally Stonegate.
• The requested rezone 111011/d grant a discriminatory benefit ftJ its proponents, to the distinct
detriment of SHOA and the S ftJrzegau homeowrzer:r, witbo11t a'!Y public jllStiftcatwn.
• ·c_:.;_c".:~/-, •. -~ -..•••
Because it constitutes illegal spot zoning, there is simply no way that this rezone can
reasonably be characterized as in the public interest. Yet the Examiner asserts that the Home
rezone will not constitute improper spot zoning because it will be compatible with the
surrounding R-1 properties.33 How is this so? Because "the actual densities of the
surrounding properties are similar to those_ of the proposal" -or so the Examiner says."
But as already observed, the Examiner reached that conclusion only by ignoring the actual
gross density of Stonegate (1.38 du./acre), instead focusing on the net density of many of the
Stonegate residential lots while ignoring its open space areas, a fundamental distortion of
density calculation. Despite the Examiner's sleight of hand, inserting an R-4 zone here will
in reality be inconsistent with the surrounding R-1 area, to the detriment of the neighboring
Stonegate community.
6. · Conclusion.
. The Council should keep in mind that it, and not the Examiner, is the best interpreter
of its own Comprehensive Plan and its codified rezone criteria. Our state supreme court has
said as much. In a recent case, the Washington Supreme Court upheld the Woodinville City
Council's denial of a rezone, even though that city's hearing examiner had recommended
approval 35 The rezone was rejected in part because the council found it to be inconsistent
l2 5,,,,. ONT Rm-al Environmmt ,. Sn.hami.rh County, 99 Wn.2d 363,368,662 P.2d 816 (1983).
33 Examinei's ~mmendatioo., p. 11.
" Examiner's Recommendation, p. 11.
" Phoenix Devt:lupmmt, In,. v. City of Woodinville, 171 Wn.2d 820, 25_6 P.3d 1150 (2011).
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
i
!
-----·---· .. ····-······ -..... ····-······· .
Renton City Council
November 22, 2011
Page 12 of 12
. .-.,..-_.·-. __ ._,._ ··--·-------.--·· --···· ..
with the Woodinville Comprehensive Plan. The supreme court deferred to the Woodinville
City Council's construction of its own comprehensive plan, holding that the city's conclusion
of inconsistency with the plan was not an erroneous interpretation of the law.
This Council should. engage in the same independent inquiry regarding the Home
rezone. You must measure this request carefully against the yardstick of Renton's adopted
rezone criteria. Is it truly in the public interest to approve a spot zone ofR-4 in an area that is
uniformly zoned R-1? Can the Council comfortably conclude that this rezone will not be
materially detrimental to other nearby property owners, especially those in Stonegate?
Since the most recent land use analysis of the subject property in 2009 when the Home parcels
were annexed, have circumstances affecting the subject property really undergone any
significant and material change? And does this·rezone complywithRenton's Comprehensive·
Plan?
In order to uphold the Examiner and grant the Home rezone,· the Council must
ans_wer Yes to all four of those questions. If the Council answers No to even one of them,
then it must deny the rezone. SHOA asserts that all four questions should properly be
answered No. We therefore urge the Council to reverse the Exarniner's recommendation and
deny the Home rezone.
Richard R. Wilson
RRW/
E-Mmt uw@hcmp.com
Diner Dial: (206) 470-7604
Fax: (206) 623-7789
Enclosure: check for $250 appeal fee
cc: Stonegate Homeowners Association
Duana T. Kolouskova, Esq.
Rocale Timmons, Renton Current Planning Division
?\.TD: 20357.002 4842-3-489-9470v2
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
( ·.
.. Denis Law
May9r
city Clerk -Bonnie I. Walto·n
· :_.. March 19, 2012 • ; . '
;' .
. · Richard R. Wilson
Hillis ClarkMartjh&Peterso~ PS .
1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500
.s~at'tle, WA 98ioi ·
., .
1 .• '
Appeal by the Stonegate Homeowners Association of Hearing Examiner's decision dated.
11/1/2011, reg~rdfng the Horne Rezone Req~est (File No. LUA,11-023) . . ,· .· .·. . _. . .-' ... _. . . .. , .-. .. . .
Dear Mr. Wilson:·
· . At the regular Council ineeting of Ma.r£h 12, 2012, the Renton City Council t~cik action on the .
'referenced ap'peal by adqpti~g the rei:omnieridation o{ the Planning and Development -.
Committee t~ re~erse the Hearing Examin'er's decision of November 1, 201L. Enclosed is copy .•
of the Pla~ning and Dev~lopm€nt CommiUee re~i)rtas adopted. . , -. ,
. . '
Unless an ~ppeal of the detisi~~ of the City Coiifi_cil (s)iled w_ith King County S~perior Court as.·
indicated in Renton Municipal Code, the decision of the City Council is final. .. . .
' ., . . . . . . .
· 1f I can provide further information, please feel free to conta~t me ..
· since·rely,
Bonnie I. Waltcin
City Clerk
Enclosure .'
.. ;
· cc:-ty,ayor De11is L~w
Council 'President Rich Zwicker
Roca le Timlllons·
Parties_of R~c~rd
1055 South Grady Way.• Renton, Washington'98057 • (425) 430-6.510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • ren1onwa.gov
. . . . . .
. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
. COMMITTEE REPORT
March 12, 2012
.. Horne Rezone and Appeal .
· Referred 1/9/2012 .
The Planning and Development Committee recommends that the Renton City Couricii reverse .
the decision of the Hearing Examiner .and deny. the Applicant/Respondent's request to rezone .
· · th~ subject properties R~l to R-4. The Committee found a substantial ~rror in.law or fact in the
· Hearing Examiner's report'. The Pl~nning and Development Committee further recommends
that the City Council adopt the following amendment to the Hearing Exarnirier's Findings of
F~ct, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation:· . · · · •. · · . . . .. . · ·.· .
. . . . .·
. • . Co~clu;ion 15 should be amended to read: :'City Staff contend that this area should not
be_ rezoned to four dwelling units p~,-net acre because this incr~ased development
density would conflict with the recommendations of the May Creek. Basin Action Plan.
The Applicant noted that there ar~ no critical areas on the subject site. However; the R-
1 designation is not determined· solely by what is ori an individual's property. The R'l.
zo~ing designation is based on the area and whether there .are sensitive areas in the
. area, not only on an individual or subject property. FurthermOre, city policy does ri~t ·
require that the site/lot contain "cr'itii:aln areas, only.that there is a critical area in the .
vicinity of the site/lot." · · · · · · ·
• · All other conclusions should. be deleted. · ·
•. The Decision should bi; amended to recommend denial of tl]e Applkant's rezcine
cc: Rocale Tirririlons
Jennifer Henning
· O,ip Vincent
. Lawrence J. Warren
----=D~eMa:ni:~:~ .. w-~·~, Sl'llral!S!i!i!i!Stilliliili!Bei', (1 ~_:~ty vy. • ~ -ti~.(~~'~ . City Council
CITYOF RENTON
·JAN 1 0 2012
_RECEIVED
January 10, 2012 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
. ·. . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPEAL.FILED BY:-_ -Sto~egate Homeowners Association by their attorney Richard
-· Wilson, Hillis Clark Martin & Peten1on; PS · · ·
_· RE: CANCEiiATION ofHo~eRezb~e Appea!Hearing (File No. LUA-11-023 ECF; R) -·
_-__ -_ To Parties ofRe~rd:. ·
The Renton City Council's Piarining & Development C~mmittee will NOT meet to deliberate the
,abcive~refei-enced itein 6~ Thursday, January 12i 2012. You will lie sent a new notice when a date
has been set for this meeting. · · ·
.. IfyouJiave questions r~atding these meetings, please phone Julia M~dzegian, Co~ncilLiaison, at 425-430-6555 · . . --. .. . . . . . -. -. . .
-.: ...
-·nee Chair --. --.. : . . , . . . . . ~ . ·.·:
. --Planning. & Development Committee
· _ : R.enfon City Council _ · · · ·
Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way· • .Renton. Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov.
1
1
1
1
1
7
~ r I
1
7
1
1
1
C :lerk's Office Distribution List
Appeal, Horne Rezone
File No. LUA-11-023, ECF, R
Renton Reporter/
City Attorney Larry Warren ,./
City Council * Julia Medzegian /
CED / Alex Pietsch
Assistant Fire Marshal / David Pargas
Planning Commission / Judith Subia
Parties of Record** (see attached list)
PW/ Administration / Gregg Zimmerman
PW /Development Services Neil Watts/
Jennifer Henning "'
Stacy Tucker /
Rocale Timmons"'
Kayren Kittriclv
Janet Conklin,
Larry Meckling/
v
PW /Transportation Services Connie Brundage/
PW/Utilities & Tech Services Lys Hornsby
...,.,..
LUA-11-023
*City Clerk's Letter & POR List only
Dennis Rattie
600 Stewart Street, Suite 1920
Seattle, WA 98101
Madonna Messina
2218 Lyons Avenue NE
Renton, WA 98059
Ed Horne
5604 NE 24th Street
Renton, WA 98059
Richard Wilson
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, PS
1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98101
Jay Bankson
569 Graham Avenue NE
Renton, WA 98059
Diane & Dennis Schwartzenberger
601 Shattuck Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057
Robert Wilson
21703 60th Street E
Lake Tapps, WA 98391
Debra Rogers
5326 NE 22nd Court
Renton, WA 98059
Bruce Christopherson
5502 NE 24th Court
Renton,WA 98059
Newfourth, LLC
19244 39th Avenue S
SeaTac, WA 98188
Karen Walter, Mukleshoot Indian
Tribe Fisheries Division
39015 172"d Avenue SE
Auburn, WA 98092
Doug Prellwitz
14302 156th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Sherry Williams & Greg
Schwartzenberger
2706 NE 5th Court
Renton, WA 98056
Paul Mackay, Jr.
5625 NE 26th Street
Renton, WA 98059
Bryan & Kendra Vadney
5404 NE 24th Court
Renton, WA 98059
Tom Redding
Encompass Engineering & Surveying
165 NE Juniper Street, Suite 201
Issaquah, WA 98027
Claudia Donnelly
10415 147th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Duana Kolouskova
Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Koluskova
1601114th Avenue SE, Suite 110
Bellevue, WA 98004
Kolin Taylor
4735 NE 4th Street
Renton, WA 98058
William Kombol
30533 234th Avenue SE
Black Diamond, WA 98010
•
'
STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING }
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal
Advertising Representative of the
Renton Reporter
a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of
·eneral circulation and is now and has been for more than six months
<'~:>r to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in
the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in King
County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as
a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of
Washington for King County.
The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues
of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was
regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period.
The annexed notice, a:
Public Notice
was published on October 7, 2011.
! full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is
the sum of $56.00.
~lll~al
Linda M. Mills -
Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter
Subscr'bed and sw to me this 7th day of October, 2011.
for the State of Washington, Residing
:-;oTJCEOF
RESCHEDULED
P!IBLIC II EARING
Rt:~TON, WASIII~GTON
A public hearing has been
rescheduled and will now be held
by the Renton Hearing Examiner
in the Council Chambers, City
Hall, on October _J_~O I I at
I :00 p.m. to conSidcr the'-Home
Re7:..onc \
/ llornc Rezone I
, LUAl\,023, ECF, R /
\
' Location: The west side/Of Nile
Ave NE just south 0£._May Valley
Rd. Request for ,..a--rezone of 12
single t~i!y,.,.loL'i, 7.37 acres,
from-R=l to R-4 zoning.
Published in Renton Reporter on
October 7.2011. #533563 .
I
CITY OF RENTON
DEC O 6 2011 c·
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
p 1tyOfb
~annin 'Te'1to J ohnsMonroe g Division,.,
MitsunagaKolouskoy~ 0Ec -1 11111
Robert D. Johns • Michael P. Monroe • Darrell S. Mitsunaga • Duana T. ~~~t
iflV~@
Ms. Rocale Timmons
Associate Planner, Department of
Coma~unity and Economic Dcv2lopn.,c11t
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way, 61h Floor
Renton, WA 98057
Re: Home Rezone, File No LUA l 1-023, ECF, R
Request for Council Hearing Process Details
Dear Ms. Timmons:
November 29, 20! l
Via Email and US Mail
We are in receipt of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of approval for the Home
rezone. We have also received a copy of the administrative appeal filed by the Stonegate
fl omeowners Association.
I am requesting details from you regarding the Council's review process of both the
rezone and administrative appeal. We request information including but not limited to:
the rezone and appeal forthcoming hearing process, available hearing dates, deadlines to
provide responsive argument to the appeal and in support of the rezone, and deadlines for
any further staff report.
Thu.11k yvu for your consideration of this request.
correspondence to the Clerk of the Council.
Sincerely, ~
mK~lou:kova -
Pif'.~Ff.Jel; .(!25J 4.67-9.966
Enlbi!':'kolousk.ov·a@jmiril aw: Com
1.c:-:nw;· //. :·, ~i0 · ·· . , ,...
cc~,·,· Clerk ofCouriciL ·city of Renton
Richard Wilson
Client
\Ve have also copied this
; , ,~ ·: f -. ; ''":
l-127-1 /etter to Timmons/ l-2Y-I I
T: (425) 451-2812 • F: (425) 451-2818
1601 114th Ave. SE • Suite 11 0 • Bellevue, WA 98004
•
On the s1
• day of November, 2011, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing
Hearing Examiner Recommendation documents. This information was sent to:
See Attached Party of Record List
-~ ci~c:c.--=--~c:::.____ ,S-'~~="••11,, '· (Signature of Sender): ~ "' --.Fl ,,
STATE OF WASHINGTON--<-~-~----------------{~:,._~~~..,~:!~~):\
)55 :; ,, •• 0~
ii". -" .......
COUNTY OF KING ) \ o> . ,..,..: ~ / i
I \.. ·e-~..,.~=
·ty . f .d h I \ ""'::,,....;""'"'°' .._'Ii .:: I cert1 that I know or have sat1s actory ev1 ence t at Roca e Timmons \~~-Qf ,fir f
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for !""~\\~~poses
mentioned in the instrument.
~ obw»vvPUV d1 ,A
:ry;::c in and for the State of Washington
Notary (Print): ____ .;..\-\-'-'-. .,_A.,_,_. __.G--<.zs:...,_.c ... ,,.b= .. "2«r=-----------
My appointment expires: ~ ~ '-'--',, \-,;}_C{ I ;;i_o.3
Horne Rezone
LUAll-023, R, ECF
,• (,
PARTIES OF RECORD
HORNE REZONE
LUAll-023, ECF, R
Dennis Rattie
600 Stewart Street ste: #1920
Seattle, WA 98101
tel: (206) 233-9600
eml: drattie@tarragon.com
(party of record)
Madonna Messina
2218 Lyons Avenue NE
Renton, WA 98059
tel: ( 425) 785-1354
eml:
madonna@consultcascade.com
(party of record)
Ed Horne
5604 NE 24th Street
Renton, WA 98059
tel: (206) 571-8524
(applicant)
Richard Wilson
Hills Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
1221 Second Avenue ste: #500
Seattle, WA 98101
tel: (206) 470-7604
(party of record)
Jay Bankson
569 Graham Avenue NE
Renton, WA 98059
(party of record)
Diane & Dennis Schwartzenberger
601 Shattuck Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057
(party of record)
Robert Wilson
21703 60th Street E
Lake Tapps, WA 98391
(party of record)
Updated: 11/18/11
Debra Rogers
5326 NE 22nd Court
Renton, WA 98059
(party of record)
Bruce Christopherson
5502 NE 24th Court
Renton, WA 98059
(party of record)
Newfourth LLC
19244 39th Avenue S
SeaTac, WA 98188
tel: (425) 444-0461
(owner)
Karen Walter
Watersheds & Land Use Team
Leader
Muckeshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries
Division
39015 172nd Avenue.SE
Auburn, WA 98092
tel: (253) 876-3116
(party of record)
Doug Prellwitz
14302 156th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
(party of record)
Sherry Williams & Greg
Schwartzenberger
2706 NE 5th Court
Renton, WA 98056
(party of record)
Paul F. Mackay, Jr.
5625 NE 26th Street
Renton, WA 98059
(party of record)
Bryan & Kendra Vadney
5404 NE 24th Court
Renton, WA 98059
tel: ( 425) 235-7239
eml: blyvadney@aol.com
(party of record)
Tom Redding
Encompass Engineering and
Surveying·
165 NE Juniper Street ste: #201
Issaquah, WA 98027
(contact)
Claudia Donnelly
10415 147th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
(party of record)
Duana Kolouskova
Johns Monroe Mitsunaga
Kolouskova, PLLC
Bellefield Office Park -Alderwood
Building
1601 114th Avenue SE ste:
#110
Bellevue, WA 98004.
tel: (425) 467-9966
(party of record)
Kolin Taylor
4735 NE 4th Street
Renton, WA 98058
(party of record)
William Kombol
30533 -234th Avenue SE
Black Diamond, WA 98010
(party of record)
Betsy Reamy
2502 Lyons Avenue NE
Renton, WA 98059
(party of record)
(Page 1 of 2)
:
Robin Nordberg
5502 NE 24th Court
Renton, WA 98059
(party of record)
Updated: 11/18/11
I
PARTIES OF RECORD
HORNE REZONE
LUAll -023, ECF, R
Dan Larkin
5302 NE 22nd Court
Renton, WA 98059
(party of record)
John Altmann
PO Box 578
Carnation, WA 98014
(party of record)
(Page 2 of 2)
I
I __ )
/
'
>
January 9, 2012
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
AUDIENCE COMMENT
Citizen Comment: Thornton -
Mentor Program
CONSENT AGENDA
Council: Meeting Minutes of
12/12/2011
CAG: 11-192, Rainier Ave S (SR
167) S Grady Way to S 2nd St,
Tri-State Construction
Appeal: Horne Rezone,
Stonegate Homeowners'
Association, L[A-11-023
Attorney: Written Statement
in Lieu of Post lmpoundment
Hearing Appearance, Code
Amendment
Attorney: Strengthen Penal
Code, Code Amendment
Renton City Council Minutes i Page7
Lastly, Mr. Galluzzo stated that the School Building Improvement Bond is 97
million dollars this year, and half of that wil\ be used to build a new much-
needed middle school in the north end of the city, to fund the renovation of the
pool at Lindbergh High School, and to fund upgrades at other schools within the
district.
Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative
report summarizing some day-to-day activities. Items noted:
• The Neighborhood Program offers matching funds to neighborhood groups
and associations to implement projects that will enhance the livability of
their neighborhoods. Those interested in learning more about
neighborhood grants can call 425-430-6600.
* The City of Renton Recreation Division and the Renton Police Department
are sponsoring the Annual Hoop Shoot, a free event at the Renton
Community Center on Sunday, January 29. Girls and boys will be tested on
their free-throw skills, competing in the age categories of six to ten years
and 11 to 14 years. More information is available by calling the Renton
Community Center at 425-430-6700 or visiting www.rentonwa.gov.
Nate Thornton (Renton) shared his experience being a mentor with the
Community in Schools program. He remarked that volunteering as a mentor
gives him a great opportunity to see first-hand effort of the leadership in the
community and in the City. He encouraged everyone to participate in the
program as a way to give back to the community.
Items listed on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows
the listing.
Approval of Council meeting minutes of 12/12/2011. Council concur.
City Clerk reported bid opening on 12/21/2011 for CAG-11-192, Rainier Ave. S.
(SR 167) S. Grady Way to S. 2nd St. project; 11 bids; engineer's estimate
$17,657,218.49; and submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to
the low bidder, Tri-State Construction, Inc. in the amount of $15,867,858.84.
Refer to Finance Committee for discussion of funding.
City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's recommendation to approve
the Horne Reione application (LUA-11-023, ECF, R); appeal filed by Stonegate
Homeowners' Association, represented by Richard Wilson, Hillis Clark Martin &
Peterson, PS, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and
Development Committee.
City Attorney Department recommended amending City Code by adding a new
Subsection 10-5-7.E. allowing a written statement by an owner of a towed
vehicle in lieu of an appearance at a post impoundment hearing. Refer to
Public Safety Committee.
City Attorney Department recommended amending City Code by revising
Chapter 6-18 in order to clarify and strengthen the penal code. Refer to Public
Safety Committee.
'
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Rezone Decision & Appeal of Hearing Examiner's
Recommendation dated 1/1/2011; Horne Rezone
(File LUA-11-023, ECF, R)
Exhibits:
Appeal Response letters (3 ) 12/19/2011:
Newfourth LLC, & Ed Horne; Bruce Christopherson,
Betsy Reamy;
City Clerk's Appeal notification letter (12/7/2011);
(continued in Summary of Action)
Recommended Action:
Refer to Planning and Development Committee
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $
Amount Budgeted: $
Total Project Budget:$
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
EXHIBITS CONTINUED:
N/A
N/A
N/A
Meeting:
Regular Council -09 Jan 2012
Submitting Data: Dept/Div /Boa rd:
Executive
Staff Contact:
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
Transfer Amendment: $
Revenue Generated: $
City Share Total Project: $
N/A
N/A
NIA
Notice of Appeal from Stonegate Homeowners' Association by attorney Richard Wilson, Hillis Clark
Martin & Peterson PS (11/22/2011);
Planner's letter extending the appeal date (11/18/2011);
Hearing Examiner's Recommendation (11/1/2011)
Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the Horne Rezone was filed on November 22, 2011, by
Stonegate Homeowners Association by their attorney Richard Wilson, Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, PS
accompanied by the required $250.00 fee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Council to take action on the Horne Rezone Recommendation and on the Appeal.
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I cj
20
21
22
23
24
25
.·.-.-.·.:.·.-..·.·,;,.· .--·.
CITYOF RENTON
r~
DEC 19 2011 ,,u_<:;prl'--
REcEIVEo "it
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
~~~~wwi
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF RENTON
INRE:
Home Rezone, NO. LUA 11-023, ECF, R
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
REZONE
The Applicants for the Home Rezone hereby submit this Memorandum in Support of
Rezone in the above named application for consideration by the City Council and Planning
and Development Conunittee. The Applicants are referred to collectively in this
memorandum as "Home" for ease of reference; the properties subject to the rezone are
referred to as the "Home properties" despite their differing ownership, again simply for ease
of reference.
Home requests the Council to grant the proposed rezone to R-4 based on the Hearing
Examiner's recommendation and the underlying administrative record.
I. REVIEW STANDARDS
Under the City's review process, the Council has given the Hearing Examiner the role
of examining the record, weighing the evidence and comparing the application to the relevant
criteria As a result, this Council gives the Hearing Examiner's reco=endation substantial
MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORJTJES IN SUPPORT OF REZONE
PAGE] of ]9
ORIGINAL
JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KoLOUSKOV A PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 114"' Ave. SE, Suite 110
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel: (425) 451 2812 / Fax (425)451 2818
.,
I , ' ,
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
weight in reaching its decision. Renton Municipal Code ("RMC") 4-8-110 (F)(7). The
Council can and should only modify or change the recommendation if the Council feels the
Examiner made a substantial error in law or fact. Were the Council to determine that the
~xaminer should have made a different finding or conclusion, this Council will need examme
the full underlying record and makes its own findings and conclusions based on substantial
evidence in that record.
Zorung ordinances are in derogation of a property owner's right to use the property
for the property's highest utility, must be strictly construed in favor of the property owner
and must not be extended through implication. Sleasman v. City of Lacey, 159 Wn.2d 639,
643, footnote 4, 151 P.3d 990 (2007); Development Services of America, Inc. v. City of
Seattle, 138 Wn.2d 107, 979 P.2d 387 (1999); Morin v. Johnson, 49 Wn.2d 275, 279, 300
P.2d 569 (1956). Rezone applications fall under this rule of construction in the same manner
as any other application related to private property.
Home was initially responsible for showing how the proposed rezone meets the
City's adopted review criteria Home met its burden as shown through the Hearing
Exammer's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation
("Recommendation").
The Stonegate Homeowners Association did participate in the Hearing Examiner's
review process. The Stonegate Homeowners Association provided legal argument and a few
residents in Stonegate provided testimony .at the open record hearing. The Stonegate
Homeowners Association did not provide any expert review of the application or present any
planning, biological, engineering or other expert testimony or analysis.
The Stonegate Homeowners Association (referred to herein as the "Appellant") filed
an administrative appeal of the Recommendation. City Code provides that burden of proof
MEMORANDUM OF A UTHORITJES IN SUPPORT OF R£7.0N£
PAG£2 of 19
JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOV A PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 114~ Ave. SE, Suite 110
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel: (425)451 28!2 /Fax (425) 451 2818
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
now lies on the Appellant to show why the rezone should not be granted. RMC 4-8-110
(F)(5).
II. RESPONSE TO APPELLANT'S THEMES
Home provided a volume of information in support of the rezone application,
including stormwater analysis, planning analysis, engineering analysis, a number of
submittals affirmatively showing how the rezone meets City Code and responding to public
comment, and legal analysis. That information is contained in the record under various
exhibits, primarily Exhibits 5A (letters in support and of site specific as well as
Comprehensive Plan analysis), 6 (legal memorandum of authorities and stormwater support),
7 ( detailed application materials including narrative, downstream stormwater analysis,
planning and engineering support), 8 (Ed Home power point presentation and summary), 9
(biologist comments). Following are responses to the Appellant's primary concerns.
A. The Horne Properties do Not Fit the R-1 Definition, Intents and Purposes.
The zoning code parameters for the R-1 zone reveal that the current R-1 zoning for
the Home properties does not fit
C. RESIDENTIAL-I DU/ACRE (R-1): The Residential-I Dwelling Unit Per Net
Acre Zone (R-1) is established to provide and protect suitable environments for
residential development of lands characterized by pervasive critical areas where
limited residential development will not compromise critical areas. It is intended
to implement the Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan designation. The
zone provides for suburban estate single family and clustered single family residential
dwellings, at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per net acre, and allows for
small scale farming associated with residential use. Density bonus provisions, of up to
eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre, are intended to allow assisted living to develop
with higher densities within the zone. It is further intended to protect critical
areas, provide separation between neighboring jurisdictions through designation
of urban separators as adopted by the Countywide Policies, and prohibit the
development of incompatible uses that may be detrimental to the residential or natural
environment No minimum density is required. (Ord. 5590, 2-28-2011)
RMC 4-2-020.
MEMOR.1NDUM OF A UTHOPJ77£S IN SUPPORT OF IIEWNE
PAGE] of ]9
]Of-INS MONROE MlTSUNAGA KOLOUSKOV A PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 114" Ave. SE, Suite 110
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel: (425) 451 2812 / Fax (425) 451 2818
' /
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.. --.,-.-.· -.::::.: ·,
The R-1 zone "is established to provide and protect suitable environments for
residential development of lands characterized by pervasive critical areas." Id The evidence
is undisputed that Home rezone properties are not characterized by pervasive critical areas.
The R-1 zone "is further intended to protect critical areas, provide separation between
neighboring jurisdictions through designation of urban separators as adopted by the
Countywide Policies, and prohibit the development of incompatible uses that may be
detrimental to the residential or natural environment." Id None of the foregoing qualities
exist on or in relation to the Home rezone properties."
•
•
•
•
•
B.
There are no onsite critical areas that need additional protection (there are no
measurable onsite critical areas),
There are no "lands characterized by pervasive critical areas" that would warrant
restrictions on residential development of the Home properties;
The Home properties are not designated as Urban Separators,
The evidence shows that the City's modern critical area and stormwater regulations
provide appropriate protections for development under the R-4 zone; and
There is otherwise no demonstrated need to restrict the Home properties to R-1
zoning in order to prohibit the development of incompatible uses that may be
detrimental to the residential or natural environment.
Instead, the Home Properties Match the R-4 Zone Definition, Intents and
Purposes.
The R-4 zoning intent and purposes squarely fit the Home properties:
D. RESIDENTIAL-4 DU/ACRE (R-4): The Residential-4 Dwelling Units Per Net
Acre Zone (R-4) is established to promote urban single family residential
neighborhoods serviceable by urban utilities and containing amenity open spaces. It is
intended to implement the Residential Low Density Comprehensive Plan designation.
The Residential-4 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre Zone (R-4) will allow a maximum
density of four ( 4) dwelling units per net acre. The R-4 designation serves as a
transition between rural designation zones and higher density residential zones.
It is intended as an intermediate lower density residential zone. Larger lot
subdivisions are preferred; however, "small lot clusters" are allowed on sites where
open space amenities are created. Resulting development is intended to be superior in
design and siting than that which would normally otherwise occur. Small lot clusters
MEMORANDUM OF A UTHORFTJES IN SUPPORT OF REz.ONE
P.<GE4 of ]9
JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KoLOUSKOV A PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 114"' Ave. SE, Suite 110
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel: (425)4512812/Fax (425)4512818
i
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
·-:. '.:."f··-·.----.. -··:
may also meet objectives such as the provision of efficient sewer services. (Ord.
5355, 2-25-2008)
RMC 4-2-020.
The R-4 zone is the City's default, low-density zone. Comprehensive Plan Policy
LU-151.
The Horne properties are part of a larger transition area between rural designations (in
unincorporated King County) across 14811,/Nile Avenue and higher densities to the west. See
e.g. Exhibit I I. As is shown on maps in the record, the area to the west is either built out
under, or currently zoned as R-4 and R-8. As is discussed under the rezone criteria, below,
the R-4 zone is the City's default, low density zone. Absent a specific, clear evidentiary
basis for zoning the property R-1, which does not exist in this case, the Horne property
should fall under the low density, default R-4 zone.
c. The Surrounding Built Environment Supports Approval of the Rezone.
The Home properties are an island of R-1 zoning within property either built out
under, or currently zoned R-4 up to 148th/Nile Avenue. The existing densities of lots
throughout the surrounding area range from 2.5 to 5 units/acre. Exhibit 5, Kombol October
13, 2011 letter, map attached; oversiz.ed posterboard submitted at hearing but without
separate exhibit number (a copy is attached hereto for ease of reference). The Hearing
Examiner correctly determined that Stonegate lots were built out to a density of
approximately 4 dwelling units per acre. Recommendation, page IO (Conclusion 7). As Mr.
Home and Home's expert, Chad Bala with Encompass Engineering, explained at the hearing,
the Stonegate plat was designed, approved and built to R-4 zoning and standards. See also
Exhibit 8; Exhibit 5, Kombol letters. The City only downzoned the area to R-1 after
Stonegate and its density at R-4 was approved. Mr. Bala showed that the siz.es of lots in the
MEMOFUNOUM OF A UTHORJTIES IN SUPPORT OF REzONE
PAGE5 of ]9
JOHNS MONROE M!TSUNAGA KOLOUSKOV A PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 114°' Ave. SE, Suite 110
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel: (425) 451 2812 I Fax (425) 451 2818
... ,
)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
area, including Stonegate, are the same as or close to lot sizes that actually result from the R-
Additionally, much of the area south of the Home properties is currently zoned R-4.
In contrast, if City forces the Home properties to remain under R-1 zone, the resulting
lots will be larger than and inconsistent with the surrounding area without any sound
planning or environmental justification therefore.
Appellant disregards Stonegate's actual development under R-4 zoning. Instead,
Appellant argues that Stonegate's density should be artificially diluted by counting open
space, critical areas and so forth to create an abstract density much lower than what actually
exists. The Hearing Examiner closely considered this argument and found it unpersuasive.
Instead, the Hearing Examiner found that the proper comparison is between the existing lot
sizes and the lot sizes that would be allowed on the Home properties under the R-1 and R-4
zones, i.e. comparison of actual lot sizes. Recommendation, page 10 (Conclusions 7 and 8).
Otherwise, the City would have an irrational result: surrounding more dense/smaller lots on
property containing substantial critical areas, immediately adjacent to the Home properties,
which have no critical areas or other features that could justify its characterization
under the R-1 zone. Further, the Hearing Examiner's conclusion recognizes the reality that
Stonegate was built under R-4 zoning, an inescapable fact
D. May Creek, the 2001 May Creek Basin Plan and Stormwater Analysis Support
for the Horne Rezone Request. · ·
May Creek is located a fair distance away from the Home properties. Between May
Creek and the Home properties lie (a) the May Creek buffer, (b) Lyons Avemre/NE 26th
Street and ( c) Stone gate residential lots with existing homes and attendant landscaping.
Exhibit 8, page 7. There is absolutely no evidence in the record that would show any
negative impact of rezoning the Home properties to R-4 on May Creek, the Greene Creek
MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF REZONE
PAGE6 of ]9
JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOV A PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
160! l14"' Ave. SE, Suite !10
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel:(425)45128I2/Fax(425)45l 2818
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
tributary (running through Stonegate), or any other critical areas. There is no evidence
showing that the existing May Creek buffer would be insufficient to protect May Creek from
development of the Home properties under an R-4 zone, particularly in light of the
intervening, existing R-4 lots and road development.
Appellant argues its perspective of what the May Creek Basin Plan should require.
However, Appellant's arguments do not reflect the actual language of the Basin Plan..
