Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA96-028 a7I Aiif'_2 �t f . t�-. ff f_ 6. • '. ' • if er..4u: .r c y �Y - f �! 4 ` i I �• �` . • .rr` J 'ivy_ >. ` '� i .� ir- w ,Pc 4• -..,A,• x! Ze--. eJ� _ t . - ' it... a • IS . 1# i .1 \ • , \ V %V . •i„ . •. • .t,,,_14 . . ' f• i mr ,‘ t f ' ' ' • . ' I , '-* .. * : ; • .'" .• C- . 1 f' ' • ,,,, I '' # • , , a . 4. . ,... S 111,— • -4 •• • ', • < , \ ' 1 • ..111‘ .,• •.- . . — ' i I " k ' - • f 4. 4.4-4.41r.' .i j, . • • -,...;,. .,...,... ..... ok."T• *tioAttrt•ir ... . It *0.I *i•A. pC,- -"t)>4...A.11.-..t.v)ISt, 44'..• '..' `•r 4, .. .r 's Itii,,,,,e'' - '''k INs."'''''s••'..'' •• - • , ••.: ....1: . IN,..4,,,.., 4- * ..ik v -...• .4 - •••.' *--e\ ' r 'kt --''',o, \•%, ' - ,...7.44, , „• -• :i . ' • , 'AI. .• ,, •\.''' ,.,r•lk .AI . 44A• . • ..c. •t•i", A 0 ii .,3"'pl.f ,„. • S.• . , . 1" . ..,A 0, r.•sJ . - .• _.. 4ss is ‘••• 01.'4, -t • 4.sos.,Iv • Ar,*".• ,, 0 , . 4, ),.'1. -.1.-it'.%'#-.:- •,1 :.`•••4‘;...A.,1 , , fob ...: 4:11.."-•• , cs . ;•.. ..:- r '''S-....- - c.. A ''''.%1/4,I t• . gi't, • ick ,....'.... t, . • '..... ,N,itt '") i' „lb' ,.4.' ?' **.,i 4s,.7. 1. . 4-"V••• f rreu ev. , , y t's.,ts.,,- ,1 ' •' - , ' ..• sls. , **,.. es4, • ... ,..• .4..*45 * ' t' I:4' .`-ke • ; n • *--- 7%* -,•-"' \\ \\ . •_ ,, :.•6 .. '"NI, ,.._. ... -. 1 . . .. ... 1•,' \\ . i . ii. • `'• . . . . • •",'4,4 ' . , .... ..4. st. -• . •Y ..Irli\\ t ' ' , ' . g ! • ,,,, , I , 117 .• .1 \ ,.. • . : .,, _it• 1 , • t „,.. , 1 .. r....., ,.. ...7...-.4... .-.;,,,er.., .• .,, .,. . .' - " '.. ti A '.: ''41.- t \ . a .•'.4. - . ' li- .7 .4.,, +r• a. '., Y • -..-1;f 4.Alt..'..•••-•". •..:, c • 11 ' . •' . ? ....4" 4, ,,,,, i • ' ,, • . ! ...',"•::,:..•tit.. ..; ' . . . , • . - , ^1-••• i'1 :.• 4.4,!' , . 4.. Pt'.•1".‘' . '4, ,. • , ...... . it, '.. r .St •I•',,.._,...•,.._.•, ..1'.:4....,••::•. ., • • . • ' •.4 :, • . •'....•.,po.'• u, ,.. • 0 •T. '.2••••••• ,;i• -.4 ;• •••.: I 0 n '' •' •‘..V '' ,'.' ;'"Mf'' ' • ,. .. •.1'11' •.''' i., 4 • • ... o *• .- '. ••••4 41,'.i.,. - , , — .. ...te ... . . ,...4,,,,,..,,•$ ., ., , ,..;i .1 .... . ..• . ..,1,-,, '. ''''-'" ' ' . . • .... ,..., --;,... ii....,. :, . F. / ''., k . • .,-,- ,,,- .; .(.1F i •'".... - • • '•-• .•VF.,•t?'•1'-tt'A.1.4' • •'• 2 •T.'- 3'' -,..i Ar. .:• • , .... : , ,, - , --. - . I'l i..1.4."7•Irifit• ,*4..., • ` , '''" 4 `i, • i :4..„ mhjrvioLt.wrttr,„ •••„41,,A., . . (:;:.:' , •••44.•'•'4.', -.t'%.• . . *- if44„. N.. t..,, 4. . . 1 _f. , , ,.. ...:.:74•4,f....: ..,,,.. ..,„ . „L. ..• •.k .4 Irrk_....:•.". 14..... •..s. 4 -• -‘ 4--Ne.., .A-,. 1. • ' ..-f..Yi •' ... t " 1. ,-4 . ".4 .... ''•i...Y.Z...'.14• ' ' I 4 ., , • . . ... .N-::i'‘.. 1,..' 2i'...''\:k.s..."10: ... .' .51,'N'• . .• • •-4,„\i-ct, • -" , - 'i.•.-- P'1;•• • , ' . -.,-c• — . -,;,.,...m,-,;,,-• rt,t, - ,:. • 4,- • " •.:... . ; ,"' ''' '''T- . •:(,'. .• • •ji : .*AO'••'') . 'f." `,'SY .. ,',11,A.:'• .,,,,,s,• :,. • '.,t) ':' ' , ',, •,'. , , , ),,,i7r.., .11•.•?•• ..molc, .• . ••• cc , , , •491.• . ,! -A•si ',11:;i6t7's '-' • •-; ‘, ' ...;,i',`;',.t;. ".‘. '"'; ±•.' ,- t'.:.) 4 y ),'-'- ,r,... ,,,., . ,,..r..,4,... .,,,,, . .. , 1..,,• ... ,, ,, .. , , , 1, ...,,t•„. .1•, .„A , ,.. . . .„.... in...6 .....-, 144.•• ' or..,.13 • • Plt...-kr ot"'1., • '1 '!....., stit,. . ' 4 .4.• '':'. , • . • • .... .1 .1..4,,Sr'',1‘.. ,i",ii,,r'',;., .v-• ..- r„ orr • • ' - ',...../, .• "I ' f'‘Ai•• ' •4. • ii•''!' .1*"..ir.41iNt...t• _ . ,,,,,,,,,-, .v .A e....._ ,4 • .' ' ,,4: , ''%• ."44: ,.. r! , ...,,,,, ).-4 ;, , .1 ,•...,•. . . ... IC --FA:.,^-ri r, . , ,. ', ', . ., . ... , .. A., .. N • . AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Karen Tucker , being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the VALLEY DAILY NEWS 600 S. Washington Kent, WA. 98032 a daily newspaper published six (6) times week. Said newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Wash- ington. The Valley Daily News has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Valley Daily News (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to the subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Notice of Appeal Hearing was published on 3-15-96 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of RENTON, WASHINGTON An Appeal Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular $ 33 . 69 meeting in the Council Chambers on the , n X second floor of City Hall, atRenton,00Wash- i \r Jl on, March 26, 1996 at :o a.m. to Wash- the following petitions: Legal Clerk, Valley Daily News APPEAL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL I REVIEW COMMITTEE'S DETERMINA- TION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITI- 19th March1996 GATED REGARDING SEPA COMPLI- Subscribed and sworn before me this dayof ANCE OF LEXINGTON RIDGE APARTMENTS, FILE NO. LUA-95- 184,SA,SP,ECF APPEAL FILE NO. �s�s._ AAD-96-028. ��/" M F��. ` Legal descriptions of the files noted 0 H above are on file in the Developmental Ser- e ."4/ Notary Public or the State of Washington vices Division, Third Floor, Municipal Build- ,`, S- f�o'• ing, Renton. -A;tun% residing at Auburn All interested persons to said petitions \- aR y v,: King County, Washington are invited to be present at the Appeal * : * Hearing to express their opinions. Published in the Valley Daily News _^vised /92 B C' March 15, 1996. 