No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA00-108 . . ..: , . ? _7., -44.-•-•'%4 , . All 1.: . .- •. ' - - . . . • - 4014 ' '' llt •4 • i •..,, . . ,,,,, . -.-. . Mr , . . . -L --... ., II • • „AO ' • • .:..,- , 00. v - • ,, • .. *k ,-.• , . t lir", - 'f;‘*'•-•.---, j•lz...' . .....t. ‘..f`• . :. • - , • • . . IA • ,r. . t t,'.4,,) .. 4 , . • . . ., ... , .. ....„4.• ..0.-- 4-ft , i • .4. ...._. • _ , _.. . ...... 1.-...„.... . ,i.z....,„ i,.. .4•• ,... -8.04-,. —........ ... ...?"... 1 4 _tat ILI ps: '''',444-'t..-',,,, . .0._ ,s4r I .,.. - • IL:1i 11 '.' • *.• \'N ... ilre 1/41kt , ...ni. . . ... • '4 . tl." . . ... As... •fe,.''.7 . 1,4141 . . .:-: 1.;Q*A404.47:1111k . ''".• ‘‘ ''- k 1*.illk i ---.'' .:/i& .4 4 'At, • e *110.,. ..... ..... . . ....,11 " . ... =.. . ••• - .........c .,••41 -1.... ., , ., • . . , • _ - k r. %. J., jilt.: • • ) ' - .3 .. . i ;...t.. -.4.• . , . - .:F•. _ ... ii • ,,,. ..,{•:,-,... . I . .. r 4r• , 40.• ....• • . . ...,. ' .' • . . . ..... ker VI"N-52--. ' • . 0 jez_AH \ & • ,- I I . • t. i • , 1 • e. • 1t ' --;� 1 r • r iL0 Pf 2TY i ""' . 4railgie-- 0 ww 4,k, . .,' V►• • . x .. •�, 2 •'.' t' -'; ``:: ., ,. -J `, - ,. i . ,.;,,,‘11, r t 4 C -: as 1 ,I 'It 1 -.\''�'',' 6E+6 '� ,� f ;%w -A ,06 ) t\ A- , 4,, r•t, a ., ano. %/ ., ,."..„4„..: �ti , , .fit '? !: rw ii , _:„WINIMPIN •. -, - .... i., Nte.,•••• Jr '..c. 4, . .4„. • . 0,. '*" f I , ' illik :• - ' . .....11,,,,,4 ,,' • ' '1'.,' at . —`,e 1 ' t. -:, •s'.41 •.,. 1 , ,o,.. ? 1 . - , al• -;•-t—' • t, ....V.:. • . - 1. 4 4 .' .•1' Ariirei;-_, v. ' - t , . -. .;• ... t N.' ' . 7' ..6.' . '• .. IV 411!'ll 4' ,' ‘ ‘.• '11: • i / •' i • 5:".., •I. .. 4 . _ Aar -4 , .. .. t'..s --Itlkftt, ,' .t. .., .;,. , .1 .1:t. ., ... a • ., t.,, . . _• ,tek; • • . -1," ... . . • ,..,4, * ' • .- I t. N..,:. . N ...• • ., . p , s••• 4 •t ' V ' • • k • s •.. 4 •• •• %.. *. it flik .. -• A 'llikt ip........0,5 '- • ! 1.k -7'-.4,,,, . • - . ,, ., 11000 ,t f#0 to 7 ,./- I - 14C • i'' 4:' s.4 , . .• ••• - 9 / 6) . •••• -id.*.-• -:-- •04,-. • Attlik - • --,t- - 0- n -tb.A.L. , •4' pi & 0)), 26sv\-5 ttVUL_ .. • 0,54er—e_ cf< z-a4A-k _ .- ItliAte•-"Zrlirileg' • ' -`a: 11",.. A4'*...?'•"••'••'.'.*1'‘'',....:,''4.".4As.•r11-11•,i 1r d e,+‘i.c 1-0r..•.--1 A...i.4••41x,..1.-4i.i3i4 tie..- 1..:l.‘•4'•i••t.i.i*..ii.'.'-"l. ,o r -I I,1•%r•4 I1,',sI-''M^ks I.,‘,7.* 7*„..,7,..P.11_.-‘7r.v4.-.'-,%4 L 0t.:..,•..•.•1r ',,.'''•.••.*•..'','.':.'iA%,;,s,^.•..`',.-.,#.°.1.': 7‘ ..,,_.,•': . .tr e er • • . ' 0 ,,.,.ai •• -,‘,•;.4 i,,"4t•7.dA.i'k'1',6 AI AL.•_7..7•,,...•".i•:•..lr•. `..6,t• ••',, 4.,•,t 4'.•••j4..1•,.'.;,i.‘,I* Itcroil#k . 1 •'0676..",vp,•:,! . ... ,.•N . .1.•-• • • •;".1.: •'''r -., A, ..g. •-• ••••,'-a-Vit, :1,1e. *... '‘.--:;4t ' • ' k4,•Ii`f*...,.2.• (,,^ - ' . •,••• -141Dt ',,,''''.,;•44..* It. 4,.. - - -4:A 44,-5, 4sv,..- z.-1. A ..,.... .,,,,,. ••.111111117/' A • ' --tvai gz ' t,)c, Co 0-tJ fiz- _ . ....... _ 14 EA4 i ul k..6 001)P—P, ppolie N PeRS—D W k-a31- - , J I r • , / i -I AW.