Further, Appellant does not (and cannot) point to any evidence in the record to contest the
Hearing Examiner's findings and conclusions that the City's existing critical areas and
stormwater standards are sufficient protections for May Creek in reviewing this rezone
request.
The Home rezone properties are located in the "East Renton Plateau and Highlands
Subareas" part of the Basin. It is important to recognize that the May Creek Basin Plan and
its recommendations are more than a decade olci The Plan recommendations for this area
expressly recognize that zoning densities will increase. The recommendations for this
subbasin provide that densities can be increased where stormwater runoff peaks and volumes
can be fully mitigated to predeveloped conditions. Exhibit 6, attached May Creek Basin
Plan, excerpted page 3-29. Based on language such as this, the City has updated its
stormwater regulations over the past 10 years to provide .substantially more stringent
stormwater controls as set forth in the 2009 regulations. At the hearing, Home's expert,
Chad Bala, explained that the Plan allows for increased densities since stormwater runoff
peaks and volumes can be fully mitigated to predeveloped conditions. No one provided any
evidence to dispute Mr. Bala's analysis.
It is also relevant that the City has never adopted the Basin Plan itself into City Code.
Instead, the City chose to provide protection under the Plan by use of Urban Separators. The
adopted May Creek Urban Separators do not include the Horne rezone properties.
MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF REZONE
PAG£7 of ]9
JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOV A PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 I 14" Ave. SE, Suite 1 JO
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel: (425) 451 2812 I Fax (425) 451 2818
.. ,
<
/
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.·.··--.·.--.· .....
RMC 4-3-110. No other City standards support any increased requirements above and
beyond the current critical area and stormwater regulations.
Horne submitted a Level I Downstream Analysis and MI. Bala's expert testimony
related to the City's current (2009) stormwater regulations, explaining how those ensure that
all stormwater impacts of development under the R-4 zone can be fully mitigated per the
Basin Plan recommendations. Exhibit 6 (Encompass Engineering letter, October 17, 2011);
• Exhibit 7 (rezone application file, includes Level I Downstream Analysis).
As the Hearing Examiner found: "The Applicant was able to provide compelling
expert testimony that the 2009 stormwater regulations were adequate to protect critical areas.
There was no evidence to the contrary." Recommendation, page 8 (Finding 6). The Hearing
Examiner further concluded that the 2009 stormwater regulations eliminate the underlying
rationale for R-1 zoning for this property, which has no defining physical characteristics
identified by the R-1 zone. Recommendation, page 12 (Conclusion 8).
Appellant improperly exaggerates the effect of the Hearing Examiner's analysis as
"startling" in an attempt to manipulate this rezone into a catastrophic scenario of large-scale,
high density development in this area. Appellant never provided any evidentiary support for
any of its fears, let alone expert analysis. To the contrary, as repeatedly noted herein and
equally ignored by Appellant, R-4 is a low density zone. Further, even if other property in
the area currently zoned at R-1 (of which there is little -see attached map) were to request a
rezone, that applicant would need to. provide separate analysis based on that property's
specifics.
ID. LEGAL ANALYSIS AND REZONE CRITERIA
Horne provided a detailed legal analysis to the Hearing Examiner in support of the
rezone. Exhibit 6. The following sets forth much of that same legal analysis, modified to
address the Recommendation and Appellant's arguments.
MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF l/.EZONE
PAGES of ]9
JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOV A PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
!601114~ Ave. SE, Suite 110
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel:(425)4512812/Fax(425)4512818
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
,
... -··-·------.····· ·, .. -: ,.1--· ... · .. ". ·······"
A. It Would be Unlawful to Base a Rezone Decision on Neighborhood Displeasure
or Fear of Increased DevelopmenL
The City's decision on a rezone application cannot be based on local or parochially
perceived welfare, public opinion or generalized fears of development. Kenart & Associates
v. Skagit County, 37 Wn. App. 295,680 P 2d 439 (1984); Anderson v. City of Issaquah, 70
Wn. App. 64, 851 P.2d 744 (1993); Norco Construction Inc. v. King County, 97 Wn.2d 680,
685,649 P.2d 103 (1982); Henderson v. Kittitas County, 124 Wn. App. 747, 755; Sunderland
Family Treatment Services v. City of Pasco, 127 Wn.2d 782, 903 P.2d 986 (1995);
Maranatha Mining, Inc. v. Pierce County, 59 Wash. App. 795, 804, 801 P.2d 985 (1990).
Anecdotal commentary by a single individual expressing generalized or parochial
disapproval of the proposed rezone is an improper basis to deny a site-specific rezone.
Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490 (2nd Cir. 1999); City of Medina v. T-
Mobile USA, 123 Wn. App. 19, footnote 45. Even if the majority of comment had been
against the rezone, "neighborhood opposition alone may not be the basis of a land use
decision." Tugwell v. Kittitas County, 90 Wn. App. I, 9, 951 P.2d 727 (1997).
The Hearing Examiner correctly analyzed the evidence, justifications and expert
analysis. The record shows that Appellant has only identified fears and displeasure without
any factual basis therefore, let alone expert analysis. Appellant repeatedly states its concerns,
such as arguing the rezone would have a detrimental effect on Stonegate or May Creek,
without submitting any supporting evidence or analysis.
Appellant points out one case where the Woodinville City Council denied a rezone
despite its Hearing Examiner's recommendation of approval. Phoenix Development v. City
of Woodinville, 171 Wn.2d 820, 256 P.3d 1150 (2011). The City of Woodinville's rezone
review included a very different rezone criterion which Renton has not adopted, for sound
policy reasons. The Court concluded that the substantial evidence demonstrated the rezone
MEMORANDUM OF AUTHOR1T!£S IN SUPPORT.OF REzoNE
PAGE9 of ]9
JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOV A PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 114°' Ave. SE, Suite I IO
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel:(425)4512812/Fax(425)4512818
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
did not meet that criterion ( of whether there was a demonstrated need for additional zoning
of the type propose). Phoenix, 171 Wn.2d 831-834. As discussed throughout this
Memorandum and revealed in the underlying record, Appellant has .not provided substantial
evidence in support of any of its arguments. Phoenix is largely irrelevant to this Council's
review of the Home rezone, except to the extent that the Phoenix Court instructs this Council
to base its decision on substantial evidence.
B. There is No Basis for Appellant's Contention that the Rezone Wonld Constitnte
Spot Zoning.
The Hearing Examiner correctly evaluated and rejected Appellant's assertion of spot
zoning. Recommendation, Page 11 (Conclusion 8). Appellant's assertion of spot zoning
belies its disregard of the existing built environment and each zone's intents and purposes.
Appellant's assertion of spot zoning is particularly ironic considering that Stonegate itself
was developed under R-4 zoning.
Spot zoning occurs when a property is singled out for a use that is totally different
from and inconsistent with existing development and. zoning. For example, it would be
unlawful spot zoning to rezone two isolated lots for a gas station located in the midst of an
existing single family community. Pierce v. King County, 62 Wn.2d 324, 382 P.2d 628
(1963). Even Appellant's cite to court precedent reveals that spot zoning involves zoning
action "by which a smaller area is singled out of a larger area or district and specially zoned
for a use classification totally different from and inconsistent with the classification of
surrounding land ... " Notice of Appeal, page I 0, citing to Save our Rural Environment v.
Snohomish County, 99 Wn.2d 363, 368, 662 P .2d 816 (1983 ).
A fear of spot zoning is simply unsupportable in the instant rezone review. The R-1
and R-4 zones are the same use classification: both are "low density" residential uses. The
MEMORANDUM OF AU11i0Rfl7£S IN SUPPORT OF REZONE
PAGE 10 of 19
JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOV A PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 ll4~ Ave. SE,Suite llO
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel: (425) 451 2812 / Fax (425) 451 2818
t'.', _ ...... ·.::::;·:··-·.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
only difference is that R-1 applies where there is evidentiary support showing that major
critical areas warrant R-1 zoning. Otherwise, R-4 is the default low-density zone.
C. The Horne rezone is consistent with Policies set forth in the Comprehensive
Plan. (Criterion F (l)(a))
In reviewing a site-specific rezone request, this Council reviews whether there is
"general conformance" with the Comprehensive Plan. Tugwell, 90 Wn. App. I, 8; Bjarnson
v. Kitsap County, 78 Wn. App. 840, 846, 899 P.2d 1290 (1995); Cathcart-Maltby-Clearview
Community Council v. Snohomish County, 96 Wn.2d 201, 634 P.2d 853 (1981). When a
rezone implements policy contained in the Comprehensive Plan, "this fact alone would
justify the rezone." Henderson v. Kittitas County, 124 Wn. App. 747, 756, citing to Bjamson
v. Kitsap County, 78 Wn. App. 840, 846.
The Hearing Examiner thoughtfully reviewed the rezone request in light of the City's
applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies. In summary, the rezone' s consistency with these
Policies shows that the Home properties (a) do not have the attributes that are required for R-
1 zoning and (b) would have far more benefits to the City and far greater consistency with
the City's long range planning policies if rezoned and developed under the R-4 zone.
Following are a list of Comprehensive Plan Policies with which the Home rezone is
consistent and, in italics, a short comment on how.
• Policy LU-11. Minimum density requirements shall be established to ensure that land
. development practices result in an average development density in each land use
designation sufficient to meet adopted growth targets and create greater efficiency in the
provision of urban services. ( emphasis added) ·
Evidence in the application materials and as will be provided at the hearing shows
that rezoning the properties to R-4 will provide greater efficiency in the provision of
urban services. ·
• Objective LU-FF: Manage and plan for high quality residential growth in Renton
and the Potential Annexation Area that:
I) Supports transit by providing urban densities,
2) Promotes efficient land utilization, and
MEMORANDUM OF A UTHORI17£S IN SUPPORT OF RilONE
PAGEIJ of ]9
JOHNS MONROE MiTSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
!601114"Ave.SE,Suite110
BeUevue, Washington 98004
Tel: (425) 451 2812 / Fax (425) 451 2818
,
j
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3) Creates stable neighborhoods incorporating built amenities and natural features
Evidence in the application materials and as will be provided at the hearing shows
that rezoning the properties to R-4 will provide growth that will better meet the
elements of this Objective than development under R-1.
• Policy LU-147. Adopt urban density of at least four (4) dwelling units per net acre for
residential uses except in areas with identified and documented_ sensitive areas and/or
areas identified as urban separators.
The Home rezone properties do not contain, and are not in an area of, identified and
documented sensitive areas and are not identified as urban separators. Therefore,
under this Policy, the properties should be rezoned to R-4. Contrary to Appellant's
argument, rejected by the Hearing Examiner, the sensitive area of May Creek is
separated by major land development features such as_ a road and residential
development as well as a sensitive are.a buffer. More specifically, the properties
subject to the proposed Home rezone do not have the qualities which the
Comprehensive Plan defi~es as necessary for having a prevalence of significant
environmental constraints that this Policy is concerned with (see Policy LU-153,
below).
• Policy LU-148. Encourage larger lot single-family development in areas providing a
transition to the Urban Growth Boundary and King County Rural Designation. Toe
City should discourage more intensive platting patterns in these areas.
As the Hearing Examiner explained, and is discussed below, "larger lot' refers to
development at a density of 4-dulnet acre, i.e. development consistent with R-4
zoning. Appellant would prefer that only R-1 be considered "larger lot development"
but that simply is not what the City's Comprehensive Plan provides: R-4 is
considered "larger lot development-" and the Horne properties appropriately fall
under that zone.
• (Residential Low Density Land Use Designation) Purpose Statement: Policies in
this section are intended to guide development on land appropriate for a range of!ow
intensity residential and employment where land is either constrained by sensitive
areas or where the City has the opportunity to add larger-lot housing stock, at urban
densities of 4-du/net acre, to its inventory.
This statement explains that the term "larger lot' refers to development at a density of
4-dulnet acre, i.e. development consistent with R-4 zoning.
• Objective LU-HR: Provide for a range of lifestyles and appropriate uses adjacent to
and compatible with urban development in areas of the City and Potential Annexation
MEMORANDUM OF A Ul110RJT/£S IN SUPPORT OF REZONE
PAG£J2 of ]9
JOHNS MONROE MrrsUNAGA KOLOUSKOV A PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601114"Ave.SE,Suitel!O
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel:(425)4512812/Fax(425)4512818
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
. ::·:
Area constrained by extensive natural features, providing urban separators, and/or
providing a transition to Rural Designations within King County.
Under this Objective, R-4 zoning is considered to be an appropriate zone to provide a
transition to Rw-al Designations in King County. The properties subject to the
proposed Horne rezone do not have the qualities which the Comprehensive Plan
defines as necessary for having a prevalence of significant environmental constraints
(see Policy LU-153, below).
• Policy LU-151. Base development densities should range from I home per 10 acres
to I home per· acre on Residential Low Density (RLD) designated land with
significant environmental constraints, including but not limited to: steep slopes,
erosion hazard, floodplains, and wetlands or where the area is in a designated Urban .
Separator. Density should be a maximum of 4-du/net acre on portions of the
Residential Low Density land where these constraints are not extensive and urban
densities are appropriate except as provided in Policy LU-I34a. (emphasis added)
Again, the Horne rezone properties do not have the qualities defined as necessary for
having a prevalence of significant environmental constraints (see Policy LU-153,
below). · -Therefore, under this Policy, the Horne rezone area is properly rezoned to ·
R-4.
• Policy LU-153. For the pwpose of mapping, the prevalence of significant
environmental constraints should be interpreted to mean:
I) Critical areas encumber a significant percentage of the gross area;
2) Developable areas are separated from one another by pervasive critical areas or
occur on isolated portions of the site and access limitations exist;
3) The location of the sensitive area -results in a non-contiguous development
pattern;
4) The area is a designated urban separator; or
5) Application of the Critical Areas Ordinance setbacks/buffers and/or net density
definition would create a situation where the allowed density could not be
accommodated on the remaining net developable area without modifications or
variances to other standards.
None of the listed factors are found within the Horne rezone area as shown in the
applicants' submittal reviewing the rezone area's environmental constraints
(actually, a lack thereof) made by an expert critical areas biologist.
• Objective LU-II: Designate Residential 4 du/acre zoning in those portions of the
RLD designation appropriate for urban levels of development by providing suitable
environments for suburban and/or estate style, single-family residential dwellings.
MEMORANDUM OF AUTHOR!TJES IN SUPPORT OF REzoNE
PAGEJ3 of 19
JOHNS MONROE MlTSUNAGA KOLOUSKOV A PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 l 14~ Ave. SE, Suite 110
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel: (425) 451 2812 / Fax (425) 451 2818
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Horne rezone area is a suitable environment for suburban and/or estate-style
dwellings.
• Policy LU-157. Within the Residential 4 du/acre wned area allow a maximum
density of 4 units per net acre to encourage larger lot development and increase the
supply of upper income housing consistent with the City's Housing Element.
Again, rezoning of the Horne properties to R-4 is consistent with this Policy, the
applicants are not requesting anything more dense than R-4 zoning.
Further, the rezone implements !be Environmental Chapter as a whole by not
adversely affecting any onsite wetlands or having any adverse impact on offsite wetlands, as
well as being possible to develop under the adopted critical area and stormwater standards
which are the most stringent in the City's history to date. This is supported by the City's
SEPA Determination of Non-Significance which was not appealed.
Except as noted above, Appellant does not refute the Hearing Examiner's analysis
and the above examination (also provided to the Examiner). Instead, Appellant also argues
that the Council should consider R-4 to be "higher density development" with respect to
Policy LU-141, which orients higher density development closer to the City's Urban Center.
However, Appellant's argument is based on its disregard this City's policy decision that R-4
wning is "Low Density". Policy LU-141 is simply irrelevant to this rewne application.
D. The Home rezone properties were either not specifically considered at the last
area land use analysis and area zoning or, since that time, there have been
changed circumstances. (Criterion F (l)(b))
The 'changed circumstances' criterion is deemed satisfied and the rewne is justified
where the proposed rewne implements the Comprehensive Plan. Henderson, 124 Wn. App.
747, 756; Save Our Rural Environment v. Snohomish County ("SORE''), 99 Wn.2d 363, 370-
371, 662 P.2d 816 (1983). The premise is that, "if changed circumstances always were
required, the policies of a comprehensive plan would never be fulfilled." Tugwell, 90 Wn.
MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF l/EzONE
P.<GEl4 of 19
JOHNS MONROE MlTSUNAGA KoLOUSKOV A PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 114" Ave. SE, Suite 110
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel: (425) 451 2812 / Fax (425) 451 2818
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
:.:.,..c: .-• ' . ·.----· . .·.·· •.. #
App. at 8, footnote 6. As the Hearing Examiner correctly concluded, the rezone squarely
implements the Comprehensive Plan.
Even if it were necessary for Home to demonstrate changed circumstances, those are
readily evident to support this rezone request
It remains Horne's position that the properties were not specifically considered in the
City's last area-wide rezone in 2004-5. The last time the City considered the zoning of the
Horne rezone properties was in 1996-1997, during a 'pre-zone' review with King County.
The 1996-7 review was prior to the City's annexation of the property and the City's "last area
land use analysis".
However, the Hearing Examiner had a different perspective of the City's historical
review of the property and found the last review was in 2005. Recommendation, page 5,
page 10 (Conclusion 7); see also Exhibit 8, pages 14-17 (slides identifying changes since last
rezone assessment). Since 2005, the Hearing Examiner correctly found that that there have
been substantial changed circumstances in this area Changed circumstances can be
demonstrated in a variety of ways, including through changes in development and services in
the area See e.g. Henderson, 124 Wn. App. at 754. The Examiner correctly found that there
major infrastructure improvements, including new utility services to the properties, as well as
new storrnwater regulations that significant change the way storrnwater must be managed and
treated versus what was required at the time of the last area-wide rezone review.
Recommendation, page IO (Conclusion 7).
Therefore, while this criterion does not have any clear meaning or effect since the
rezone meets applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies, the rezone satisfies this criterion both
because the properties were not specifically considered at the last area land use analysis and
area zoning or, since that time, there have been changed circumstances. While Home rezone
MEMORANDUM OF A UTHORITJES IN SUPPORT OF REZONE
PAGE 15 of 19
JOHNS MONROE MlTSUNAGA KoLOUSKOV A PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601114~Ave.SE,Suitel10
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel: (425) 451 2812 / Fax (425) 451 2818
)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
legally is required to meet only one or the other of these two possibilities, the proposed
rezone actually meets both.
E. The Home rezone is in the pnblic interest. (Criterion F (2)(a))
A rezone that conforms to and implements a Comprehensive Plan consequently also
bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety and welfare. Henderson, 124 Wn.
App. 747, 754, 756; see also, SORE, 99 Wn.2d 363, 369; 78 Wn. App. 840. Beyond this
rule, the proposed rezone is in the public interest for other reasons.
i. The rezone would implement the City's purposes and intents for the R-1 and
R-4 zones.
In addition to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the Home properties are
more appropriately zoned R-4 based on the City's zoning descriptions and intents. Rezoning
the properties to R-4 would implement the purpose and intent of the City's zoning code.
Such is in the public interest. Appellant's assertions to the contrary are exaggerated and
without evidentiary support. There is no support for Appellant's conclusion that the rezone
would lead to 'far higher' densities in the area R-1 and R-4 are both low density zones.
Instead, as the Hearing Examiner found, the rezone to R-4 would be more consistent with the
general existing densities and consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and City Code.
ii. The rezone is generally in the public interest.
The City's zoning code provides that the rezone to R-4 will allow for a certain
number of additional dwelling units beyond what is allowed under R-1. Further, the quality
of the community would be higher, with more desirable amenities. As a result, any
development under the R-4, versus R-1, zone would provide an additional construction and
ongoing tax base to the City. Such increased tax base is in the public interest and satisfies
this criterion. Henderson, at 756.
MEMORANDUM OF A UTHORinES lN SUPPORT OF REZONE
PAGE 16 of 19
JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOV A PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 l 14~ Ave. SE, Suite I IO
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel:(425)4512812/Fax(425)4512818
.. ~ . -· .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Even if a rezone to R-4 would result in a meaningfully higher density than the
surrounding built environment, such a result does not operate as evidence of a lack public
interest or lack of substantial relationship to the public health, safety and welfare. See e.g.
Woods, 130 Wn. App. 773; Tugwell, 90 Wn. App. 1; Henderson, 124 Wn. App. 747. In
Henderson, the Court upheld the proposed rezone despite intense opposition that the rezone
would be inconsistent with the neighborhood. Instead, the Court found that other
considerations including the additional tax base and compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan showed that a rezone is in the public's interest. Henderson, 124 Wn. App. at 756.
The broad range of public interests served by this rezone was discussed in the hearing
and summarized in Mr. Horne's power point presentation. Exhibit 8. Conversely, leaving
the Horne properties as R-1 would be contrary to the public interest: the City would create a
serious question as to the reliability of how it applies its Code since the Horne properties do
not have any of the characteristics identified for zoning as R-1.
F. The Home rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any
substantial property rights of the petitioner. (Criterion F (2)(b))
As noted above, zoning ordinances are in derogation of a property owner's right to
use the property for the property's highest utility, must be strictly construed in favor of the
property owner. Sleasman v. City of Lacey, 159 Wn.2d 639, 643, footnote 4. The rezone
implements the City's own zoning code; the property owners have a property right in being
able to develop their property consistent with the most applicable and appropriate zoning.
Appellant does not dispute that the rezone meets this criterion.
MEMORANDUM OF A UTHORmES IN SUPPORT OF Ru.ONE
PAG£17 of ]9
JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 114"' Ave. SE, Suite 110
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel: (425) 451 2812 I Fax (425) 451 2818
)
--·-·::1. •.·
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
G.
..• ·.·.·-·.:--· l ,_. ~--: ·--: :·-
The Horne rezone would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare of
the property and persons in the vicinity. (Criterion F (2)(c))
This criterion is very similar to Criterion F (2)(a). The phrase 'materially
detrimental' means that the rezone would have an actual, measurable, substantive negative
impact -vague aesthetic concerns, unarticulated public policy or public discontent do not
satisfy the standard of 'materially detrimental'. A rezone still may have a substantial
relationship to the public health, safety and welfare even if the rezone does not result in
exactly the same development that which surrounds it, or if neighbors or the public
vociferously object. See e.g. Woods, 130 Wn. App. 773; Tugwell, 90 Wn. App. I;
Henderson, 124 Wn. App. 747.
There is simply no evidence that rezoning the Home properties to R-4 would be
materially detrimental in any way to any property or persons in the vicinity. To the contrary,
rezoning the Horne properties to R-4 would implement the purpose and intent of the City's
zoning code, making that code more uniformly applicable and enforceable to all properties.
Appellant argues that the rezone would be "detrimental to the welfare of the
Stonegate property owners." However, Appellant never explains how that might be, apart
from stating a generalized fear and displeasure of the rezone request. Contrary to
Appellant's concerns, the City lists R-4 zoning in the same "low density" category as RcJ.
Further, Appellant's fear that other properties will request a rezone to R-4 is
irrelevant to this inquiry: this Council must consider Home's rezone request on its own
merits. However, even lo_oking to the larger surrounding area, there are few other properties
in the vicinity that would be subject to a precedent that Appellant is afraid of. Stonegate was
developed under R-4 zoning and is fully built out; to the south, property is largely zoned R-4.
Finally, Appellant has no evidentiary basis at all to assert that the City's adopted
urban separator (imposed on other properties but not the Home properties), critical area
MEMORANDUM OF A UTHORITJES IN SUPPORT OF REZONE
PAGE]8 of ]9
JOHNS MONROE MJTSUNAGA KOLOUSKOV A PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 114• Ave. SE, Suite 110
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel: (425) 451 2812 / Fax (425) 451 2818
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
JO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
regulations, and stormwater regulations are somehow insufficient to protect May Creek from
a rezone of the Home properties to R-4. Nothing in the decade-old Basin Plan precludes
Home's rezone request or supports Appellant's argument that the rezone is either not allowed
by the Basin Plan or would otherwise be materially detrimental to surrounding properties,
May Creek or other critical areas. To the contrary, Home's expert planning, biological and
engineering analysis all show that the rezone will not have any materially detrimental effect
at all on to the public welfare of the property and persons in the vicinity.
IV. REQUEST
Based on the application materials and forthcoming presentations and testimony, the
City's rezone criteria, Comprehensive Plan and zoning code, and the above analysis, Home
requests this Council to GRANT the requested rezone of the Home properties from R-1 to R-
4.
DATED this \°\" day of :r:-:;:eL.t.lV'-'o.,, , 2011.
1427-1 Memo Supporting Rezone 12-19-ll
MEMORANDUM OF AVTHORlTlES IN SUPPORT OF RE20NE
PAG£19 of 19
JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA
KOLOUSKOV A, PLLC
By~LLZ-
.oloulikova, Vv'SBA#27)J2
Attorneys for Home rezone applicants,
Newfourth LLC, and Ed Home
JOHNS MONROE MJTSUNAGA KOLOUSKOV A PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 114"' Ave. SE, Suite 110
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel:(425)4512812/Fax(425)4512818
. '
~ ~
··:-.. , ..... •·.·
-----
.;; ,_--~.----
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF RENTON
INRE: .DECLARATION OF SERVICE
Home Rezone, NO. LUA 11-023, ECF, R
I, Evanna L. Charlot, am a citiz.en of the United States, resident of the State of
Washington, and declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
Washington, that on this date, I caused to be served via legal messenger delivery,
Applicant's: MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF REzONE, and this DECLARATION, upon C?unsel
and parties of record at the address and in the manner listed below.
Bonnie L. Walton
City Clerk
City of Renton I City Clerk's Office
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Richard R. Wilson, Esq.
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON
1221 2nd Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98101
Attorneys for Stonegate Homeowner
Association
Rocale Timmons
Associate Planner, Department of Community
and Economic. Development
City of Renton
I 055_ S. Grady Way, 6"' Floor
Renton, WA 98057
7'.. ---;--., r -. . ' Dated this .fJ-day of ~ , 2011, in Bellevue, Washington.
1427-1 Dedqration of Servi°: 12-19-1 I.doc
D£CLARAT/ONOFSERV1CE-PAGE I
~
Evanna L. Charlot
ORIGINAL
JOHNS MONROE MrrSUNAGA KOLOUSKOV A PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 I 14"' Ave. SE, Suite I IO
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel: (425) 451 2812 / Fax (425) 451 2818
•.
)
.· '. ~,·r.·-:··-·.·.; ·:.·
Renton City Council
c/o Bonnie Walton, City Clerk
Renton City Hall, 'fh Floor
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Cl'TYOl'RENTON
DEC 19 2011
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
,-{~ dd,vv~-d,~ '+ ,__ "'1,(e f WI. ,-
Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Recommendation on Home Rezone Request
Dear Council Members,
t:..v!J-f/-023 ECf5 I?..
For the rezone request to be granted, there are four key points it must meet These are:
1) The rezone is in the public interest RMC 4-9-180(F)(2)(a)
2) The rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of
other persons located in the vicinity thereof RMC 4-9-180(F)(2)(c)
3) The rezone is consistent with the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan
RMC 4-9-180(F)(l)(a)
4) Since the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the subject property,
authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other
circumstances affecting the subject property must have undergone significant and
material change RMC 4-9-l 80(F)(l )(b )(ii) ·
None of these points has been met.
I) The rezone is in the public interest RMC 4-9-180(F)(2)(a)
The higher density R-4 zoning is out of keeping with the surrounding R-1, RA-5, and
RA-10 zoning. Renton's Stonegate neighborll()od, which borders the proposed rezone
on two sides, is 38.4 acres with 53 lots. 53 d.u./38.4 acres= 1.4 d.uJacre. The
proposed R-4 zoning with 4 d.1L/acre is in no way comparable to the surrounding 1.4
d.uJacre and would constitute an illegal spot zone.
The rezone proponents point out that Stonegate's lots are clustered with large open
spaces in between, and say it is Stonegate's built out density that matters. According
to King County property records, the average size of Stonegate's 53 lots is 16,808 ·
square feet. The average size of the 22 May Valley Coop lots (which border the
proposed rezone to the south) is 16,248 square feet. The adjacent rural lots beyond the
Urban Growth Boundary on the rezone area's fourth side to 1he east are much larger
than this.
lfyou look at Stonegate's and May Valley Coop's built out densities, then you must
also look at the potential built out densities of new development in 1he proposed
rezone. Clustered new development in the rezone area could result in lot sizes as
sma11· as 4,500 square feet with R-4 zoning.1 4,500 square foot lots is in no way
1 The 4,500 square feet is according to Rocale Timmons, Renton Associate Planner. The Examiner cited
the Wmdstone development on page JO of her recommendation as being "approximately 4 dwelling units
per acre." According to King County records, the average lot siz.e in Wmdstone is 6,404 square feet
comparable to the surrounding 16,000-+ square foot lots and would constitute an illegal
spot zone.
The Examiner cites the RMC: RMC 4-2-0lOD states, "The R-4 designation serves as
a transition between rural designation zones and higher density residential zones "2
But there are no "higher density residential zones" that the proposed rezone would
provide a transition to! The proposed rezone is surrounded on all side by lower
density zoning.
While there is clear benefit of a rezone to the applicant, Newfourth LLC; speculators
who are out to make a buck, they have not shown any public benefit to a rezone.
2) The rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of
other persons located in the vicinity thereof RMC 4-9-180(F)(2)( c)
One of the city's comprehensive plan land use objectives is, Objective LU-HH:
Provide for a range of lifestyles. People moved to Renton's extreme NE comer
: because of the area's open space, "peaceful and bucolic natural surroundings',3, and
adjacent nrra1 areas. Moreover, the "peaceful and bucolic natural surroundings" were
expected to be permanent, since zoning law was and is R-1 andRA-5 andRA-10 in
the adjacent area beyond the county's Urban Growth Boundary. As Americans, we
are fortunate to live in a country where there is reason to expect that today's laws will
also be tomorrow's laws and that these laws won't be changed capriciously.
American citizens expect the rule of law to be followed and base their planning
accordingly.
The nearby homeowners are fighting the proposed zoning change because it
diminishes that attributes that attracted them to the area in the first place and is thereby
detrimental to their property. Ninety of Stonegate's residents and HOA members4
have said that the proposed zoning change would be materially detrimental to them.5
3) The rezone is consistent with the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan
RMC 4-9-180(F)(l)(a)
The city staff administers Renton's Comprehensive Plan. City staff are the experts.
Staff concluded that the rezone should net be granted for many reasons includmg:
• It is contrary to Policy LU-51 and the May Creek Basin Action Plan which
states that increased density will aggravate flooding problems in May Creek
• It is contrary to Policies LU-141 and LU-148 which encourages large lots in
areas providing a transition to the Urban Growth Boundary and King County
Rural Designation.
2 Examiner's Recommendation, p. 15.
3 Examiner's Recommendation, p. 7.
4 The Stonegate HOA is a party of record.
' Signatures at the end of this letter.
Rather than deferring to city staff's expertise, the examiner incorrectly thought she
was the expert in interpreting the city's Comprehensive Plan.
4) Since the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the subject property,
authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other
circumstances affecting the subject property must have undergone significant and
material change RMC 4-9-180(F)(l)(bXii)
Tue most recent land use analysis was in 2009 when the City Council purposely
continued the R-1 z.oning of the area. The Examiner refers to the development of
Stonegate and Windstone6 as changes. Stonegate was developed from 1997 to 1999.
Windstone was developed from 2005 to 2008. Both or these developments were well
before the City Council looked at z.oning in this area in 2009. ·
Any one of the four points above is enough to deny the proposed rez.one. I ask the City
Council to reverse the Examiner's recommendation and defer to city staff's
recommendation of denying the Home rez.one.
Thank you,
Bruce Christopherson
5502 NE 24th Ct.
Renton, WA 98059-4114
6 Examiner's Recommendation, p. I 0.
_::-:-:. -;:----.-.· ·-·.-··
Dear Members of the Renton City Council,
We, the undersigned, believe the November 8, 201 I Hearing Examiner Recommendation to be
flawed. The proposed Horne Rez.one is surrounded by low-density land zoned R-1, RA-5, or RA-
I 0. According to RMC 4-9-180(F)(2), a rezone must meet certain requirements including the
rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons
located in the vicinity thereof Allowing an R-4 zoning with substantially smaller lots than the
surrounding area would be out of keeping with tbe area's open and bucolic character, attributes
that influenced our decision to buy houses in tbis area. The Horne Rez.one would thereby be
detrimental to our properties. '
Name _ ~11-1 f\J 1" 0 D~ i?!l.ull
Signature ~
Name (Y\~~ {µ~
Signatur~ ....,._
'--'
Name S~e u ),v'.)J;,.
Signa~S~L~-' -
Address S3.l6 Ali: ·vrfll Cl(;trr
'
Address 'S~II NC ..21.(~ (-f.
City~
Address 5St'Yc UE:.-;Jf:,t1 st.
City ~-\-oh J ( 0f\
Address SSJ Z-Ji? 26 r/1 ff:
City ;?e-_,v7;;,..; tf/4 . 9 fftJj~
Address -53/2 A/17 2(/J?, 5T.
city f?.t,,c7fr,1 , lfl;r f I t7£7 .
