HomeMy WebLinkAboutHex Order 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
9 )
RE: Vuecrest Preliminary Plat )
10 ) ORDER AUTHORIZING
RECONSIDERATION
11 LUA13-000642
12 )
13 )
14 The Applicant has requested reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the above-captioned
matter. Since the reconsideration request affect parties of record and the interests of the City, the parties
15 of record who testified at the hearing and City staff will be given an opportunity to respond to the request
16 for reconsideration before a decision on the reconsideration request is issued. Any responses must be
based upon evidence that is already in the record. No evidence that has not been recorded at the hearing
17 or entered as an exhibit at the hearing will be considered in the reconsideration request.
18 The Applicant seeks reconsideration of its denial of a variance request to the requirements of RMC 4-6-
060, which prohibits the Applicant's proposed dead end street. The Applicant raises a challenging
19 reconsideration issue, because there are three different sets of variance/modification/waiverl criteria that
20 each arguably apply to the proposed dead end street. The Applicant argues that the variance criteria of
RMC 4-9-250(C) apply. City staff, in the staff report, asserts that the request is a"modification",which
21 would require application of the RMC 4-9-250(D) criteria. The final decision employed the street
"waiver" criteria of RMC 4-9-250(C).
22
23 1 For those not familiar with Renton's variance/modification/waiver standards, RMC 4-9-250(B)(5) allows for the
24 "variance" of zoning standards identified in RMC 4-9-250(B)(1) and other standards in the RMC that expressly
authorize application of RMC 4-9-250(C). RMC 4-9-250(C)allows for the"waiver"of street improvements. RMC
25 4-9-250(D) allows for"modification"of"standards",apparently those standards not subject to the variance or street
waiver process. The Applicant's reconsideration request presents the issue of which of these three types of review
26 processes apply—variance,waiver or modification?
Reconsideration- 1
I The weak point in the Applicant's position is that the RMC 4-9-250(C) criteria only applies if RMC 4-6-
060 is considered a requirement of Chapter 4-7 RMC. RMC 4-7-240(A) provides that the criteria of
2 RMC 4-9-250(C) apply to"the requirements of this Chapter [Chapter 4.7 RMC]". Of course, RMC 4-
3 6-060 is a part of Chapter 4-6 RMC. The Applicant notes that RMC 4-7-150(D) requires compliance
with RMC 4-6-060. Through this cross-reference, the Applicant argues that RMC 4-6-060 should be
4 considered a part of Chapter 4-7 RMC. The Applicant's interpretation raises some troubling issues,
notably:
5
1. For the reasons outlined in Footnote 3 of the Final Decision, the variance criteria
6 advocated by the Applicant would not apply if RMC 4-6-060 were not considered a part of
Chapter 4.7 RMC. This means that a dead end road built as part of a subdivision would be
7 subject to variance criteria while the waiver criteria would apply for the same dead end street
8 proposed as part of another type of development proposal. For example, under the
Applicant's interpretation the RMC 4-9-250(C) variance criteria would apply to its proposed
9 dead end since it's part of a subdivision, but if the exact same street configuration were
proposed as part of a college campus or apartment complex, the modification criteria of RMC
10 4-9-250(C) would apply instead. Why would the City Council intend that a different safety
11 standard (as applied in the variance/waiver criteria) apply to the same dead end street simply
because it's part of a subdivision as opposed to another type of development project?
12
2. Street waiver criteria, RMC 4-9-250(C), are precisely designed to address the unique
13 circumstances applicable to street improvements. Why would the City Council intend to
forego these specifically applicable waiver standards for the generic variance standards of
14 RMC 4-9-250(B) because a street was proposed as part of a subdivision?
15 3. Subdivision review is subject to numerous development standards that are not cross-
16 referenced in Chapter 4.7 RMC, such as zoning bulk and dimensional standards and
drainage standards. Why would the City Council intend applicable variance criteria to
17 differ depending on whether or not a development standard is cross-referenced in Chapter 4-7
RMC?
18
A response from the City on the issues raised above would be of particular value, due to the City's
19 extensive experience in the adoption and application of the numerous variance/waiver/modification
20 criteria in RMC 4-9-250. The City is also requested to explain why it chose to apply the modification
criteria as opposed to the waiver criteria. The applicability of the modification criteria as opposed to the
21 waiver criteria is already addressed to some extent in Footnote 3 of the Final Decision. Further, if the
issue of which variance/modification/wavier criteria applies has been contested in past examiner
22 proceedings, it would be useful for staff to submit copies of the examiner decisions resolving those issues.
23 ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
24
25
a Some, but not all, bulk and dimensional standards are expressly subject to RMC 4-9.250(B)criteria and therefore
26 don't have to be cross-referenced in Chapter 4-7 RMC for RMC 4-9-250(B)to apply. See RMC 4-9-250(B)(1).
Reconsideration-2
1 1. Persons who testified at the hearing on the above-captioned matter and City staff shall have until 5:00
pm, October 31, 2014 to provide written comments in response to the request for reconsideration
2 submitted by the Applicant, dated October 16, 2014.
3 . The Applicant shall have until November 5, 2014 at 5:00 pm to provide a written reply to the
4 responses authorized in the preceding paragraph.
5 3. All written comments authorized above may be emailed to the Examiner at olbrechtslaw(d),=ail.com
and Elizabeth Higgins at EHiggins(oMentonwa.gov. In the alternative written comments may be
6 mailed or delivered to Elizabeth Higgins, City of Renton Senior Planner, at 1055 South Grady Way,
7 Renton, WA 98057. Mailed or delivered comments must be received by the City by the deadlines
specified in this Order.
8
4. No new evidence may be presented in the replies or responses. All information presented must be
9 drawn from documents and testimony admitted into the public hearing of this proceeding, held on
September 11, 2014. Applicable laws, court opinions and hearing examiner decisions are not
10 considered new evidence and may be submitted if relevant to a response or reply to the Applicant's
11 request for reconsideration.
12
13 DATED this 21 st day of October,2014.
14 --x . .._. . ._. .
NIT—'k-01hrechis
15
16 City of Renton Hearing Examiner
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Reconsideration-3