•' • . �i' j t' • • •i ;�s Y ; ilia i • II e . rg 1 •• c , 4 - sif N.., �• ? t ,�00),. . h 'J. r el." - - t - ;7111F- 3 I i, f . . , ; f r' .1, it • 0 ' A I 1:7).. .....c......, dif C.0.45..6 `r 5 LA.A3syk_ • t • timb* SE corVJ'clzlli. (;:is St eikag tow tiZ f t sc�J slaty' 0 e ° y n, FERRARI DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, PS Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, AICP June 14, 2000 Senior Planner City of Renton - Planning / Building /Public Works Department 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 SUBJECT: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Project No. LUA-00-040, SA-A, ECF 33 D Dear Ms. Higgins: We are in receipt of your letter of March 31, 2000 indicating that your Department has determined the referenced application incomplete. Please note the following with respect to the eight issues that were raised in your letter: 1. We have included with this submittal 12 total copies (1 original and 11 copies) of the Master Application form, notarized and signed by Soung Hee Rieker, also listed on the title report as a property owner. 2. We have had our Civil Engineer and Surveyor, Touma Engineers, prepare a Tree Cutting / Land Clearing plan addressing trees located either on the subject property or within 25' of the subject property on adjacent properties. 3. We are including with this letter a copy of a slope study plan produced by Touma Engineers. The study shows areas of relative slope on site. All areas of slope exceeding 40% occur in the western portion of the site, beyond the limits of the approximately 310' (as measured from the east property line) of the site proposed for development. We believe that a variance request as outlined in your letter will not be necessary. 4. The location and the height of the retaining wall has been clarified on the civil drawing please refer to the Site Grading Plan drawing. The architectural Site Plan drawing, drawing SD-1 has also been revised to note the retaining wall. The wall is located on the property line and varies in height from 2'-0" to 4'-0". An eccentric footing is proposed however it is likely that a construction easement will be necessary in order to construct the wall. The easement will be obtained prior to LU the start of construction. N V 5. The retaining wall referenced above in item no. 4 has been added to the Building u_ Elevation drawing. The face of the wall will be unfinished, poured-in-place co concrete, cast against a form liner to give the wall a textured face surface. co N 6. The Vicinity map on Drawing_SD-1 notes the locations of structures on the adjacent properties. This information'now also appears on the Site Plan on SD-1 c W o JUN 21 2000 a • • 12277 134TH CT. N.E., SUITE 203, REDMOND, WA 98052-2433 • : a t t . • ;1. 7. The Project Narrative and the appropriate page from the Environmental Checklist have been revised to show the cut and fill quantities. Updated copies of these documents have been attached to this submittal. 