'
Addressffi\4 ~ ~ ~
City}l,,-·E'..\'\\uv\). UJ.-C\ _ Cl';sCffJ
Address22-\.2-~ :fu.-o-<.. \.)'c__
City 3;:~'--~'-\;J,....._ ~~")
Address lz. 3 2,-o ,A) If" 7.--2 £-1
City /k...,k Lu)r 7 g O §° 1
,'
Dear Members of the Renton City Council,
We, the undersigned, believe the November 8, 2011 Hearing Examiner Recommendation to be
flawed. The proposed Horne Rezone is surrounded by low-density land zoned R-1, RA-5, or RA-
10. According to RMC 4-9-l 80(F)(2), a rezone mnst meet certain requirements including the
rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons
located in the vicinity thereof Allowing an R-4 zoning with substantially smaller lots than the
surrounding area would be out of keeping with the area's open and bucolic character, attributes
that influenced our decision to buy houses in this area. The Home Rezone would thereby be
detrimental to our properties. ·
Name lf>A_ X _iJCthq-Address..SJ-D/ '1,'f:_ ?}:;fL!
Signatute .• .--;~:-i, Lr !',r,/07 City /?Pn?;;, t uJA f? .>~·y
. ___ /_ ___ ---=6 ________________ •
Name +{Pie;\} Co""-9
Signature 4'(,, tXA· ~{:)
Name {c 1 l[J :V \ \:: \ iti'l-i •. ,4'\--·
Signature,·1'~·
Name --rT11,4 jC}:J / n1f"r
Signature ~< :{} ~
Name An0~~k .' Det \J0n
Signature /~''{>1. e
L..-1/
Name De.~\(_ NQ.1\.>D"-
Signature Q V:k·
Address 530!?° ){€ 22,xfCou,l,
city 3e-n-i.-o f:\ w I\ q '«:xr'l
Address ~ -,, t 3 ,0 E ? ).,,.,-.,I C.f-
City _._f2.e_· .,vefv,A ___ \,.J_f< __ · 1_S_D_1.,._<_J
Address ~ '5 I 2-. · /Vi:; 2-7 .-..t C +
City fl i "'-i7I l1 1 \A,, 1 '7 ilt 5.-L
Address S 30C . \\JE, Z:?. ;c,l Cf-
City (Z,,ahi-, \.J'\ C1jC!l<j
Address ) ]60 N F-i JR.() r T
City 'f.2-e-'Vl +uh. W ('c "\ 'i'., 0 I <l
• co •••• ·-.
Address 51u( t(/~ 2?" (Zfc-U--<-I
City 40-f.-vt , ()., ft . I
Address 6ZzOr IV£-)7~ ef
City ·Ra') lo I'\ f \ /\IA tf liJ®J
:-.·) ·c·t-·, .. -.·.·.:.·:·: · · ·
Dear M=bers of the Renton City Council,
... ---·············-· :-; ~ !-···:·· ·.-.• -. . .
We, the undersigned, believe the November 8, 20tl Hearing Examiner Recommendation to be
flawed. The proposed Home Rezone is surrounded by low-density land zoned R-1, RA-5, or RA-
I 0. According to RMC 4-9-I80(F)(2), a rezone must meet certain requirements including the
rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons
located in the vicinity thereof Allowing an R-4 zoning with substantially smaller lots than the
surrounding area would be out of keeping with the area's open and bucolic character, attributes
that influenced our decision to buy houses in this area. The Home Rezone would thereby be
detrimental to our properties.
Name ,,.d-7~1,< CL {&!<e/
Signatur~ Afz1cr{i_4r&-,
::!~
Address~U Nfz z; '-f 't14c_,-
City /Zfz.J0tbµ L,<...J,A 9so;--:J
I
Address b{ DY /J/ b Ur'"/,/ r.?--.
City i,V::,---V /r1? ,pt,/ {// /~
I
Address t;~2%?No Zu l ff
City 6-Jv70/f/'#/7;zfrc
Address 52Z ff /11£ -Z,Z,rvZ, C{_
City µ4Afti11 l//J-1fiJ5':f
Address ':fi{J I Nl, k='.? tl2 C-f-
City lre.,tnTlJYl LQq . g{3(l'-zt:j
Address tt9» ,v~ '.2 ,;.,, $ '1-
City Xfin.J,,,.,_ k"'. J 110 5£/
Address . ~3[)D ~ ltfh S+ .
City fe4fi"1 ~j A G/g& Pl
)
Dear Members of the Renton City Council,
We, the undersigned, believe the November 8, 2011·Hearing Examiner Recommendation to be
flawed. The proposed Home Rezone is surrounded by low-<iensity land zoned R-1, RA-5, or RA-
I 0. According to RMC 4--9-l 80(F)(2), a rezone must meet certain requirements including the
rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons
located in the vicinity thereof Allowing an R--4 zoning with substantially smaller lots than the
surrounding area would be out of keeping with the area's open and bucolic character, attributes
that influenced our decision to buy houses in this area The Home Rezone would thereby be
detrimental to our properties.
Name Jeri L. Goo
Signature (~i)U.~
0
Name ~/i)d~ ·
Signature~'~
Name µ\ ~ .r( . S~-t'\q
Signature ('\,,,J.Ar-------.
Address c2.fJ03 Ly-ans ,i\ve.. ./1....'E
City Piv1h-i,, wA qeosq
Address 53 De; Nb Z3 J(f) cT
City ~j vJ4 cJ?,o=fr
I
Address Qa0fa Jv/:: ,X 3rd 6f .
City Be&frlnr W.Lf-, 1?tJS1
Address ??0 r NE 'l. '? .,.J (!f-.
City fe.tt'lfo/1 1 WJ4--q &o5"j
Address ?'.2-< ~ L1°"'-S Ave. NC
City 1Uv---. .\-el ~
Address£?'2o J !..y.,;,J.IS /Jve , J\/E'
City ~c,rJ, /,Jfr ')/j>of;Cj
"
Dear Members of the Renton City Council,
We, the undersigned, believe the November 8, 2011 Hearing Examiner Recommendation to be
flawed. The proposed H;ome Rezone is surrounded by low-density land zoned R-1, RA-5, or RA-
10. According to RMC 4-9-180(F)(2), a rezone must meet certain requirements including the
rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons
located in the vicinity thereof Allowing an R-4 zoning with substantially smaller lots than the
surrounding area would be out of keeping with the area's open and bucolic.character, attributes
that influenced our decision to buy houses in this area The Home Rez.one would thereby be
detrimental to our properties.
Signature &,~ ~~
;,
Name Ow <,I. MP\j L,.~® ·
Signature 4) 1tl-M{ [_._,"'--
Address 5 5c:,i;,, [\J E: 2(.., 1li S,;
City ~1'.JJOJ, WA: q~¢5'1
I
Address ':z\pO 2-NG l,.L,*' S.-\-:
City Ye:n\-o'X'-w A . ':'\60S°\
I
Address 0b 02. ts-\(::-2.,l,.\v\ &t
City 1<:l'.'.;)1TD[\ WA. 46 D'?'\
I
Address 5S-oS A15 a,c(11' Lf-
City ~<oJhv. vJft '!8GS-C-1
Address SSOS AJF ? 7 •f. ( 't
City f?.5,-1,-d b t4 lJ fl 'f &} 0 S: 1
Address -S:-E/6</ NF ?<(Cf
City Ka-"'-.f-c,..._, ,::., la. . ~dC?
Address 9/oi: Me-"J. ,f ~ ~
V
City Ji .. ,,,y7Q..J . lAJ fl 7 ~ '5°'7
Address~_;? I k, Ajf;-;).l/Dt:.
City J?a;k._
1
lA \C. q 'zOY;
>
:•.·. -·. ' .· ·.; :-~---.:·-~-:-:•.( :·:.--.·
Dear Members of the Renton City Council,
We, the undersigned, believe the November 8, 2011 Hearing Examiner Recommendation to be
flawed. The proposed Home Rezone is surrounded by low-density land zoned R-I, RA-5, or RA-
10. According to RMC 4-9-180(F)(2), a rezone must meet certain requirements including the
rewne is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons
located in the vicinity thereof Allowmg an R-4 zoning with substantially smaller Jots than the
surrounding area would be out of keeping with the area's open and bucolic character, attributes
that influenced our decision to buy houses in this area. The Home Rezone would thereby be
detrimental to our properties.
Name j) I\ ) \/\1i11"1:1.s\,.o\~
Signature /ts-·\_._,,_
, 1
Name ~~4?£:ZZt r
Signature :V /i f'J \ -CL f?; 5r A]U'-1
Name CJ I Zr?..fr;t/..._ ?atoe
Signature . ~h--fi-..
Address Z.""J'z::z;:, L.Yc> ,t) J' A~ NE
City UJl,}TD,V I tU.4-qBc::a7
7 .
Address Ssos \St 2\5"\ ( -Oef°"'r -------~--
City __ 9_., .. _. M_IXJ_-..,__vi_t-_,_· _i_i_o_9_~--
Address 551 I f'\E-Z)si C~
City ~ .WA l{gt)SCJ
I
Address '5S/C} N~ zf Yi-C/,
City J:3,,_,, 'fo 0, L,J /It-'J g' 0 S 9
I
Address5°5IO .I\)€ ZI st-Cc-
City ~,:,T~, W/-J 9<r;c7s;9'
Address s:si"=> rJc ;)-~ c:f
City Jlµ,fovl I vVJL\ tf f C!Jj
Address 57 /J" )ff z_z ;.Ji:! c+
. City . fZ(?tfb1' t.lA q f 05'9
I
.. .:·-::::·::.·:-:::-~--~-
Dear Members of the Renton City Council,
We, the undersigned, believe the November 8, 2011 Hearing Examiner Recommendation to be
flawed. The proposed Home Rezone is smrounded by low-density land zoned R-1, RA-5, or RA-
J 0. According to RMC 4-9-l 80(F)(2), a rezone must meet certain requirements including the
rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons
located in the vicinity thereof Allowing an R-4 zoning with substantially smaller lots than the
surrounding area would be out of keeping with the area's open and bucolic character, attributes
that influenced our decision to buy houses in this area. The Home Rezone would thereby be
detrimental to our properties.
~arnefi~~nJ
Signature_.~ ta..'·-=-'--£'.~--,£~1-+------
~
Narne11... y(»j ~:
Signature l ~
Address 5" 30>N t 2,<{+,._ c+
City~
City~
Address ..5..?0</ IJ£ -NIL (}}-
City ,R,,,,J,...,_ tJ {/ 7.!'.:2:,' 9
Address 2 ;J l}L, t7 o," Jfv(;;:/1/{!,
city f.tt".1foN I tt0A ,, 'f .!tJ!f
Address Z-?o:z ('1"""' 4 ~€.
City /4,.'4, · {;tf/t "'7 676<;?
Address J. },j ~ A,.... ,Jc__
City ~-{_, ~y,j 'rfkr
Address "1.)Q) 4c,,...r A,.. .J:...
City ~:\_1w"1 jft)i":f
Address 5 3J L . i-1e f.:2_, er:
City k-?-{ .WA 7~P s<t
'
)
.·:-:·' ;~-:--·-·--.·-·.·.·-:·· ...
Dear Members of the Renton City Council,
We, the undersigned, .believe the November 8, 2011 Hearing Examiner Recommendation to be
flawed. The proposed Home Rezone is surrounded by low-density land zoned R-1, RA-5, or RA-
IO. According to RMC 4-9-l 80(F){2), a rezone must meet certain requirements including the
rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons
located in the vicinity thereof Allowing an R-4 zoning with substantially smaller lots than the
surrounding area would be out of keeping with the area's open and bucolic character, attributes
that influenced our decision to buy houses in this area The Home Rezone would thereby be
detrimental to our properties.
Name fL.AJ fu A re. I/ Signature--/-r~<Lc~C?/YJ~~~~~j/-.-
' /
Name ~d:U1-r'a,, fr; eJr1·cy .
Signature /Jar:~~~
Name{;\ i 7-QIVJ(t~\ /r. R((,\JIV\y
~ignature ~1J?fit£0t A:: l,tf
Address_'°l_~_0_7i __ /~~~IY'_? __ ,4',l-__ ~b_:_
City /u"' '1J-. W.A "l ~ri ---------~--
I 76/L,S ~~
/.-.Jc._ CJ "°& o .:J ",
Address Z 1-/ 0 I A..1 L~ 5 4-vc:. (If E.
City £' e,,._. .../-z_...,__ WA 'T IJ O .5-7
Address l!-'f P/ .i-rons lfv~ /1,t'.
City ;f-?rt..£;q, WA ,fll&.£<J
Address 1fJD7.-\J4 OVD Af t-Jf;
City ttw IID1 \N ;t O]j\291 · / . .
Address ,25 O .) I.if"<, & ti[;
City · tee.-.lr, n, 1.111 't ~05'1
Address_,,~'-=---------
City ___________ _
---"··-•'·''-·. • ~-,·-·-.. ····• ··.,, .,.,,_:, ... -._ -.-..... .
Dear Members of the Renton City Council,
We, the undersigned, believe the November 8, 2011 Hearing Examiner Recommendation to be
flawed. The proposed Home Rezone is surrounded by low-density land zoned R-1, RA-5, or RA~
10. According to RMC 4-9-180(F)(2), a rezone must meet certain requirements including the
rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons
located in the vicinity thereof Allowing an R-4 zoning with substantially smaller lots than the
surrounding area would be out of keeping with the area's open and bucolic character, attributes
that influenced our decision to buy houses in this area. The Home Rezone would thereby be
detrimental to our properties.
Address ~ N£ 2-15± (_-f ·
Signature :':'...llJ.LL1.llJ_....!.X~=--l-\-11!L\L:+Vr\ City \LM:i:LV)
Name ·9:yj /,V1 ff8JQ99eYJ
Signature b ==-1"'. .--
Name :lc,i., .,__ lf i.>~
Signature Qc:z. '-ti---
/ ...-
Address .p;\JI+ Nt,. Z-1 zf l' iJv,/:f:
City R:f/\ :rovJ , IMr: "i @5">
•
Address zicte I i4(Jy)S
City ~:J 1r,/A
Address lib C. li..,r/..,; A<>< Iv£ •
City (2v,i)m,,_ ly4 qgos'j.
bli.Nt
STu1
Address '2.21 I
City ~Pt,~,
l..7dh< rtt-A-P /#c
~ fKOS'f
I
Address ~~z.. Ale 2lf Cr
City f},, f. /"-c.,<1,4 "'I j b S-7
;>
)
,-.;:.::• .;:-.-.. -
Dear Members of the Renton City Council,
We, the undersigned, believe the November 8, 2011 Hearing Examiner Rec.ommendation to be
flawed. The proposed Home Rezone is surrounded by low-density land zoned R-1, RA-5, or RA-
I 0. According to RMC 4-9-l 80(F)(2), a rezone mnst meet certain requirements including the·
rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons
located in the vicinity thereof Allowing an R-4 zoning with substantially smaller lots than the
surrounding area would be out of keeping with the area's open and bucolic character, attributes
that influenced our decision to buy houses in this area The Home Rezone would thereby be
detrimental to our properties.
Name IJJen dy Lg ('~.·c
Signature WewltJ ~a,J,y -rl
L.. ii
:==~
Name b!M£tJU4~ ·
Signature~,-~......__
Address-''/' o l-N£-2-£-(fc.. Ccu, f
City l<t:r.ho
Address 5405 NE 2.44h ft-
City l<enhYI
Address ~ 'l,t, z Nf. z ? p.,/ e. r
City f?.e,_.fot1, u),4-Cff!pq/ ·
Address 53Dot N. 5. :Z.J.a cl c..j-.
city ~eA-!:on. wA q"[05'f
Address S~"'i {\.£ 72,'--d Cf-
City ~-\·e,.-\ ( ,Uv, :NOG
Address ~ (\.)(?LA'Q G--
City ~~l 1'\Jot 'lfil_S:J
Address >,"14> NE ZZ..z,,,::( c.--r
City f#. £_iv[l7 ('J
Address S::::~0 z$ /Jt=:'-z:z,,,,/C...-i:-
City t f iA if} t/l
Dear Members of the Renton City Council,
We, the undersigned, believe the November 8, 2011 Hearing Examiner Recommendation to be
flawed. The proposed Home Rezone is surrounded by low-density land zoned R-1, RA-5, or RA-
I 0. According to RMC 4-9-l 80(F)(2), a rezone must meet certain requirements including the
rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons
located in the vicinity thereof Allowing an R-4 zoning with substantially smaller lots 1han the
surrounding area would be out of keeping with the area's open and bucolic character, attn"butes
that influenced our decision to buy houses in this area The Home Rezone would thereby be
detrimental to our properties. ·
Name ·=rm f{(:ei Q(Q
Signature ~L ~
Name D.i-bY-o... /?.6jV( r
Signature ~
Name 1f4.... 'b. ~-
Signature w,n I .. ~ I . f< ryer<
Name
Address 'S52J {'JF 9/.2 d4 r
Ci~ Ii.cl-q fur!?/.
Address '?"3 U. t-1£ 'Z-~,l C-1"'
City /20v~ wfA J-W S~
Address 5,3 4 · /JC ))_~.J C.. j_
city ~ • .J--,,1._ w4 tJJ o sq
Address s5oz.. N£ zJ./ih C1-
city RB/1'f-o;-,,. WA '1~051
Address 2.Jd1 L~liv\>, -~ ~ ~
City '.V@ \ol-l u Ii ttB O > q
Address 56\\ t,\t:. 2.\s~ C \---
City~~ \}VA q~i;q ,
1
)
Dear Members of the Renton City Council,
We, the undersigned, believe 1he November 8, 2011 Hearing Examiner Recommendation to be
flawed. The proposed Home Rezone is surrounded by low-density land zoned R-1, RA-5, or RA-
I 0. According to RMC 4-9-l 80(F)(2), a rezone must meet certain requirements including the
rezone is not materially detrimental to the public :.Ve/fare of the properties of other persons
located in the vicinity thereof Allowing an R-4 zoning with substantially smaller lots 1han the
surrounding area would be out of keeping with 1he area's open and bucolic character, attributes
that influenced our decision to buy houses in 1his area. The Home Rezone·would thereby be
detrimental to our properties.
Name ____________ _
Signature ___________ _
Name ____________ _
Signature ___________ _
Name_·-----------~
Signature ___________ _
Name ____________ _
Signature ___________ _
Name ____________ _
Signature ___________ _
Name ____________ _
Signature ___________ _
Address 2.Z L'l){ l'f""''l f}"" //1 ;J:
City ge:.£,0 / 1_,j It . WrJG
Address JJ..Df
I
City /C.-t fffDt1,
· Address ___________ _
City ____________ _
Address ___________ _
City ____________ _
Address ____ ~-------
City ____________ _
Address ___________ _
City __________ ~
Address ___________ _
City ___________ _
Address ___________ _
City ____________ _
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Bonnie,
Betsy Reamy [betsyreamy@yahoo.com]
Monday, December 19, 2011 4:51 PM
Bonnie Walton
Home Rezone Appeal
.. -. -···-., -·---_·-· · · ··--·---... --
I understand that I can submit my email to you for consideration regarding the Horne
Rezone appeal. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Best Regards,
Betsy
***********************************************
Renton City Council Members,
I am writing today in regards to the proposed Horne Rezone. I understand that recently the
Hearing Examiner ignored the recommendation of the City of Renton planning staff and
approved the request. It is my hope that the City Council will listen to the facts of this
request and deny the rezoning of this property to Rs4.
I am against the Horne Rezone request. The proposed properties included in the Horne
Rezone abut the Stonegate neighborhood which is zoned R-1. To dramatically and
detrimentally change the face of our neighborhood is wrong. The Horne property could be
developed in its current R-1 status (and present a cohesive look to the existing
neighborhood). The only party to benefit from an R-4 zoning is the developer. The
neighboring residents will suffer from decreased home value, decreased enjoyment of their
homes and increased security issues.
Please look at this issue carefully and consider the information that has been presented. I
believe the laws were misinterpreted by the Hearing Examiner. This is your opportunity to
correct that and to expect proposed developments to follow the Comprehensive Plan put in
place by the City of Renton.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Betsy Reamy
1
<. (
>
)
-· •••• •••••. • .v· -··
Denis Law.
Mayor·
Oty Clerk_ -a.:;nhie I. Walton
December 7, 2011 _
APPEAL FILED BY: Stonegate Homeowners·Association by their attorney Richard Wilson,
· Hillis Clark lylartin & Peterson, PS · · · · ·
RE: Appeal Df Hearing Examiner's decision dated N~vember·l, 2oir; ;egarding Horne -
· Rezone Request. (File No. LUA~ 11-023 ECF, R)
To Parties ofRecord:
Purs_uantto Title. IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Cod~ of Ordin~nces, written appeal of the hearing ·
· examiner's decision on the _Horne Rezone Requesfhas beeri filed with the city Clerk._ -. ' . \ .
. -__ -In accordance withHenton Municipal Code S~ction 4--8~110( 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 tfiereceipt ofthe appeal. Other parties ofrecord may
submit le_tters limited to support of their positions regarding the "appeal withi~ ten (10) days of
the date of mailing of this notification. The deadline for submission of add_itional letters is'by -·
·s,oo p.m.; Monday, December 19, 2011.. ·
• NOTICE IS HEREBY_ GIVEN that the written appeal a~d ~~her pertine~t documentswiUbe ·•
· reviewed by the Coun_cil's Planning and Development Committee a! 2:00 p:m. on Thursday._
January 12. 2012, in the Council Chambers, 7th Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady . ·
Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The recommendation of the Committeewillbe presented for_.
consideration by the fuil CoimcHat a subsequent Council meeting. · · · · . . . . . . . . . -. . -
Copy of the appeal and the Renton MunicipalCode regarding appeal"of He~ring Examiner
decisions or recommendations is attached. Please note that the City Councilwill be considering
_. the merits of the appeal based upon the written record preyiously establish'ed. Unless a _ -·
-showing can-be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been· available at the ·
_ · prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, rio further evidence odestimony on this matter~.
· __ wiU be accepted_ by the City CounciL -· · · · · ·
For additional information or assistance, please call me at 425-430-6510:
. Sincerely,
Borinie I. Walton
City Clerk
Attachments
1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 9Bo57 •: (_425) 43D--651 0 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentOn~.gov
!
<
-·~-------··· ·' ·-~~:-.,,· ..
CITY OF RENTON
Hillis
HCMP
Law Offices
Clark
Martin&
Peterson P.S.
NOV 2 2 2011.1 /:s-.;>o.. i
RECENED I CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
November 22, 2011
Via Messenger
Renton City Council
c/o Bonnie Walton, CityClerk
Renton City Hall, 7th Floor
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
R,; Nolia of.Appeal ofHeari11g Examwr'! Ruf111JnU1Uia1w11·n: Home R,z.rmeRiquest
Rrz,m, LUA 11.()23, ECF
Dear Membcts of the Council:
Our law firm represents the Stonegate Homeowners Association (''SHOA'')
in connection with the proposed Home rezone request The proponents seek to rezone
7.37 acres in the northeast corner of Renton from the R-1 zone to the R-4 zone.
The Renton planning staff strongly recommended that the rezone be denied. Despite that
recommendation, the City's Hearing Examiner Pro Tern issued her Findiogs of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Recommendation advising approval of the rezone request.
On behalf of SHOA, we hereby appeal the Exammcr's recommendation and enclose
the required $250 appeal fee. We mgc the Council to reverse the Examiner and deny
the requested rezone.
1. Standing to Appeal.
Under RMC § 4-8-110(F)(1), SHOA has standing to appeal the Examiner's
recommendation to the Council The undersigned attorney testified on behalf of SHOA at the
Examiner's public hearing, as did two SHOA board members. In addition, the undersigned
submitted written comments on the proposed rezone to City staff before the hearing was held.
. ('.,C. •• '. .. 4~ 1,0;,..r• ~. ~ (:I.~ .
r-.~\ v..x:,... ~; c._ e \::>
2:>e."'"';~.......-\\._·,"'""\, c.e.::::,
Ci--..(! V=.._,J. I C..E b
\-\ er-r: ~.l {.,,:-µ,...,'"-' ;.__ e.,
= Second Averue, SUlte 500 I Seattle, WA 98101 I 206.623.1745 I f: 206.623.7789 I hemp.com / "Tir M ERITAS
l.a'/'1116 Wl:lltl!IIU
I
!
'
!..
i
I
' , )
-----··.····-·. . .... ·.·-·,...---c:-··.··.'--~.; -· .•
Renton City Council
November 22, 2011
Page2 of12
2. Background.
.. ·-· .,..---:-7-·. ··-··.·· -
The background regarding the.Home rezone request is generally described in the
Examine.r's recommendarion.1 The Conncil. should be particularly mindful of the following:
• The owners of 12 noncontiguous lots in northeast Renton, to12ling 7.4 acres,
:.:~~:--·,.•,:.·--::
have collectively applied for a rezone of their two groups of lots from R-1 to the
rugher..density R-4 zone_2 Their two lot groupings are separated by an access tract
owned by SHOA (Tzact I of the Stonegate plat), which is not part of the Home rezone
request.3
• . May Creek is located just north of this area, while the Greene Creek tributary directly
borders the site on the west. -4 .
• The Stonegate <:ammunity (annexed to Renton in 1995) is located just west of the
· Home properties and is also zoned R-1. Stonegate was devdoped at an overall gross
density of 1.38 dwelling units to the acre, not the 2 to 3 du./ acre wrongly asserted by
the rezone applicants and erroneously accepted as fact by the Exarniner.5 ·
• The pre-annexation zoning adopted by the Renton City Council in 1997 designated
this entire area, including the Home lots, as R-1, to become effective upon
annexation. 6
• The City again reviewed the zoning of the Home lots in 2005 as part of the Planning
· Commission's area-wide land use r~. The commission recom!nended no change
in the 1997 R-1 pre-annexation zoning. and the City's R-1 designation for this area
. remained tin changed. 7
' Se, Ex=iner's Findings ofFact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendarioo (11/1/11) ("Exarniner's
&comrnenchtion'), p. 6.
' Enn,;ner's &commendation, P· I.
• Se, Exhibit (''EL") 3-G, p. 5.
~ Examiner's Recotnm.cnda~ p. 6.
· 5 Exa:o;:riner's R.ecommendation,,p. 4.
6 Eramioer's Recommendation,, pp. 1. 4.
7 Enminer:'.s R.ecommcncb.tion, p. 5.
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
I
i
I
I
·· .... -· ... · .... ··-·..-:--~--... __ ... , .. ·""· ·· ....
Renton City Council
November 22, 2011
Page 3 of 12
·.: ,:••, -.-~,--···.
· .... •.-.~ . .-..~ ... ..;., ........ _,,_, ...
• The Home lots were annexed to Renton in May 2009 as the MacKay annexation_ 8
Before annexation, two of the lots were zoned R-1 by King County, while the rest
. ··.<·-· ---: ("-•.•.,.,-.;·.•
were zoned R-4 in the County. But at the time of annexation, the Renton City Council ·
rerained Renton's pre-annexation .R-1 zoning on all these lots.' ·
• One of the factors influencing the Council's decision to retain R-1 zoning at the time
of annexation was the fact that this area is located in the May Creek drainage basin.
As noted in the 2001 May Creek Basin Action Plan, which Renton is committed t;,
implement, the density of upland development is a key contributing factor to the
flooding that occurs in May Valley.10
• Because this area drains to May Creek, the Basin Plan recommends that existing
zoning densities -including adopted pre-zoning for future annexation areas like the
Home properties -should not be increased unless a qualified bydrologic analysis
demonstrates that stonnwatet runoff peaks and volumes = be fully mitigated to
pre-developed condirions.11
• The 2001 Basin Plan included this recommendation even though the plan recognized
that King County was about to adopt a tnore stringent and effective Surface Watet
Design Manual (a manual subsequently adopted by Renton and other cities) that would.
better mitigate potential flooding impacts in the area. 12
• The Current Planning staff recoromcoded denial of the Home rezone because of its
failmc to tneet all but one of the applicable rezone criteria in Renton' s code. 13
• Despite the staff recotntnendation, despite the long-tertn chronic concerns about
flooding in the area, and despite the fact that the Home rezone would coostitote an
isolated island of R-4 zoning in the midst of an R-1 area of Renton, the Examiner
Pro T cm (who is not an attorney) recoromcoded approval of the Home rezone."
B Examiner's Recommendation, p. 6.
9 · Examiner's ~dati.on, p. 6. See EL 3-G, p. 3, aim/, EL 7, applicants' -Home Rezone. Project Namtivc.
p. 3; Revised Staff Ikport (!0/11/11) at p. 7 (h=afttt "Staff Ikport").
10 Ex. 4, May Crea Basin Action Pbn (April 2001), P· 1-6. The Basin Pbn was dcvdopcdjoindy by King
County and Renton. The R.coton City Council adopted Resoluiion No. 3506, authorizing the lilll)'Or to enter into
an intcrlocal ,g,ccm,:nt wi1h the County to unplem=t 1hc May Crea Basin Plan. Staff Report at pp. 5-6.
" Ex. 4, May Crea Basin Action PJ.n, p. 3-29.
12 Ex. 4, May Crea Basin Action PJ.n, p. 3-8.
13 Staff Report, p. 8.
14 Examiner's Recommc:ndatio~ p. 18.
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
i
I
I
i
I
i
i
_,
)
Renton City Council -
November 22, 2011
Page 4of12
3. The Applicable Rezone _Standards.
•• ·~ • 1· ... :-~-:-.·,_:_•:·.-, •••
The properties included in the Home rezone request are all designated RID
· (Residential Low Density) on the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan Map. Both the R-1 and
R-4 zones are intended to implement the RID designation. RMC §§ 4-2--020(C) and (D).
The Home rezone proposal therefore does not require a comprehensive plan amendment
Accordingly, the yardstick for evalw.ting the Home rezone proposal is set forth in
RMC § ~9-180(F)(2), as follows (emphasis supplied):
2. Criteria for Rezones Not Requiring Comprehensive Plan Ameodment
The Reviewing Offic±tl shall make the following findings:
a. Tbt "ZP"' is in tbt publu interest, and
b. The rezone tends "to further the preservation and enjoyment of any
substantial property rights of the petitioner, and
c. Tbt r<'{pn, is not matmaf!y detrimental to th, p11blu we!fare of th, propmus of
other p,r:rons kmmd in th, vi&ini!J thereof, and
d The "ZP"' meets the fflR<1V criteria in p,bsettion Ff of this S,t:titm.
This last subsection (F)(2)(d) requires that the criteria in subsection F(l) must also be met
The F(l) criteria are as follows (emphasis supplied): ·
1. Criteria for Rezones Requiring a Comprehensive Plan Ameodmeot
The following findings shall be rnade:
The proposed amendmeot meets the review criteria in RMC 4-9-020; and
a. Is amsistent with th, poluies set forth in tbt Comprebtnsive Plan; and
b. At least one of the following circumstances.applies:
i The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered at
the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; or _
ii Since the most =<nt land us, ana!Jsis or th, area '{pning o/ th, suij,ct
prop,,ry, autheriZ!d publu improvements, pmmtkd private develapmmt or other
dmumtances affecting tbt suij<ct prop,~ have 11ndergone signifoant and material
change.
_ Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.s:-
..... ,.. .. ,_ ... _-.·-
Renton City Council
November 22,2011
Page 5 ofl2
-··-.. -__ ..:.-~:·;-.
The referenced review criteria in RMC § 4-9--020 govern the processing of atnendro-,nt, to the
~roprehensive pbn. They don't apply here because the Home rezone doesn't require a plan
amendment. 15 Butin order for the Home rezone to be approved, the other italicized criteria
in subsection (F)(l) tnust be satisfied. ·
And it is the Home rezone proponent, who bear the burden of proving that tlic
applicable criteria have b~ met
In ooosidering the evidence, we note that (1) ·there is no presumption
of validity favoring the action of rezoning; (2) the proponent, of the
rezone have the burden of proof in demonstrating that conditions
have substantially changed since the original zoning ... ; and (3) the
rezone .tnust bear a substantial relationship to the public health,
safety> morals or welfare. Hi .
4. · The Evarnioer Misinterpreted and.Misapplied the Applicable Rezone Criteria.
a. The Rezone Is Not in the Public Interest. The fust criterion in 4-9-180(1')(2) is
that a rezone must be in the public interest The Home rezo~ is not. The rezone will create
an island of higher-density R-4 zoning that is not in keeping with the density of the
surrounding R-1-zoned area. It will create an unfortnnate precedent that other landowners
may nsc to seek upzoning of their R-1 properties in this vicinity, which could lead to far higher
densities in this area than the City has ever envisioned.17
The isolated nature of the requested R-4 rezone, surrounded as it would be by
properties in Renton all zoned R-1, highlight, the argument that this zone change would not
. be in the public interest. On, the contrary, it w.ould con.stitute an i/1,ga/ ,pot Z!'ne under
Washington law, as discussed below under Heading 5.
