HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/11/2018 - City's Reply in Support of its limited Motion for Reconsideration CIN OF RENTON
JUL 112018 (IN
1 RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
2
3
4
5
6
7 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON
8
9 RE: Wilson Park I City of Renton's Reply in Support of Its
Limited Motion for Reconsideration
10 Request for Extension of Plat
Expiration
11
12
13
14 Introduction
15 This Reply responds to the Wilsons'July 9, 2018 response (the "Response") as to
whether the Hearing Examiner's unsolicited three-month plat extension should be reconsidered
16
and set aside. As explained in this Reply, the Responsedoes not successfully refute any issue
17
raised by the City, and the City's Limited Motion for Reconsideration (the "Motion") of the
18
Hearing Examiner's June 27, 2018 Final Decision (the "Decision") should be granted.
19
Discussion
20
First, the Response asserts that the Hearing Examiner "found" that the Wilsons faced
21
final platting interruptions while they awaited the Decision. Response, p. 1, para. 2. ("As the
22
Examiner found...") (citing the Hearing Examiner's decision, not the record before the Hearing
23 Examiner). The Hearing Examiner did not make any such finding; rather, the Decision
24 postulates that the Wilsons might have paused their efforts. Decision at 2:14-16 ("It is
25 recognized that the Wilsons development plans may have been put on hold to a certain extent
Wilson Park I
City's Reply in Support of Its Motion for Reconsideration-1 "''
1 as they waited for a decision on their extension request"). As the City explained in its Motion,
2 such postulation conflicts with the extension standards of RMC 4-7-080.L for two reasons. One,
3 the burden is on the applicant to make an adequate showing of need; here, the Wilsons did not
4 introduce any evidence regarding their actions pending the Decision. In fact, the Decision
5 rejected as inadequate the only evidence that the Wilsons submitted, finding that the evidence
showed that all of the significant platting obstacles had been resolved by December 2014 and
6
failed to account for why plat work was not completed in the ensuing 31/2 years. Decision at
7
2:4-7. Two, the City explained in its Motion that even if the Wilsons had submitted evidence of
8
delayed platting efforts while awaiting the Decision, any such delay was not reasonable and did
9
not warrant the Decision's unsolicited three-month extension. Now, in their Response, the
10
Wilsons assert for the first time that they were delayed by the pending Decision; the Hearing
11
Examiner should reject these newly-made assertions.
12 • The Wilsons assert that buyers would not close on the property while the
13 extension request was pending. Response at p. 1, para. 2. City's response: The
14 pending decision on an extension request did not deter buyers; it was far more
15 likely the remaining, underlying plat termination date of August 16, 2018 that
16 was deterring buyers. The pending extension request did not jeopardize the
17 Wilsons' position.
18 • The Wilsons assert that they did not "want to give up the value of the
19 entitlements or rush to begin construction ourselves." Response at p. 1, para. 2.
20 City's response: These were business judgments that the Wilsons made when
21 they chose to assume the risk that the status quo (the plat expiration date)
22 would shift. Such risk calls do not meet the RMC 4-7-080.L showings for "undue
burden" and "unusual circumstances or situations."
23
Next, the Response complains that the Motion "fault[s the Wilsons] for being proactive"
24
by filing their extension request before the deadline to do so. Response at p. 1, para. 3. To the
25
contrary, the Motion laid out the extension request's timeline to explain that (1) the Decision's
Wilson Park
City's Reply in Support of Its Motion for Reconsideration-2
1 timing did not reflect any inappropriate delay and (2) because the Renton Municipal Code
2 allows an applicant to file an extension request until just 30 days before plat expiration, it
3 clearly contemplates that decisions to deny will issue so close to plat expiration dates that
4 applicants must continue to act diligently. The Wilsons are not somehow less entitled to delay
5 their platting efforts because they filed their extension request early; rather, no applicant—
whether submitting a request early or on the 30-day deadline itself—is entitled to delay at all
6
its platting efforts while its extension request is pending.
7
Third, the Response characterizes as "absurd" and "troubling" the City's opposition to
8
the three-month extension on the grounds that the extension could allow the plat construction
9
to occur. Response, p. 2, paras. 1 and 3. The City's position is reasonable and grounded in its
10
code and in sound public policy. Due to its prior plat extension, the Wilson Park I preliminary
11
plat had an eight year approval period in which construction could have been commenced and
12
completed. Meanwhile, as the City explained in its May 22, 2018 request to the Hearing
13 Examiner, there have been a myriad of code changes that have occurred since Wilson Park l's
14 approval. As just one example, concerns raised by the public about the retaining walls for this
15 very project resulted in the City amending its retaining wall height regulations. Thus, because
16 the Wilson Park I construction remains unfinished at the end of its eight-year approval period,
17 the City's interest now is in preventing the unjustified tacking on of additional time that would
18 facilitate building out a plat that is materially and detrimentally nonconforming to the City's
19 development regulations.
20 Finally, the Hearing Examiner should deny the Response's two concluding requests for
21 (1) additional time to account for the pendency of the City's Limited Motion for
22 Reconsideration and (2)full reconsideration of the Decision. As to the former, the Wilsons
cannot reasonably have interrupted their platting activities because of the pending Motion for
23
all of the same reasons raised in the Motion itself, and no further extension is merited under
24
RMC 4-7-080.L. As to the latter, the City incorporates by reference its prior arguments: The
25
Decision correctly found that no extension was warranted under RMC 4-7-080.L; the only error
Wilson Park I
City's Reply in Support of Its Motion for Reconsideration-3
1 in the Decision was that it proceeded to grant a three-month extension despite its findings.
2 Respectfully submitted this 11th day of July, 2018.
3 ,•• �-
4 C. E. "Chip" Vincent
Administrator
5 Community & Economic Development
6 City of Renton
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Wilson Park
City's Reply in Support of Its Motion for Reconsideration-4