1312 V�J�6p�l 7 Q�� «CCC` . O AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss. County of King ) MARILYN MOSES , being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 9th day of April ,1996, affiant deposited in the mail of the United States a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: 1 c is ( � SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this Wit- day of ar , 1996. de;pet, Notary Public ' for the State of Washington, residing at N it. 'L- ,therein. Application, Petition, or Case No.: DeWolfe Appeal of SEPA on Lexington Ridge Apartments LUA-96-028,AAD The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT April 9, 1996 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: Geraldine DeWolfe FILE NO: LUA-96-028,AAD SUMMARY OF REQUEST: An appeal of Environmental Review Committee's Determination regarding SEPA Compliance of Lexington Ridge Apartments LOCATION: 300 Vuemont Place NE PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing and examining the available information on file,the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the March 26, 1996 hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday, March 26, 1996, at 9:04 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the appeal, Exhibit No.2: Photographs from Gerald Edgar proof of posting and publication, and other documentation pertinent to the appeal. Exhibit No.3: Lexington Ridge File No. SA-082-87 Exhibit No. 4: Lexington Ridge File No. LUA-95- by reference. 184,SA,ECF,by reference Parties are: Representing the appellant, Geraldine DeWolfe: GERALD EDGAR,351 Bronson Way NE,Renton, WA 98056 Representing the City of Renton: LAWRENCE WARREN, City Attorney,200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055 Representing the applicant, Landmark Development Group: STEVE SPEIDEL, R.W. Thorp&Associates, 705 2nd Avenue,#910 Seattle, WA 98104 Geraldine DeWolfe Appeal re SEPA Compliance of Lexington Ridge Apartriients File No.: LUA-96-028,AAD April 9, 1996 Page 2 The Examiner explained that the hearing was a SEPA appeal pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 3060, 3071 and 4065, and was the only administrative review to occur on the matter. He stated that the appellant had the burden of demonstrating that the City's action was erroneous, and would have to show by clear and convincing evidence that the City's determination was incorrect. At that point the City could respond, if they chose to do so. The applicant to this proceeding would also be given an opportunity to ask questions. Mr. Warren discussed procedural problems he had with the appeal,namely,the City's substantive authority to condition the project,the application of Comprehensive Plan zoning policies to this particular site, or whether or not the minor modifications to the project were of such a nature as to require.a complete new Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)rather than an EIS that was already submitted with a checklist. The Examiner pointed out that since the City had issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M),the conditions were subject to appeal. He further explained that the hearing was also to determine if a supplemental EIS or a new EIS was required. Mr. Edgar listed several items that he felt should be changed or included in the EIS checklist. These concerns were: the difference from the original proposal regarding cubic yards of material to be removed from the site; the change in air quality due to addition of 200 fireplaces and removal of current second growth forest;the history of unstable soils in the area;the ground water testing; and the storm drainage system. Mr. Edgar stated he felt the EIS checklist did not consider any of the effects on the environment to the inhabitants closest to the project and it did not seem to consider the effect of the project on the inhabitants of the apartment house directly adjacent to the development. He was also concerned about traffic safety and limited sight distance of the project. Mr. Speidel asked Mr. Edgar if he had authoritative information on air quality with regard to fireplaces in a multi-family project,to which Mr. Edgar responded that he did not. He also asked Mr. Edgar if the City's ordinances for storm water control were less than adequate, and Mr.Edgar stated that in the previous proposals there was a mention of limitations of the existing storm drainage system by the City. Testifying for the City, MARK PYWELL,Project Manager, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South,Renton, Washington 98055, confirmed that in the first proposal the cubic yards to be removed from the site was 225,000, and that at this time the proposed amount was 174,000 cubic yards. He also explained the City's Aquifer Protection Ordinance, and the location of the zones. Mr. Pywell also explained the City's noise ordinance as it applied to construction sites and restrictions on times and days of operation. He stated that light and glare issues were covered more extensively in the site plan than in the environmental stage. He also testified regarding traffic issues. Mr. Edgar stated