The Examiner nnned a deaf ear to all of this. Instead, in hei Conchision No. 8, ·
the Examiner erroneonsly adopted the rezone applicant,' specious argument that the real
density of the Stoocgate community is about three d...u./ acre, that buildout densities in the area
are thus closer to 4 d...u./acre than I du./acre, and that an R-4 rezone of the Home properties
would. therefore result in a density consistent with Stonegate's.18
15 The Enrniacr =eously suggests th,n the critcm ia RMC § 4-9-020 do apply. S" Enrniacr's
Rcoomrncod2rion, pp. 8-9, Conclusion, 3 and 4. But since no comprehensive phn amendment;,, i<quitt<i hen;
those cri.teria. arc not applicable.
" Parhidg, ,. G!J ef S,attl,, 89 Wn.2d 454,462, 573 P 2d 359 (1978~
17 En:n the Enminer ad:nowicd.gcs that the Home rezone could be used as a p:recedcnt to question aD of the ·
Gty's R-1 zoningia this area. Examiner's R=rnendation, p. 8.
u Examiner's Recommendation, pp. 10-11.
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
,
'
·.·.~ ::·.;.·.~·:c-:..::;;;:.~...:i,;j~
" 'i
;i
I. ,,
:j p
li 'I
'
)
)
··---~·-----...
Renton City Council
November 22, 2011
Page 6 of 12
. .... "" , •... ,_;:~,::::·-. . _ _..
But this entire discussion of existing residential densities in the R-1 zone should
properly be on the basis of gross densities in the area, and the Examiner has totally ignored the
way gross density is calculated. To c:ilculare gross density, an entire area is divided by the
number of dwdling units. One can't simply ignore open space areas in Stonegare and consider
oruy the densities of the residential lots. Tbat results in a calculation of net density, not gross
· density.19 This is a fundamental £law in.the Examiner's recommendation because she
concluded that R-4 densities on the Home lots would be compatible with the R-1 density of
the adjoining Stonegate community."' The Examiner has equated apples with oranges.
Further, RMC § 4-9-180(F)(2)(a) requires the Examiner to make a specific finding that
a rezone is in the public_ interest While the Examiner discussed this criterion in gen~
she never made the required specific finding. Her decision thus fails to comply with Rentou's
rezone criteria.
b. The Rezone Will Be Materially Detrimental to the Public Welfare of
Property Owners in Stonegate. The second criterion italicized above is that a rezone must ·
uot be materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons located in
the vicinity thereo( The Home rezone will indeed be detrimental to the welfare of Stonegate
· property owners. Every _Stouegate homeowner or representative who testi£ed at the hearing
said as much.21 ·
And as noted, this rezone can be used as a precedent for further upzouing in the area,
which could lead to a much denser development pattern than has ever been contemplated by
those who have bought residences in tlie northeast Renton area. That outcome would indeed
be materially detrimental to SHOA and its members of the Stonegate community. ·
Future pressure for additional R-4 upzoning of this area is more than a hypothetical
threat. Under the Examiner's reasoning, every R-1 property owner in the area could seek a
similar R-4 rezone. The Ex?rnioer recommen4ed approval of the Home rezone because the
applicants putportedly provided "compelling expert testimony that the 2009 stormwatei
regulations were adeqnate to protect critical areas." But under the M:iy Creek Basin Action
Plan, existing .densities should not be increased unless a qualified hydrologic analysis
demonstrates that stonnwater runoff peaks and volumes can be fully mitigated to
pre-developed conditions. 22 And while the Home rezone applicants provided some testimony
on this issue, the Examiner based her recommendation of app±oval ou Reuton's _llf><lated 2009 .
" S" RMC § 4--11--040 (defioiriom of Dnwy, Gros, ond D=ity, Nd).
"' Enminer's Rw:munaidarion, p. 11.
21 Testimony of Madonna Masin., Dcbonh Rogers, Bruce Christoph==, Dan Larlcin, and Rxlanl Wilson.
s .. EDminu, Recommendation, p. 4.
22 s" fu. 10 mpra.
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
i
I
I
r
i
I
. -.... --.-.. --_
-~-·-c-c=-,. ... ··•·• .. ···-·--·
· Renton City Council
November 22, 2011
Page 7 of 12
stormwater regulations and its critical areas ordinance, regardless of any specific
demonstration of full mitigation to pre-developed conditions on this site:
[I]he Applicant has amply demonstrated that new stormwater
regulations eliminate the nn<krlyiog tatiooale tor the R-1 designation
io this area, i.e., protecting critical areas from stormwater run-of£23
.··.: ::::-:::-;-, ,··. --. ~~:--'.-
This is a startling statement Under the Examiner's reasoning, any R-1 owner can
simply point to Reoton's 2009 storrowater regulations and then assert that the May Creek
Basin Action Plan's requirements have been satisfied, without ,;,.y specific demonsttation via a
hydrologicl analysis. lbat is a dangerous precedent indeed, one that undercuts the Basin
Plan's emphasis on prCScrving very low densities in this area. Yet the Enmjner dismissed the
Basin Plan as indevant to.her decision. 24 ·
In addition; SHOA itself owns Tract I of the Stonegate plat (Assessor's Tax Parcel
No. 803.5400590), i.e., the 30-foot-wide strip running east-west directly io the middle of the
· Home rezone properties that is used for access purposes. While not.included as one of the
parcels forwhichR-4rezoniogis sought, Tnctllics completely within the boundaries of the
Home rezone area. Thus, SHOA itself is an additiorutl property owocr that objects to this
rezone as detrimental to.its intexests. ·
The Examiner dismissed these coricems out of liand, calling them unsubstantiated.
· But the ttansforroation of this area from its existing low-density nature, with major open
spaces, to a far denser suburban development pattern is a real threat .
c. Since the City's Most Recent Land Use Analysis of the Home Properties in
2009, There Has Been. No Significant and Material Change in Circumstances Affecting
the Hotne Properties. ·
. In her Conclnsion No. 7, the Examinoe:1'assetts that the applicants supplied evidence of
a significant and roatetia) change io citcumstances affecting their lots since the most recent
land use analysis of the subject properties, as required for a rezone under
RMC § 4-9-lSO(F)(t)(b).25 But the evidence cited by the Examiner fails to satisfy this test
Renton's code requires a significant and material change since the last area zoning or
"the most recent land use aoalysi,, or area zoning of the subject property." The City's most
recent land use analysis was in 2009, when the Home lots were annexed to Renton. At that
rime, the City Council considered whether these lots should be zoned R-1 or R-4, and then
23 Fxaroioe<s ~ p. 12
24 Eno:rincr's Rttommcndation,. p. 12
25 Eramioe:c's ~cndat:ion, p. 10.
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
,, '
···.·.··: ~
1-,
;
> ]
Renton City Council
November 22, 2011 .
•Page8 of12
. --. . :• .. , ·"
deliberately continued its pre-annexation R-1 zoning of these lots." Since that time, there. has
been no showing of any significant and material change in circumstances that satisfies this
rezone test
The Examiner points first to changes in the area that took place after Renton's
pre-annexation zoning was adopted in 1997. The changes cited. are the development of
Stonegate (which, as noted, was developed essentially at an R-1 cknsity) and Wmdstone,
another development to the south. But these. "changes" occurred bifon 2009, the date of
"the most r=t land use analysis or area zoning of the subject property." They therefore
don't qualify as changes that meet this rezone test.
The Examiner also cites improvements in public infrastructure since 2005, in the form
of a sewer line and lift station, as well as the installation of natural gas lines. Again, these
changes occurted well before 2009, the date of "the most recent land use· analysis ... of the
subject property.'"" Thus, these utility improvements similarly can't be used to show a
significant and mateoal change in circumstances.28
The other factor cited by the Examiner to satisfy this criterion is King C.ounty's .
adoption of a more stringent storinwater design manual in 2009."' But that circumstance :is
hardly unique to the Home properties. It was a countywide change, and Renton's own
adoption of tighter stormwater reguiations is likewise a regulatory change affecting the entire
city, not just these properties.
Again, if the adoption of new stormwater regulations can be used to justify this rezone,
· the same will bold true for any other R-1 owner in the area, who can likewise claim that the
updated stormwater regulations are sufficient in and of themselves to justify an upzone to R-4.
Simply put, both the rezone applicants and the Examiner have failed to make the required
showing that would. satisfy the "changed circumstances" test. ·
24 'festimony of Rocale Timmons, R.c:nton CUttCnt Planning Div.i.sion.
" RMC § 4-9·180(F)(l)(b).
" Ev= if 1hosc utility improvements b..d b= made after 2009, they still wonldn't pm,ide =diblc "'PP"" for
an R-4 rezone. The cnDR. adjacent St:onegate community has sewer servi~ yet tlut community is zoncd-R-1.
The avaib.bility of s~ seivicc thus doesn't automaticaily result in R-4: zoning.
"' Examiner's R=ommernhtion, p. 10.
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
:
I
I
Renton CitiCouncil
November 22, 2011
Page 9 of 12
,:: ;;. !·-···· ··.: . .·,
. ·--···-· ·-······r~ ........ ~·-··· .. ~ •:·.··:·~~~ .. •:
d. The Exarnioer Misinte,preted and Ignored Applicable Comprehensive Plan
Policies.
The E:qmim:r's reco=enclation addresses a number of Renton Comprehensive Plan .
policies, as it must-for under Ren.ton's code, a rezone must be consistent with those
policies. 30 The Current Planning staff correctly argued in the Staff Report, as well as at the
heating, that the rezooe failed to co_mply with sev=tl directly-applicable policies. Yet the
Examiner ignored the staff's expertise and pronounced herself satisfied that the rezone
complied with the Plao's policies. But a review of just three of those policies shows. that the
Examiner was wrong.
Policy LU-51. Zoning should be applied to ateas for purpos.es of .
resource protection, when appropriate, during the annexation
process.
The Staff Report correctly observed that this policy, when read in light of the
requirement that there be a significant and material change of circumstances in order to
approve a rezone, is not met. In its 1997 pre-annexation zoning, and again in 2009 when it
annexed the Home rezone properties, the Council applied R-1 zoning for.purposes of
resource protection, in conformance with the May Ci:eek Basin Action Plan. To disregard
that plan now, sitnply because Renton has adopted more stringent· surface water regulations,
would undermine the City's ability to reject the ""'1requested R-4 rezone in the area, since
that next site would also have to comply with the new regulations. But the point of the Basin
Plan is that maintaining very low densities will help preserve this area &om: future flooding.
That remains true, regardless of what surface water regulations are in effect.
Policy LU-147. Adopt urban density of at least four (4) dwelling
units per net acre for residential uses except in anaswith identified
and documented sensitive areas and/ or areas identified as urban
separators ..
Tbis policy doesn't restrict lower-<lensity zoning solely to lots or parcels that have
identified and documented sensitive areas within their borders. It calls for lower densities in
arou with such sensitive and aitical features. It is undisputed that the northeast Renton area,
considered as a whole, does have.such documented sensitive areas -May Creek and G=ene
Creek, plus nearby wetlands. The Horne rezone applicants attempt to argue that their site
should be viewed in isolation, since very few of the Home lots have critical areas within their
boundaries. But those ctitical areas arc just a few hundred feet north, in the case of
May Creek, or tight next door to the west; in the case of Greene Creek. That is why thi, entir.
a,,:a has been zoned R-1, not just the individual parcels that have critical areas on them.
" RMC § 4-9-IBO(F)(t)(a), (F)(2)(d).
Hillis Clark. Martin & Peterson P.S.
r
.l
:i
i
,.)
)
Renton City Council
November 22, 2011
Page 10 of12
Again. to countenance one R-4 rezone in this area will only invite more R-4 rezones in the
future, snnilarly justified because a·aitical area may not be on a site but right next door.
Tbat is not in keeping with this plan policy, which calls for the City to consider sensitive
features in the entire tma, not just within the rezone parcels themselves.
Policy LU-141. Promote the timely and logical progression of
residential development. Priority for higher density development
should be given to development of land with infustructure capacity
and land located closer to the City's Urban Center.
This policy sensibly envisions that higher-density development in ~ton should be on
lands located closer to the City's Urban Center, not on outlying properties in the farthest .
northeast comer of Renton. The Council has inrplemented Policy LU-141 by recognizing that
this fur comer of Renton should be developed at the very low R-1 density. Renton can
achieve its density and population goals by encouraging higher densities much closer to
downtown, as the City's planner con.firmed at the rezone hearing." There is thus no need for
a higher R-4 density here.
5. The Home Rezone Constirutes an Illegal Spot Zone .
. The Couocil should take a good look at its zoning map in the vicinity of the Home
lots. Within the city limits, this entire northeast comer of Renton is zoned R-1. Now assume
that the Home rezon.; is granted, creating two tiny enclaves of R-4 zoning (separated by
SHOA's Tract I), amid the otherwise uniform R-1 zone. There is rw existing R-4 zoning in
Renton adjacent to the Home rezone properties. The Horne R-4 rezone thus does not
represent the logical expansion of a contiguous R-4 zone in the City.
Because of its inconsistency with both the surrouoding R-1 zoning and the City's
Comprehensive Plan, the Home rezone should properly be labeled an illegal spot Z!""' ·
Spot zoning has been consistently defined to be zoning action by
which a smaller area is singled out of a larger area or district and
specially zoned for a use classification totally different from.and
inconsistent with the classification of surrounding land, and not in
accordance with the comprehensive plan. ... When &ced with a
challenge to a county's rezone action on the grounds the rezone.
constitutes an illegal spot zone, the main inquiry ·of the· court is
whether the zoning ~on bears a substantial relationship to the
general welfure of the affected commuoity. . .. Only where the spot
zone grants a discriminatory benefit to one or a group of owners to
11 Testimony ofRocale Ttmm.ons. Renton Current Phnning Division.
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
.. ~··"-~
i ,.
I
. , ,;;-T:··-:.:·.;···. .'.· ·.·:-·-:---.-:-·-.-··· :-;;::.::_.·.·.·-~ ...
. "
··~,;,:~-'!::.:;:,T,_:·;_ .. 'i'
'
Renton City Council
November 22, 2011
Page 11 of12
the detriment of their neighbors or the community at large without
adequate public advantage or justification will the county's rezone be ·
overturned. 32
The Home rezone has all these ea unarks of illegal spot zoning.
• ' If granted, the Home rezone properties will indeed be zoned totally diff,rmt ftwi and
incolUistmt zvith th, =tmditrg R-1 lamis, and wt in oa:rm:lam:. zvith th, a,mpr.hensi« plan
because RID-designated areas·are to be zoned R-1 when critical areas' would be·
affecred.
• · Th.is rezone bears 1W 111bstantial n:lationsmp lo th, gm=1 w,!(ar, of th, affect,d rommrmity,
which is ·principally Stonegate.
• The requested rezone wuld graftl a discriminatory bmefit to its propon,nt.r, to th, distinct
dttrimmt of SHOA and th, Stonegat, ho=mvn,rs, rvithotd 01!J p11blic fastification.
Because it constitutes illegal spot zoning, there is simply no way that this rezone can
reasonably be characterized as in the public interest Yet the Examiner asserts that the Home
rezone will not constitute improper spot zoning because it will be compatible with the
surrounding R-1 properties.33 How is this so? Becanse "the actual densities of the
sua:ounding prop~es are smrilat to those of the proposaln -or so the Exarnfocr says.34
But as already observed, the Examiner reached that conclusion only by ignoring the actual
gross density of Stonegate (1.38 d.u./acre), instead focusing on the net density of many of the
Stonegate residential lots while ignoring its open space areas, a fundamental distortion of
density calculation. Despite the Examiner's sleight of hand, inserting an R-4 zone here will
in reality be inconsistent with the surrounding R-1 area, to the detriment of the neighboring
Stonegate community.
6. · Conclusion.
. The Council should keep in mind that ir, and not the Examiner, is the best intetpretei:
of its own Comprehensive Piao and its codified rezone criteria. Our state supreme court has
said as much. In a recent case, the Washington Sup_rerne Court upheld the Woodinville City
Council's denial of a i:ezonc, even thoagb that city's hearing examiner had recommended
approval" The rezone was rejected in part beause the council found it to be inconsistent
.., s,,,,. 0... R,,,,,1£,..,..,,,mt ,. S,..J,o,,,i,h Cmm;y, 99 Wn2d 363,368,662 P.2d 816 (1983).
33 Fx:aminer's ~tion, p. 11.
'4 Eri.mincr's Recommendation, p. 1_~.
" Plwmix D""lopmmt, Inr. • 0,, ,fWoodmill,, 171 Wn.2d 820, 25_6 P 3d 1150 (2011).
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
,.
!
I
'
I
I.
!
I
i
!
' i
l
'
'1
... -· .. ·.
Renton Gty Council
November 22, 2011
Page 12 of12
with the Woodinville Comprehensive Plan. The supreme court deferred to the Woodinville.
Gty Council's construction of its own comprehensive plan, holding that the city's conclusion
of inconsistency with the plan was not an erroneous interpretation of the law.
This Council should eng,ge in the same independent inquiry regarding the Home ·
rezone. You must measure this request carefully against the yardstick of Renton's adopted
rezone criteria. Is it truly in the public interest to approve a spot zone ofR-4 in an area that is
uniformly zoned R-1? Can the Council comfortably conclude that this rezone will not be
materially detrimental to other nearby property owners, especially those in Stonegate?.
Since the most recent land use analysis of the subject property in 2009 when the Home parcels
were annexed, have circumstances affecting the subject property really undergone any.
significant and material change? And does this rezone comply with Renton's Comprehensive ·
Plan?
In order to uphold the Examiner and grant the Home rezone,'the Council must.
answer Yes to all four of those questions. If the Council answers No to even one of them,
then it must deny the rezone. SHOA asserts that all four questions should properly be
answered No. We therefore urge the Council to reverse the Exami;,er's recommendation and
deny the. Home rezone.
Richard R Wilson
RRW/
E-Mmt rrw@hcmp com
Dina Did (206) 470-7604
F= (206) 623-7789
Enclosure: check for $250 appeal fee
cc; Stonegate Homeowners Association
Duana T. Kolouskov:i, Esq.
Rocale Timmons, Renton Current Planning Division
ND: 20357.002 4842-3489-9470v2
Hillis Clark Mortin & Peterson P.S.
!
I
i ,.
[
'
I I
I
'
.. ..:-c::-:-:·.·.···.·········· ..
CITY OF RENTON
City Oerk Division
. 1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
425-430-6510
D Cash ex check No. /// J.-L/j
· Funds Received From:
DCopyFee
DAppea!Fee
Name 14 1 /J,~ OJc._rK-ffi~rtJl+mc'1
Address / J.rf / :J.r:::3. f\-Je_ ::./f-5[.0
City/Zip S:, e-;rt;Q. lJ )~ qgjof = I
•, ~
I
' I
i
!
Receipt N~ 1844
. Date )} ~ d if -{ I j.
0 Notary Service D ________ _
\
. /
. '
... ':'.--~.·.··-·.:::.··.·
··'?:',.~. :::;::::~:~:::;: _____ ·.-.. ~· .····.·• : : ·~·,,:: --·::;:.:.::·.:::_::.:: .... ,: •. , .. _ -~-,~ ~
·.:.-..
.-.... -. -.
0enisLaw ·
·:~r:._·
' ..
Nove~6'er s; 2oii . .. -. . . ~ · .
. ·,;.' -. ... .
· To~ Redai~g ·.
. ·Encompass Engineetin1(arid Sutveyirig :
165 NE Juniper sf;'Ste 2Ql .-. . . , . .
1,saquah/WA_9!1(l:i7: · · .. _
.. ~ ' -:
• . SUBJECT: . -' Hearing Ex~mlner Rei~mmeiidaticih ... -~' : ~ . :.:. '-.
. . .. ·. ·. ·Hon)e'J{ezone, LUA1Hi23, ECF, It .
this ie~e~ is 'to info,;:;; ;o.u that, th~ date of ~ecisi;~ i~suan~e by the City of' R~rit~~-•. .·
, . · _.·· Hea;ing Examiner o~ the abo~~tioned project is No~e~ber 1; 2011,' A ctipi ofthe'. .. .
·. , , . ':' Hearing 8raminer _cfe~iiio11 is ~11ciqsel ·. . . . . . . . . .. · ·.· , . . . . . • . . . . ... .
: ;" ~. -. ·._ .• r,roni:E~f_RIGHT.of REq)NSIDE~TioN· ' . . . . . . . .. . .
·: · "Any interested person feeling.that the recoinmendation of,the Examine(is based oi:t-an_· .. · ·
. :;,rroi,eous procedure,: erro~ ,cif law,;, fact;. error in J~dgm~rit,or the discovery of new . . .
·. -e~iden~e which ~o~rd no~,be i-e~sonafuv airai1~1:i,;;_ ai the, p~ibr hearing ~av" r.1e /
.·, ,'eQUest/11)QtiOA for reCOl'ISiijeratiOO iri writing On 9r before,: 5:!)() p.m:; Nril/~mbi,r 22, . c ,
: i2011. The .[r~quest/ingtioi:t for reco~sideratiqn) shall iet forth the specific. er.rc~rs Jetted ·' .' '
... upon. fRMC 4.g.10i>G4]' Anv'requ~sVinotion forrecon~ideration shalt. bk: addressed to · ..
the Rehton He1ringEx~m~er a'ndfii~d witb the OtyO~rk. See RMC. 4~1DDG4 'i~dRMC : '
~8~110£8 f6i additi6tiai information ~nd requirements regardingrecorisiderati~n:· .·' ' .. · · ... . _ ·-. . .... -.-... ,-. . :, .. ·, ·-.. . . . . . . •. .. . . ' . ' .·, . '·:,:: .. . . . ...... · " . . ... . ..
NoT1cE of RIGHTof APPEAL·.•
'lhis ·recommendation becomes fina·i -~nd concl,usive as .qf the fifteenth calend_ar day
. :·after:the elate of issuance: of this letter. unless_ reconslderatio1{is timel.'{ req.u_e~¢d. If
fuc'orisid¢ra,tloil )s· ti;;,,;ly ·.requested,, 'th·e ·-fxi!miner's .. ord~r .. granting · or clenyin1f
•. _reconsideration'·becomes tlie firial and conclusive re<;omrnendation .for the· C:ity. Th~.
Examiner's fi~al reco~,;,endatiOn is subject tcr the ~tof the applicant; Crty, or,;a pai:t'f · ..
°()f fecorcf with stilndit1g, as proviµei:f in' RMC.4'~ 11DF1i to fil~. an appeai with the· City .. : ..
Co,undl in-aci:ordarice with the procedures of.RMC 4-8-l:j._DF:;Any appeal;;,ust be filed-..
' .
.; ,
i
' . ;
. ~
.j
. J
I
. '· !
. ' . '
< ··:-i
· •. j
. /!
;
·!
,:''. j
"'-.I ~-: 1 ··., . ·.i
.. 1~:writiilg on 0~ befoi'e s;oo p.tn,, t.io~embe; 22, 2011, See RMC4-8~ 11DE9 ar,d ~¥C 4-' .· ...
'&,110F for additional,nformation :arid requirements regarding ap·peals. tci the City. · • j
· .. Council. . . . . . . . .... " _ : -'-----'--~. •,.ell
·. · _Rent;,n i;=ity H~II ~-· 1 ~5 South ~ractyWay. • Rerto~, ~hingtcin 98057 ._ •:. fento~~gOV .. 1
-·
. : ... , _:,,..'"-..,:_ .
·,·_-_-_._:_· . ~ ... ··-..
--. -.; • !
. ,_ ... · .• ,-:•:._. -!"-.
.-,. ... _
._{ ·::· .
,_
.. ~.
. -,:--;-~
. -·. ;;:.
~-·r.~ ~·· . -
·.··.( .-..
_·(.·:
-::,.-.~--·-.
-·-·.-:.:.-:.·..:..:-,,, .. --· ...... :-.
·'
).~· . ,: •,·
-· .. -.--:::.· •.. ·~
. .' .. :.:·· ..
·-·· .. -~ ·-..
. •.:. ··-: -\".·:.-: ... · .
·ti"'..··.-••
...:· __
-,, :.);····
.• ...
-.,
. : ...
.,.-'>.
-~ --·-·
·:.-: .": ,. •' ..
... -,_-.. _:: ... '--
. ~ ~--:.( ::
·'"'.·
·-·. ~·.:,·:-:
-. -·-· ···~· .
_:· ,,_,:
. .· .
-.-.•-, ..
.~-\.-.
,-
· . .-.·· ;;, .. _' ..
. .... _.-
. ---~
. f··
: ::-.~_::. _.
··-· .• :· ...
-~-:-__ ,: ·:.. .
.., ..
~ .. -
-.,. __ . ' ..
:_· ... : ...
. __ :, .: .
"':'.•'-··
.. ,.,;..:_; .,-: .. :·
. -.,
:;··:~-: .
"·'
. ~ -~.
·' \ ..
.·-;,
.'i.. . ·;-:
-:-;/':.:_.
_:_<_-~ • ---
. -·
.·, :.;
, -.
'· -~
,, .. ,
.-:~--·'\,. ":
_.:·, . .\· ..
. ; ·• ....
,::::/,
~-;: .·
; .. ."·'.· --.
.. ;_
J
-, .. ; :;JI
·-..,:
·. I . ' .,
. ~ ....
· I .,
:;
.1
CITY OF RENTON
NOVO 3 2011
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
BEFORE THE.HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
Emily Terrell, Hearing Examiner Pro Tern
RE: Home Rezone Request
Rezone
LUA 11-023, ECF
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION.
INTRODUCTION
The Applicant has requested a rezone to change approximately 737 acres from R-1
(Residential I dwelling unit per acre) to R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre).
The Examiner recommends approval of the rezone request.
ORAL TESTIMONY
Rocale Timmons, Planner for the City of Renton, described the project and presented
the Staff Report. Ms. Timmons presented this application as an application for rezone
without the need for Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ms. Timmons noted the
rezone requests affected 12 parcels, encompassing nearly 7-4 acres. She further noted
there are eight existing homes on site which will stay. To the west of the subject
property is Greene Creek. North of the subject property and beyond the Stonegate
subdivision is May Creek. Ms. Timmons reported the application was submitted July
2011. A SEPA DNS was issued on July 22, 201 L There were no appeals.
Ms. Timmons stated the property had been annexed into the City of Renton in 2009
from unincorporated King County. In 1997, the property was pre-zoned with an R-1
zoning designation. When the property was annexed into the City, its pre-zoning
designation remained the same. Ms. Tnnmons reported the areas north and west of
the property are zoned Residential 1, with one dwelling uoit per acre. The area
located to the east of the property in unincorporated King Couoty is zoned rural RA5
and Rural R JOA, allowing for one dwelling unit per 5 acres and one dwelling unit per
IO acres, respectively. Properties to the south of the subject are also in unincorporated
King Couoty with an R-4 zoning designation, allowing for four dwelling uoits per
acre to be developed. ·
Ms. Tnnmons stated the City Staff recommends a denial of the rezone request for
four reasons. Ms. Timmons noted the City created the R-1 zone and other low density
zones to offer a diversity of housing options and also to offer a transition between the
city center and rural areas in King Couoty. Ms. TlDl!Dons stated the City Staff felt the
Rezone p. I Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Applicant had failed to demonstrate compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The
current zone was placed on this property for resource protection, and Staff felt the
Applicant failed to prove the rezone would not deteriorate environmental quaiity in
the immediate and downstream areas. Furthermore, Ms. Timmons stated the May
Creek Drainage Plan recommends keeping the zone in its current very low density
level to prevent further downstream flooding incidents. Finally, Ms. Timmons stated
the rezone is inconsistent with zoning and existing developed densities. Ms. Timmons
felt that any of these four were enough singly to recommend denial of the application.
The Applicant was represented by Duana Kolouskova of the firm Johns, Monroe,
Mitsunaga, · Kolouskova, PLLC. Ms. Kolouskova started by · referencing a
Memorandum of Authorities in support of the rezone (Exhibit 6). She explained this
MOA was a compilation of her legal review of the issues surrounding the application
and an expert on-site analysis. She then noted that the City's SEP A DNS was not
appealed. She noted that the Applicant has provided a Level I Downstream Analysis
and a critical areas review of the subject site.
Ms. Kolouskova stated the Applicant felt the City Staff analysis was incorrect on all
counts. She noted comment from the public that there is concern this is a spot zoning.
She noted the Applicant disagreed with this assessment arguing the rezone is
consistent with the current built densities in the area and is in compliance with
Comprehensive Plan policies. She further stated the property's current R-1
designation is inconsistent with the physical characteristics and surrounding
development of the subject site. Further, she stated the 1996 pre-zoning discussion
was arbitnuy and could have resulted in either an R-1 or R-4 zoning designation. She
also noted it is possible to both rezone the property and meet the May Creek Basin
Action Plan recommendations.
The Applicant, Ed Home, provided a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit 8). Mr. Home
has lived in the area for 27 years. He is a licensed professional engineer working in
research and development at Boeing. Mr. Home stated approximately 1/3 of the
rezone area was already developed at the equivalent to R-4 densities. He also noted
the rezone request did not include the Stonegate utilities easement which bisects the
requested rezone area. Mr. Home stated the rezone .would be in the public interest by
providing sidewalks, lowering crime, increasing the tax base, removing blight,
providing short term jobs, increasing property values in the nearby area, and
providing connections to the public sewer system.
Mr. Home also noted the new surface water regulations require treatment to better
than existing conditions and, in fact, to pre-developed forested conditions. He also
noted the rezone would protect critical areas. Mr. Home stated that May Creek is
separated from the rezone area by an existing development. There is a small Class III
wetland and an associated Class N stream and the southeast comer of the proposed
rezone area. .The stream, Greene Creek, has a buffer set in 1997. Mr. Home stated
Greene Creek was ditched and piped prior to the development of the Stonegate
subdivision in 1997. When Stonegate was constructed, the creek was moved back to
Rezone p.2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
.. :;-:.,:: ,.:-;:·-·.·---
.J
. ,·.:-:.:-.-.·:-:-·-:,·:.· .ai." ,:· .... -.·-·.···: ·:·
ils original bed, which alleviated flooding issues that had been caused by the
alteration of its flow.
Mr. Home stated Stonegate was platted to a build-out density equivalent to R-5, with
the realized density ofR-2 or R-3. He noted development to the south of the rezone
area is also at a build-out equivalent to R-4. There is also a nearby Urban Separator
district which was designated in 200 I. The Urban Separator designation does not
cover the proposed rezone area. Mr. Home stated the properties along the Nile
Avenue are already developed to a build-out density equivalent to R-4, and therefore
the issue of whether the rez.one area makes an effective transition zone between the
city and the more rural densities in unincoq,orated King County across Nile Avenue
is moot. Finally, Mr. Home stated the R-l z.oning was overlaid on the properties
when they had already been substantially built out to an R-4 equivalent density.
Chad Allen, a licensed stormwater engineer from Encompass Engineering and
Surveying, testified his firm prepared the application, site plan, and a Level I
Downstream Drainage Analysis (Exhibit 6). Mr. Allen stated the developed densities
surrounding the rezone area are more consistent with an R-4 zoning, than an R-l
zoning. He further stated, the Greeae Creek buffer is wider than what would currently
be required by the critical areas ordinance. Mr. Allen stated he felt the application
was in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan policies.
John Altman, a wetland ecologist with Altman, Oliver Associates, LLC., stated his ·
firm had prepared a September 2011 on-site reconnaissance and had submitted letters
to the file (Exhibit 9). He noted there are a Class ill wetland and a Class IV stream at
the southwest comer of the site. He stated there are very few critical areas on-site. He
further noted the site is not separated by critical areas and is not limited by critical
areas in terms of access to the property or development continuity. Mr. Altman
further stated May Creek is off-site and separated by a major roadway and several
houses from the proposed rez.one area. He stated there would be no impact on the
creek or ils buffers from the proposed rezone. In terms of Greene Creek, Mr. Altman
stated the wetland buffer would intrude less than 10 feet into the proposed rez.one
area
Bill Kombol has an ownership interest in the proposed rezone area He spoke in
. support of the application, noting the property is more closely suited to the defmition
of an R-4 rather than an R-1 zone. He noted the potential benefits from a large
subdivision stormwater system rather than through piecemeal development. He also
stated he felt the application was in compliance with Comprehensive Plan policies
LU-147, LU-151, LU-146 and LU-153.
Steve Beck is the manager of Newfourth, LLC. The company has an ownership
interest in properties within the rez.one. Mr. Beck is a real estate agent. He spoke in
support of the application. He noted the potential for improved safety, stormwater
detention and treatment, and sidewalks.
Rezone p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
.. . ,-.· :::::--·-··
·········1 .
Bob Wilson also spoke in support of the application.
Madonna Messina owns property abutting Greene Creek. She spoke in opposition to
the rezone, stating she liked the rural nalnre of the area She also stated concerns
regarding safety, stonnwater management and environmental protection.
