HomeMy WebLinkAboutC_Hanbey Comments_250210.pdfComments in response to the City Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner:
Item 1: Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master applicaƟon for review on
August 8, 2022 and determined the applicaƟon complete on the same day.
AŌer meeƟng with city staff on April 5th about, among other things, the applicant’s SEPA document, an e-
mail was sent April 17th, complaining that the SEPA document submiƩal was inadequate with many
quesƟons unanswered and other quesƟons answered incorrectly. The porƟon of the e-mail about the
SEPA document is included at the end of this document. I would quesƟon how the city could accept the
developer’s SEPA document
Item 2: Please see discussion in the document “Comments to the Hearing Examiner—M Hanbey—FINAL”
on page 12 and suggesƟon on page 13.
Item 5: Please see discussion in the document “Comments to the Hearing Examiner—M Hanbey—FINAL”
pages 7 – 10.
Policy L-46: Consider scale and context for infill project design to preserve privacy and quality of life for
life of residents. Please see the document “Comments to the Hearing Examiner—M Hanbey—FINAL”
pages 5-7 for impact to residents in the neighborhood next to the development.
Policy L-52: Protect public scenic views and public view corridors, including Renton’s physical, visual and
perceptual linkeages to Lake Washington and the Cedar River. As stated in the staff paper, the proposal is
compliant with the following devrelopment standards if all condiƟons are met.
The proposed development is on Logan Avenue—the Cedar Rider is across the street, through the
Municipal Stadium parking lot.
Here is a current view looking from BurneƩ Avenue west- you will see the trees in the parking lot and the
trees along the rier, as well as the stadium.
Residents on BurneƩ are aware of the trees by the River, and the river itself. Now, instead, imagine this view
And remember, there is a building in the middle on BurneƩ, which blocks the opening in the middle of the building.
In these ways, if one agrees the proposed change in view does not “Protect public scenic views and
public view corridors, including Renton’s physical, visual and perceptual linkeages to Lake Washington
and the Cedar River” (italics added) for the residents on North BurneƩ Avenue, and for the residents in
the adjacent North Renton Neighborhood, then it can be argued the project does not meet this policy.
And since this Policy (L-52) is not met, then that mean not all condiƟons of approval are met, and therefore
the project is not compliant with the city comprehensive plan. This would also be true if it is found the
proposed development does not meet the L-46 policy requirement about privacy and quality of life for
residents, in this case the residents who will live across the street of nearby to the proposed development.
In the staff paper there is discussion about natural light.
Please see “Comments to the Hearing Examiner—M Hanbey—FINAL” pages 6 and 7
This tree in the first picture (on the far leŌ) is
on 3rd Street. The tree ordinace menƟons
“signifcant trees”
Significant trees shall be retained in the
following priority order:
Priority One: Landmark trees; significant trees
that form a conƟnuous canopy; significant
trees on slopes greater than twenty percent
(20%); Significant trees adjacent to criƟcal areas and their associated buffers; and Significant trees
over sixty feet (60') in height or greater than eighteen inches (18") caliper.
Priority Two: Healthy tree groupings whose associated undergrowth can be preserved; other
significant naƟve evergreen or deciduous trees; and Other significant non- naƟve trees.
It seems to me the two trees in the right-hand photo produce a significant canopy and over 60 Ō
and 18 inches. The other tree is significant in size.
Below is a exerpt from a document sent to the city about the applicants SEPA su bmiƩal. Please see
through the verbiage for instance of “no answer given” or “wrong answer given”.