Full Text
Files No. PP12-10 PLN 2012-04033 Hayward Order of Reconsideration Pg. 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR CITY OF KENNEWICK In the Matter of the Application of ) No. FILE NO: PP 12-10 and PLN ) 2012-04033 Applicant: Trevor Hayward ) for Approval of a Preliminary Plat and ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, Appeal of a SEPA determination ) AND DECISION (Reconsideration of a Mitigated Determination of ) Order) ) BACKGROUND OF ORDER OF RECONSIDERATION On July 15, 2013, the Hearing Examiner of the City of Kennewick issued approval of a preliminary plat (PP 12-10) for a 41 lot subdivision on 10.36 acres on the southeast corner of W. 10th Avenue and S. Morain Street, Kennewick. The plat was approved subject to the conditions that were included in the decision document. The July 15, 2013 decision also granted relief from condition 1 of the revised Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (MDNS) that had been issued by the City on April 11, 2013. The condition was determined to be unenforceable because the City had no stated legal authority to require fees in lieu of park land dedication for the plat. The appeal of condition No. 2 of the revised MDNS issued on April 11, 2013 was denied and condition 2 of the MDNS remained as written by the City. These two appeal issues were the only ones considered addressed. On July 22, 2013 the City filed a Request for Reconsideration and on July 23, 2013 the Applicant filed its Request for Reconsideration. Both requests sought a determination of the validity of the City’s imposition for traffic mitigation fees in the amount of $72,000.00. Post Hearing Exhibits submitted:1 A-25 City of Kennewick’s Motion for Reconsideration (July 22, 2013) A-26 Applicant’s Motion for Reconsideration (July 23, 2013) The following Findings of Fact and Conclusions will be considered as part of the Decision. The numbering of the Findings and Conclusions will be the next number of the respective section. FINDINGS for Requests for Reconsideration 1. The requirements of the MDNS Condition 3 were incorporated as part of the plat approval issued on July 15, 2013. Plat condition No. 9 read: The Applicant shall comply with Traffic Engineer memorandum dated February 28, 2013 & April 11, 2013 (Exhibit A-11). 1 All identified exhibits were submitted pursuant to an oral order issued by the Hearing Examiner at the June 9th, 2013 open record hearing. ---PAGE BREAK--- Files No. PP12-10 PLN 2012-04033 Hayward Order of Reconsideration Pg. 2 Both the City and the Applicant filed Requests for Reconsideration of Plat Condition 9. Exhibits A-25 and A-26. 2. Before the open record of June 9th, 2013, the City’s Traffic Engineer concluded that the new plat would produce 48 pm peak hour trips and 437 daily trips. He determined that the vehicular trips generated by the proposed plat would constitute 20% of the impact at the intersection of 10th and S. Morain. Exhibit 10, pg. 3, Exhibit A-1, pg. 7; Exhibit A-1, pgs. 3-6. The City determined the Applicant’s proportionate share of the cost of intersection improvements of $360,000 would be $72,000, which was the stated amount of Condition No. 3 of the Revised MDNS issued by the City on April 11, 2013. It read: Traffic Mitigation Fees Contribute a proportionate share of the cost of intersection improvements in the amount of $72,000 to mitigate impacts to the intersection of W. 10th Avenue and S. Morain Street. The intersection improvement project is identified in the City’s Transportation Plan on exhibit 4-9, page 4-18 on page 4-21 which can be found on the City’s web site. Alternatively the developer may donate right-of-way and easement for future project consisting of 5-feet of additional right-of-way and 15- feet of sidewalk and utility easement along W. 10th Avenue. Exhibit A-10. 2. The fees that were identified in MDNS Condition No. 3 were based on an analysis that had been conducted by the City of Kennewick Transportation Department. The summary of the analysis was submitted in memoranda dated February 4, 2013 and April 11, 2013 (Exhibit A-11). In post hearing submittals allowed by the Hearing Examiner, the Applicant objected to the imposition of the condition as part of the plat and to the City’s limited determinations as set forth in the memoranda of February 28, 2013 and April 11, 2013. Exhibits A-20 and A-21. 3. In a post hearing memo, dated July 10, 2013, the City Traffic Engineer addressed the Applicant’s objections to the Traffic Engineer’s analysis provided in the memoranda of February 28, 2013 and April 11, 2013. Exhibit A-24. As part of the July 10, 2013 memo the Traffic Engineer addressed: his reasoning and data for requiring a left-turn lane off 10 Avenue; the authority of the City to require half-street improvements; the authority of the City to include the intersection and other street improvements in the 6-year Transportation Plan; the reasons for not improving the intersection as part of a three lane road with one of the lanes being a turning lane when improvements were made in 2010; the need and the authority for requiring street lights; justification for building Morain Street to a collector street standard; and the full improvements for the first 100 feet of the Street.. Exhibit, A-24, pgs. 1-3 4. While the Applicant provided justification for its traffic analysis, the City has recalculated the traffic mitigation fees for the proposed plat. In the July 10, 2013 post hearing submittal of the City Traffic Engineer, the traffic mitigation fees were readjusted. ---PAGE BREAK--- Files No. PP12-10 PLN 2012-04033 Hayward Order of Reconsideration Pg. 3 While the Engineer justified the earlier stated fees being based on the plat having “…the sole benefit of vehicles turning onto and off of 10th Avenue or crossing 10th Avenue…”, he recognized that if the intersection is considered a true collector/arterial intersection that could ultimately link 10th Avenue with 19th Avenue. According to the Engineer this type of intersection could analyzed with the more traditional calculation of mitigation fees that were proposed by the Applicant. The City, in accepting the mitigation fee estimate of $10,653, recommended that it be contingent on the acknowledgement of the Applicant that Morain Street south of 10th Avenue could be classified as a collector, and if that occurs, the developer build the half-street to the standard “as proposed”. Exhibit A-24, pg. 3 5. In its Request for Reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner July 15, 2013 Decision, the Applicant requested that Condition 9 be amended to read: The Applicant shall comply with Traffic Engineer memorandum dated February 28, 2013 & April 11, 2013 as modified by the Traffic Engineer Memorandum dated July 10, 2013. Exhibit A-26 7. The Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration was consistent with the City’s Motion for Reconsideration for reduction of the traffic mitigation fees. Exhibits A-25 and A-26. The City also requested that an option be given to the Applicant to dedicate five feet of right of way on West 10th Avenue in lieu of payment of traffic mitigation fees. Exhibits A-25 CONCLUSIONS for Requests for Reconsideration I. Jurisdiction: The Kennewick Hearing Examiner is granted jurisdiction to hear and decide preliminary plat applications pursuant to KMC 4.02.080 ii. The Hearing Examiner is granted jurisdiction to hear and decide planned development permits applications pursuant to KMC 4.02.080 (1b) iv and KMC 18.45.060. II. Order of Reconsideration The Kennewick Hearing Examiner is granted jurisdiction to issue an Order on Requests for Reconsideration based on the authority of KMC 4.02.130 Conclusions based on Findings 1. While Condition No.9 of the July 15th, 2013 was justifiable and supported by facts, the City Transportation Engineer has determined that the mitigation fees for road impacts caused by the Applicant’s development can be adjusted in a manner proposed by the Applicant. Because the intersection is considered a true collector/arterial intersection that could ultimately link 10th Avenue with 19th Avenue, the more traditional calculation of mitigation fees proposed by the Applicant is acceptable. A mitigation fee estimate of $10,653 is due for mitigation of impacts. Finding No. 4 ---PAGE BREAK---