Deborah Rogers of the Stonegate subdivision stated the Stonegate subdivision plat
was originally proposed for twice as many homes as are currently there. She
expressed concerns about protection of the creeks and stormwater management
Bruce Christopherson noted all but one home in the rezone area already has access to
the public sewer line. He expressed concerns about fish and wildlife habitat He stated.
he felt this was not an appropriate transition zone. He noted that Stonegate is built to
a density of 1.38 du/ac. The Applicant had stated that Stonegate was built to a density
closer to 2-3 du/ac, but the Applicant failed to account for open space requirements
within the Stonegate plat ·
Dan Larkin stated he opposed the application because he likes the rural nature of the
area and is concerned about protection of the ecosystem surrounding the creeks.
Richard WIison is an attorney with the firm Hillis, Clark, Martin and Peterson, PS. ·
Mr. Wilson was retained by the Stonegate Homeowners Association. Mr. Wilson
referenced a letter he submitted to the record (Exlnliit 3G). Mr. Wtlson stated he felt
the application represented an illegal spot zone. He noted without the inclusion of
Tract I in the rezone application, the effect. of the rezone would be to create two
islands ofR-4 zoning surrounded by R-1 zoning. He stated the use was very different
from existing uses and not in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Wilson stated the decision to put this area in the R-1 zone was not arbitrary. The
Council chose to retain the pre-zoning designation in 2009 when they annexed the
property. He further stated he believed the application_ did not meet the public
interest Mr. Wilson quoted section 3.30 of the May Creek Basin Plan and stated he
felt any up-zoning in this area would be detrimental based on the history of flooding
downstream. Mr. Wilson stated the Stonegate Homeowners Association felt the
existing zoning is appropriate. He further stated the Hearing Examiner must give
deference to the Staff opinion, especially with respect to the Comprehensive Plan.
Finally, Mr. Wilson noted there is no GMA requirement for further density in this
area
In rebuttal, Ms. Timmons stated the Applicant hasn't demonstrated the rezone serves
the public interest. She reiterated the Staff opinion that the rezone does not meet the
goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. She also stated there had been no
material change in circumstance since the last area-wide rezone. She again stated she
felt the application created a spot zone. She also stated the rezone area does make an
adequate transition zone going from east to west and lower to higher densities.
Rezone p.4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
•. ., ,
J ,.
•
Ms. Timmons entered Exhibit 13 which is the City of Renton Resolution 3506
adopting the May Creek Basin Plan's recommendations and creating an interlocal
agreement for its execution. Upon questioning from the Hearing Examiner, Ms.
Timmons stated she was concerned about impacts to critical areas even given the new
stormwater standards. She further stated the interlocal agreement is still current and
needed.
Ms. Timmons entered Exh.toit 14, Renton Ordinance 4667 for the May Valley rezone
in 1997. In reference to how the zoning designation was created, she noted the
Ordinance is · the regulatory mechanism setting the zoning for the area
notwithstanding any discussion that led to its adoption. Ms. Timmons also entered
Exhibit 15 into the record. Exhibit 15 is the staff report to the Planning Commission
on an area-wide Comprehensive Plan land use review in 2005. This land use review
was prompted by a Growth Management Hearing's Board decision related to
minimum residential densities, the so--called "bright line". Therefore,this" area was
considered in the last area-wide rezone review. The Planning Commission did not
choose to recommend a change from the R-1 zoning in this area to the City Council.
Also upon rebuttal, Mr. Allen stated there had been a change in circumstance since
the last area-wide zone review in the form of new stormwater standards. The 2009
standards are far snperior to the 1999 standards that were in place at the time of the
200 I May Creek drainage plan. Mr. Allen stated he felt stormwater impacts could be
fully mitigated under the new stormwater codes.
EXHIBITS
All exhibits listed in the Exhibit List on Page 2 of the staff report, dated September
13, 2011, are admitted. In the addition, the following exhibits were admitted during
the hearing on this matter:
Exhibit SA-H: Public Comment Letters
A: Prellwitz
Exhibit 6:
Exluoit 7:
Exhibit 8:
Exhibit 9:
Exluoit 10:
Rezone
B: Schwartzenberger
C: Williams and Schwartzenberger
D: Taylor
E: Kombol
F:Mackay
G: Wilson
H:Kombo)
Memorandum of Authorities in Support of Rezone, October 17,
2011
Application Narrative, January 18, 2011
Plat Description and Application Summary for Home Rezone
Request, Ed Home
Letter from John Altman, September 13, 2011
Letter from Robert Wilson, undated
p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Exhibit 11:
Exhibit 12:
Exhibit 13:
Exhibit 14:
Exlubit 15:
Map showing Rezone Area and Stonegate Plat Open Space
Phoenix Development v. City of Woodinville decision, June 2011
City of Renton, Washington Resolution 3506 and Renton City
Council meeting minutes, May 21, 2001
City of Renton, Washington Ordinance 4667, June 2, 1997
Planning Commission rezone analysis discussion, September 7,
2005.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
I. Applicant The Applicant is Newfourth, LLC.
2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application at
1:00 p.m. at Renton City Hall in tbe Council Chambers on October 18,201 L
Substantive:
3. Site/Proposal Description. The Applicant has requested a rez.one to
change approximately 7.37 acres from R-1 Residential to R-4 Residential at the
intersection of 148th.Ave. SE (Nile Avenue) and NE 26th St in the City of Renton.
The Comprehensive Plan designation is Residential Low Density. The R-4 zoning
designation is consistent with tbe uses contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan's
Residential Low Density use designation. The rezone area comprises 12 subject
parcels with eight existing homes. The remaining four parcels are vacant
The proposed rezone area was a part of a larger 74 acre pre-zone. The May Valley
pre-zone Phase 1 in 1996 (adopted by Ordinance 4667 in 1997), pre-zoned the
property Residential ldu/ac. The subject parcels were annexed into the City in May of
2009 and maintained their pre-zoned R-1 designation.
4. Characteristics of the Area. Properties surrounding the rezone area are
either vacant or developed single family residences. Properties to the north and west
are located within the City and are zoned R-I. Properties the south are located within
unincorporated King County and are zoned R -4. However these properties are pre-
zoned R -1 by the City should they annex. Properties to the east are located opposite ·
the Urban Growth Boundary and are currently zoned RA5 with one residential unit
per five acres or RA 10 with one residential unit per 10 acres in the uninco1J!Orated
County.
There are no critical areas on-site. There is a Class IV stream (Greene Creek) and an
associated Class Ill wetland off-site proximal to the southeast comer of the site. May
Creek is located to the north of the site beyond existing residential development and
open space. The property is located within the May Creek Drainage Basin.
Rezone p.6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
y
.•'
•
5. Adverse Impacts. Members of the public testified they were concerned
that their properties would suffer material damage from the rezone in the form of a
loss of the existing peaceful _and bucolic natural surroundings, potential stormwater
and environmental impacts, potentially higher crime, potentially lower property
values, and the potential for more traffic. Given the size of the rezone at less than 8
acres and the surrounding development density, the proportion of increased traffic
related to the 'rezone is relatively minor. Expert testimony suggests potential
stormwater and environmental impacts can be fully mitigated. As no specific
development project is currently proposed, issues related to future development
including 1he type of homes, income range of potential new residents, or any other
information related to new development cannot be assessed at this time and 1here is
nothing in the record to suggest 1hat 1he City's permitting review processes would not
be able to fully mitigate all project specific impacts. There are no material adverse
impacts discernable from the record. Additionally, the SEPA DNS issued on July 18,
2011 was not appealed. Tue Examiner concludes, as evidenced by the DNS, there are
no potential adverse impacts uthe proposed rezone is granted.
6. Jmpacts to Critical Areas. As noted on page 4 of the Staff Report, there
are no critical areas on-site. There are off-site critical areas. Expert testimony stated
approximately IO feet of the off-site critical area buffer would impact 1he subject site.
Tue 200 l May Creek Basin Action Plan provides recommendations for protection of
the May Creek Drainage Basin. These recommendations relate to development
density and also to how storm water management is treated. Specifically, 1he Basin
Plan (page 3-29) states, "in areas of the basin draining to May Creek or any of its
tributaries upstrearo of the Coal Creek Parkway bridge, existing zoning densities
(including adopted pre-zoning for unincorporated areas to be annexed) should not be
increased unless a qualified hydrologic analysis demonstrates that storinwater runoff
peaks and volumes can be fully mitigated to pre-developed conditions," (Exhibit 4).
Since the adoption of the Action Plan, stormwater regulations have changed
considerably. The Action Plan was created when the 1999 King County Surface
Water regulations were in place. ln 2009, King County adopted new stormwater
regulations that require, amongst other things, stormwater treatment and management
to pre-developed forested conditions. ln expert testimony, Chad Allen stated his
company had performed the hydraulic analysis contemplated in the Action Plan and
determined that stormwater runoff peaks and volumes could be fully mitigated to pre-
developed conditions using the Level 2 flow control criteria in the 2009 King County
Surface Water Design Manual (Exhibit 6). The City's Critical Are!is Ordinance
(~CAO") prescribes buffers for critical areas, including streams and wetlands. As ·
required by the Growth Management Act, the buffers and other CAO protective
measures are based upon best available science to fully protect critical areas from the
adverse impacts of development. Prior to adoption of the 2009 stormwater
regulations, the May Creek Basin Action Plan provided compelling evidence that the
CAO is in fact not adequate to protect against the impacts of stormwater runoff. For
the reasons identified in the preceding paragraph, the adoption of the 2009
Rezone p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
·: ,_· .... :··--·
stormwater regulations negates the evidentimy value of that study. Application of the
City's Critical Areas Ordinance in conjunction with the 2009 King County Surface
Water regulations will provide adequate protection to both the off-site critical areas
and the larger May Creek Drainage Basin.
It is recognized that the precedent set by th.is decision could be used to question all of
the City's R-1 zoning. However, it should be noted that th.is decision is based upon
the evidence of this record. The Applicant was able to provide compelling expert
testimony that the 2009 stormwater regulations were adequate to protect critical areas.
There was no evidence to the contrary. Clearly, in future rezone requests if the City
or other parties are able to prodnce evidence that lower densities are still necessary to
protect critical areas, the resulting recommendation could well change.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ·
Procedural:
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. RMC 4-9-I 80D provides that the Hearing
Examiner shall make recommendations on rezones that do not require a
comprehensive plan amendment The proposed rezone is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and as further concluded below the project is
otherwise consistent with the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan.
Substantive:
2. Zoning Designation. The property is currently zoned R-1 Residential.
Permit Review Criteria
RMC 4-9-180F Decision Criteria for Change of Zone Classification.
RMC 4-9-JBOF(J). Criteria for Rezones Requiring a Comprehensive Pion
Amendment:
The following findings shall be made:
The proposed amendment meets the review criteria in RMC 4-9-020;
3. RMC 4-9-180F requires rezone applications to conform to RMC 4-9-
020F.
RMC 4-9-020F(2).
All applications must meet at least one of the following criteria:
a. The request supports the vision embodied in the Comprehensive Plan; or
Rezone p.8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
.. ... , ,;-,.,.·. . •• I
J ,•
• ' ------.--... , •.... ,._ ..... . -------···.
b. The request sipports the adopted business plan goals established by the City
Council; or
c. The request eliminates conflicts with existing elements or policies; or
d. The request amends the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate new policy
directives of the City Council.
4. RMC 4-9-020F(2) requires applications to support the vision embodied in
the Comprehensive Plan, support the adopted business plan goals established by the.
City Council, eliminate conflicts with existing elements or policies, and/or amend the
Comprehensive Plan to accommodate new policy directives of the City Council. Of
these, the only applicable criterion is the support for the vision embodied in the
Comprehensive Plan.
RCM 4-9 180F(2). Criteria for Rezones Not Requiring Comprehensive Plan
Amendment:
The Reviewing Official shall make the following.findings:
d. The rezone meets the review criteria in subsection Fl of this Section.
5. RMC 4-9-1 &OF(2)( d) requires the rezone to meet to review criteria in
subsection RMC 4-9-180F(l).
RMC 4-9-180F{l}{a).
Is consistent with the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan; .
6. The analysis of specific Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives
below will discuss how the application meets the Comprehensive Plan policies and
vision.
RCM 4-9-180F{l}{b).
At least one of the following circumstances applies:
i. The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered at the time of the
last area land use analysis and area zoning; or
ii. Since the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the subject
property, authorized public impravements, permitted private development or other
circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material
change.
7. RMC 4-9-l&OF(l)(b) requires one of two circumstances to apply; the first
is that the property subject to the rezone was not specifically considered at the time
the last area land use analysis and area zoning. The second requirement is that since
the most recent land use analysis for the area zoning of the subject property,
authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other
circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material
change. The first of these criterions is not met because the subject property was
Rezone p.9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
. , ::-.
considered during the 2005 area-wide land use review in response to the Growth
Management Hearings Board decision on minimum residential densities.
Development in the area immediately surrounding the subject property has materially
changed since the pre-zoning was set in 1997 including the construction of the 53-
home Stonegate subdivision to the subject's west and north and the construction of
Windstone, a 76-home development located to the south of the subject property
which was built out at a realized density of approximately 4 dwelling units per acre.
Since the last area-wide zoning review in 2005, there have also been significant
improvements to public infrastructure in the form of a sewer line and sewer lift
station adjacent to the subject property as well as the provision of natural gas lines
along the northern border the subject property. Also, in 2009, King County adopted a
new stormwater management manual that requires stormwater to be managed to pre-
developed, forested conditions. The new stormwater regulations represent a
significant change to the way stormwater is managed and treated from the regulations
in place at the time of the last area-wide zoning review.
RCM 4-9-180F(2). Criteria for Rezones Not Requiring Comprehensive Plan
Amendment:
The Reviewing Official shall make the folluwingjindings:
a. The rezone is in the public interest,
8. RMC 4-9-180F(2}(a) requires the Official to find the rezone is in the
public interest. Page 4 of the Staff Report states, "the Applicant asserts that the
proposed density would only further the existing development densities in the area,·
which are also in compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA) ... while th~
surrounding properties might be developed with a density range comparable to the R-
4 zoning designation, this would not constitute a public interest to further expand the
R-4 designation and/or development potential in the additional area," ( emphasis
added).
The Applicant testified the rezone implements the Comprehensive Plan and serves the
public interest by promoting urban densities in the Urban Growth Area in accordance
with the Growth Management Act. The Applicant also demonstrated the build-out
densities in the area already approach 4 dwelling units per acre.
The Staff Report further stated, "The property will still be surrounded by the City's R-
I zoning designation and the properties to the south would are [sic] pre-zoned R-1
should they annexed into the city. The subject parcels would also continue to be
bisected by an R-1 tracL" As noted both in the above italicized text, and in the
Applicant's response, build-out densities surrounding the subject property are closer
to 4 du/ac than I du/ac in the areas immediately south of the subject properties as well
as within 1,000 feet of the subject properties to the west. Though the properties to the
subject's south are pre-zoned R-1, these lots are predominantly build-out at higher
Rezone p. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
,, . ..
•• /
densities. When these properties annex into the City, the majority of them will not
meet the R-1 pre-zoning designation. The Stonegate development was bnilt at an
overall density of 1.38 du/ac because of the need to preserve critical areas and open
space. However, the lot sizes for home sites within Stonegate average around
15,000sf per lot, a realized build-out density of approximately 3 dwelling units per
acre for the portions of the plat with developed lots.
The Comprehensive Plan views both the R-1 and R-4 districts as Low Density
Residential. The public interest is not undermined by incompatible adjoining land use
designations as asserted in the Staff Report because the zoning designations are
highly similar and the realized densities are in :fuct more comparable with R-4.
An issue associated with the pnblic interest criterion is whether the proposed rezone
constiMes an illegal spot zone. The Staff Report references the judicial standard for
illegal spot zoning from Narrowsview Preservation Association v. City of Tacoma, 84
Wn.2d 416 (1974), in which the court ruled:
"We have recently stated that illegal spot zoning is arbitrary and unreasonable
zoning action by which a smaller area is singled out of a larger area or district
and specially zone for use classification totally different from and inconsistent
with the classification of the surrounding land, not in accordance with the
comprehensive plan. "
The proposed rezone is not arbitrary or unreasonable and it is not inconsistent with
the classification of surrounding land. As to consistency of classifications, the R-4
classification is different from the surrounding R-1 classification, but its differences
are consistent witli the Comprehensive Plan. The Renton Comprehensive Plan defines
both the R-1 Residential zone and the R-4 Residential zone as Residential Low
Density Land Use designations. The purpose statement encompassing both zones
states this designation is, "appropriate for a range of low intensity residential and
employment where land is either constrained by sensitive areas or the City has the
opportunity to add larger lot housing stock, at urban densities of fonr dwelling units
per net acre, to its inventory ... Lands that either do not have significant sensitive
areas, or can be adequately protected by _1he critical areas ordinance, are zoned
Residential 4."
As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the Critical Areas Ordinance provides
adequate protection to May Creek and the off-site critical areas in conjunction wi1h
the 2009 King County Surface Water manual. Consequently, a rezone to R-4 would
be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Further, as previously discussed, the R-4
designation would not be incompatible with the surrounding R-1 classification given
that the actual densities of the surrounding properties are similar to those of the
proposal Given 1hese :fuctors the proposed rezone cannot be considered "totally
different" from the surrounding R-1 zones and it is certainly not incompatible. While
it is true the proposed rezone wonld be bisected by a lower density z.one, the area of
Rezone p. II Findings, Conclusions and Decision
the bisection is a 30 foot utility easement which may not be developed in any case. Its
presence does not constitute an illegal spot zone.
As to whether the rezone could be characteriz.ed as arbitrary or unreasonable, the
Applicant has amply demonstrated that new stormwater regulations eliminate the
underlying rationale for the R-1 designation in this area, i.e. protecting critical areas
from stormwater run-off. The Applicant has provided a sound policy justification for
the rezone and there is nothing in the record that suggests that the rezone would
create any corresponding public detriment. ·
City Staff stated the Action Plan recommendations related to zoning densities must be
enforced because the inrerlocal agreement adopting these recommendations is still in
place and therefore must still be needed. Enforcement of the interloca! agreement is
outside of the jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner and is not relevant to the rezone
criteria.
RCM 4-9-180F(2). Criteria for Rezones Not Requiring Comprehensive Plan
Amendment:
The Reviewing Official shall make the followingfindings:
b. The rezone tends to further the preservation and enjayment of any substantial
property rights of the petitioner
9. RMC 4-9-l80F(2)(b) requires the Official to determine if the rezone tends
to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the
petitioner. Both the Staff and Applicant agree granting the rezone would further the
preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the petitioner by
increasing the allowable zoning in the area and thereby increasing the development
potential of the property.
RCM 4-9-180F(2). Criteria for Rezones Not Requiring Comprehensive Plan
Amendment:
The Reviewing Official shall make the following findings:
c. The rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties
of other persons located in the vicinity thereof
10. RMC 4-9-l80F(2)(c) requires the Official to determine if the proposal is
materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons located
in the vicinity of the subject property. Staff argued the proposal would be materially
detrimental to the public based on the potential for increased flooding and damage to
critical areas in the May Creek Drainage Basin. As discussed above, Staff did not
provide conclusive evidence to demonstrate the Applicant's expert testimony is false
and that the recommendations of the Action Plan cannot be met. Additionally, if the
property is rezoned and eventually platted, the City will have the ability to review and
Rezone p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
'· ... . ··. ,J
./ •
approve or deny any site plan for this property based on impacts to critical areas,
stormwater, or any other development regulation within the City code.
Concerns related to material damage from the rezone in the form of a loss of the
existing peaceful and bucolic natural surroundings, potential stormwater and
environmental impacts, potentially higber crime, potentially lower property values,
and the potential for more traffic have not been substantiated. Traffic impacts will be
relatively minor in proportion to existing traffic. Expert testimony·suggests potential
stormwater and environmental impacts can be fully mitigated. As no site plan is·
currently proposed, issues related to future development including the type of homes,
income range of potential new residents, or any other information related to new
development cannot be assessed at this time. No substantial evidence was provided to
prove the rezone would provide material damage the surrounding property owners.
Additionally, the SEPA DNS issued on July 18, 2011 was not appealed.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
11. Several Comprehensive Plan policies are relevant to the rezone
application. City Staff provided an up/down analysis of four Comprehensive Plan
policies including LU-51, LU-147, LU-151, and EN-I. In each case, City Staff felt
the application · had failed consistency requirement with the applicable
Comprehensive Plan policy. In their analysis of Comprehensive Plan consistency,
Staff referred to their discussions in relation to the rezone criteria.. The Applicant
discussed Comprehensive Plan consistency for LU-11, LU-FF, LU-147, LU~148, LU-
HH, LU-151, LU-153, LU-II and LU-157. Each of these policies is discussed in detail
below.
Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-II: Minimum density requirements shall be
established to ensure that land development practices resuhed in average
development density in each land use designation s,if/ident to meet adopted
growth targets and create greater efficiency in the provision of urban services.
12. City Staff noted in the Hearing the City of Renton is on track to meet its
Buildable Lands requirements under the Growth Management Act As no further
density is required to meet GMA requirements, no action is required related to this
Comprehensive Plan Policy.
Comprehensive Plan PolicyLU-51: Zoning should be applied areas for purposes
of resource protection, when appropriate, during the annexation process.
13. City Staff stated in the Staff Report (page 6) this Comprehensive Plan
objective has not been met However, this property was annexed with an existing pre-
zoning. As stated by Staff in both the Staff Report and the Hearing, the R-1
designation was applied, in part, to preserve the existing critical areas in the May
Creek Drainage Basin. The pre-zoning designation was applied to the properties when
annexed in May 2009. The question at issue here is not the zoning applied during the
Rezone p. 13 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
annexation process, but whether or not an alternative wning designation may be
applied to the property going forward. The intent of the policy is to provide resource
protection, when appropriate. As discussed earlier, the Applicant has provided
reasonable evidence that resources may be protected through the application of the
City's existing critical areas ordinance and the 2009 King County Surface Water
Design Manual in accordance with the recommendations of the 200 I May Creek
Basin Action Plan.
Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-FF: Manage and plan for high-quality residential
growth in Renton and the Potential Annexation Area that supports transit by
providing urban densities, promotes efficient land use utilization, and create
stable neighborhoods incorporating built-in amenities and natural features.
14. The City of Renton has many wnes and development standards that
promote the implementation of this policy. This policy is related to citywide issues
and is not necessarily applicable to individual lots. As discussed above, the Cify is
meeting its GMA requirements for population growth. No further action is required
related to this Comprehensive Plan Policy.
Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-147: Adopt urban density of at least four (4)
dwelling units per net acre for residential uses except in areas with identified and
documented sensitive areas and are areas identified as urban separators.
15. City Staff contend this area should not be rezoned to four dwelling units
per net acre because this increased development density would conflict with the
recommendations of the May Creek Basin Action Plan.. The Applicant noted there are
no critical areas on the subject site. The Applicant also notes the property is not
included within a designated Urban Separator. The Action Plan allows for the
contemplation of increased residential densities in circumstances where a qualified
hydrologic analysis demonstrates that stormwater can be treated and managed to pre-
developed conditions. The 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual requires
any stormwater treatment facility to treat stormwater to pre-developed, forested
conditions. The Applicant's expert testimony suggests ail potential stormwater and
environmental impacts can be fully mitigated. The site does not contain critical areas,
impacts to stormwater and critical areas can be fully mitigated, and the area is not a
designated urban separator, therefore rewning the property to allow for four dwelling
units per net acre for residential uses is appropriate. This Comprehensive Plan Policy
is met
Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-148: Encourage larger lot single-family
development in areas providing a transition to the Urban Growth Boundary and
!Gng County Rural Designation. The City should discourage more intensive
platting patterns in these areas.
16. The Urban Growth Boundary is located along Nile Avenue on the subject
property's eastern boundary. In testimony, City Staff stated the rezone area is an
Rezone p. 14 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
"', •,
••
• . ; .
. ---~ .. ·--· r-. ·. --.
adequate transition zone going from east to west and lower to higher densities at its
present zoning classification. However, both the R-1 and R-4 districts are classified in
the Comprehensive Plan as Residential Low Density Land Use districts. RMC 4-2-
020D states, "The R-4 designation serves as a transition between rural designation
zones and higher density residential zones. It is intended as an intermediate lower
density residential zone." RMC 4-2-020C states, the R-1 zone is "intended to protect
critical areas, provide separation between neighboring jurisdictions through
designation of urban separators as adopted by the Countywide Policies, and prohibit
the development of incompat,ble uses that may be detrimental to the residential or
natural environmenL" As noted above, there are no critical areas on the subject site
and it is not part of the designated Urban Separator. Therefore, the R-4 zoning
designation meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan Policy by providing a
transition to the Urban Growth Boundary and the King County Rural Designation.
Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-HH: . Pravide for a range of lifestyles · and
appropriate uses atfjacent to and compatible with urban developmen{in areas of
the City and Potential Annexation Area constrained by extensive natural features,
providing urban separators, and/or providing a transition to Rural Designations
within King County.
17. As noted above for Policy LU-148, the subject site is not constrained by
extensive natural features and is not designated as an urban separator. It does provide
an adequate transition to Rural Designations within King Co!lllty. As both the R-1
and R-4 zones are designated Low Density Residential districts in the Comprehensive
Plan, either zoning designation will meet the criteria of compat,"bility with this
Comprehensive Plan Policy.
Comurehensive Plan Policy LU-151: Base development density should range
from one home per 10 acres to one home per acre on Residential Low Density
(RLD) designated land with significant environmental constraints, including but
not limited to: steep slopes, erosion hazard [sic], floodplains, and wetlands or
where the area is in a designated Urban Separator. Density should be a maximum
of 4 du/net acre on portions of the Residential Low Density land where these
constraints are not extensive and urban densities are appropriate except as
provided in Policy LU-134a.
18. The subject property does not contain critical areas and is not in a
designated Urban Separator. h is designated as Residential Low Density land in the
Comprehensive Plan. Since 2004, there has been no Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-
134a The Policy specifically states that density should be a maximum of four
dwelling units per net acre. Either the R-1 or the R-4 zone would meet the intent this
Comprehensive Plan policy.
Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-153: For the purposes of mapping, the
prevalence of significant environmental constraints should be interpreted to mean
critical areas encumber a significant percentage of the gross area; developable
Rezone p. 15 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
areas are separated from one another by pervasive critical areas or occur on
isolated portions of the site and access limitations exist; the location of the
sensitive areas result in a noncontiguous development pattern; the area is a
designated urban separator; or application of the Critical Areas Ordinance
setbacks/buffers and/or net density definition would create a situation where the
allowable density could not be accommodated on the remaining net developable
area without modifications or variances to other standards.
19. This policy does not apply to the subject property as there are no critical
areas on site.
Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-H: Designate Residential 4 du/acre zoning in
those portions of the RLD designation appropriate for urban levels of
development by providing suitable environments for suburban and/or estate style,
single-family residential dwellings.
20. The Applicant argues the subject property is a suitable environment for
suburban and/or estate style single-family residential dwellings. As there are no
critical areas on-site, and there is sufficient acreage to support suburban and/or estate
style single-family residential dwellings, an R-4 designation in this area would meet
the criteria of this Comprehensive Plan Policy.
Comprehensive Plan PolicvLU-157: Within the Residential 4 du/acre zoned area
allow a marimum density of four units per net acre to encourage larger lot
development and increase the supply of upper income housing consistent with the
City's Housing Element.
21. The subject site is not currently zoned R-4. The R-4 zoning designation
already allows a maxinnnn density of four units per net acre. There is no site plan
application currently before the Examiner; therefore, there is no way to ascertain what
style of housing at what income level might be constructed on any lot, with any
zoning. This Comprehensive Plan Policy does not apply.
Comprehensive Plan Policy EN-I: Manage water resources for multiple uses
including recreation, fish and wildlife, flood protection, erosion control, water
supply, energy production, and open space.
22. On page 6 of the Staff Report, Policy EN-1 is presented as, "Prevent
development on lands where development would create hazards to life, property, or
environmental quality." The Staff version appears to have been superseded in 2009.
Comprehensive Plan Policy EN-I in the currently adopted Comprehensive Plan is
presented above. As currently adopted, this Comprehensive Plan Policy does not
apply.
Rezone p. 16 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
.. . •
,J
•
Consistency with the Zoning Classification.
23. On page 7 of the Staff Report, Staff state,
"The R-I zone is established to provide and protect suitable environments for
residential development of lands characterized by pervasive critical areas were
limited residential development will not compromise critical areas. It is intended
to implement the RLD Comprehensive Plan designation. The zone provides for
suburban estate single-fiunily and clustered single-fiunily residential dwellings, at
a maximum density of one dwelling unit per net acre, and allows for small-scale
farming associated with residential nse.
While the site is not directly encumbered by critical areas it is adjacent to a stream
and drains into a large drainage basin that has been descnl,ed as having moderate
and extensive flooding which is exacerbated by increases in development.
Moreover, the proposal would not be consistent with the R-4 designation in that it
would be considered a spot zone and would not offer a transition between rural
and higher density residential zones. Based on the analysis above the subject
property is most properly zoned R-l and a rezone to R-4 is not supported."
With respect to the City's zoning code, the Applicant stated the subject properties are
more appropriately zoned R-4 based on the City's zoning description and intents. The
Applicant noted the zoning code statement of purpose for both the R-l and R-4 zones.
The applicable section for each zone is stated below (emphasis added).
RMC 4-2-020C Residential-I DU/Acre /R-1): The Residential-I Dwelling Unit
Per Net Acre Zone (R-1) is established to provide and protect suitable
environments for residential development of lands characterized by pervasive
critical areas where limited residential development will not compromise critical
areas. It is intended to implement the Low Density Residential Comprehensive
Plan designation. The zone provides for suburban estate single family and.
clustered single family residential dwellings, at a maximum density of one
dwelling unit per net acre, and allows for small scale farmmg associated with
residential use. Density bonus provisions, of up to eighteen (18) dwelling units
per acre, are intended to allow assisted living to develop with higher densities
within the zone. It is further intended to protect critical areas, provide separation
between neighboring jurisdictions through designation of urban separators as
adopted by the Countywide Policies, and prohibit the development of
incompatible uses that may be detrimental to the residential or natural
em,ironment. No minimum density is required. (Ord. 5590,2-28-2011).
RMC 4-2-0200 Residential-4 DU/Acre (R-4): The Residential-4 Dwelling Units
Per Net Acre Zone (R-4) is established to promote urban single family residential
neighborhoods serviceable by urban utilities and containing amenity open spaces.
Rezone p. 17 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
It is intended to implement the Residential Low Density Comprehensive Plan
designation. The Residential-4 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre Zone (R-4) will
allow a maximum density of four (4) dwelling units per net acre. The R-4
designation serves as a transition between rural designation zones and higher
density residential zones. It is intended as an intermediate lower density
residential zone. Larger lot subdivisions are preferred; however, "small lot
clusters" are allowed on sites where open space amenities are created. Resulting
development is intended to be superior in design and siting than that which would
nonnally otherwise occur. Small Jot clusters may also meet objectives such as the
provision of efficient sewer services. (Ord. 5355, 2-25-2008).
As noted above, the property is not characterized by the presence of pervasive critical
areas. It is also not designated as an Urban Separator. The Applicant has
demonstrated through expert testimony that stormwater and environmental impacts
may be fully mitigated through application of the City's existing Critical Areas
Ordinance and development codes and in accordance with the 2009 King County
Surface Water Design Manual. Additionally, the City will have the opportunity to
· provide development·. and environmental review for any permits for future
development in the rezone area. Both the R-1 and R-4 zones are designated Low
Density Residential districts in the Comprehensive Plan. Both z.ones provide an
effective transition between higher density residential development to the west and
rural development in the unincorporated County to the east The R-4 z.one is, in fact,
intended to be a transition z.one. Furthermore, the rez.one site is serviceable by urban
utilities including natural gas, public sewer, and public water. The buffer along
Greene Creek may be used to provide amenity open spaces. For these reasons, the
rezone to R-4 is supported.
DECISION
nie Hearing Examiner recommends approval of the rez.one request.
Rez.one
Dated this 1st day of November, 2011.
p. 18
EmilyToucli) City of Renton Hearing
Examiner Pro Tem
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
.. -...,, ~ ......
From:
Sent:
To:
Betsy Reamy [betsyreamy@yahoo.com]
Monday, December 19, 2011 4:51 PM
Bonnie Walton
Subject: Horne Rezone Appeal
Hi Bonnie,
I understand that I can submit my email to you for consideration regarding the Horne
Rezone appeal. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Best Regards,
Betsy
***********************************************
Renton City Council Members,
I am writing today in regards to the proposed Horne Rezone. I understand that recently the
Hearing Examiner ignored the recommendation of the City of Renton planning staff and
approved the request. It is my hope that the City Council will listen to the facts of this
request and deny the rezoning of this property to R-4.
I am against the Horne Rezone request. The proposed properties included in the Horne
Rezone abut the Stonegate neighborhood which is zoned R-1. To dramatically and
detrimentally change the face of our neighborhood is wrong. The Horne property could be
developed in its current R-1 status (and present a cohesive look to the existing
neighborhood). The only party to benefit from an R-4 zoning is the developer. The
neighboring residents will suffer from decreased home value, decreased enjoyment of their
homes and increased security issues.