that the noise ordinance was fine except it did not take into consideration the current residents with children in the area, nor did it address traffic issues that create the noise. There was discussion between Mr. Warren and Mr. Edgar regarding the discrepancies in the hours of operation imposed on this project and the ordinance. Mr. Pywell explained that there were different mitigation measures established. One was the use of grading and heavy equipment as opposed to the hours of constructing the actual buildings. The ERC established the hours of 7:00 to 8:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday for the heavy grading equipment. Construction activities could only occur on Saturday with the permission of the Development Services Division. Building activities would be limited to the hours of 7:00 to 8:00 p.m.,Monday through Saturday. Geraldine DeWolfe Appeal re SEPA Compliance of Lexington Ridge Apartments File No.: LUA-96-028,AAD April 9, 1996 Page 3 There was also some further mitigation on providing the actual routes and the time that those routes could be used for the moving of equipment on them. Testifying on behalf of the City, NEIL WATTS,Plan Review Supervisor,Development Services Division, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South,Renton, Washington 98055, explained the differences between the original and the current project regarding surface water drainage. He stated that the parties had agreed to a modification request on this project to allow a limited increase in the release rate to the minimum that's allowed by the King County Surface Water Manual which is what the City of Renton uses. Mr. Edgar asked about the discrepancies in the time schedules for truck hauling. Mr. Warren read from a letter directed to the developer from the City setting the specifics for construction activity, i.e., grading, running of earth moving equipment, and routes for truck traffic. BOB HERMAN, Transportation Planning&Engineering, 2101 112th Avenue NE,#110, Bellevue, Washington 98004, questioned Mr. Edgar regarding measuring sight distances, and what guidelines were used, if any. Mr. Edgar stated that he stood about 10 feet back and was probably a little higher than the driver's eye, and measured it out to when he could see cars approaching, which was about 250 feet. The sight distance obstruction that was critical was the rise of the hill to the north as one would be leaving Vuemont. Mr. Herman stated that he measured the sight distance using the ASHTO guidelines and his measurements showed approximately 400 feet of sight distance to the north as opposed to the 250 feet that Mr. Edgar measured. Mr. Herman and Mr. Edgar reviewed photographs regarding sight distance, rise in the road and measurements. Closing arguments were then presented by Mr. Edgar,Mr. Warren and Mr. Speidel, and their comments reiterated their previous statements. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The hearing closed at 10:17 a.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellant, Geraldine DeWolfe, filed an appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M)issued for a proposed site plan that would permit the development of a 268 unit apartment complex. The appeal was filed on February 23, 1996, and was filed in a timely manner. In processing the application for site plan,the City subjected the application to its ordinary SEPA review process. In this case,there was an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)prepared for a similar although larger project. That proposal never came to fruition although the City and applicant did rely on the earlier EIS for part of its SEPA review. The City, based on that EIS and a new checklist submitted for the proposal, issued a Declaration or Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M)for the project. The DNS-M was conditioned by the City in what is known as a mitigation process, and became a DNS-M, the "M" alerting readers to the fact that mitigating measures were attached to the Geraldine DeWolfe Appeal re SEPA Compliance of Lexington Ridge Apartments File No.: LUA-96-028,AAD April 9, 1996 Page 4 project. The appellant objected to the determination and raised a number of issues concerning setbacks, traffic, air quality, slope and soil stability,police services, and neighborhood characteristics. 2. The City argued that since an EIS was used in making its SEPA determination,that the only way an appeal would be appropriate would be if an action followed, either the hearing for the proposal or the issuance of a mitigation document. The claim is that the mitigation measures issued in response to the review of the checklist would not necessarily give rise to an appeal right. The DNS issued by the City specifically states: "An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under the authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process." 3. The DNS-M then goes on to describe the appeal deadline and procedures for acquiring the appeal procedures and mitigation measures. 4. The apartment complex known as Lexington Ridge(hereinafter referred to as complex)would be developed on approximately 13.4 acres of property. The site is located on the east side of Bronson Avenue NE between NE 3rd and NE 4th Streets. The site is just uphill from I-405 and generally across the street from the Group Health facility. 