8. We had been led to believe that we had received a waiver from the traffic study requirement due to the scale of the project and the mitigation contribution proposed based upon ITE numbers. See Environmental Checklist item 14f. Also see the waiver form submitted with the initial application materials. Pleas advise me if we need to take further action on this issue. Copies of the revised materials accompany this letter. We have furnished the same quantities of the.documents as required in the initial application. Please advise me if you need anything in addition. Sincerely, FERRARI DESI GR•UP ARCHITECTS, PS rank7* Heffernan A ' - f i " Architect Enclosures 991201tr1.doc\fh I tOc 'a F. f d" — ._ • !� . 1 I -i '� 11 _ 5 IIIeibe iq IMONT VAR.FROM 21.0.TO i� _�-1 I I ARCHITECT..PEI 1 $ 'r I I I mw lu ! •\ • A z Imeow: \\ +-\'`Y•.tr' "lam`: ( r•:8 ,.n. I �t1 tt <" — — '-ate ag I Inll c Clnir: '.III ll• I :•nm u: c:. i ��iggl j; i I �% �• r I y . v ,�.:. P— — -- t:t3 ..... ........... .>' - 1 m i ABERDEEN - - - ��-.id` ��N� . ,'a• A I < i AVENUE ` ' n�vr xlv� I APARTMENTS 7 , 1 ; o f I i 91]/.e.U�Wm NE LN.e Wa�.�m9d0.d 1Lk" I i i �,� I SITE PLAN; �1 LOT IO i i I LEGEND LEGEND SITE PLAN o GROUND LEVEL/PARKINS LAYOUT PN,e...w.M�•4,,e.f. N a CAMBRIDGE L./Z2,1 N.52.2 f0S HOMES NW 0' 19a8NE„].Pkq.M na Yv.wglotom91 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT II Nrfln 609019 we nvc.e OM ,«me MT. WA PROJECT DATA SUILDINS DATA -xRuB F3,0 201n1a nor,,moron 19X0FFORT/ ' , `a. .. , ITE c;w- Ot O ,CO. e NM MOM MT V nu.,a O.Na•.uxilwenw.•teMa...a x.2,-2 '1 wm1,+e..•pp",pp. ,Him Mr-Pa .2 Y I µ1 EXPTIXO o.�or� �" rh•9t: 7.-' o 902 200.24 s/.OtY x TO221. nit M1nrnl w it rna \r, :! b.-� P IF w'.:40$:%I1 s p— w IM.e,.br Mb, 2099. STALLS 0 aim...,. icitw•m�-- w...mm '"'190 nmtw..v c,m M. , mge m 42.„WO.. VICINITY MAP Deg••+, 0126111,11.002, ,MT� ��. N Ri a.. TOT.WC/PEA �Ir. ;r. No 111.20111.201 0112,1411.11.3 i SD1 i M� o9,mao .... _.. ._ . ! MIN LOT 12 I I I \ I I I\ FERRARI I DESIGN \ i 1 - GROUP I . . _.—.—..-..-_-----------------.---.-__.-------...---.-----------.---_-_..—.---. .—.-----1 ARCHITECTS.PS Palit.011.MAW I \ 1 •,,,,,,,,•, \ •W•42.MN. , Xl-f 7,, ! 1 PSYYD,IwaTil mass \ P.4*I'i• / / \ \NI I I I I =am tom, ‘11121.12(.1•4 0.6241'En. ( i 6, i al i..---.— t .-ISIIIII51,. I ,f 1. I z •.• ._<.:+=4,.„4,.„,,,,,,,--7-4› i <i1--r' il.r- '.I47' ; -'-.':-.-f:'::1 : r . :. - ,t'Ei-,: i.,'.f'F-,',.,t;-.:--,. , -- 1 . I 2 I ,i"\IEUgl :ii'.....074‹r :..N.I.i• --.';.:..T.--:•,,,,,p:'..?,•_4'1. --, :.14-='2.-i-N'ii:;+'sq., -rr,•--i•ii,_':it:iifg:14,1,--,:**1 •4---,:tiV4IF:liiii1;::4-='''. 1.17;-irRf,-,5 — —-L.--------"---,-,'i:;-"?•,.;,1-afrf•-1 •iu U'A . I ,—.-- ----'."..1.;',±.:.,7/ M. \`-'!'./E'i,4:-.7 r- -- IIIIII ISM --''',Iit'FIIIit4II,t1 I< I 1\ 3. i 4\_... mil um -1., )/ z i a. I a !I r.,..e:,_,,,ts• - . .. Is Is 0 hi , • & & & & & & . . pcti, 11; 1 15 !: I III 6 t..---.-.---..—... ...