Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJurgens - LUA20-000006 - Jurgens Appeal Response to COR 06.10.2020 LUA20-000006 – Jurgens Appeal Response to City of Renton Jurgens RUV 2301 Jones Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Prepared and Submitted By: Steve Jurgens 206-661-1761 sjurgens22@gmail.com 06/10/2020 City of Renton General Response to Mr. Jurgens’ Appeal: By Concerns Repeated Throughout Mr. Jurgens’ Appeal Jurgens Response: 1- Re-establishment of the buffer area that may have been impacted by the north driveway improvement would consist of returning this area to manicured vegetation, not a NGPE. Aerial imagery shows the same shade and shapes of green in this area as compared to non- disputed lawn areas. (Exhibit 3) 2- While tree cover blocks much of the disputed proposed mitigation area in the aerial imagery, the existing conditions plan page from the Bartell Short Plat LUA-04-007, directly across the street, clearly depicts a north driveway entrance and storm water culvert to 2301 Jones Ave NE. This plan is dated 11/03/2004, proving that this driveway improvement had been in place historically. The applicant believes that this drawing would even support the ability to retain the north driveway and disprove the COR’s opinion that the driveway was installed illegally. (Exhibits 3, 22) 3- Although not entirely visible, in many of the historical images of the property, parts of the improvements claimed as illegal by the COR can be seen thus proving of their existence at a time when they would have been permitted. This supports the legal non-conforming claim that the applicant has of improvements to the property. (Exhibit 2, 3, 4, 7) 4- The applicant is not aware of a section of the COR code that states how often lawn maintenance must occur for an area to retain its manicured vegetation status. Previous owners of the property were negligent in maintaining the vegetation on many portions of the property but did still maintain it occasionally. This claim is supported by comparison of the growth rate of the disputed areas on the property to the wetland to the north and the natural growth area across the street within the Bartell short plat. If the disputed areas were never maintained, the height and density of the vegetation would increase over time and be similar to the other areas mentioned. (Exhibit 23) 5- The applicant’s stance is that the property had all disputed improvements at the time of construction of the home in 1974. The applicant is not aware of historical databases that would contain the original building permit from this time frame, and at that time environmental regulations would have likely allowed for such improvements. This would disprove the COR’s claim that since no permits exist for the improvements, they were installed illegally. 6- The COR is incorrect to address encroachments into the stream buffer, since the proposal for the addition to the home is located entirely outside of the stream buffer. There are no improvements proposed within the stream buffer, therefore there should be no variance approval conditions relating to the stream and its buffer. 7- The applicant disagrees with the COR on the reasonableness of yard space. The yard space is not just used for recreation, but also to provide a pleasing frontage to the home, uniform with the neighborhood. With approximately 75% of the property’s frontage within a NGPE, the property would appear not to be maintained since manicured vegetation is not allowed within a NGPE. It is not reasonable to require the frontage of a property to look not maintained. 8- In response to the COR’s claim that the applicant never specifically requested that the City expand the reasonable use variance to include a reasonable yard space, the applicant was not aware of a need to make such request. However, comments from the COR in the final variance approval document and email correspondence suggest that the COR was well aware that the applicant intended to retain as much of the legally non-conforming yard space as possible and therefore should have been considered when requiring the creation of NGPE areas. (Exhibit 24) 9- It was understood by the applicant that the footprint of the addition in the variance was approved. If further buffer modifications are required to construct in this footprint, the applicant requests that the COR amend the variance approval to reflect as such. 10- The Digger’s Hotline was contacted and the utility locate was photographed as shown in Exhibit 1. The applicant agrees that it is not unique to install a fence or other improvement near utility lines, but reiterates that it is not a “Best Practice” since there are increased safety risks during the installation and maintenance of the fence and underground electrical line. (Exhibit 1) 11- If ultimately required, the applicant suggests that dimensions in feet could be determined for the location of the NGPE split rail fence from known locations such as lot lines, edge of wetland or centerline of creek. Condition #2 Jurgens Response: 1- The applicant disagrees that it is a specific code requirement to create a NGPE on an area that already has a legal non-conforming status as allowed by the COR code. 2- The COR code states,” A native growth protection area shall be instituted to protect a critical area for any proposed development for a non-exempt activity”; the applicant’s legal non-conforming use of the areas in these proposed NGPE areas is an exempt activity per the COR code, therefore a NGPE should not be created. 