5. The area is generally mixed in character with the clinic, apartment buildings, single family homes and a church all within the subject area. 6. The site is zoned for multiple family housing and the Comprehensive Plan suggests those uses are generally appropriate. 7. The site has steeper slopes, ranging from 17-20 percent and to 40-66 percent in the northeast corner and south parts of the site. Due to these slopes substantial grading is proposed with removal of the top soils and other upper layers. The appellants noted that a slide of some type took place near the site, along NE 3rd, during recent heavy rain storms. The appellant noted that approximately 175,000 cubic yards of materials would be removed from the site. The appellant suggested the impacts of this were not developed fully. 8. The original proposal and its EIS discussed the excavation of approximately 225,000 cubic yards of material. Also noted was that most of the upper soils, if they were unstable and that was not suggested, would be removed,thereby enhancing or at least not disturbing stability. 9. The City noted that downstream storm water systems have been modified since the original proposal was hampered by limited storm water storage capacity. The regulations have been modified to allow offsite storage. Apparently,the soils and topography of this site retain most storm water making it nearly impossible for the applicant to meet normal requirements. The City has provided the applicant with an exception to normal storm water practices to allow some storm water to leave the site. 10. The appellant was concerned about the provision of wood burning fireplaces in the complex. There is no analysis of this but it was mentioned in the checklist. The original EIS does not appear to reflect on this subject. 11. The City notes that any use is subject to normal air quality standards and on-going alerts restrict use when air quality is poor. Geraldine DeWolfe Appeal re SEPA Compliance of Lexington Ridge Apartments File No.: LUA-96-028,AAD April 9, 1996 Page 5 12. The appellants argue that the proposed access roadway does not provide sufficient sight distance along Bronson. The appellants claim that the hillside intrudes into the view corridor. In addition,the sight distance is predicated on the posted speed limits which are violated by some drivers. 13. The traffic report indicates that technically the sight distance is adequate. The record reflects that the appellants'measurements may have been taken from the wrong view point. From the appropriate "stop line"the distance is adequate and the hillside does not obscure the view. 14. There was substantial discussion of the hours of operation for excavation, hauling and actual construction. The use will be subject to the City's noise ordinance. 15. The appellant notes that the increased population would bring with it additional traffic, noise, light and glare. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore,the determination of the Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error. 2. The Determination of Non-Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend. 93 Wn.2nd 870, 880(1980)). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 274(1976), stated: "A finding is'clearly erroneous'when although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Therefore,the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below,the decision of the ERC is affirmed. 3. The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have,therefore,made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test,the "arbitrary and capricious"test is generally applied when a determination of significance(DS)is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement. 4. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway, at 278). Since the Court spoke in Norway,WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, and it defines "significant" as follows: Significant. (1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. (2) Significance involves context and intensity...Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact.... The severity of the impact should be Geraldine DeWolfe - Appeal re SEPA Compliance of Lexington Ridge Apartments File No.: LUA-96-028,AAD April 9, 1996 Page 6 weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is.not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. 5. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable." Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur,... Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring, but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782). 6. Impacts also include reasonably related and foreseeable direct and indirect impacts including short-term and long-term effects. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(c)). Impacts include those effects resulting from growth caused by a proposal, as well as the likelihood that the present proposal will serve as precedent for future actions. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(d)). 7. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter,unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. The appellant's arguments do not overcome the burden setup in these matters. First,there is the original EIS which described a larger, more dense proposal requiring even greater amounts of excavation and on which the applicant and City can base some, if not all of its environmental decisions. Second,the appellant has not shown that the new proposal as conditioned by the ERC will have "more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality." 8. The issues of traffic and air quality are either addressed in the original.EIS,the new checklist,traffic report or will be moderated by mitigation fees or air quality regulations. 9. The issue regarding the various hours for excavation,hauling, etc.,while somewhat overlapping or contradictory are not what one would term critical environmental issues. While noise at the certain hours could be disturbing,the applicant would be bound by the City's noise ordinance. In addition, in this context, noise alone would not be a factor that would trigger the need for an environmental impact statement or rather a new or supplemental EIS. In addition, any grade and fill request can revisit the issue. 10. Similarly, sight distances appear to be reasonably discussed or covered although there may be a difference in interpretation. 11. Finally, it would appear that issues of neighborhood compatibility would be matters better reviewed at a public hearing on the merits of the proposal. They are not issues that are generally explored in an environmental impact statement. 12. In conclusion, it does not appear on reviewing the entire record including the original EIS, checklists, conditions and additional evidence that a mistake has been committed. Therefore,the decision below must be upheld. DECISION: The determination of the ERC is affirmed. Geraldine DeWolfe Appeal.re SEPA Compliance of Lexington Ridge Apartments File No.: LUA-96-028,AAD April 9, 1996 Page 7 ORDERED THIS 9th day of April, 1996. FRED J. KA MAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 9th day of April, 1996 to the parties of record: Lawrence Warren Gerald Edgar Steve Speidel 200 Mill Avenue S 351 Bronson Way NE 705 2nd Avenue#910 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98104 Mark Pywell Neil Watts Bob Herman 200 Mill Avenue S 200 Mill Avenue S 2101 112th Avenue NE#110 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Bellevue, WA 98004 Geraldine DeWolfe James E. Williams Norman Hash 270 Bronson Way NE,#26 438 Windsor Way NE 358 Bronson Way NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Alison Horne John Jankowski Barbara Keaton 412 Windsor Way NE 412 Windsor Way NE 435 Windsor Way NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 John McKenna P.O. Box 66826 Seattle, WA 98166-0826 TRANSMITTED THIS 9th day of April, 1996 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Administrator Members,Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson,Development Services Director Art Larson,Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann, Technical Services Director Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney James Chandler,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Mayor's Executive Assistant Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Valley Daily News Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., April 23, 1996. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on 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 make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall,set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. Geraldine DeWolfe Appeal re SEPA Compliance of Lexington Ridge Apartments File No.: LUA-96-028,AAD April 9, 1996 Page 8 Appeal of the Examiner's decision is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 11, which requires that such appeal be filed with the Superior Court of Washington for King County within twenty (20) days from the date of the decision. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. / NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON An Appeal Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on March 26, 1996 at 9:00 a.m. to consider the following petitions: APPEAL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE'S DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED REGARDING SEPA COMPLIANCE OF LEXINGTON RIDGE APARTMENTS, FILE NO. LUA-95-184,SA,SP,ECF APPEAL FILE NO.AAD-96-028. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton. All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Appeal Hearing to express their opinions. Publication Date: March 15, 1996 Account No. 51067 AADPUB.DOC 40 CITN _)F RENTON Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman March 7, 1996 Ms. Geraldine DeWolfe 270 Bronson Way NE, #26 Renton, WA 98056 . Re: Appeal of Environmental Review Committee's Determination regarding SEPA Compliance of Lexington Ridge Apartments LUA-96-028,AAD Dear Ms. DeWolfe: The appeal hearing in the above matter has now been set for Tuesday, March 26, 1996, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington. Should you be unable to attend, would you please appoint a representative to acton your behalf. If this office can be of further assistance, please feel free to write. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner FJK:mm Enclosure cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Mayor's Executive Assistant Mark Pywell, Project Manager Karen Codiga, Development Services 200 Mill Avenue South-Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2593 m- - . - ° • - '• 1,7-- 7 .7777 -•7.-777, , ,, • ' • •. , ' •';'-',11?' , ‘„ ' --;;" ' • ' 'CITV OF-RENTON -2 • ' ; ••• Hearing Examiner - Jesse Tanner,Mayor , , . Fred J.Kaufman • - • February 26,-1996 ' .• , `,„ • Ms. Geraldine DeWolfe , , • - • r•‘` • - 270-Bronson Way NE, #26 - Renton, WA 98056 ° • , - Re: Lexington Ridge Apartments • - - Dear Ms. DeWolfe: , • This office has received your letter regarding Le)dngton Ridge Apartments and its SEPA compliance. Since you were in contact with both this office and the Clerk's office, the matter is being preliminarily handled as a-SEPA appeal. , This office will give you an additional week to supplement your letter with specific SEPA issues. Please refer to the SEPA Environmental Checklist in the City's file in the Development Services Division, and also the mitigation measures that the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued for this project. Please identify the errors or what you believe should be the , appropriate mitigation measures for the proposal. You also reference additional correspondence you have directed to the City and Mayor's office. If you want to include that correspondence, feel free to do so. • After receiving this additional information regarding what specifically you believe is in error, • this office will schedule a public hearing on the matter. Please find enclosed a copy of General Procedures for Appeals of Administrative Determinations. If this office can be of further assistance, please feel free to write. - Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner FJKmm • Enclosure _ cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Mayor's Executive Assistant Marilyn Peterson, City Clerk • • ?nn Mill AVP1111P Srmith -RP1117111 Wach;ricrtnn laszncc _ (1114111G_Ical 270 Bronson Way N.E . #26 • ' BE: Lexington Ridge Apartments • Renton, Wahington 98056 ' LUAL95-184,'RA', SP,ECE . • 23 F.ebruary . l996 Marti EXca miner CITYOF..RENTO�! City Hall Renton,• WA. 98055 • . • . - FEB .2 3 7g 6 • m }2 urrna.n; • RECEIVED Dear �nzncr: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Thank you for acknowledging my 23 January 1996 letter. Your - form letter response was rather disappointing and disheartening due ,- to the lack of response 'to many "points made in my .letter. The 360 unit apartment complex "you cited was in the past, and therefore , is non and• void and should have no bearing on the present Lexington project .. . - : . You obviously misinterpreted my letter; .. I did- hot request that_ :" . . . : the City to__ deny. the proposed development of the property . " I stated that there bp a few compromises that you and the City Council as elected officials should help concerned citizens to get . • All. would be within the law and therefore would not """. . . . subject the • -_.City to damage claims" or legal action initiated by the owner. " It is ' regretable that concerned' citizens are not financially . able to have this kind of hold . " • • . You stated , that "'The City must always walk a fine line between the rights of the residents and the rights of the property owners . "' No one is asking for "Any intervention by the City that exceeds our legal mandate in processing this ' application" of Lexington Ridge . ' The "fine line" is interpretation which in the end can lead to com- promises - and a few compromises :are what concerned- citizens want . This is'- not illegal ! . Many of us feel that the following policies are being ignored.. -1 . SEPA'.: Chapter 6 ; Part 7 : Substantive Authority (E) "The City designates "and, adopts by reference the • following policies as the basis for the City exer- - cise of authority pursuant to this Section: - 1 . The City shall use all practicable means, consistent with other essential consider- " ations of State 'policy, to improve and coordinate " plans , functions , programs and resources to the end .th at the State and its . . citizens may : (b) Assure for all people of Washington, safe , healthful, 'productive and aes- thetically and. culturally pleasing surroundings ; (f) Achieve a balance between population and resource use which .will permit ' high . standards of living and a wide . sharing of life ' s amenities ; . - -2- • • , RE: Lexington Ridge Apartments 23 February 1996 LUA-95-184,FA,SP ,ECF • 2 . The City recognizes that each person has a fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful environment .and that each person • • has a responsiblity to contribute to the preservation. and enhancement of the environ- ment . " 2 . RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY INFILL Objective LU-L: "'Encourage the development of infill parcels in existing multi-family districts with compatible projects ." (a). Policy LU-64: "Development density should generally be in the range of 10-25 dwelling units per acre . " • It does