Please look at this issue carefully and consider the information that has been presented. I
believe the laws were misinterpreted by the Hearing Examiner. This is your opportunity to
correct that and to expect proposed developments to follow the Comprehensive Plan put in
place by the City of Renton.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Betsy Reamy
1
j
Cynthia Moya
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cynthia Moya
Monday, December 19, 2011 4:52 PM
Larry Warren; Neil R. Watts; Jennifer T. Henning; Chip Vincent; 'phil olbrechts'; Rocale
Timmons
Bonnie Walton
Horne Rezone, LUA-11-023.
Letter from bruce christopherson.pdf
I have just received and have attached a letter from Bruce Christopherson, in the Horne Rezone, LUA-11--023.
Thank you,
Cindy Moya, Records Management Specialist
City of Renton -Executive/City Clerk Division
cmoya@rentonwa.gov
425-430-6513
1
' ..
Renton City Council
c/o Bonnie Walton, City Clerk
Renton City Hall, 71h Floor
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
DEC 19 2011
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
ti~ dd1vtr.1d,R.
4'-~ flM. ,-
Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Recommendation on Home Rezone Request
Dear Council Members,
t:.u/}-//-DZ3 Ee~ I?..
For the rezone request to be granted, there are four key points it must meet. These are:
I) The rezone is in the public interest RMC 4-9-l 80(F)(2)(a)
2) The rezone is not ma/erially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of
olher persons located in /he vicinity /hereof RMC 4-9-l 80(F)(2)(c)
3) The rezone is consistent wilh Jhe policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan
RMC 4-9-180(F)(l)(a)
4) Since the mos/ recent land use analysis or the area zoning of/he subject property,
authorized public improvements, permitled private development or other
circumslances affecting /he subject property mus/ have undergone significant and
material change RMC 4-9-I 80(F)(I )(b )(ii)
None of these points has been met.
1) The rezone is in the public interest RMC 4-9-180(F)(2)(a)
The higher density R-4 zoning is out of keeping with the surrounding R-1, RA-5, and
RA-IO zoning. Renton's Stonegate neighborhood, which borders the proposed rezone
on two sides, is 38.4 acres with 53 lots. 53 d.u./38.4 acres= 1.4 d.u./acre. The
proposed R-4 zoning with 4 d.u./acre is in no way comparable to the surrounding 1.4
d.u./acre and would constitute an illegal spot zone.
The rezone proponents point out that Stonegate' s lots are clustered with large open
spaces in between, and say it is Stonegate's built out density that matters. According
to King County property records, the average size ofStonegate's 53 lots is 16,808
square feet. The average size of the 22 May Valley Coop lots (which border the
proposed rezone to the south) is 16,248 square feet. The adjacent rural lots beyond the
Urban Growth Boundary on the rezone area's fourth side to the east are much larger
than this.
If you look at Stonegate's and May Valley Coop's built out densities, then you must
also look at the potential built out densities of new development in the proposed
rezone. Clustered new development in the rezone area could result in lot sizes as
small as 4,500 square feet with R-4 zoning.1 4,500 square foot lots is in no way
1 The 4,500 square feet is according to Rocale Timmons, Renton Associate Planner. The Examiner cited
the Windstone development on page 10 of her recommendation as being "approximately 4 dwelling units
per acre." According to King County records, the average lot size in Windstone is 6,404 square feet.
comparable to the surrounding 16,00o+ square foot lots and would constitute an illegal
spot zone.
The Examiner cites the RMC: RMC 4-2-020D states, "The R-4 designation serves as
a transition between rural designation zones and higher density residential zones "2
But there are no "higher density residential wnes" that the proposed rezone would
provide a transition to! The proposed rewne is surrounded on all side by lower
density zoning.
While there is clear benefit of a rewne to the applicant, Newfourth LLC; speculators
who are out to make a buck, they have not shown any public benefit to a rezone.
2) The rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of
olher persons located in the vicinity thereof RMC 4-9-180(F)(2)( c)
One of the city's comprehensive plan land use objectives is, Objective LU-HH:
Provide for a range of lifestyles. People moved to Renton' s extreme NE corner
because of the area's open space, "peaceful and bucolic natural surroundings"3, and
adjacent rural areas. Moreover, the "peaceful and bucolic natural surroundings" were
expected to be permanent, since zoning law was and is R-1 and RA-5 and RA-10 in
the adjacent area beyond the county's Urban Growth Boundary. As Americans, we
are fortunate to live in a country where there is reason to expect that today's laws will
also be tomorrow's laws and that these laws won't be changed capriciously.
American citizens expect the rule of law to be followed and base their planning
accordingly.
The nearby homeowners are fighting the proposed zoning change because it
diminishes that attributes that attracted them to the area in the first place and is thereby
detrimental to their property. Ninety ofStonegate's residents and HOA members4
have said that the proposed zoning change would be materially detrimental to them. 5
3) The rezone is consislent with the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan
RMC 4-9-l SO(F)(I )(a)
The city staff administers Renton's Comprehensive Plan. City staff are the experts.
Staff concluded that the rezone should net be granted for many reasons including:
• It is contrary to Policy LU-51 and the May Creek Basin Action Plan which
states that increased density will aggravate flooding problems in May Creek
• It is contrary to Policies LU-141 and LU-148 which encourages large lots in
areas providing a transition to the Urban Growth Boundary and King County
Rural Designation.
2 Examiner's Recommendation, p. 15.
3 Examiner's Recommendation, p. 7.
4 The Stonegate HOA is a party of record.
5 Signatures at the end of this letter.
Rather than deferring to city staff's expertise, the examiner incorrectly thought she
was the expert in interpreting the city's Comprehensive Plan. ·
4) Since the most recent land use analysis or lhe area zoning of the subject property,
authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other
circumstances affecting lhe subject property mus/ have undergone significanl and
material change RMC 4-9-180(F)( I )(b )(ii)
The most recent land use analysis was in 2009 when the City Council purposely
continued the R-1 wning of the area. The Examiner refers to the development of
Stonegate and Windstone6 as changes. Stonegate was developed from 1997 to 1999.
Windstone was developed from 2005 to 2008. Both or these developments were well
before the City Council looked at zoning in this area in 2009.
Any one of the four points above is enough to deny the proposed rezone. I ask the City
Council to reverse the Examiner's recommendation and defer to city staff's
recommendation of denying the Home rezone.
Thank you,
Bruce Christopherson
5502 NE 241h Ct.
Renton, WA 98059-4114
6 Examiner's Recommendation, p. 10.
Dear Members of the Renton City Council,
We, the undersigned, believe the November 8, 2011 Hearing Examiner Recommendation to be
flawed. The proposed Horne Rezone is surrounded by low-density land zoned R-1, RA-5, or RA-
J 0. According to RMC 4--9-I 80(F)(2), a rezone must meet certain requirements including the
rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons
located in the vicinity thereof Allowing an R-4 zoning with substantially smaller lots than the
surrounding area would be out of keeping with the area's open and bucolic character, attributes
that influenced our decision to buy houses in this area. The Horne Rezone would thereby be
detrimental to our properties.
Name , 'oH 1\/ t O Dt-c~u~ Address 5°!>/6 ATG '2..'(ff/ (f(ill:T
Signature ~ City 1~,;f../TQ N
----------------------------------------------------------------------~-------------------
Address S ~ U NC: .24~ (;;t ·
City~
-----------------------
Name rnQf"\1~~ t:;iac:.-k\ Address 5:rk UE:_. i).f=;t1 f:rt:·.
Signature~~ City~-\-OY\3 ( 01\
;::---~~--;d-~-~~--~---:~----------------~~~=-:s;=;-~ Ji-26~;;~?. -4, --;;/A-L City 4:-~/il a4 9 s~s-2 Signature
;::--p;;~-;-,;----7/J;//~jhf----------~~~ss-~3j~--Al~h-;;,:;-~---·
Signature CA;Jiv110j _ City ffevfin r If!#-7/clSJ .
Name Addressc&.,\6, ~ ~ ~
cityg-0'\~ 1 u)A _9icef1
------------------------------------------------------------~--~---
Name S:\e ~\f U )w) '"
Signatur~L--' -
--------«.----~----------, -·--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:;:~, ~~ ::are~ 3.;:' w~ ~~;;;
Dear Members of the Renton City Council,
We, the undersigned, believe the November 8, 2011 Hearing Examiner Recommendation to be
flawed. The proposed Home Rewne is surrounded by low-density land wned R-1, RA-5, or RA-
I 0. According to RMC 4-9-l 80(F)(2), a rewne must meet certain requirements including the
rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons
located in the vicinity thereof Allowing an R-4 zoning with substantially smaller lots than the
surrounding area would be out of keeping with the area's open and bucolic character, attributes
that influenced our decision to buy houses in this area. The Home Rewne would thereby be
detrimental to our properties.
Name If>~ '/ iJcu-,3:-Addresss'J."°D/ -1/E 21:.t c-r
Signature---~~ 4' u)~ City R~n~ 1 uJA 7~? ,;~y
~---~-~------~----------~---------------~~~~-~---.
Name 4-(e ,Ai ( 0\1)"\.\)
Signature {J, ,c.-, IL ~
Address 5 3o!f" )JE 2.2ocl Lc)I.J<\
City 3?a~D u.)1-\ q!{i':)IJ
~-----------------------~----------------------------------~--~~~-
Name /\1 1tJ N'\~ \ 1-\;trt .\. ~-
Signature~-
Address \ 1> D 3 (v G 7.-l-¥1 C.f-
. (le~ v1 {\ ·l &-D \-'1 City ___________ _
-~~-----~--~---~---~----~~~~-~------------·----
Name t{f.1tt J°c1 / W]t"r
Signature ~ (} ~
Address f-:i? I 2-N £ 2-7 ,-,:( C. +
City (l_ i "' -hi ;,,_ 1 W 1:: '7 f 6 ?J'.
---~-------------------~------~----~-------------------~~---~---~-~~~~~--
Name An0~Jk 1/j_Ji~~-lfe,/"\ Address S >CO ~E Z :So 1J c+
Sig,arure c (ff;V\ , Ci<y (l,'*'1-, \,J\ '1;1{),<;
~-----------------~-~ -------------------------------~-----~---~~~------~-~-----~------------
Name Y)e.,--t¥-N<l \ \ ~ b ...._ Address ) ]bl> N ~ l J tl..\) r \
Signature Q LJ-k City \2~~"'-w {\ °I. 'G O i-7
-----------------------------------------1:----------------~~-~--~---~~---~---------------~-----------~---~ . I
Name TU~¥ ,M,C,(L_( Qr Address . 5'~r)( I(/~ 2..5"1
(l/-l.
Signature · / City f&:Lt-:11{ ( ()., vt
Name ----------------Address f6Jz0r /\Jf /'7~ [j
Signature Va!tff .& f. L City ~\oo ' \NA q'rl®J
Dear Members of the Renton City Council,
We, the undersigned, believe the November 8, 201 i Hearing Examiner Recommendation to be
flawed. The proposed Horne Rezone is surrounded by low-density land zoned R-1, RA-5, or RA-
IO. According to RMC 4-9-180(F)(2), a rezone must meet certain requirements including the
rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons
located in the vicinity thereof Allowing an R-4 zoning with substantially smaller lots than the
surrounding area would be out of keeping with the area's open and bucolic character, attributes
that influenced our decision to buy houses in this area The Horne Rezone would thereby be
detrimental to our properties.
Name ·tl.~T l;.._) //0{.,,_'iz.~ Address5St { Nfz Z: '-f '(l{C.,
s,grn,rure Tg ~ c,.,g.,.;;oµ lMA 90£5.J
--------~----. ------~--------.. -------------~-~----------I ~----
Name fAUl L, V Address ;7°c;: /Jlv u~ tY-
Signature 1f.i;d ~ < City It(,~ Ji?# V /¢-7 ,
Name ~ (M.,,____,---~~=,------------------Address -f:6tl!iiio 2ft {fF
Signa~ ~ City Rfrrv701Vff6/r
Name .-'dtr;F a_, K<,-y:(,e.,,--Address )--5/0 LfJC'Tvf..!, 7'/ve. tu€,
Signature ./(J]&::r CL/f-J,b__ City 19J.,«-hM? ('..,<..Ll_ ·
----------------------~ ---------------------------------------------------------~~~-~~--:;:-~---
Name ~ S -Address 5)Zd ;1/€ z~&.
Signature City ~1¢1 l/;f--1fiJ5'5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------~-~----~-----~~-----
Address o/7IJ I NL )-:::3 '12.
City
----------------------------------~-------------------~--------~-~-~~-~----~-------1 ') .j.., ,.. .f-
Address 59» ,'\I .-' 7
City )(fv,}v.,_ kv J 110 5'/
Address _;-'$Do 1'SE-AA s+ . * A city f'-e4ttp·J ~jA ~1g0\-v1
Dear Members of the Renton City Council,
We, the undersigned, believe the November 8, 2011 Hearing Examiner Recommendation to be
flawed. The proposed Home Rezone is surrounded by low-density land zoned R-1, RA-5, or RA-
J 0. According to RMC 4-9-180(F)(2), a rezone must meet certain requirements including the
rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons
located in the vicinity thereof Allowing an R-4 zoning with substantially smaller lots than the
surrounding area would be out of keeping with the area's open and bucolic character, attributes
that influenced our decision to buy houses in this area. The Home Rezone would thereby be
detrimental to our properties.
Name Je, I L . Goo Address ol003 l.ijoDs Mc t-.:f-
Signature C:U.uR~ City Pi.2nhrr,, UJA q9osq
--------------~-----. -----------------------------------------------------. ---------------------
Name ~ ~ 'fltl/_L F!ccll Address S-3 Dt.. N'£ Z-3 f..i) CT
Signature fi?I/~) City ~,. vJft {J'&Jefl
-----·--------
Name r:J;;1i,_~ Address5B0w /16"R3rd &
Signature_ ~t -~ ----------------~-i~--~--v::_~!:!__:!__ __ _
Name / -r -,--L-
_ _:L.N"~:.= ·.;r,.~~=-----Address ___.cc?'....::~c.::.o.....:r_N_f=_._'l_'?_rol--=O::..:.'f--'-.-
City -----'/2-tc___t1_c__fo_:_ll--J,'-w,4-:....:___· q_&.:...o.....:S'_,_1 __
-----------------~~----------------~-------~-------~-------~-~~--~-~--~----
Name tv\ ~ .r(
Signature M.,.~
Address 'Z-2-t ~ L-1 <m.S Ave. NI::.
City ~-+e> r-.J
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~-------
--~~----~-~~~---------------------------~-----------~---~-------~--------
Dear Members of the Renton City Council,
We, the undersigned, believe the November 8, 2011 Hearing Examiner Recommendation to be
flawed. The proposed Home Rewne is surrounded by low-density land wned R-1, RA-5, or RA-
J 0. According to RMC 4-9-l 80(F)(2), a rezone must meet certain requirements including the
rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons
located in the vicinity thereof Allowing an R-4 zoning with substantially smaller lots than the
surrounding area would be out of keeping with the area's open and bucolic character, attributes
that influenced our decision to buy houses in this area The Home Rewne would thereby be
detrimental to our properties.
Address 5 5e,Cc, N E: 2(., "lla Sr,
City ~'!DJ, Wi\ g~¢59
I
~---~--~~-~--~~---~~-----~----~-~----------
Address '71p02.-N(;r ZJ,-W\ &t.
City ·~X'-w A . '\SOS'\
I
--------------------------------------~-----~~~~·
Address 0\?02.. ~~ L\J-*' [>\;" .
. Signa~ ~/.Pzy City};m:\::oo 1 WA.j6DCJ'\
-~------=--.-~--------------------------------------------~---~---------------~--~--~~~~-----
Name \lw ~ ""O<j ~~J\1 Address 5S OS N 5 a. •{11" Ct-
Signature_ cd) vu,~{ __ ~~ -------------------~-~~--~~=-----~~----~~~~-----
Name · T? o \/ L.,., r: (c J -,
;-:-,,,z__
Signature µ,,.-~-.,-/ '--
Address sso~ NE < r; ,(. ( 't:::
City fs, ,.,_ 1,,t D ti! [J A_ 'f [s, 0:; 1
----------------------------~-------------------~-------------------
Address ;f/6<f A[t? '1 it;§:-~
V
Sizyat _ . City ;t:_,,.,.,;-Tbt,,) ').,) A 7 ~ '5;?
Name --44.4~~L_J_IJ!2.~--],,/~-~--t,<--------~~~:~~~~;-;~-AJ&~l/7A cF
city 3z&s;; £" lo. q ios-c; ~ '•
Dear Members of the Renton City Council,
We, the undersigned, believe the November 8, 2011 Hearing Examiner Recommendation to be
flawed. The proposed Home Rezone is surrounded by low-density land zoned R-1, RA-5, or RA-
I 0. According to RMC 4-9-l 80(F)(2), a rezone must meet certain requirements including the
rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons
located in /he vicinity /hereof Allowing an R-4 zoning with substantially smaller lots than the
surrounding area would be out of keeping with the area's open and bucolic character, attributes
that influenced our decision to buy houses in tbis area. The Home Rezone would thereby be
detrimental to our properties.
Address Z '7CZ::,:, Lye, ,t) S A it? N £
City !CEirJTD.V, u.J.4 C/&:>59
_)
~------~---~---~--~----~-~~------~---~--~-----------------·~~~. ~~~~~-
Name C./ t zgf:et( Yatr-:e
Signature ~.U..
I Yf--Address '75/0 N~ Z. Cl-,
City 13-to JA, W 7-}-9 '6 0 S 9
I
AddressS5IO /\/€ 2/ St:-Cc-
City t;_"'TCJn-, tc)~ 9~ cJ5'7
'
Address 5:Si 6 NS ~~ Cf
City~ iOV\ r 1.,\)¥'.\ q g' (6j
----------------! _________________ -,:-----------------------------------------------------------------;.,ii:1-----.--
N=o ~< Adru<~ 211> ,1)€ Zl er
Signature -City . i?Pui01:, wA c;f05'9
I
N=o Nieltf ~
Signal£eU; ~ (~ //
Address 2v a 3
(
,.
Dear Members of the Renton City Council,
We, the undersigned, believe the November 8, 2011.Hearing Examiner Recommendation to be
flawed. The proposed Home Rezone is surrounded by low-density land zoned R-1, RA-5, or RA-
I 0. According to RMC 4-9-180(F)(2), a rezone must meet certain requirements including the
rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons
located in the vicinity thereof Allowing an R-4 zoning with substantially smaller lots than the
surrounding area would be out of keeping with the area's open and bucolic character, attributes
that influenced our decision to buy houses in this area The Home Rezone would thereby be
detrimental to our properties.
Name !111~1tt9:€ L I)A Ly Address S' 30S-N t 2,<.{-f..<. cf--
City~ Signature j;\AA J f..MJ. q,) ~
·----~---------------
Name d)oLJ.-J-( DA t.-y
Signature d¥tj 7/1ef]
Name /Jo~ J./~s
Signature .,IL;~ 4-
/.f & ?f--h-. Cf
City _.L~~_:__::_::"---_w_fi_·_7-'-'cfb=---=-J7-1--
Address ..5.J'O'{ I,)£ ..P<,1./.L t! J-
City ,R,..,.,Jn-. t.JA 9.ros 'i
Address 2 "J 12-. t11er• J/vf::;/1/G
city tfL,,._forv~ L~A µ 1.t11ij
-------~-------------~----~---~--~~--~-------------~-~--------------------
Address Z~? { 'f.:1't8 4 ~€.
City ~ lv'f.. 'J ~6'71
Address J. },j 4p. ~ ;Jc_
City t_-{_ 1 ,t.,(j Yfu:r
Address "°1.){)J ?,o---£ b ,J::_
City ~ -l, W"1 Jfll;"f
-------:;:-y·---------------~--------------------------------------------~--------~--------------------~~------:::::rz ~ ::=~,.~ ~u~~
Dear Members of the Renton City Council,
We, the undersigned, believe the November 8, 2011 Hearing Examiner Recommendation to be
flawed. The proposed Home Rezone is surrounded by low-density land zoned R-1, RA-5, or RA-
J 0. According to RMC 4-9-l 80(F)(2), a rezone must meet certain requirements including the
rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons
located in the vicinity thereof Allowing an R-4 zoning with substantially smaller lots than the
surrounding area would be out of keeping with the area's open and bucolic character, attributes
that influenced OUT decision to buy houses in this area. The Home Rezone would thereby be
detrimental to OUT properties.
Name (£.A) fo A re.! I
Signature r(Lan ~
--·-----~-~------~------~~---
Name \I\\\~ L .lni~)
Signature __ ~~L~-------
--·-------~·
Address _7-_,-{_(!_i __ / lJ+-t?"_l _k<-__ ,,._u_
City ---'{ll'----vt -'-~--Wv\---'--'------''>[-""~-,;<'i-
--~---~--~------------·,·"y~----~----~-----~~--------
Name · ~ I cf~ . .J---1"-t.A---Address . c{)'1(._") 4
City 1{-C .A-""+o"-
1
I '? (i/1.:;, o....-,~
~c._ '?) <"t, c;-C,
Address 2 't O / A. ) ir-,.. 5 A-ve-fL1 E.
City !(e---lv-.... WA 7'atJ.J~7
•
----~----------------------------------~-~----------------~~~~-. ----------------------------~--------~~
Name p:4,:t};4(a,; fu·udr/ch ·
Signature /l~'{~<4
/ '
Address /!-'}Pl .£.'f"H-S livi#c .#';F.
City if~n-41'?, WA fll&£'l
NamJ;] ( 1'\V)( tV\ -/t. -rJ.!RMf1 _________ Address 1fJ01-l,lj i% AJe t,J{;
Signature_ W¢ VJCCY\ __ A:: __ v<f ___________ City __ !{CY\ l1JYl , _ \N ff °tfu2!! ·
''tf"::, AK-ti£
City_JJ~~ea-:...,:,_cft,..._.n.,,_,__,_1...,.,_z.tf<----9.L...IJ.OQ.5""'"'-~-'---
Address o2S () ;;)
~ame C!~k\ ( f<~7' [JI
Signature £k fl J /) 't[ <J:1l
-------------i;,; ---------------------~-~-------------------~------------,.... --------------~~--------~-----~
Name ) \'\(}-\ti: -~ ( Address -"~'--"----------
City ____________ _
Dear Members of the Renton City Council,
We, the undersigned, believe the November 8, 2011 Hearing Examiner Recommendation to be
flawed. The proposed Home Rezone is surrounded by low-<lensity land zoned R-1, RA-5, or RA-
IO. According to RMC 4-9-180(F)(2), a rezone must meet certain requirements including the
rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons
located in the vicinity thereof Allowing an R-4 zoning with substantially smaller lots than the
surrounding area would be out of keeping with the area's open and bucolic character, attributes
that influenced our decision to buy houses in this area The Home Rezone would thereby be
detrimental to our properties.
Address ~ r'\(£ ZJ5d: Gt
City {L(M:i:JY}
~---~----~---~------------~-----------~~----------------------------~------~~----~~-----~---------
Name ·Jlv, G'{, ::[{ejQ~~M Address :T?b4: Nt, 2d st C C,':W'.(:
Signature b --==i,v --
Name e·, ) I ·-(A,,,.'1':.bl < Address l I GI e L_;,4CM s kj 'Nt
Signa~ ,S-k o j 1 , 1 b blu City ~ , A/A %'.'.'.54'
-------------------------~------------------~----------------------------~---------~~-------~~~----
Name Joi.,~ If ·,.f,~ Address 2/b C... L'fffr'.$ ACM'. Al£
Signature Qc-:2 City M~ ly4 qgo_r;°/.
/
-----------, --~----~-----~------------------~--------------------------~-~-~~----~----------~-----~-----
N=e /J/Ml ":!sr!i Address;}~[7 /._~AV£NE
Signature~= ' City M"r\, lU}j r @S-J
----------~-------------------------------------~-----------~----------------------~-----~---
Name ~ .,.,5/-ew4rtf-Address :z ?-17 Lvt?k,i;Jre./V6r
Signature
7 ~ City L?t:.hfl?g. ~ i'k, 9:1'6>.f9' . /
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~----~------~-~-"',!; --
Name .' ,: /V. t'. · Address s--~02. #c 24 Cr
Signature City f},, /,, /'I. vv,4 4 to S-cl
Dear Members of the Renton City Council,
We, the undersigned, believe the November 8, 2011 Hearing Examiner Recommendation to be
flawed. The proposed Home Rezone is surrounded by low-density land zoned R-1, RA-5, or RA-
J 0. According to RMC 4-9-l 80(F)(2), a rezone must meet certain requirements including the
rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons
located in the vicinity thereof Allowing an R-4 zoning with substantially smaller lots than the
surrounding area would be out of keeping with the area's open and bucolic character, attributes
that influenced our decision to buy houses in this area. The Home Rezone would thereby be
detrimental to our properties.
AddressS'fof" /\!£-2-tjfL Cou-f
City /<t:.-ri'&t'-
Address 5405 NE 2A-th e-t
City I< ex\:hYl
-~~dr:~5~~ NE z 7Je-:j:
City R,e,,.ton, {,(),4-q~
----------------------------------------~------~--~-----~-~---~---~-~-~~~~-----~---------------------
Name Wer, dy LA ('\C,·o Address 53Dol N-6. ~.locl c...t-.
Signature W.ewJt ;i~;,,,, City Ke A :\:on, WA-'t TO 5 7
------------~-----------~~-------~---~-----------------~----~~-~-~~~~--~-~----~----~
N=o ~fµ,,-'l A<klre~ S'cl>"i 1\.£ 72,_;) ct:
Signature~ _ City ~~t (,U~ 45<0S:J
Name ~¥144~
Signature~"~'--
Address 5;305 /Jic L"µx) G--
City ~~l V\Jq 4°fils:J
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ -
Name NA II D If.A l-i 0 t-:J L--
Signature~
Address ----L.5:;.z,'tt1"--'),"'-----N'--E---"Z=--Z--z,,_q...,___o_,.,-_
City~~~---=~=---.:'-------f\.)~~~~~
-----------------------------------------~-----------------------------------~-----~---~~---~------~----~
Name Address S::::'$0 ~ /J /£ 7,.-z..,,,/C..-i::-
Signature City ---1-t~/::..1LL· .1~l~·@CJ-· +t-"l<t:-------
Dear Members of the Renton City Council,
We, the undersigned, believe the November 8, 201 I Hearing Examiner Recommendation to be
flawed. The proposed Horne Rezone is surrounded by low-density land zoned R-1, RA-5, or RA-
IO. According to RMC 4-9-180(F)(2), a rezone must meet certain requirements including the
rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons
located in the vicinity thereof Allowing an R-4 zoning with substantially smaller lots than the
surrounding area would be out of keeping with the area's open and bucolic character, attributes
that influenced our decision to buy houses in this area The Horne Rezone would thereby be
detrimental to our properties.
Name ·=nR f ~ oeo,,
Signature L],1,(,,c. ..----------:·
Name D ~b Y" o.. /?..Oj ex r
Signature ~
-~~-~-~-~~----~--~~~--~-------~-~--
Name 1(4,,. ~ ~-
Signature \,(/, /) , ~ ""-/ . 't< ~,er<
Address )3.f:j fvF 'f.2 ~-fl r·
City~ L/4 q fur!?/.
Address '?j1.b N.!" 'Z-'4J C-1"
City ~ tAllfi J-KV S ~
---------~---~~-~---~~-------
Address )-1 ;).& · fv(;_ ))_i,nj C.. _j_
City l<,e.n.foh WA tJ.8 D sq
-------~----~------------------------------~--~~--~-~~~~---~~-~----~~-----~--~~---~-----~-
------------~---~-------------~--------------~-------~--------~~~-------------------~-~----~--~~------
. -.. ~ .
Dear Members of the Renton City Council,
We, the undersigned, believe the November 8, 2011 Hearing Examiner Recommendation to be
flawed. The proposed Horne Rezone is surrounded by low-density land zoned R-1, RA-5, or RA-
J 0. According to RMC 4-9-l 80(F)(2), a rezone must meet certain requirements including the
rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons
localed in the vicinity thereof Allowing an R-4 zoning with substantially smaller lots than the
surrounding area would be out of keeping with the area's open and bucolic character, attributes
that influenced our decision to buy houses in this area The Home Rezone would thereby be
detrimental to our properties.
Address 2-Z-0'¥' Ly,,,,,~ /Jve I/!¢
city ge:.1¢,,,1 t.J /.J 97 or?
Name _____________ _
Signature ____________ _ City _____________ _
------------------------------
Name _____________ _ Address ____________ _
Signature ____________ _ City _____________ _
Name --------------Address ___________ ~
Signature ____________ _ City _____________ _
·------~~---------------------
Name _____________ _ Address ____________ _
Signature-------------City _____________ _
Name _____________ _ Address ___________ _
Signature ____________ _ City _____________ _
------------------------------------.~----------~--------~---------~--~ --------
Name--------------Address ____________ _
Signature ____________ _ City _____________ _
I
Cynthia Moya'
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cynthia Moya
Monday, December 19, 2011 2:56 PM
Larry Warren; Neil R. Watts; Jennifer T. Henning; Chip Vincent; 'phil olbrechts'; Rocale
Timmons
Bonnie Walton
Home Rezone (LUA-11-023)
memorandum in support.pdf
I have just received and have attached the Memorandum in Support of Rezone from Duana Koluskova, Johns Monroe
Mitsunaga Kolouskova PLLC, in the Horne Rezone, LUA-11-023.
Thank you,
Cindy Moya, Records Management Specialist
City of Renton -Executive/City Clerk Division
cmoya@rentonwa.gov
425-430-6513
1
2
' .)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
?' _.)
24
r _)
cnY OF RENTON
(_;ill,M\
DEC 19 2011 ,L.-(Sf~
RECEIVED (1'
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ~~Y~lo.i)
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF RENTON
IN RE:
Home Rezone, NO. LUA 11-023, ECF, R
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
REZONE
The Applicants for the Home Rezone hereby submit this Memorandum in Support of
Rezone in the above named application for consideration by the City Council and Planning
and Development Committee. The Applicants are referred to collectively in this
memorandum as "Home" for ease of reference; the properties subject to the rezone are
referred to as the "Home properties" despite their differing ownership, again simply for ease
of reference.
Home requests the Council to grant the proposed rezone to R-4 based on the Hearing
Examiner's recommendation and the underlying administrative record.
I. REVIEW STANDARDS
., Under the City's review process, the Council has given the Hearing Examiner the role
of examining the record, weighing the evidence and comparing the application to the relevant
criteria. As a result, this Council gives the Hearing Examiner's recommendation substantial
M1:.110R.·INDUJ/ or A 1/TIIOR!m:s /,\' SUl'!'ORTOr REZONI.'
f'Arx I of 19
ORIG\NAL
JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 114'" Ave. SE. Suite 110
Bellevue. Washington 98004
Tel:(425)4512812/Fax(425)4512818
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
weight in reaching its decision. Renton Municipal Code ("RMC") 4-8-110 (F)(7). The
Council can and should only modify or change the recommendation if the Council feels the
Examiner made a substantial error in law or fact. Were the Council to determine that the
Examiner should have made a different finding or conclusion, this Council will need examine
the full underlying record and makes its own findings and conclusions based on substantial
evidence in that record.
Zoning ordinances are in derogation of a property owner's right to use the property
for the property's highest utility. must be strictly construed in favor of the property owner
and must not be extended through implication. Sleasman v. Cily £1( Lacey, 159 Wn.2d 639,
643, footnote 4, 151 P.3d 990 (2007); Development Services of America, Inc. v. City of
Seal/le, 138 Wn.2d 107,979 P.2d 387 (1999); Morin v . .Johnson, 49 Wn.2d 275,279, 300
P .2d 569 ( 1956). Rezone applications fall under this rule of construction in the same manner
as any other application related to private property.
Horne was initially responsible for showing how the proposed rezone meets the
City's adopted review criteria. Horne met its burden as shown through the Hearing
Examiner's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation
("Recommendation").
The Stonegate Homeowners Association did participate in the Hearing Examiner's
review process. The Stonegate Homeowners Association provided legal argument and a few
residents in Stonegate provided testimony at the open record hearing. The Stonegate
Homeowners Association did not provide any expert review of the application or present any
planning, biological, engineering or other expert testimony or analysis.
The Stonegate Homeowners Association (referred to herein as the "Appellant") filed
an administrative appeal of the Recommendation. City Code provides that burden of proof
M1:.\t0//.l.\"i!U\ I OF A I FIHO/UT/[S IN SU!'I'OI/T OF RU.ONE
PAGE 2 o( / 9
JOHNS MONRO!' MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 I 14'" Ave. SE, Suilc I 10
Bellevue. Washington 98004
Tel: (425) 45 I 2812 / Fax (425)45 I 2818
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
now lies on the Appellant to show why the rezone should not be granted. RMC 4-8-110
(F)(5).