3- The COR code states “No proposal shall result in a loss of critical area functions or values”; the applicant’s proposal meets the intent in that there is no loss of critical area functions or values. In fact, the applicant proposes to improve the critical area. 4- The failure of the COR communicating a NGPE requirement to the applicant prior to the variance review is not the responsibility of the applicant. The COR should have communicated this requirement to the applicant since it is not a minor condition that has been included in the variance approval. 5- Input from the applicant’s Ecologist, Washington DOE and City of Renton ERC should be supported, in that no NGPE should be established. The applicant understands that the COR does not have an Ecologist on staff and therefore should rely on the review bodies that specialize in the environmental sciences. 6- Requiring the applicant to create NGPE areas is not consistent with LUA15-000761 or LUA16-000307, where no NGPE areas were required to be created. The COR is not consistent with applying the code requirements. 7- While the COR sees the applicant encroaching into the wetland buffer, the applicant sees it from the other way around- the buffer is encroaching into the applicant’s vested uses. With each code update, the legal vested use of the property is further challenged. The applicant believes that the environmental code requirements at the time of the lot becoming developed with a home in 1974 should be considered. As it stands now, the entire lot is stripped of reasonable use since the wetland buffer covers the entire lot. 8- The “win-win” was the applicant proposing to improve greater than a 1 to 1 ratio of wetland buffer to addition square footage. This mitigation plan achieved a win for the critical areas with an improvement, and a win for the applicant to build the proposed addition and retain the majority of the legally non-conforming uses. 9- The applicant disagrees that wetland buffer line along the north edge of the property has been changed in recent years. Aerial imagery is not entirely clear, but the disputed buffer areas are a similar shade of green to known manicured grass areas. There is also heavy tree cover along the north edge of the property and disputed NGPE area that would appear as if it was dense ground cover. 10- The applicant agrees that it is their own action to expand the current home, but the code does not support a “grab all” to update the property to the current code. It is not a self- created hardship that the environmental codes have become so restrictive and have stripped away vested and reasonable use of the property. The approval of the variance disproves the COR’s statement that the need for a creation of the NGPE areas is the applicant’s own doing by wishing to expand their home under a reasonable use variance. In order for a variance to be approved, the following statement pulled from the COR code must be met: “The need for the variance is not the result of actions of the applicant or property owner”. 11- Due to the COR’s restrictive environmental codes, the applicant has no choice but to build within the buffer since the entire lot is covered by critical areas buffers, which is not the result of actions of the applicant. Condition #3 Jurgens Response: 1- This was addressed above. It was understood by the applicant that the footprint of the addition in the variance was approved. If further buffer modifications are required to construct in this footprint, the applicant requests that the COR amend the variance approval to reflect as such. Condition #5 Jurgens Response: 1- While the historic imagery of the property does show denser vegetation in areas of the property at times, this is to be expected due to the lack of regular upkeep of the property by previous owners. Imagery also depicts excessive vehicles and debris throughout the yard, supporting this. However there are also photos that show that the growth has not changed between years or decreased, supporting that these areas in dispute are manicured, just not regularly. Also, if the areas in dispute were never manicured, the growth rate should be similar to the wetland to the north and natural growth area across the street within the Bartell short plat. (Exhibit 2, 3, 4, 7, 23) 2- The applicant agrees with the COR regarding the historical armoring of the creek and requests that the condition be removed from the variance approval in its entirety. 3- The applicant continues to reject the creation of a NGPE in the area including and east of the creek since this area would be stripped of its legal non-conforming use as manicured vegetation as supported by various historical images and documents. 4- The applicant continues to reject that the code supports removal of vested use to create a NGPE area. Conditions #4, 6, 7, 8 Jurgens Response: 1- Reference responses above.