Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity of Renton, Former Fire Station 13 Recommendation h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\fire sta 13 rezone lua11-007.doc BEFORE the HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore for the CITY of RENTON RECOMMENDATION FILE NUMBER: LUA11-007, ECF, R APPLICANT: City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 OWNER: Same as Applicant TYPE OF CASE: Rezone (not requiring a Comprehensive Plan amendment) from R-10 to R-14 (Former Fire Station 13 Rezone) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: GRANT DATE OF RECOMMENDATION: April 22, 2011 INTRODUCTION 1 The City of Renton (City) seeks rezone from R-10 to R-14 of a 20,000 square foot (SF) site. The City filed the rezone application in early February, 2011. The Renton Department of Community and Economic Development, Planning Division (Planning) deemed the application to be complete when filed. (Testimony) The subject property is located at 17040 108th Avenue SE. The Renton Hearing Examiner Pro Tempore (Examiner) viewed the subject property on April 19, 2011. 1 Any statement in this section deemed to be either a Finding of Fact or a Conclusion of Law is hereby adopted as such. HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore RECOMMENDATION RE: LUA11-007, ECF, R (Former Fire Station 13 Rezone) April 22, 2011 Page 2 of 8 h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\fire sta 13 rezone lua11-007.doc The Examiner held an open record hearing on April 19, 2011. Planning gave notice of the hearing as required by the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). (Exhibit 8 2) The following exhibits were entered into the hearing record during the hearing: Exhibits 1 - 6: As enumerated in Exhibit 7 Exhibit 7: Staff Report Exhibit 8: Hearing notice documentation The action taken herein and the requirements, limitations and/or conditions imposed by this decision are, to the best of the Examiner’s knowledge or belief, only such as are lawful and within the authority of the Examiner to take pursuant to applicable law and policy. ISSUES Does the application meet the criteria for approval of a rezone not requiring a Comprehensive Plan amendment as established within the RMC? No testimony or evidence was entered into the record by the general public either in support of or in opposition to the application. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The City seeks to change the zoning of the former Fire Station 13 site so that it will match the zoning of the lands that surround it. The rectangular, nearly half-acre site is located on the east side of 108th Avenue SE, approximately midway between SE 170th and SE 172nd Streets, in the Benson Hill area. (Exhibit 4) 2. The site itself is now vacant. The surrounding area exhibits a variety of zones and uses. The parcels immediately surrounding are all zoned R-14 and exhibit a mix of single-family residences, home- based or small businesses, or vacant land. Beyond the immediate parcels are more single-family homes, multi-family structures, a neighborhood business area to the north, and a larger business area to the south. Multiple zones are found within a quarter-mile area, including R-8, R-10, R-14, CN, and CA. (Exhibits 2, 4, and 7) 3. This site is not located in the Aquifer Protection Zone. (Exhibit 7, p. 3) 2 Exhibit citations are provided for the reader’s benefit and indicate: 1) The source of a quote or specific fact; and/or 2) The major document(s) upon which a stated fact is based. While the Examiner considers all relevant documents in the record, typically only major documents are cited. The Examiner’s Decision is based upon all documents in the record. HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore RECOMMENDATION RE: LUA11-007, ECF, R (Former Fire Station 13 Rezone) April 22, 2011 Page 3 of 8 h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\fire sta 13 rezone lua11-007.doc 4. Subsection 4-9-180F2 RMC sets forth the review criteria for a rezone which does not require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Those criteria and the facts associated with each are: A. RMC 4-9-180F2a: “The rezone is in the public interest, and” Facts: Approval of the requested rezone will eliminate a small island of R-10 zoning in the midst of a large area of R-14 zoning. (Exhibit 2) Making the area zoning consistent serves the public interest. B. RMC 4-9-180F2b: “The rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner, and” Facts: Making the zoning of this site the same as that of all the parcels which surround it will provide the City with the same property rights as its surrounding neighbors. C. RMC 4-9-180F2c: “The rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof, and” Facts: The City’s State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Responsible Official, the Environmental Review Committee, issued a threshold Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for the requested rezone on March 21, 2011. (Exhibit 6) The DNS was not appealed. (Exhibit 7, p. 3) D. RMC 4-9-180F2d: “The rezone meets the review criteria in subsection F1 of this Section.” Those criteria are: i. RMC 4-9-180F1a: “Is consistent with the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan; and” Facts: The Comprehensive Plan designation for the area in which the parcel is located is Residential Medium Density (RMD). (Exhibit 3) The RMD designation is intended to create the opportunity for a diverse neighborhood with a variety of housing and ownership options. Policy LU-163. Areas may be conserved for Residential 14 (R-14) zoning where the site meets the following