II. RESPONSE TO APPELLANT'S THEMES
Home provided a volume of information in support of the rezone application,
including stonnwater analysis, planning analysis, engineering analysis, a number of
submittals affirmatively showing how the rezone meets City Code and responding to public
comment. and legal analysis. That information is contained in the record under various
exhibits, primarily Exhibits 5A (letters in support and of site specific as well as
Comprehensive Plan analysis), 6 (legal memorandum of authorities and stonnwater support),
7 (detailed application materials including narrative, downstream stonnwater analysis,
planning and engineering support), 8 (Ed Home power point presentation and summary), 9
(biologist comments). Following are responses to the Appellant's primary concerns.
A. The Horne Properties do Not Fit the R-1 Definition, Intents and Purposes.
The zoning code parameters for the R-1 zone reveal that the current R-1 zoning for
the Horne properties does not fit.
C. RESIDENTIAL-I DU/ACRE (R-1): The Residential-I Dwelling Unit Per Net
Acre Zone (R-1) is established to provide and protect suitable environments for
residential development of lands characterized by pervasive critical areas where
limited residential development will not compromise critical areas. It is intended
to implement the Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan designation. The
zone provides for suburban estate single family and clustered single family residential
dwellings, at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per net acre, and allows for
small scale fanning associated with residential use. Density bonus provisions, of up to
eighteen ( 18) dwelling units per acre, are intended to allow assisted living to develop
with higher densities within the zone. It is further intended to protect critical
areas, provide separation between neighboring jurisdictions through designation
of urban separators as adopted by the Countywide Policies, and prohibit the
development of incompatible uses that may be detrimental to the residential or natural
environment. No minimum density is required. (Ord. 5590. 2-28-2011)
RMC 4-2-020.
M!,.\ll!RANDU.11 mAU/1/0R/'l/l,S /,\' SUPI'OI/TOF REZON/c"
P.1r,i; 3 of" / I)
.IOIINS MONROF MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 I 14'h Ave. SE. Suite 110
Bellevue. Washington 98004
Tel: (425)451 2812 / Fax (425) 451 2818
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The R-1 zone "is established to provide and protect suitable environments for
residential development of lands characterized by pervasive critical areas." Id. The evidence
is undisputed that Horne rezone properties are not characterized by pervasive critical areas.
The R-1 zone "is further intended to protect critical areas, provide separation between
neighboring jurisdictions through designation of urban separators as adopted by the
Countywide Policies, and prohibit the development of incompatible uses that may be
detrimental to the residential or natural environment.'' Id. None of the foregoing qualities
exist on or in relation to the Horne rezone properties.
•
•
•
•
•
B.
There are no onsite critical areas that need additional protection (there are no
measurable onsite critical areas),
There are no "lands characterized by pervasive critical areas" that would warrant
restrictions on residential development of the Horne properties;
The Home properties are not designated as Urban Separators,
The evidence shows that the City's modern critical area and stormwater regulations
provide appropriate protections for development under the R-4 zone; and
There is otherwise no demonstrated need to restrict the Horne properties to R-1
zoning in order to prohibit the development of incompatible uses that may be
detrimental to the residential or natural environment.
Instead, the Horne Properties Match the R-4 Zone Definition, Intents and
Purposes.
The R-4 zoning intent and purposes squarely fit the Home properties:
D. RESIDENTIAL-4 DU/ACRE (R-4): The Residential-4 Dwelling Units Per Net
Acre Zone (R-4) is established to promote urban single family residential
neighborhoods serviceable by urban utilities and containing amenity open spaces. It is
intended to implement the Residential Low Density Comprehensive Plan designation.
The Rcsidential-4 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre Zone (R-4) will allow a maximum
density of four (4) dwelling units per net acre. The R-4 designation serves as a
transition between rural designation zones and higher density residential zones.
It is intended as an intermediate lower density residential zone. Larger lot
subdivisions are preferred; however, "small lot clusters" arc allowed on sites where
open space amenities are created. Resulting development is intended to be superior in
design and siting than that which would normally otherwise occur. Small lot clusters
J\,fEMOR_-JNIJ!JM OF AlI!HORJTJF.S IX SUPPORT OF Rf."/.ONE
PAGE-/ of' / 9
JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 114'" Ave. SE. Suite 110
Bellevue. Washington 98004
Tel: (425)451 2812 / Fax (425)451 2818
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
may also meet objectives such as the provision of efficient sewer services. (Ord.
5355. 2-25-2008)
RMC 4-2-020.
The R-4 zone is the City's default, low-density zone. Comprehensive Plan Policy
LU-151.
The Home properties are part of a larger transition area between rural designations (in
unincorporated King County) across I 48'h/Nile Avenue and higher densities to the west. See
e.g. Exhibil 11. As is shown on maps in the record, the area to the west is either built out
under. or currently zoned as R-4 and R-8. As is discussed under the rezone criteria, below,
the R-4 zone is the City's default, low density zone. Absent a specific, clear evidentiary
basis for zoning the property R-1, which does not exist in this case, the Home property
should fall under the low density, default R-4 zone.
C. The Surrounding Built Environment Supports Approval of the Rezone.
The Home properties are an island of R-1 zoning within property either built out
under, or currently zoned R-4 up to 148 1h/Nile Avenue. The existing densities of lots
throughout the surrounding area range from 2.5 lo 5 units/acre. Exhibit 5, Kombol October
13, 2011 leller, map attached; oversized posterboard submilled at hearing but without
separate exhibit number (a copy is attached hereto for ease of reference). The Hearing
Examiner correctly determined that Stonegatc lots were built out to a density of
approximately 4 dwelling units per acre. Recommendation, page IO (Conclusion 7). As Mr.
Horne and Horne's expert, Chad Bala with Encompass Engineering, explained at the hearing,
the Stonegate plat was designed, approved and built to R-4 zoning and standards. See also
Exhibi1 8: Exhibit 5, Kombol letters. The City only downzoned the area to R-1 afier
Stonegate and its density at R-4 was approved. Mr. Bala showed that the sizes of lots in the
A1L\f()RAXDU.\f or .·It llHURJTIES IX 5)UPPORTOF REZO,\E
PACE 5 of f Y
JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 I 14'h Ave. SE. Suite 110
Bellevue. Washington 98004
Tel: (425) 451 2812 I Fax (425) 451 2818
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
area, including Stonegate, are the same as or close to lot sizes that actually result from the R-
4 zone.
Additionally, much of the area south of the Home properties is currently zoned R-4.
In contrast, if City forces the Home properties to remain under R-1 zone, the resulting
lots will be larger than and inconsistent with the surrounding area without any sound
planning or environmental justification therefore.
Appellant disregards Stonegate's actual development under R-4 zomng. Instead,
Appellant argues that Stonegate's density should be artificially diluted by counting open
space, critical areas and so forth to create an abstract density much lower than what actually
exists. The Hearing Examiner closely considered this argument and found it unpersuasive.
Instead, the Hearing Examiner found that the proper comparison is between the existing lot
sizes and the lot sizes that would be allowed on the Home properties under the R-1 and R-4
zones, i.e. comparison of actual lot sizes. Recommendation, page IO (Conclusions 7 and 8).
Otherwise, the City would have an irrational result: surrounding more dense/smaller lots on
property containing substantial critical areas, immediately adjacent to the Home properties,
which have no critical areas or other features that could justify its characterization
under the R-1 zone. Further, the Hearing Examiner's conclusion recognizes the reality that
Stonegate was built under R-4 zoning, an inescapable fact.
D. May Creek, the 2001 May Creek Basin Plan and Stormwater Analysis Support
for the Horne Rezone Request.
May Creek is located a fair distance away from the Home properties. Between May
Creek and the Home properties lie (a) the May Creek buffer, (b) Lyons Avenue/NE 261h
Street and (c) Stonegate residential lots with existing homes and attendant landscaping.
Exhibit 8, page 7. There is absolutely no evidence in the record that would show any
negative impact of rezoning the Horne properties to R-4 on May Creek, the Greene Creek
AIE,\WHA:\'DU\I OF AUl'HURIT!f:S /,\' SUPPORT OF RfJ.OXE
P-tGE (i of ] 9
JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOV A PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 114'" Ave. SE. Suite 110
Bellevue. Washington 98004
Tel: (425) 451 2812 / Fax (425) 451 2818
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
tributary (running through Stonegate), or any other critical areas. There is no evidence
showing that the existing May Creek buffer would be insufficient to protect May Creek from
development of the Horne properties under an R-4 zone, particularly in light of the
intervening, existing R-4 lots and road development.
Appellant argues its perspective of what the May Creek Basin Plan should require.
However. Appellant's arguments do not reflect the actual language of the Basin Plan.
Further, Appellant does not (and cannot) point to any evidence in the record to contest the
Hearing Examiner's findings and conclusions that the City's existing critical areas and
stormwater standards are sufficient protections for May Creek in reviewing this rezone
request.
The Horne rezone properties are located in the "East Renton Plateau and Highlands
Subareas" part of the Basin. It is important to recognize that the May Creek Basin Plan and
its recommendations are more than a decade old. The Plan recommendations for this area
expressly recognize that zoning densities will increase. The recommendations for this
subbasin provide that densities can be increased where storm water runoff peaks and volumes
can be fully mitigated to predeveloped conditions. Exhibit 6, attached May Creek Basin
Plan, excerpted page 3-29. Based on language such as this, the City has updated its
storm water regulations over the past IO years to provide substantially more stringent
stormwater controls as set forth in the 2009 regulations. At the hearing, Horne's expert,
Chad Bala, explained that the Plan allows for increased densities since stormwater runoff
peaks and volumes can be fully mitigated to predeveloped conditions. No one provided any
evidence to dispute Mr. Bala's analysis.
It is also relevant that the City has never adopted the Basin Plan itself into City Code.
Instead, the City chose to provide protection under the Plan by use of Urban Separators. The
adopted May Creek Urban Separators do not include the Horne rezone properties.
MEMORANl)UM OF AtF/'IWHff/ES IX S!Jf'i'ORT()F Rt."I .. ONE
PAGE 7 of" /9
JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOV A PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 I 14'h Ave. SE. Suite 110
Bellevue. Washington 98004
Tel: (425) 451 2812 / Fa, (425) 451 2818
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RMC 4-3-110. No other City standards support any increased requirements above and
beyond the current critical area and storrnwater regulations.
Horne submitted a Level I Downstream Analysis and Mr. Bala's expert testimony
related to the City's current (2009) storrnwater regulations, explaining how those ensure that
all storrnwater impacts of development under the R-4 zone can be fully mitigated per the
Basin Plan recommendations. Exhibit 6 (Encompass Engineering letter, October 17, 2011);
Exhibit 7 (rezone application file. includes Level I Downstream Analysis).
As the Hearing Examiner found: "The Applicant was able to provide compelling
expert testimony that the 2009 storrnwater regulations were adequate to protect critical areas.
There was no evidence to the contrary." Recommendation, page 8 (Finding 6). The Hearing
Examiner further concluded that the 2009 storrnwater regulations eliminate the underlying
rationale for R-1 zoning for this property, which has no defining physical characteristics
identified by the R-1 zone. Recommendation, page 12 (Conclusion 8).
Appellant improperly exaggerates the effect of the Hearing Examiner's analysis as
"startling" in an attempt to manipulate this rezone into a catastrophic scenario of large-scale,
high density development in this area. Appellant never provided any evidentiary support for
any of its fears, let alone expert analysis. To the contrary, as repeatedly noted herein and
equally ignored by Appellant, R-4 is a low density zone. Further, even if other property in
the area currently zoned at R-1 (of which there is little -see attached map) were to request a
rezone, that applicant would need to provide separate analysis based on that property's
specifics.
Ill. LEGAL ANALYSIS AND REZONE CRITERIA
Horne provided a detailed legal analysis to the Hearing Examiner in support of the
rezone. Exhibir 6. The following sets forth much of that same legal analysis. modified to
address the Recommendation and Appellant• s arguments.
A4F.IIUIU,\DUM OF AUTIIOU!TIFS IS SUI'!'ORT(Jf-' Rf.'/.U:\'£
l'AGE8 of ]9
JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOV A PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 114'" Ave. SE. Suite 110
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel:(425)4512812/Fax(425)4512818
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. It Would be Unlawful to Base a Rezone Decision on Neighborhood Displeasure
or Fear of Increased Development.
The City's decision on a rezone application cannot be based on local or parochially
perceived welfare, public opinion or generalized fears of development. Kenart & Associates
v. Skagit County, 37 Wn. App. 295, 680 P.2d 439 (1984); Anderson v. City of Issaquah, 70
Wn. App. 64, 851 P.2d 744 ( 1993); Norco Construction Inc. v. King County, 97 Wn.2d 680,
685,649 P.2d 103 (1982); Henderson v. Kittitas Counly, 124 Wn. App. 747, 755; Sunderland
Family Treatment Services v. Cily of Pasco, 127 Wn.2d 782, 903 P.2d 986 (1995);
Marana/ha Mining, Inc. v. Pierce Counly. 59 Wash. App. 795, 804, 801 P.2d 985 (1990).
Anecdotal commentary by a single individual expressing generalized or parochial
disapproval of the proposed rezone is an improper basis to deny a site-specific rezone.
Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F .3d 490 (2"d Cir. 1999); City of Medina v. T-
Mobile USA, 123 Wn. App. 19, footnote 45. Even if the majority of comment had been
against the rezone, "neighborhood opposition alone may not be the basis of a land use
decision." Tugwell v. Kittitas County, 90 Wn. App. I, 9,951 P.2d 727 (1997).
The Hearing Examiner correctly analyzed the evidence, justifications and expert
analysis. The record shows that Appellant has only identified fears and displeasure without
any factual basis therefore, let alone expert analysis. Appellant repeatedly states its concerns,
such as arguing the rezone would have a detrimental effect on Stonegatc or May Creek,
without submitting any supporting evidence or analysis.
Appellant points out one case where the Woodinville City Council denied a rezone
despite its Hearing Examiner's recommendation of approval. Phoenix Deve/opmenl v. City
of Woodinville, 171 Wn.2d 820,256 P.3d 1150 (2011). The City ofWoodinville's rezone
review included a very different rezone criterion which Renton has not adopted, for sound
policy reasons. The Court concluded that the substantial evidence demonstrated the rezone
ME.\IORANnUM OF A UTl!OR!7JF.\' /,\' SUPPORT OF RFJOXr.·
PAGE l) of fl)
.IOIINS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 I 14'h Ave. SE, Suite 110
Bellevue. Washington 98004
Tel:(425)4512812/Fax(425)4512818
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
did not meet that criterion ( of whether there was a demonstrated need for additional zoning
of the type propose). Phoenix, 171 Wn.2d 831-834. As discussed throughout this
Memorandum and revealed in the underlying record, Appellant has not provided substantial
evidence in support of any of its arguments. Phoenix is largely irrelevant to this Council's
review of the Home rezone, except to the extent that the Phoenix Court instructs this Council
to base its decision on substantial evidence.
B. There is No Basis for Appellant's Contention that the Rezone Would Constitute
Spot Zoning.
The Hearing Examiner correctly evaluated and rejected Appellant's assertion of spot
zoning. Recommendation. Page 11 (Conclusion 8). Appellant's assertion of spot zoning
belies its disregard of the existing built environment and each zone's intents and purposes.
Appellant's assertion of spot zoning is particularly ironic considering that Stonegate itself
was developed under R-4 zoning.
Spot zoning occurs when a property is singled out for a use that is totally different
from and inconsistent with existing development and zoning. For example, it would be
unlawful spot zoning to rezone two isolated lots for a gas station located in the midst of an
existing single family community. Pierce v. King County, 62 Wn.2d 324, 382 P.2d 628
(1963). Even Appellant's cite to court precedent reveals that spot zoning involves zoning
action "by which a smaller area is singled out of a larger area or district and specially zoned
for a use classification totally different from and inconsistent with the classification of
surrounding land ... " Notice o{Appeal, page 10, citing lo Save our Rural Environment v.
Snohomish County, 99 Wn.2d 363,368,662 P.2d 816 (1983).
A fear of spot zoning is simply unsupportable in the instant rezone review. The R-1
and R-4 zones arc the same use classification: both are "low density" residential uses. The
~IF..\H JRANDIJ,\f ()FA UJHORITIF.S IN S'UP/'()fU OF R!:'i'.ONE
f'.-1G1, I a o{ I <J
JOHNS MONROE MITSlJNAGA KOLOUSKOV A PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 114•h Ave. SE. Suite 110
Bellevue. Washington 98004
Tel: (415)451 1811 I Fa, (415) 451 1818
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
r _)
only difference is that R-1 applies where there is evidentiary support showing that major
critical areas warrant R-1 zoning. Otherwise, R-4 is the default low-density zone.
C. The Horne rezone is consistent with Policies set forth in the Comprehensive
Plan. (Criterion F (l)(a))
In reviewing a site-speci fie rezone request, this Council reviews whether there is
"general conformance" with the Comprehensive Plan. Tugwell, 90 Wn. App. I, 8; Biarnson
v. Kitsap County, 78 Wn. App. 840, 846, 899 P.2d 1290 (1995); Cathcart-Maltby-Clean•iew
Community Council v. Snohomish County. 96 Wn.2d 201, 634 P.2d 853 (1981). When a
rezone implements policy contained in the Comprehensive Plan, "this fact alone would
justify the rezone." Henderson v. Kittitas County, 124 Wn. App. 747, 756, citing to Bjarnson
v. Kitsap County, 78 Wn. App. 840, 846.
The Hearing Examiner thoughtfully reviewed the rezone request in light of the City's
applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies. In summary, the rezone's consistency with these
Policies shows that the Home properties (a) do not have the attributes that are required for R-
I zoning and (b) would have far more benefits to the City and far greater consistency with
the City's long range planning policies if rezoned and developed under the R-4 zone.
Following are a list of Comprehensive Plan Policies with which the Horne rezone is
consistent and, in italics, a short comment on how.
• Policy LU-11. Minimum density requirements shall be established to ensure that land
development practices result in an average development density in each land use
designation sufficient to meet adopted growth targets and create greater efficiency in the
provision of urban services. (emphasis added)
Evidence in the application materials and as will be provided at the hearing shows
that rezoning the properties to R-4 will provide greater efficiency in the provision of"
urban services.
• Objective LU-FF: Manage and plan for high quality residential growth in Renton
and the Potential Annexation Area that:
I) Supports transit by providing urban densities.
2) Promotes efficient land utilization, and
Mf.",\IORAVD//.\1 Of .-1 UJJ-/OR/TIES I,\' Siif'PORF OF REZONE
PAGf: / J of" /9
JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 114'" Ave. SE. Suite 110
flcllcvuc. Washington 98004
Tel: (425)4512812/Fax(425)4512818
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3) Creates stable neighborhoods incorporating built amenities and natural features
Evidence in the applicalion ma/erials and as will be provided al rhe hearing shows
!hat rezoning rhe properries lo R-4 will provide growrh rhar will beller mee/ !he
elements o(rhis Objeclive lhan developmenl under R-1.
• Policy LU-147. Adopt urban density of at least four (4) dwelling units per net acre for
residential uses except in areas with identified and documented sensitive areas and/or
areas identified as urban separators.
The Horne rezone properties do 1101 conlain, and are nor in an area of identified and
documenred sensilive areas and are not iden/ified as urban separators. Therefore.
under this Policy. the properties should be rezoned to R-4. Contrary to Appellanr 's
argument. rejecled by !he Hearing Examiner, /he sensilive area of May Creek is
separared by major land development fearures such as a road and residenlial
developmenl as well as a sensitive area buffer. More specifically, the properties
subject to the proposed Horne rezone do no/ have rhe qualities which the
Comprehensive Plan defines as necessary for having a prevalence of significant
environmental constraints that this Policy is concerned wilh (see Policy LU-153,
belo11~.
• Policy LU-148. Encourage larger lot single-family development in areas providing a
transition to the Urban Growth Boundary and King County Rural Designation. The
City should discourage more intensive platting patterns in these areas.
As the Hearing Examiner explained. and is discussed below, "larger lot' refers to
development al a density of 4-du!net acre, i.e. development consistent with R-4
zoning. Appellant would prefer that only R-1 be considered "larger lot development"
but that simply is no/ what the City·s Comprehensive Plan provides: R-4 is
considered "larger !or developmenr" and the Horne properlies appropriately fall
under I hat zone.
• (Residential Low Density Land Use Designation) Purpose Statement: Policies in
this section are intended to guide development on land appropriate for a range of low
intensity residential and employment where land is either constrained by sensitive
areas or where the City has the opportunity to add larger-lot housing stock, at urban
densities of 4-du/net acre, to its inventory.
This stalement explains rhal rhe /erm ·"larger !or · refers to development at a density of
4-du/net acre, i.e. development consis/enl with R-4 zoning.
• Objective LU-HH: Provide for a range of lifestyles and appropriate uses adjacent to
and compatible with urban development in areas of the City and Potential Annexation
/t.Jt:.\tof?AN!JU,\f OF A UT/10/UrtF\ IN SUPPORT Of. REZO,\E
PAGE J2 of f 9
JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOV A PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 I 14'h Ave. SE. Suite I IO
Bellevue. Washington 98004
Tel: (425) 451 2812 / Fax (425) 45 I 28 I 8
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Area constrained by extensive natural features, providing urban separators, and/or
providing a transition to Rural Designations within King County.
Under this Objective, R-4 zoning is considered to be an appropriate zone to provide a
transition to Rural Designations in King County. The properties subject to the
proposed Horne rezone do not have the qualities which the Comprehensive Plan
defines as necessary for having a prevalence of significant environmental constraints
(.~ee Policy LU-153, below).
• Policy LU-151. Base development densities should range from I home per IO acres
to I home per acre on Residential Low Density (RLD) designated land with
significant environmental constraints, including but not limited to: steep slopes,
erosion hazard, floodplains, and wetlands or where the area is in a designated Urban
Separator. Density should be a maximum of 4-du/net acre on portions of the
Residential Low Density land where these constraints are not extensive and urban
densities are appropriate except as provided in Policy LU-134a. ( emphasis added)
Again, the Horne rezone properties do no/ have !he qualities defined as necessary for
having a prevalence of sign/ficant environmenlal conslraints (see Policy LU-153,
below). Therefore, under !his Policy, !he Horne rezone area is properly rezoned to
R-4.
• Policy LU-153. For the purpose of mapping, the prevalence of significant
environmental constraints should be interpreted to mean:
I) Critical areas encumber a significant percentage of the gross area;
2) Developable areas are separated from one another by pervasive critical areas or
occur on isolated portions of the site and access limitations exist;
3) The location of the sensitive area results in a non-contiguous development
pattern;
4) The area is a designated urban separator: or
5) Application of the Critical Areas Ordinance setbacks/buffers and/or net density
definition would create a situation where the allowed density could not be
accommodated on the remaining net developablc area without modifications or
variances to other standards.
None of the listed factors are found within !he Horne rezone area as shown in the
applicants· submiltal reviewing the rezone area's environmental constraints
(actually, a lack there1if) made by an expert critical areas biologisl.
• Objective LU-II: Designate Residential 4 du/acre zoning in those portions of the
RLD designation appropriate for urban levels of development by providing suitable
environments for suburban and/or estate style, single-family residential dwellings.
ML\IORAN/Jf/AI Of-'AUTHORIT!ES I.\' ,\'fH,PORTOF Rt,"'/.OXf-_"
/'ACE 13 of' 19
.JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOLISKOVA PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 114'" Ave. SE. Suite 110
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel: (425) 451 2812 / Fax (425) 451 2818
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
')' _.)
24
25
The Horne rezone area is a suitable environment for suburban and/or estate-style
dwellings.
• Policy LU-157. Within the Residential 4 du/acre zoned area allow a maximum
density of 4 units per net acre to encourage larger lot development and increase the
supply of upper income housing consistent with the City's Housing Element.
Again. rezoning of the Horne properties to R-./ is consistent with this Policy, the
applicants are not requesting anything more dense than R-4 zoning.
Further, the rezone implements the Environmental Chapter as a whole by not
adversely affecting any onsite wetlands or having any adverse impact on offsite wetlands, as
well as being possible to develop under the adopted critical area and stormwater standards
which are the most stringent in the City's history to date. This is supported by the City's
SEPA Determination of Non-Significance which was not appealed.
Except as noted above, Appellant does not refute the Hearing Examiner's analysis
and the above examination (also provided to the Examiner). Instead, Appellant also argues
that the Council should consider R-4 to be "higher density development" with respect to
Policy LU-141, which orients higher density development closer to the City's Urban Center.
However, Appellant's argument is based on its disregard this City's policy decision that R-4
zoning is "Low Density". Policy LU-141 is simply irrelevant to this rezone application.
D. The Horne rezone properties were either not specifically considered at the last
area land use analysis and area zoning or, since that time, there have been
changed circumstances. (Criterion F (l)(b))
The 'changed circumstances' criterion is deemed satisfied and the rezone is justified
where the proposed rezone implements the Comprehensive Plan. Henderson, 124 Wn. App.
747, 756; Save Our Rural Environment v. Snohomish County ("SORE'), 99 Wn.2d 363, 370-
371, 662 P.2d 816 (1983). The premise is that, "if changed circumstances always were
required, the policies of a comprehensive plan would never be fulfilled." Tugwell, 90 Wn.
ML\/0/1.·IXD/i.\f OF A UT/ /OR!m:s IN SU/'PORF OF REZOX!
PACE J ./ of' / 9
.IOIINS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 114'" Ave. SE. Suite 110
Bellevue. 'A'ashingtun 98004
Tel: (425) 451 2812 / Fax (425) 451 2818
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
App. at 8, footnote 6. As the Hearing Examiner correctly concluded, the rezone squarely
implements the Comprehensive Plan.
Even if it were necessary for Home to demonstrate changed circumstances, those are
readily evident to support this rezone request.
It remains Home's position that the properties were not specifically considered in the
City's last area-wide rezone in 2004-5. The last time the City considered the zoning of the
Home rezone properties was in 1996-1997. during a 'pre-zone· review with King County.
The 1996-7 review was prior to the City's annexation of the property and the City's "last area
land use analysis".
However, the Hearing Examiner had a different perspective of the City's historical
review of the property and found the last review was in 2005. Recommendation, page 5,
page 10 (Conclusion 7); see also Exhibit 8, pages 14-17 (slides identifying changes since last
rezone assessment). Since 2005, the Hearing Examiner correctly found that that there have
been substantial changed circumstances in this area. Changed circumstances can be
demonstrated in a variety of ways, including through changes in development and services in
the area. See e.g. Henderson, 124 Wn. App. at 754. The Examiner correctly found that there
major infrastructure improvements, including new utility services to the properties, as well as
new stormwater regulations that significant change the way stormwater must be managed and
treated versus what was required at the time of the last area-wide rezone review.
Recommendation, page IO (Conclusion 7).
Therefore, while this criterion does not have any clear meaning or effect since the
rezone meets applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies, the rezone satisfies this criterion both
because the properties were not specifically considered at the last area land use analysis and
area zoning or, since that time, there have been changed circumstances. While Home rezone
Al E.\IOHA .Vl>U,\/ OF A f i7J!OHll'llS IN S'U!'POH'/' or· RlZO.VE
PAGE I 5 of I 9
.IOl·INS MONROE M!TSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 114'" Ave. SE, Suite 110
Bellevue. Washington 98004
Tel:(425)4512812/Fax(425)4512818
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
legally is required to meet only one or the other of these two possibilities, the proposed
rezone actually meets both.
E. The Horne rezone is in the public interest. (Criterion F (2)(a))
A rezone that conforms to and implements a Comprehensive Plan consequently also
bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety and welfare. Henderson, 124 Wn.
App. 747, 754, 756; see also, SORE, 99 Wn.2d 363, 369; 78 Wn. App. 840. Beyond this
rule, the proposed rezone is in the public interest for other reasons.
I. The rezone would implement the City·s purposes and intents for the R-1 and
R-4 zones.
In addition to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the Home properties are
more appropriately zoned R-4 based on the City's zoning descriptions and intents. Rezoning
the properties to R-4 would implement the purpose and intent of the City's zoning code.
Such is in the public interest. Appellant's assertions to the contrary are exaggerated and
without evidentiary support. There is no support for Appellant's conclusion that the rezone
would lead to 'far higher' densities in the area. R-1 and R-4 are both low density zones.
Instead, as the Hearing Examiner found, the rezone to R-4 would be more consistent with the
general existing densities and consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and City Code.
ii. The rezone is generally in the public interest.
The City's zoning code provides that the rezone to R-4 will allow for a certain
number of additional dwelling units beyond what is allowed under R-1. Further, the quality
of the community would be higher, with more desirable amenities. As a result, any
development under the R-4, versus R-1, zone would provide an additional construction and
ongoing tax base to the City. Such increased tax base is in the public interest and satisfies
this criterion. Henderson, at 756.
MF.\IOR.·INDU..\J OF A (JT!!OR!T!E\' IN SUPPORFOF REZONF.
P.Hil, / 6 of J <)
JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOlJSKOVA PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 114'" Ave. SE. Suite 110
Bellevue. Washington 98004
Tel: (425)451 2812/Fa,(425)4512818
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
r _)
Even if a rezone to R-4 would result in a meaningfully higher density than the
surrounding built environment, such a result does not operate as evidence of a lack public
interest or lack of substantial relationship to the public health, safety and welfare. See e.g.
Wood1·. 130 Wn. App. 773; Tugwell, 90 Wn. App. I; Henderson, 124 Wn. App. 747. In
Henderson. the Court upheld the proposed rezone despite intense opposition that the rezone
would be inconsistent with the neighborhood. Instead, the Court found that other
considerations including the additional tax base and compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan showed that a rezone is in the public's interest. Henderson, 124 Wn. App. at 756.
The broad range of public interests served by this rezone was discussed in the hearing
and summarized in Mr. Home's power point presentation. Exhibit 8. Conversely, leaving
the Home properties as R-1 would be contrary to the public interest: the City would create a
serious question as to the reliability of how it applies its Code since the Home properties do
not have any of the characteristics identified for zoning as R-1.
F. The Horne rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any
substantial property rights of the petitioner. (Criterion F (2)(b))
As noted above, zoning ordinances are in derogation of a property owner's right to
use the property for the property's highest utility, must be strictly construed in favor of the
property owner. Sleasman v. City of Lacey, 159 Wn.2d 639, 643, footnote 4. The rezone
implements the City's own zoning code; the property owners have a property right in being
able to develop their property consistent with the most applicable and appropriate zoning.
Appellant does not dispute that the rezone meets this criterion.
ML'.\IOR-1.\'/JU.\I OJ· A UlHORJ/JloS IN SUPPORT OF RnOXf."
!'AGE J7 of f 9
JOHNS MONIWF. MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOYA PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 I 14'h Ave. SE. Suite 110
Bellevue. \Vashington 98004
Tel: (425) 451 2812 / Fax (425) 451 2818
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
G. The Horne rezone would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare of
the property and persons in the vicinity. (Criterion F (2)(c))
This criterion is very similar to Criterion F (2)(a). The phrase 'materially
detrimental' means that the rezone would have an actual, measurable, substantive negative
impact -vague aesthetic concerns. unarticulated public policy or public discontent do not
satisfy the standard of 'materially detrimental'. A rezone still may have a substantial
relationship to the public health, safety and welfare even if the rezone docs not result in
exactly the same development that which surrounds it, or if neighbors or the public
vociferously object. See e.g. Woods. 130 Wn. App. 773; Tugwell, 90 Wn. App. I;
Henderson, 124 Wn. App. 747.
There is simply no evidence that rezoning the Home properties to R-4 would be
materially detrimental in any way to any property or persons in the vicinity. To the contrary,
rezoning the Home properties to R-4 would implement the purpose and intent of the City's
zoning code, making that code more uniformly applicable and enforceable to all properties.
Appellant argues that the rezone would be "detrimental to the welfare of the
Stonegate property owners." However, Appellant never explains how that might be, apart
from stating a generalized fear and displeasure of the rezone request. Contrary to
Appellant's concerns, the City lists R-4 zoning in the same "low density" category as R-1.
Further, Appellant's fear that other properties will request a rezone to R-4 ts
irrelevant to this inquiry: this Council must consider Horne's rezone request on its own
merits. However, even looking to the larger surrounding area, there are few other properties
in the vicinity that would be subject to a precedent that Appellant is afraid of. Stonegate was
developed under R-4 zoning and is fully built out: to the south, property is largely zoned R-4.
Finally, Appellant has no evidentiary basis at all to assert that the City's adopted
urban separator (imposed on other properties but not the Horne properties), critical area
MEMORAADli,\I OF A /Jr//OR!Tlf:.\' IN SUPPORT OF Rr.'/.ONL
PAGE 18 of' / ')
.IOIINS MONROE MITSLINAGA KOI.OUSKOVA PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 114'" Ave. SE. Suite 110
13cllcvuc. Washington 98004
Tel: (425) 451 2812 /Pa, (425) 451 2818
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
regulations, and stormwater regulations are somehow insufficient to protect May Creek from
a rezone of the Home properties to R-4. Nothing in the decade-old Basin Plan precludes
Home's rezone request or supports Appellant's argument that the rezone is either not allowed
by the Basin Plan or would otherwise be materially detrimental to surrounding properties,
May Creek or other critical areas. To the contrary, Home's expert planning, biological and
engineering analysis all show that the rezone will not have any materially detrimental effect
at all on to the public welfare of the property and persons in the vicinity.