not say 'must be maximum num- ber". Lexington Ridge is going .maximum num- ber of 20 units (without low cost housing units ) . (b) Policy -LU-65 : "New developments in Residential Multi- ; family Infill designations should be compatible in size , scale , bulk, use , and design with other ex- isting multi-family develpments . " Present plans for Lexington Ridge is too: massive to be compatible • with existing multi- family development in this area. (c) Policy LU-66 : "Design standards should be applied that reflect present development patterns and - are sensitive ' to unique features and differences among established neighborhoods . "' The uniquenessof this area is its quiet- ness and its woodiness, with deer, birds , squirrels , raccoons, and other small animals . We know that the quietness will disappear because of the addedi traffic and the noise from the proposed complex; but one can adjust to these upsets . However, the complete lost of the .aesthetic beauty and content- went that trees , birds , and small animals give- to- -. - my .well-being (and to many others) isiincompre- • hensible and detrimental - especially when City policy "assures" me • of "healthful" and "aesthet- ically pleasing surroundings . " (d) 'Policy LU-67 : "Siting and. design of new structures • should be sensitive to site constraints and ad- jacent uses . Provision of adequate buffers or setbacks or scaling down building heights may be • required to transition from Residential Multi- family Infill designations to' adjacent lower . density uses .-"' • Under the present plans) a 5 foot buffer of 4 foot high conifers on the west side would be ' _3 RE : Lexington Ridge Apartments .23 ' February 1996 . LUA-95-184,FA,SP,ECF • ineffective '.to adjacent ,buildings . The ,solution Would be to. leave approximately 100-130 feet of existing: growth for a buffer. This west- side. buffer. zone would not only retain some very tall ,trees . and 'some ground cover, but . also would • supports birds . and small animals . In addition, • the. tall trees would decrease noise from. the com- plex and reduce :the AM glare_ from . the complex • - buildings . • . We all know that construction will be done . Compromises are:: 'needed- to insure enforcement of at least the cited SEPAL and 'City . LU policies . So many of us feel. that interpretations of laws , codes and/or policies are being .made only in favor of the devel- opers-.. • - The present plans' of the Lexington Ridge project is to: the extreme 'with little or. no„regard of impacts to adjacent residents . The :project ' s .paperwork can appear to be according to policies , . codes , and/or laws if no staff planners , committee members , or City Council members - have not visited the proposed site and adja- : - cent. areas "to verify information, to observe the layout of site , to understand and/or experience citizens ' concerns . Hopefully, visits to the site and adjacent areas w.ill ' be made before final approvals are given. We all know that many points of concerns • will be discussed at• the public hearing on the site plan. • . I would like to point"out' an error and several questionable remarks. given in Robert Herman' s 2 February .1996 letter to John W. McKenna of the Landmark Development Group . In the paragraph under . School Bus 'Loading and Unloading, it states : "Currently, school buses load and unload children at the • Methodist -Church located northeast of the project site . The buses pull- into the church property' to - load, unload and turn around . The bus routing is to and from -the- east at the church on N.E. 4th St . , and comes no further west • or south on N.E. 4th St ./Fronson Way 'N.E. . due to dragging of the back of the bus on the asphalt where Bron- son Way N.E. meets N.E. 3rd. Street . " ' • • The first sentence is in error or perhaps just misleading. Everyday (_Monday through Friday) a big yellow Renton school bus comes up Bronson Way N.E . 'from N.E. 3rd and stops at Bronson .Way N.E./Vuemont Place N.E. for loading. I see it almost everyday and I record the time (any time from 11 :00 AM to 11 :15 AM - averaging about '11 :10 AM) . : • • So if the "bus routing" and the "dragging of the back of bus" are questionable, how accurate is the second paragraph • which states "The shortest route to the church for children - from the project site will be through the project site con- necting with the proposed 'sidewalk on- N.E. 4th St . and east • . , . - -4- IRE: Lexington Ridge 'Apartments 23 February 1996 LUA-95-184,FA,.SP ,ECF • to the church. A pedestrian connection from the project site to the proposed sidewalk on N.E. 4th St . should be incorpo= rated into the site plan. " In the paragraph under Sight Distance at Vuemont Pl . N.E./ Bronson Way N.E. Intersection, it states "As stated in our October 10, 1995 traffic impact study, TP&E field measured entering sight dis- tance (ESD) at the Vuemont Pl. N.E ./Bronson Way N.E. intersection. The available ESD to the north was measured in excess of 400 feet .. This meets the AASHTO requirement for ESD for 25 MPH (300 ft . ) even with a grade adjustment . ESD to the south is also met . . . . " The ESD measurement to the north does not specify to which side of Bronson Way