HomeMy WebLinkAboutReconsideration Letter & Decision Denis Law Mayor 1
City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC
September 17, 2019
Navix Engineering
Jenelle Taflin
11235 SE 6th ST
Bellevue, WA 98004
Subject: Hearing Examiner's Decision upon Reconsideration
RE:Topgolf Conditional Use &Site Plan (LUA-19-000094)
Dear Ms. Taflin:
Enclosed please find the Hearing Examiner's Decision upon Reconsideration dated
September 16, 2019. Also,this document is immediately available on our website:
• If you go to: Rentonwa.gov; "How do I"; Hearing Examiner (under Contact); "Land
Use Decisions". The Decisions are filed by year and then alphabetical order by
project name.
I can be reached at (425) 430-6510 orjseth@rentonwa.gov. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jason A. Seth, CMC
City Clerk
cc: Hearing Examiner
Clerk Close,Senior Planner
Jennifer Henning, Planning Director
Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager
Craig Burnell, Building Official
Jennifer Cisneros, Planning Technician
Julia Medzegian,City Council Liaison
Parties of Record (11)
1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 • (425)430-6510/Fax (425)430-6516 • rentonwa.gov
•
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
9 )
10 RE: Topgolf )
) DECISION UPON
11 Master Plan, Site Plan, Conditional Use, ) RECONSIDERATION
Variance, and Street Modification )
12 I )
)13
LUA19-000094, SA-M, SA-H, CU-H, V-A, V-)
14 A, MOD )
15 Discussion
16 By letter dated August. 30 2019 the Applicant has submitted a letter supported by City staff
requesting reconsideration of Conclusion of Law No. 20 and Condition No. 25 of the Final Decision
17 of the above-captioned matter. The conclusion and condition addressed RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i),
18 which requires master/site plan applicants to include "a detailed sequencing plan with development
phases and estimated time frames,for phased projects." As noted in COL No. 20, the Applicant had
19 not submitted a phasing plan, so Condition No. 25 was imposed to require "a detailed sequencing
plan," using the language of RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i). The Applicant asserts that the City Council
20 recently enacted Ordinance No. 5926 "to allow the phasing flexibility that Condition #25 would
21 undo." In light of this interpretation of the ordinance, the Applicant requests that Condition No. 25
be stricken or in the alternative that the requirement for a "detailed phasing plan" be replaced by a
22 requirement for a general phasing plan. The Applicant also requests that a reference to the code
enforcement remedy of permit revocation be stricken from COL No 20.
23
As to "flexible" phasing, Ordinance No. 5926 doesn't expressly exempt qualifying proposals from
24 the "detailed sequencing plan" requirement of RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i) and also doesn't expressly
identify any intent to provide for flexible phasing. It does, however, only require that the space to be
25 used for Phase 2 development only need be identified with information on how the space would be
26 functionally integrated into overall mixed use development. The Applicant construes this flexibility
in the designation of Phase 2 space as also applying to and overriding the "detailed sequencing"
CONDITIONAL USE, VARIANCE and SITE PLAN- 1
1 requirements of RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i), further noting that RMC 4-9-200(E )(1) provides that the
master plan review standards are only intended to provide general guidance. The Applicant's
2 interpretation of Ordinance No. 5926 is not very well supported by the plain text of the ordinance
3 itself, since the designation of Phase 2 space in the master plan is separate from the timing
requirements for its development. However, given the staff's support for the Applicant's position
4 and its likely involved in the adoption of Ordinance No. 5926, it is reasonable to conclude that the
Applicant's position reflects the legislative intent of the City Council. For this reason, Condition No.
5 25 will simply be replaced with a requirement to comply with RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i), giving staff the
6 flexibility to apply the standard as intended by the City Council in adopting Ordinance No. 5926.
7 As to references to permit revocation authority, that was just dicta included to provide assurance that
the phasing condition was enforceable. Staff had raised concerns in a past application about the
8 enforceability of phasing plan requirements. The reference to permit revocation authority in COL
No. 20 simply identified one of the remedies available in the City's code enforcement code, and did
9 not serve as any binding interpretation or have any effect on the availability of that remedy or any
other. The Applicant requests that COL 20 be modified to specifically hold that permit revocation
10 does not apply. The authority to restrict future code enforcement actions in a land use decision is
11 highly dubious and will not be exercised here. The reference to code enforcement will simply be
stricken from COL No. 20.
12
DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION
13
COL No. 20 is stricken and replaced with "As conditioned."
14
Condition No. 25 is replaced with the following:
15
The Applicant shall submit a phasing plan to the extent required by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i)
16 for approval by the planning manager prior to construction permit issuance.
17
DATED this 16th day of September, 2019.
18
19 ( )
Phi A.Olbrechts
20
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
21
22 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
23
As consolidated, RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III
24 applications subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the
hearing examiner's decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the
25 decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14-
26 'i day appeal period.
CONDITIONAL USE, VARIANCE and SITE PLAN - 2
1 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE, VARIANCE and SITE PLAN - 3