criteria: 1) Adjacent to major arterials(s); 2) Adjacent to the Urban Center, Highlands Center Village, or Commercial Corridor Designations; 3) Part of a designation totaling over 20 acres (acreage may be in separate ownership); HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore RECOMMENDATION RE: LUA11-007, ECF, R (Former Fire Station 13 Rezone) April 22, 2011 Page 4 of 8 h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\fire sta 13 rezone lua11-007.doc 4) Site is buffered from single-family area or other existing, potentially incompatible uses; and 5) Development within the density range and of similar unit type is achievable given environmental constraints. Although the site is on a minor arterial, if considered as part of the R-14 area that surrounds it, the R-14 area is adjacent to State Route 515, a major arterial. The R-14 area as a whole is also adjacent to a Commercial Corridor designation and totals over 20 acres, meeting the second and third criteria. Since there are no critical areas, and the surrounding neighborhood already contains a mix of uses, it is reasonable to expect that development on the site could achieve the required density range of the R- 14 zone (10 to 18 units). (Exhibits 2, 4, and 7) ii. RMC 4-9-180F1b: “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.” Facts: The Fire Station 13 site was an extra-municipal “island” of City land surrounded by unincorporated King County before the Benson Hill annexation occurred in 2008. The Fire Station 13 site had an RMD Comprehensive Plan designation and was zoned R-10. In 2007, the City pre-zoned the Benson Hill area in anticipation of annexation. Because the Fire Station 13 property was already a part of the City and had already been assigned a land use designation (RMD) and zone classification (R-10), it was not considered in the 2007 area-wide pre-zoning for the Benson Hill area. When the Benson Hill area annexed into the City in 2008, the 2007 pre-zoning for the area was implemented: All of the parcels around Fire Station 13 were also designated RMD, but were zoned R-14. That left the Fire Station 13 site as the only R-10 zoned parcel in the immediate area. 3 Fire Station 13 was also relocated to another site at about the same time, leaving the subject property vacant. (Exhibit 7, p. 2) 3 The Staff Report refers to this as “a spot-zoning situation”. (Exhibit 7, p. 2) Strictly speaking, this is not improper “spot- zoning.” The judicially created spot-zoning doctrine refers to a situation in which a small area is zoned differently from the area surrounding it and not in conformance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Since both the R-10 and the R-14 zones serve to implement the Comprehensive Plan’s RMD designation, the existence of the small R-10 zoned parcel, although not particularly logical or desirable, is not an example of improper spot-zoning. HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore RECOMMENDATION RE: LUA11-007, ECF, R (Former Fire Station 13 Rezone) April 22, 2011 Page 5 of 8 h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\fire sta 13 rezone lua11-007.doc 5. Any Conclusion of Law deemed to be a Finding of Fact is hereby adopted as such. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 4 The Examiner is legally required to decide this case within the framework created by the following principles: Authority A rezone not requiring a Comprehensive Plan amendment is a Type IV application which is subject to an open record hearing before the Examiner. Following the hearing, the Examiner issues a recommendation on the application which is subject to the right of reconsideration before action by the City Council. [RMC 4- 08-070H3a, 4-8-080G, 4-8-100G4, and 4-9-180D] The Examiner may grant or deny the application, or the Examiner may require of the applicant such conditions, modifications and restrictions as the Examiner finds necessary to make the application compatible with its environment and carry out the objectives and goals of the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning regulations, the subdivision regulations, the codes and ordinances of the City of Renton, and the approved preliminary plat, if applicable. Conditions, modifications and restrictions which may be imposed are, but are not limited to, additional setbacks, screenings in the form of landscaping and fencing, covenants, easements and dedications of additional road rights-of-way. Performance bonds may be required to insure compliance with the conditions, modifications and restrictions. [RMC 4-8-100G3] Review Criteria The review criteria for rezones are found at RMC 4-9-180F2 and have been set forth in the Findings of Fact, above. The Local Project Review Act [Chapter 36.70B RCW] establishes a mandatory “consistency” review for “project permits”, a term defined by the Act to include “building permits, subdivisions, binding site plans, planned unit developments, conditional uses, shoreline substantial development permits, site plan review, permits or approvals required by critical area ordinances, site-specific rezones authorized by a comprehensive plan or subarea plan”. [RCW 36.70B.020(4)] (1) Fundamental land use planning choices made in adopted comprehensive plans and development regulations shall serve as the foundation for project review. The review of a 4 Any statement in this section deemed to be either a Finding of Fact or a Conclusion of Law is hereby adopted as such. HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore RECOMMENDATION RE: LUA11-007, ECF, R (Former Fire Station 13 Rezone) April 22, 2011 Page 6 of 8 h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\fire