N.E./Vuemont Pl . N.E. it refers. ; Therefore , it is• assumed' that. ib 'medns both sides of Bronson Way N.E./Vuemont Pl . N.E. (west and east) . The ESD for the west side, is adequate , but the east side ESD definitely is not "in excess of 400 feet . " I have a small car with a short front; and- in order to..see just AASHTO requirement of 300 feet , I have to stop the car several feet onto Bronson Way and then lean forward to see the second curve up (north) Bronson. People with long front ' cars would have to go even further onto Bronson Way in. order to see 300 feet . Clarification is needed on TP&E measurements . The remarks of " . . . . no recorded .accidents at this in- tersection during the past three years". and " . . . .no apparent safety problems at this intersection, " are" interesting, be- cause there is presently very little traffic which is basi- cally .the cause of accidents and future problems .' With increased traffic to and from •the -proposed complex, prog- • nosis is that there will be accidents and traffic problems . at this intersection. ' • • The question arises as 'to how many more. reports are Mislead- , ing, ambiguous , or erroneous . • One last point . In my 23 January 1996 letter to you, I men- tionned having an open environmental hearing. Your 23 January 1996 letter had no response to that . . However, ' a 24 January 1996 letter from the City Clerk stated "Your questions regarding the environ- mental review process for the referenced project are valid , and have been referred to the Planning/Building/Public Works Adminis- trator to provide a written response to the City Council . An answer - will be provided to you after the City Council reviews the back- ground information provided by staff . " • As yet I have received no answer. Sincerely; � a) • ' Geraldine D.eWolfe DUPLICATE RECEIPT DUPLICATE RECEIPT CITY OF RENTON CITY TREASURER REG/RCPT : 82-32119 C:02-23-1996 CASHIER ID : J 10:46:00 fl:02-23-1996 5007 APPEALS 8 WAIVERS 375.00 000.000.00.345.81.00.000003 TOTAL DUE $75.00 RECEIVED FROM: GERALDINE DEWOLFE CHECK $75.00 TOTAL TENDERED $75.00 CHANGE DUE $0.00 DUPLICATE RECEIPT DUPLICATE RECEIPT CITY, OF RENTON "LL A;4.,., Mayor • Jesse Tanner • January 23, 1996 Geraldine DeWolfe 270 Bronson Way NE Renton, WA 98056 Re: Lexington Ridge Apartments Dear Ms. DeWolfe: Thank you for writing me of your concerns about the proposed apartment development adjacent to your neighborhood. I have reviewed your letter with my staff. The Lexington Ridge Apartment project is a resubmittal of a 360 unit apartment project that was approved by the City several years ago. The proposed development meets or exceeds the development standards contained in the City's Municipal Code. The present zoning for that site, Multi-family Infill, allows for a density of 20 dwelling units per acre (20 DU/acre x 13.4=268 units). Staff may recommend that the project only be allowed a maximum of approximately 260 units, as there are some steep slopes that should not be included in the density calculations. This point will be determined by the Hearing Examiner at the public hearing for this project. The hearing is presently set for approximately February 27, 1996, and since you are a party of record on the project, staff will inform you one week prior to the hearing. If you would like to challenge the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) determination, you may do this prior to February 7th, by filing an administrative appeal with the Hearing Examiner's office. Your appeal should be accompanied by a$75.00 check to the City. • As the project is consistent with the development standards, it would be very difficult for the City to deny the proposed development of this property. This site has been zoned multi-family for a number of years. If the City were to try to deny this project, the applicant could claim that the City was taking the development rights of the property. This site is the last large piece of property in this area to be developed Two other developments in this area have already been approved which will isolate this site from the • greenbelt and the wildlife corridor along the Cedar River. The applicant has provided a 7(1(1 Mill Avenue Smith - Renton Wachinotnn 9R1155 - (7f1tY)35-9SR11 /FAY(911(1715-9519 • G. DeWolfe Lexington Ridge Project Page 2 landscape plan that will provide more landscaping around the perimeter of the project than is required by code,which should help shield the surrounding neighborhood somewhat. City staff has reviewed the traffic impact that this project could generate. The streets have the capacity to accept the vehicle trips that are anticipated. Any intervention by the City that exceeds our legal mandate in processing this application ` could subject the City to damage claims or legal action initiated by the owner. The City must always walk a fine line between the rights of the residents and the rights of the property owners. Should you have any further concerns or need information that I can provide, please do not hesitate to write me, or contact Mark Pywell, the project manager. Sincerely, • Jesse Tanner Mayor cc: Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Mark Pywell, Senior Planner File:DeWolte II