IV. REQUEST
Based on the application materials and forthcoming presentations and testimony, the
City's rezone criteria, Comprehensive Plan and zoning code, and the above analysis, Horne
requests this Council to GRANT the requested rezone of the Home properties from R-1 to R-
4.
DA TED this \°'\°" day of j:::::?? U-IV\~ . 2011.
/427-/ Mem0Supporti11!!,Rew11e /2-/9-//
ME.IIOR.INDU.11 OFA U7HOR/7JES IN SUl'/'ORTOF Ruost·
PAGE 19 of 19
JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA
KOLOUSKOV A, PLLC
uan 2
Attorneys for Home rezone applicants,
Newfourth LLC, and Ed Home
JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 114'" Ave. SE, Suite 110
Bellevue. Washington 98004
Tel: (425) 451 2812 / Fax (425)451 2818
( '· _)
e
• ~ r C
~~ _.,. ..... .,_
i ~o 00 .....
.,.z oP 00 ~~
"IQ •C != != C: C: C:· , .... ~A .:...:~ n £~ !~ ~~ ...... ......
:qi 0 0 0
~~ ..... ~~
~pl
>
HOflHElfEZO#E IIE.IGleQIHOOO DBIS(TY --.:::-... -·,•:=·~ ... --.......... _ MAI'
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF RENTON
IN RE: DECLARATION OF SERVICE
Horne Rezone, NO. LUA 11-023, ECF, R
I, Evanna L. Charlot, am a citizen of the United States, resident of the State of
Washington, and declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
Washington, that on this date, I caused to be served via legal messenger delivery,
Applicant's: MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF REZONE. and this DECLARATION, upon counsel
and parties of record at the address and in the manner listed below.
Bonnie L. Walton
City Clerk
City of Renton/ City Clerk's Office
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Richard R. Wilson, Esq.
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON
1221 2"d Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98101
Attorneys for Stonegate Homeowner
Association
Rocale Timmons
Associate Planner, Department of Community
and Economic Development
City of Renton
I 055 S. Grady Way, 61
" Floor
Renton. WA 98057
71-c.
Dated this l7---day of ~ . 2011, in Bellevue, Washington.
/-!]/./ Declaralion !?(Sen-ice 12-19-/ I.doc
~
Evanna L. Charlot
ORIGINAL
JOHNS MONRO!·: MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1601 I 14'" Ave. SE. Suite I IO
Bellevue. Washington 98004
Tel: (425)451 2812/Fax(425)4512818
S South Grady Way -Renton WA 98057-3232
IDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
E:7
@lZ II f~~:d =-.... ct :) ~ ~ A'TNl.1 &OVll'E5 a:-' 5l~ 02 1M $ 00.539
~~ 0004278599, CEC072011
11.U:: MAILED FROM ZIP GODE 980 32
_F
C)0D· ~') -_ ~~ ,,,q-\( ~ vJY \?!
\ Cf7y
O,c-
D£, 'Oil, c,a
Dennis Ratti Cl7), Rc. lQ//
~00 Stewa Street, Suite 1920 C£~~t~o
Seattle, W 98101 O.c-.c,C/,
. ·.,..
''~ r, /
/
Nix:ttt OE 1· 00 1'2./'1.!!,':t1
-~ . RETURN TO SENDER \J-". NO CELIVERASLE AS ACCRESSEO
~i}f,i 4 UNASLE TO F'OR\JARO
~C: 980S73232SS *2S88-003S7-08-40
11, I,, I,, I, 11,,,, I, 1, I,,; I,, I In, I, I,, 11,,, I, I, I, I,, I, I,,,, 111
"'
/ \
I
•
December 7, 2011
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
)
) §
)
BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes
and says that I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over
the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter.
That on the 7th day of December, 2011, at the hour of 4:30 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and
placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail
to all parties of record, notice of appeal filed by Stonegate Homeowners Association by their
attorney Richard Wilson, Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, PS of the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation regarding the Horne Rezone. (File No. LUA-11-023 ECF, R)
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 7'" day of December, 2011.
f_ ,,,111///_,.,,.,, 11''-< ~ T H/,q-----,,1 C, ,,•"''"•,, '9 ~
C '1-, 1' ,•' :11-""'SS10 ', • ,, "'-,, .'0 -1''•,'Jl!-
____::,.,_,,,__--1::=---11-+--'i-+,--'------~'--i-.. _:c; NO r. ">:·. 0 ~
Cy nth a R. r.Jioya ' "' : ' ~)-..,:-< ~ ~ -I : ..o ·~ m : > ~
Notary Public in and for the State of ~ ~ \ <S> "&131.ic "'/ ~
W h. .d. . R -;_ «'o'·, •• ,_.,~-14 ,.·:',. 1111 as mgton, res1 mg m enton "';. ""' °::[-... ~ 1
My commission expires: 8/27/2014 "o. ___ J,4aHii:ic-:."~,,,,
.,,.,,,,//11.I/ /I
• · Denis Law·
Mayor
December 7, 2011
APPEAL FILED BY:
. City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton.
Stonegate Homeowners Association by their attorney Richard Wilson,
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, PS
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated November 1, 2011, regarding Horne .
Rezone Request. (File No. LUA-11-023 ECF, R)
To Parties ofRecord:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing
examiner's decision on the Horne Rezone Request 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 .• Monday. December 19. 2011.
NOTICE IS.HEREBY GIVEN that the.written appeal and other pertin.ent documents will be
reviewed by thl? Council's Planning and Development Committee at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday,
January 12; 2012 .. in the Council Chambers, 7th 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 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
-' •,.
;
Dennis Rattie
GOO Stewart Street, Suite 1920
Seattle, WA 98101
Madonna Messina
2218 Lyons Avenue NE
Renton, WA 98059
Ed Horne
5604 NE 24th Street
Renton, WA 98059
Richard Wilson
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, PS
1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98101
Jay Bankson
569 Graham Avenue NE
Renton, WA 98059
Diane & Dennis Schwartzenberger
601 Shattuck Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057
Robert Wilson
21703 60th Street E
Lake Tapps, WA 98391
Debra Rogers
5326 NE 22"d Court
Renton, WA 98059
Bruce Christopherson
5502 NE 24th Court
Renton,WA 98059
Newfourth, LLC
19244 39th Avenue S
SeaTac, WA 98188
Karen Walter, Mukleshoot Indian
Tribe Fisheries Division
39015 172"d Avenue SE
Auburn, WA 98092
Doug Prellwitz
14302 lSG'h Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Sherry Williams & Greg
Schwartzenberger
2706 NE 5th Court
Renton, WA 98056
Paul Mackay, Jr.
5625 NE 26th Street
Renton, WA 98059
Bryan & Kendra Vadney
5404 NE 24th Court
Renton, WA 98059
Tom Redding
Encompass Engineering & Surveying
165 NE Juniper Street, Suite 201
Issaquah, WA 98027
Claudia Donnelly
10415 147th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98059
Duana Kolouskova
Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Koluskova
1601114"' Avenue SE, Suite 110
Bellevue, WA 98004
Kolin Taylor
4 735 NE 4th Street
Renton, WA 98058
William Kombol
30533 234th Avenue SE
Black Diamond, WA 98010
HCMP
Low Of/ices
Hillis
Clark
Martin&
Peterson PS.
November 22, 2011
CITY OF RENTON
CM\
NOV 2 2 2011 I /:S-,;i.,..
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Via Messenger
Renton City Council
c/ o Bonnie Walton, City Clerk
Renton City Hall, 7th Floor
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Re: Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Recommendation re Horne Rezone "Request
Rezone LUA 11-023, ECF
Dear Members of the Council:
Our law firm represents the Stonegate Homeowners Association ("SHOA'')
in connection with the proposed Horne rezone request. The proponents seek to rezone
7.37 acres in the northeast corner of Renton from the R-1 zone to the R-4 zone.
The Renton planning staff strongly recommended that the rezone be denied. Despite that
recommendation, the City's Hearing Examiner Pro Tern issued her Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Recommendation advising approval of the rezone request.
On behalf of SHOA, we hereby appeal the Examiner's recommendation and enclose
the required $250 appeal fee. We urge the Council to reverse the Examiner and deny
the requested rezone.
1. Standing to Appeal.
Under RMC § 4-8-110(F)(1), SHOA has standing to appeal the Examiner's
recommendation to the Council. The undersigned attorney testified on behalf of SHOA at the
Examiner's public hearing, as did two SHOA board members. In addition, the undersigned
submitted written comments on the proposed rezone to City staff before the hearing was held.
C,C. •• ~ \,0:,..,( "-n, ~ ('\-\\'\
I',~~ \.\..,c;L. "tt':::, I c_ /:. I::,
y""';\-..,_, i\~"'"""'1• Le~
C~,p \}\f'(_L ..J. \ (_(;; 'b
\-\ e.,__c; '""'\ b-Y--,,,_.,,..._.;,_ e..,
/Lo(Cc-\~ \11"''\''VA.~ ........,..
1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500 I Seattle, WA 98101 I 206.623.1745 If: 206.623.7789 I hemp.com I m ~-~,~!,!,~,~
Renton City Council
November 22, 2011
Page 2 of 12
2. Background.
The background regarding the Home rezone request is generally described in the
Examiner's recommendation.' The Council should be particularly mindful of the following:
• The owners of 12 noncontiguous lots in northeast Renton, toraling 7.4 acres,
have collectively applied for a rezone of their two groups of lots from R-1 to the
higher-density R-4 zone.2 Their two lot groupings are separated by an access tract
owned by SHOA (Tract I of the Stonegate plat), which is not part of the Home rezone
3 request.
• May Creek is located just north of this area, while the Greene Creek tributary directly
borders the site on the west. 4
• The Stonegate community (annexed to Renton in 1995) is located just west of the
Home properties and is also zoned R-1. Stonegate was developed at an overall gross
density of 1.38 dwelling units to the acre, not the 2 to 3 d.u./acre wrongly asserted by
the rezone applicants and erroneously accepted as fact by the Examiner. 5
• The pre-annexation zoning adopted by the Renton City Council in 1997 designated
this entire area, including the Home lots, as R-1, to become effective upon
• 6 annexation.
• The City again reviewed the zoning of the Home lots in 2005 as part of the Planning
Commission's area-wide land use review. The commission recommended no change
in the 1997 R-1 pre-annexation zoning, and the City's R-1 designation for this area
remained unchanged.'
1 See Examiner's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation (11 / 1 /11) ("Examiner's
Recommendation"), p. 6.
2 Examiner's Recommendation, p. 1.
3 See Exhibit ("Ex.") 3-G, p. S.
4 Examiner's Recommendation, p. 6.
5 Examiner's Recommendation, p. 4.
6 Examiner's Recommendation, pp. 1, 4.
7 Examiner's Recommendation, p. 5.
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
Renton City Council
November 22, 2011
Page 3 of 12
• The Home lots were annexed to Renton in May 2009 as the MacKay annexation.'
Before annexation, two of the lots were zoned R-1 by King County, while the rest
were zoned R-4 in the County. But at the time of annexation, the Renton City Council
retained Renton's pre-annexation R-1 zoning on all these lots.'
• One of the factors influencing the Council's decision to retain R-1 zoning at the time
of annexation was the fact that this area is located in the May Creek drainage basin.
As noted in the 2001 May Creek Basin Action Plan, which Renton is committed to
implement, the density of upland development is a key contributing factor to the
flooding that occurs in May Valley.'°
• Because this area drains to May Creek, the Basin Plan recommends that existing
zoning densities -including adopted pre-zoning for future annexation areas like the
Home properties -should not be increased unless a qualified hydrologic analysis
demonstrates that stormwater runoff peaks and volumes can be fully mitigated to
pre-developed conditions."
• The 2001 Basin Plan included this recommendation even though the plan recognized
that King County was about to adopt a more stringent and effective Surface Water
Design Manual (a manual subsequently adopted by Renton and other cities) that would
better mitigate potential flooding impacts in the area_l2
• The Current Planning staff recommended denial of the Home rezone because of its
failure to meet all but one of the applicable rezone criteria in Renton's code.13
• Despite the staff recommendation, despite the long-term chronic concerns about
flooding in the area, and despite the fact that the Home rezone would constitute an
isolated island of R-4 zoning in the midst of an R-1 area of Renton, the Examiner
Pro Tern (who is not an attorney) recommended approval of the Home rezone.14
8 Examiner's Recommendation, p. 6.
9 Examiner's Recommendation, p. 6. See Ex. 3-G, p. 3, citing Ex. 7, applicants' Horne Rezone Project Narrative,
p. 3; Revised Staff Report (10/11 /11) at p. 7 (hereafter "Staff Report").
10 Ex. 4, May Creek Basin .. \ction Plan (.-\pril 2001). p. 1-6. The Basin Plan was developed jointly by King
County and Renton. '!be Renton City Council adopted Resolution No. 3506, authorizing the mayor to enter into
an interlocal agreement with the County to implement the }.fay Creek Basin Plan. Staff Report at pp. 5-6.
11 Ex. 4, May Creek Basin Action Plan, p. 3-29.
12 Ex. 4, 1\.fay Creek Basin ~\ction Plan, p. 3-8.
13 Staff Report, p. 8.
14 Examiner's Recommendation, p. 18.
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
Renton City Council
November 22, 2011
Page 4 of 12
3. The Applicable Rezone Standards.
The properties included in the Home rezone request are all designated RLD
(Residential Low Density) on the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan Map. Both the R-1 and
R-4 zones are intended to implement the RLD designation. RMC §§ 4-2-020(C) and (D).
The Home rezone proposal therefore does not require a comprehensive plan amendment.
Accordingly, the yardstick for evaluating the Home rezone proposal is set forth in
RMC § 4-9-180(F)(2), as follows (emphasis supplied):
2. Criteria for Rezones Not Requiring Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
The Reviewing Official shall make the following findings:
a. The rezone is in the public interest, and
b. The rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any
substantial property righrs of the petitioner, and
c. The rezone is not materially detrimental lo the public welfare of the properties of
other persons located in the vicinity thereof, and
d. The re'-one meets the review criteria in _subsection Ft of this Section.
This last subsection (F)(2)(d) requires that the criteria in subsection F(l) must also be met.
'The F(l) criteria are as follows (emphasis supplied):
1. Criteria for Rezones Requiring a Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
The following findings shall be made:
The proposed amendment meets the review criteria in RMC 4-9-020; and
a. Is consistent with the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan; and
b. At least one of the following circumstances applies:
i. The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered at
the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; or
ii. Since the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the subject
property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other
circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material
change.
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
Renton City Council
November 22, 2011
Page 5 of 12
The referenced review criteria in RJ\1C § 4-9-020 govern the processing of amendments to the
comprehensive plan. They don't apply here because the Home rezone doesn't require a plan
amendment.15 But in order for the Home rezone to be approved, the other italicized criteria
in subsection (F)(l) must be satisfied.
And it is the Horne rezone proponents who bear the burden of proving that the
applicable criteria have been met:
In considering the evidence, we note that (1) there is no presumption
of validity favoring the action of rezoning; (2) the proponents of the
rezone have the burden of proof in demonstrating that conditions
have substantially changed since the original zoning ... ; and (3) the
rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health,
safety, morals or welfare.16
4. The Examiner Misinterpreted and Misapplied the Applicable Rezone Criteria.
a. The Rezone Is Not in the Public Interest. The first criterion in 4-9-180(F)(2) is
that a rezone must be in the public interest. The Home rezone is not. The rezone will create
an island of higher-density R-4 zoning that is not in keeping with the density of the
surrounding R-1-zoned area. It will create an unfortunate precedent that other landowners
may use to seek upzoning of their R-1 properties in this vicinity, which could lead to far higher
densities in this area than the City has ever envisioned.17
The isolated nature of the requested R-4 rezone, surrounded as it would be by
properties in Renton all zoned R-1, highlights the argument that this zone change would not
be in the public interest. On, the contrary, it would constitute an illegal spot zone under
Washington law, as discussed below under I-leading 5.
The Examiner turned a deaf ear to all of this. Instead, in her Conclusion No. 8,
the Examiner erroneously adopted the rezone applicants' specious argument that the real
density of the Stonegate community is about three d.u./ acre, that buildout densities in the area
are thus closer to 4 d.u./acre than 1 d.u./acre, and that an R-4 rezone of the Home properties
would therefore result in a density consistent with Stonegate's.18
IS The Examiner erroneously suggests that the criteria in Ri\fC § 4-9-020 do apply. See Examiner's
Recommendation, pp. 8-9, Conclusions 3 and 4. But since no comprehensive plan amendment is required here,
those criteria are not applicable.
16 Parkridge v. City of Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454,462, 573 P.2d 359 (1978).
17 Even the Examiner acknowledges that the Home rezone could be used as a precedent to question all of the
City's R-1 zoning in this area. Examiner's Recommendation, p. 8.
l!I Examiner's Recommendation, pp. 10-11.
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
Renton City Council
November 22, 2011
Page 6 of 12
But this entire discussion of existing residential densities in the R-1 zone should
properly be on the basis of gross densities in the area, and the Examiner has totally ignored the
way gross density is calculated. To calculate gross density, an entire area is divided by the
number of dwelling units. One can't simply ignore open space areas in Stonegate and consider
only the densities of the residential lots. That results in a calculation of net density, not gross
density." This is a fundamental flaw in the Examiner's recommendation because she
concluded that R-4 densities on the Horne lots would be compatible with the R-1 density of
the adjoining Stonegate community.211 'lbe Examiner has equated apples with oranges.
Further, RMC § 4-9-180(F)(2)(a) requires the Examiner to make a specific finding that
a rezone is in the public interest. While the Examiner discussed this criterion in general,
she never made the required specific finding. Her decision thus fails to comply with Renton's
rezone criteria.
b. The Rezone Will Be Materially Detrimental to the Public Welfare of
Property Owners in Stonegate. 1be second criterion italicized above is that a rezone must
not be materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons located in
the vicinity thereof. The Horne rezone will indeed be detrimental to the welfare of Stonegate
property owners. Every Stonegate homeowner or representative who testified at the hearing
said as much.21
And as noted, this rezone can be used as a precedent for further upzoning in the area,
which could lead to a much denser development pattern than has ever been contemplated by
those who have bought residences in the northeast Renton area. That outcome would indeed
be materially detrimental to SHOA and its members of the Stonegate community.
Future pressure for additional R-4 upzoning of this area is more than a hypothetical
threat. Under the Examiner's reasoning, every R-1 property owner in the area could seek a
similar R-4 rezone. 'lbe Examiner recommended approval of the Horne rezone because the
applicants purportedly provided "compelling expert testimony that the 2009 stormwater
regulations were adequate to protect critical areas." But under the May Creek Basin Action
Plan, existing densities should not be increased unless a qualified hydrologic analysis
demonstrates that stormwater runoff peaks and volumes can be fully mitigated to
pre-developed conditions.22 And while the Horne rezone applicants provided some testimony
on this issue, the Examiner based her recommendation of approval on Renton's updated 2009
19 See R,\IC § 4-11-040 (definitions of Density, Gross and Density, Ne~.
20 Examiner's Recommendation, p. 11.
21 Testimony of Madonna Messina, Deborah Rogers, Bruce Christopherson, Dan Larkin, and Richard Wilson.
See Examiner's Recommendation, p. 4.
22 See fn. 10 supra.
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
Renton City Council
November 22, 2011
Page 7 of 12
stormwater regulations and its critical areas ordinance, regardless of any specific
demonstration of full mitigation to pre-developed conditions on this site:
(T]he Applicant has amply demonstrated that new stormwater
regulations eliminate the underlying rationale for the R-1 designation
in this area, i.e., protecting critical areas from stormwater run-off.23
Ibis is a startling statement. Under the Examiner's reasoning, any R-1 owner can
simply point to Renton's 2009 stormwater regulations and then assert that the May Creek
Basin Action Plan's requirements have been satisfied, without any specific demonstration via a
hydrological analysis. That is a dangerous precedent indeed, one that undercuts the Basin
Plan's emphasis on preserving very low densities in this area. Yet the Examiner dismissed the
Basin Plan as irrelevant to her decision.24
In addition, SHOA itself owns Tract I of the Stonegate plat (Assessor's Tax Parcel
No. 8035400590), i.e., the 30-foot-wide strip running cast-west directly in the middle of the
Home rezone properties that is used for access purposes. While not included as one of the
parcels for which R-4 rezoning is sought, Tract I lies completely within the boundaries of the
Home rezone area. Thus, SHOA itself is an additional property owner that objects to this
rezone as detrimental to its interests.
The Examiner dismissed these concerns out of hand, calling them unsubstantiated.
But the transformation of this area from its existing low-density nature, with major open
spaces, to a far denser suburban development pattern is a real threat.
c. Since the City's Most Recent Land Use Analysis of the Home Properties in
2009, There Has Been No Significant and Material Change in Circumstances Affecting
the Home Properties.
In her Conclusion No. 7, the Examiner asserts that the applicants supplied evidence of
a significant and material change in circumstances affecting their lots since the most recent
land use analysis of the subject properties, as required for a rezone under
RMC § 4-9-ISO(F)(l)(b).25 But the evidence cited by the Examiner fails to satisfy this test.
Renton's code requires a significant and material change since the last area zoning or
"the most recent land use analysis or area zoning of the subject property." The City's most
recent land use analysis was in 2009, when the Home lots were annexed to Renton. At that
time, the City Council considered whether these lots should be zoned R-1 or R-4, and then
23 Examiner's Recommendation, p. 12.
24 Examiner's Recommendation, p. 12.
25 Examiner's Recommendation, p. 10.
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
Renton City Council
November 22, 2011
Page 8 of 12
deliberately continued its pre-annexation R-1 zoning of these lots.26 Since that time, there has
been no showing of any significant and material change in circumstances that satisfies this
rezone test.
The Examiner points first to changes in the area that took place after Renton's
pre-annexation zoning was adopted in 1997. Ibe changes cited are the development of
Stonegate (which, as noted, was developed essentially at an R-1 density) and Windstone,
another development to the south. But these "changes" occurred before 2009, the date of
"the most recent land use analysis or area zoning of the subject property." They therefore
don't qualify as changes that meet this rezone test.
The Examiner also cites improvements in public infrastructure since 2005, in the form
of a sewer line and lift station, as well as the installation of natural gas lines. Again, these
changes occurred well before 2009, the date of "the most recent land use analysis ... of the
subject property."27 Thus, these utility improvements similarly can't be used to show a
significant and material change in circumstances."
The other factor cited by the Examiner to satisfy this criterion is King County's
adoption of a more stringent stormwater design manual in 2009.29 But that circumstance is
hardly unique to the Horne properties. It was a countywide change, and Renton's own
adoption of tighter stormwater regulations is likewise a regulatory change affecting the entire
city, not just these properties.
Again, if the adoption of new stormwater regulations can be used to justify this rezone,
the same will hold true for any other R-1 owner in the area, who can likewise claim that the
updated stormwater regulations are sufficient in and of themselves to justify an upzone to R-4.
Simply put, both the rezone applicants and the Examiner have failed to make the required
showing that would satisfy the "changed circumstances" test.
26 ';festimony of Rocalc Timmons, Renton Current Planning Division.
21 RMC § 4-9-JSO(F)(l)(b).
28 Even if those utility improvements had been made after 2009, they still wouldn't provide credible support for
an R-4 rezone. The entire adjacent Stoncgatc community has sewer service, yet that community is zoned R-1.
The a,Tailability of sewer service thus doesn't automatically result in R-4 zoning.
29 Examiner's Recommendation, p. 10.
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
Renton City Council
November 22, 2011
Page 9 of 12
d. The Examiner Misinterpreted and Ignored Applicable Comprehensive Plan
Policies.
The Examiner's recommendation addresses a number of Renton Comprehensive Plan
policies, as it must -for under Renton's code, a rezone must be consistent with those
policies. 30 The Current Planning staff correctly argued in the Staff Report, as well as at the
hearing, that the rezone failed to comply with several directly-applicable policies. Yet the
Examiner ignored the staffs expertise and pronounced herself satisfied that the rezone
complied with the Plan's policies. But a review of just three of those policies shows that the
Examiner was wrong.
Policy LU-51. Zoning should be applied to areas for purposes of
resource protection, when appropriate, during the annexation
process.
The Staff Report correctly observed that this policy, when read in light of the
requirement that there be a significant and material change of circumstances in order to
approve a rezone, is not met. In its 1997 pre-annexation zoning, and again in 2009 when it
annexed the Home rezone properties, the Council applied R-1 zoning for purposes of
resource protection, in conformance with the May Creek Basin Action Plan. To disregard
that plan now, simply because Renton has adopted more stringent surface water regulations,
would undermine the City's ability to reject the next requested R-4 rezone in the area, since
that next site would also have to comply with the new regulations. But the point of the Basin
Plan is that maintaining very low densities will help preserve this area from future flooding.
That remains true, regardless of what surface water regulations are in effect.
Policy LU-147. Adopt urban density of at least four (4) dwelling
units per net acre for residential uses except in areas with identified
and documented sensitive areas and/ or areas identified as urban
separators.
This policy doesn't restrict lower-density zoning solely to lots or parcels that have
identified and documented sensitive areas within their borders. It calls for lower densities in
areas with such sensitive and critical features. It is undisputed that the northeast Renton area,
considered as a whole, docs have such documented sensitive areas -May Creek and Greene
Creek, plus nearby wetlands. The Home rezone applicants attempt to argue that their site
should be viewed in isolation, since very few of the Home lots have critical areas within their
boundaries. But those critical areas are just a few hundred feet north, in the case of
May Creek, or right next door to the west, in the case of Greene Creek. That is why this entire
area has been zoned R-1, not just the individual parcels that have critical areas on them.
,u RMC § 4-9-ISO(F)(l)(a), (F)(2)(d).
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
Renton City Council
November 22, 2011
Page 10 of 12
Again, to countenance one R-4 rezone in this area will only invite more R-4 rezones in the
future, similarly justified because a critical area may not be on a site but right next door.
That is not in keeping with this plan policy, which calls for the City to consider sensitive
features in the entire area, not just within the rezone parcels themselves.
Policy LU-141. Promote the timely and logical progression of
residential de,·elopment. Priority for higher density development
should be given to development of land with infrastructure capacity
and land located closer to the City's Urban Center.
This policy sensibly envisions that higher-density development in Renton should be on
lands located closer to the City's Urban Center, not on outlying properties in the farthest
northeast corner of Renton. The Council has implemented Policy LU-141 by recognizing that
this far corner of Renton should be developed at the very low R-1 density. Renton can
achieve its density and population goals by encouraging higher densities much closer to
downtown, as the City's planner confirmed at the rezone hearing." There is thus no need for
a higher R-4 density here.
5. The Home Rezone Constitutes an Illegal Spot Zone .
. The Council should take a good look at its zoning map in the vicinity of the Home
lots. Within the city limits, this entire northeast comer of Renton is zoned R-1. Now assume
that the Horne rezone is granted, creating two tiny enclaves of R-4 zoning (separated by
SHOA's Tract I), amid the otherwise uniform R-1 zone. There is no existing R-4 zoning in
Renton adjacent to the Home rezone properties. The Horne R-4 rezone thus does not
represent the logical expansion of a contiguous R-4 zone in the City.
Because of its inconsistency with both the surrounding R-1 zoning and the City's
Comprehensive Plan, the Home rezone should properly be labeled an illegal spot zone:
Spot zoning has been consistently defined to be zoning action by
which a smaller area is singled out of a larger area or district and
specially zoned for a use classification totally different from and
inconsistent with the classification of surrounding land, and not in
accordance with the comprehensive plan. . .. When faced with a
challenge to a county's rezone action on the grounds the rezone
constitutes an illegal spot zone, the main inquiry of the court is
whether the zoning action bears a substantial relationship to the
general welfare of the affected community. . .. Only where the spot
zone grants a discriminatory benefit to one or a group of owners to
31 Testimony ofRocale Timmons, Renton Current Planning Division.
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
Renton City Council
November 22, 2011
Page 11 of 12
the detriment of their neighbors or the community at large without
adequate public advantage or justification will the county's rezone be ·
overturned. 32
The Home rezone has all these earmarks of illegal spot zoning.
• If granted, the Home rezone properties will indeed be zoned totally different from and
inconsistent with the surrounding R -1 lands, and not in accordance with the comprehensive plan
because RLD-designated areas are to be zoned R-1 when critical areas would be
affected.
• This rezone bears no substantial relationship to the general welfare of the affected community,
which is principally Stonegate.
• The requested rezone would grant a discriminatory benefit to its proponents, to the distinct
detriment of SHOA and the S to negate homeowners, without any public justification.
Because it constitutes illegal spot zoning, there is simply no way that this rezone can
reasonably be characterized as in the public interest. Yet the Examiner asserts that the Home
rezone will not constitute improper spot zoning because it will be compatible with the
surrounding R-1 properties.33 How is this so? Because "the actual densities of the
surrounding properties are similar to those of the proposal"~ or so the Examiner says.34
But as already observed, the Examiner reached that conclusion only by ignoring the actual
gross density of Stonegate (1.38 d.u./ acre), instead focusing on the net density of many of the
Stonegate residential lots while ignoring its open space areas, a fundamental distortion of
density calculation. Despite the Examiner's sleight of hand, inserting an R-4 zone here will
in reality be inconsistent with the surrounding R-1 area, to the detriment of the neighboring
Stonegate community.
6. Conclusion.
The Council should keep in mind that it, and not the Examiner, is the best interpreter
of its own Comprehensive Plan and its codified rezone criteria. Our state supreme court has
said as much. In a recent case, the Washington Supreme Court upheld the Woodinville City
Council's denial of a rezone, even though that city's hearing examiner had recommended
approval:15 The rezone was rejected in part because the council found it to be inconsistent
32 Save Our Rllral Environment v. Snohomish County, 99 Wn.2d 363,368,662 P.2d 816 (1983).
33 Examiner's Recommendation, p. 11.
34 Examiner's Recommendation, p. 11.
15 Phoenix Development, Inc. v. City of117oodinville, 171 Wn.2d 820,256 P.3d 1150 (2011).
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
Renton City Council
November 22, 2011
Page 12 of 12
with the Woodinville Comprehensive Plan. The supreme court deferred to the Woodinville
City Council's construction of its own comprehensive plan, holding that the city's conclusion
of inconsistency with the plan was not an erroneous interpretation of the law.
This Council should engage in the same independent inquiry regarding the Home
rezone. You must measure this request carefully against the yardstick of Renton's adopted
rezone criteria. Is it truly in the public interest to approve a spot zone of R-4 in an area that is
uniformly zoned R-1? Can the Council comfortably conclude that this rezone will not be
materially detrimental to other nearby property owners, especially those in Stonegate?
Since the most recent land use analysis of the subject property in 2009 when the Home parcels
were annexed, have circumstances affecting the subject property really undergone any
significant and material change? And does this rezone comply with Renton's Comprehensive
Plan?
In order to uphold the Examiner and grant the Home rezone, the Council must
answer Yes to all four of those questions. If the Council answers No to even one of them,
then it must deny the rezone. SHOA asserts that all four questions should properly be
answered No. We therefore urge the Council to reverse the Examiner's recommendation and
deny the Home rezone.
Richard R. Wilson
RRW/
E-Mail rn.v({ilhcmp.com
Direct Dial: (206) 470-7604
Fax: (206) 623-7789
Enclosure: check for $250 appeal fee
cc: Stonegate Homeowners Association
Duana T. Kolouskova, Esq.
Rocale Timmons, Renton Current Planning Division
ND: 20357.002 4842-3489-9470\'2
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
. . ' "
CITY OF RENTON
City Clerk Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
425-430-6510
D Cash
c,(Check No. / J / J-L-fCJ
Description:
Funds Received From:
Name
Address
City/Zip
D Copy Fee
D Appeal Fee
Receipt N~ 1844
Date )J-22-If . '
D Notary Service
D _________ _
Amount $ a s-ocJ2--
~
'
Cynthia Moya
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cynthia Moya
Tuesday, November 22, 2011 4:48 PM
Larry Warren; Neil R. Watts; Jennifer T. Henning; Chip Vincent; 'olbrechtslaw@gmail.com';
Rocale Timmons
Bonnie Walton; Jason Seth
Horne Rezone Appeal to Council (LUA-11-023)
Horne Appeal -HCMP.pdf
I have just received a "Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Recommendation re Horne Rezone Request (LUA-11-023,
ECF)" from Richard Wilson of Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S., along with their check for $250.00 for the appeal fee.
I have attached this Notice of Appeal.
Thank you,
Cindy Moya, Records Management Specialist
City of Renton -Executive/City Clerk Division
cmoya@rentonwa.gov
425-430-6513
1