sta 13 rezone lua11-007.doc proposed project’s consistency with applicable development regulations or, in the absence of applicable regulations the adopted comprehensive plan, under RCW 36.70B.040 shall incorporate the determinations under this section. (2) During project review, a local government or any subsequent reviewing body shall determine whether the items listed in this subsection are defined in the development regulations applicable to the proposed project or, in the absence of applicable regulations the adopted comprehensive plan. At a minimum, such applicable regulations or plans shall be determinative of the: (a) Type of land use permitted at the site, including uses that may be allowed under certain circumstances, such as planned unit developments and conditional and special uses, if the criteria for their approval have been satisfied; (b) Density of residential development in urban growth areas; and (c) Availability and adequacy of public facilities identified in the comprehensive plan, if the plan or development regulations provide for funding of these facilities as required by [the Growth Management Act]. [RCW 36.70B.030] Vested Rights Renton has not enacted a general vested rights provision. Rezones are not the subject of any statutory vesting provision. Washington has a judicially-created vested rights doctrine: Washington does adhere to the minority rule that a landowner obtains a vested right to develop land when he or she makes a timely and complete building permit application that complies with the applicable zoning and building ordinances in effect on the date of the application. Our vested rights rule also has been applied to building permits, conditional use permits, a grading permit, and a [shoreline management] substantial development permit. [Norco Construction v. King County, 97 Wn.2d 680, 684, 649 P.2d 103 (1982), citations omitted] The vested rights doctrine has never been applied to rezone applications. Standard of Review The standard of review is preponderance of the evidence. The applicant has the burden of proof. Scope of Consideration The Examiner has considered: all of the evidence and testimony; applicable adopted laws, ordinances, plans, and policies; and the pleadings, positions, and arguments of the parties of record. HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore RECOMMENDATION RE: LUA11-007, ECF, R (Former Fire Station 13 Rezone) April 22, 2011 Page 7 of 8 h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\fire sta 13 rezone lua11-007.doc CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A rezone which does not require a Comprehensive Plan amendment must meet all four criteria in RMC 4-9-180F2: The conjunctive “and” at the end of each criterion indicates that all must be met. The fourth criterion incorporates the criteria in RMC 4-9-180F1. Those criteria are structured differently: In order to meet Criterion F2d, an application must meet Criterion F1a and one or more of the two criteria in F1b (because those two criteria are separated by the disjunctive “or”). 2. The evidence demonstrates convincingly that a rezone of the subject property from R-10 to R-14 meets the criteria in RMC 4-9-180F2a, F2b, and F2c as well as the criteria in F1a and F1bi, thus meeting criterion F2d. The application meets all required criteria and deserves approval. 3. The requested rezone passes the “consistency” test: The R-14 density is fully consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s RMD designation and utilities are available. (Exhibit 7, p. 3) 4. Finally, the requested rezone simply makes a lot of sense. It will eliminate an historical anomaly and bring consistency to the area’s residential zoning pattern. 5. Any Finding of Fact deemed to be a Conclusion of Law is hereby adopted as such. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the testimony and evidence submitted at the open record hearing, and the Examiner’s site view, the Examiner recommends that the City Council GRANT the requested rezone from R-10 to R-14. No conditions need be imposed on the rezone. Recommendation issued April 22, 2011. \s\ John E. Galt (Signed original in official file) John E. Galt Hearing Examiner Pro Tempore HEARING PARTICIPANTS 5 Erika Conkling 5 The official Parties of Record register is maintained by the City’s Hearing Clerk. HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore RECOMMENDATION RE: LUA11-007, ECF, R (Former Fire Station 13 Rezone) April 22, 2011 Page 8 of 8 h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\fire sta 13 rezone lua11-007.doc NOTICE of RIGHT of RECONSIDERATION “Any interested person feeling that the [recommendation] of the Examiner is based on an erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may” file a request/motion for reconsideration with “the Examiner within fourteen (14) days after the written [recommendation] of the Examiner has been rendered. The [request/motion for reconsideration] shall set forth the specific errors relied upon.” [RMC 4-8-100G4] Any request/motion for reconsideration shall be addressed to the Renton Hearing Examiner and filed with the City Clerk. See RMC 4-8-100G4 and RMC 4-8-110E8 for additional information and requirements regarding reconsideration. NOTICE of CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION This Recommendation (or the Examiner’s Recommendation after reconsideration) will be considered by the Renton City Council. Please contact the City Clerk for information regarding the scheduling of Council consideration of this Recommendation. Please have the applicant’s name and City file number available when you contact the city.