---..-.—. ._..-..—....---..--.. ---- -........„,,w—...;...7.,-;---- ----._-.-i''' _...... .......—.--- ..—.--- — -- •••• -.- -- -4 -- 241- M., \ #.20-r, , • • • 1..9 ABERDEEN I I - AVENUE \ I APARTMENTS \ I I 1 \ I j \ I j I rzzzarl \ I I I Witt" I I\ St \ 1 j 1 I I FIRE LANE LOT 0 DETAIL DRAWING \ I I A SITE PLAN KA-AMMER-END TURN AROUND FIRE LANE DETAIL N m.o. CAMBRIDGE HOMES NW SWINE MP Ram IA.1 IIIII.V.PSPPIPIPINSS roam N/A 1.17*.••••••Onsm••• •:::..":-.7...•Z"`" i . I:saw s FIBTE10011 .... ...., WE ANC•MII.S. m.o.=T.I 1 SD2 i he. SUM I D4 • S T23N.R5E E 1/Z. - . , :C • • . \ \ 1 1 • • . 11r f—i 12th Si,.S -- 11 1 .7\. .4 Q,._ c4 • R 8--rj - - --1._ , \ I.L. .. . ..z . .. N.1 (IT * : 900 .. rill......- . .-:.'.,-...: iiiittliA,. 7 : 1..... . . 0 .!A ..-1 .... ' -;-- I . -‹ r • . _T_TII___.1: ...,,..„.,.. . . %ilk, 7.r . . . e) . • .. . • ... 1 N .. NO% , ..-8 ffia„,,qc: . . i.:.'..:-:,:.;..:. - . ...v., f . -. 1,-). r -,, , is .-...-,.., ..-..i.i.,ii,, ..., .• __ .. , .. .. Iwalk • . var. il,„arAy r -Rm-I ; .1.t.:1,....1:. 11. ..:-..-'.•::-:!..' • 1,1E1 1 c9lt F . . .. .$ M I :IIL3flh1I. -FL: ' cp !wpm'RJ I `) — Vl N .r.+ j� - • ig - 4y N 8 t h e� rairki404.„ z • R-8 Vv.,.. i. *Awl• 144. : z; E yr W6- -- R-8 • ee • �eee® at �l N 04.4 • . •1111 _R— • tiNi al Vtii .- - . . •t:,,,„, Te : - 1_J- 0:*, • 1 .cz \ 1 . . , - J--- $ 1 4 .... - /\ $3.) 1 * 444,41. i 4 .. . k :. 1 . 1.ii 0 '� ... 1• . • . 1 ... • .. .....: . f. i 17C-44-- ..:11. . . Alf.. :•.. prIN... .. 7,:. ,....: . .44 ik 10:44:04:-..LL ': l•7: '. . . • • 1:41 .V 4 ...-. • .-jEj 5 .• . i ... . ... . 1. Cam' ♦�pr . .. ... mom• r • - • i* "P� �:ofiVV. .....• - -VR .; r 4 . fin O�R.- , . Ts-Iferp4;ar1- . it ...1 , .0,(r - i--- Y- cti • • : Cr 7\''''''..-\-.7.....'!,'. . ..s_1741400.. .r,"" . 1 . e1 F4 • 17T23NR5EE1/2- o Zo - i►J v- r--t A P . Y,` .. :..Qa E4 - . 1�fE09. • ou o' " '.°E"v E «'n' 3 - • 8.•T23N R5E E 1/2 . .... ..... • i , 1 �� ` LOT 12 I I I ,I• A A A A i I I FERRARI 11 msrms:P .w�.,.�,e,o•. I i I DESIGN iGROUP I I ARCHITECTS.PS i WIMP • "' .is, �`�;III III •• t:J1I111uu ; I N. A I`• 994!t1999 I v _ a • �, I w ABERDEEN �: swe oa • A I < I AVENUE '1 -w���' _, i APARTMENTS 1 1 017..doen.bmo NEMirka.WasHVc.01BOSS j I 1 I SITE PLAN; LOT IO i I I LEGEND LEGEND SITE PLAN CO GROUND LEVEL/PARKING LAYOUT II"'�' meals MAL,.�.••,e.r. N d" . . CAMBRIDGE I'////J +rH. HOMES NW A .2,SEt,°AR.aNA �::.:•:•I r...•.+s�soewx Inmm.mwpmam° 6x.bl'3 PPE..,.e.H.�...PPmPOE N.C.05 ROAD NO LEGAL DESCRIPTION torn.«pops s,«o..xacm•en,sea.P.,.n.P rsr. WA PROJECT DATA BUILDING DATA /�{ PPP LOT NEM. Tmr. i RE R}a;N:/Lywa • Imo'. ropp,n.P... .a H.,�o. :a. .y , a �' „Tap amp . .•� �, Cl trip g 64 �'R. � ` O Ra . {, rNw t. 91.1 OE.P.M AZIal m.roe,..eWrTaPPEOP ESLELIMONO: v IP,..aaP.P.nm - Clt�ri lB S�<I 1.,.11: ALL:W INS prrantOn is roo.errnAoi er° To •rereRAMIMPIWSa PL r[ CC= w� Pi+.mIDurr v. r wm+s n•`L'i.P.P.. tow.•e.::crOWNS.,.,... t sr. ea,asw [WARM rt.O m .02,,n; VICINITY MAP II`"'I a Ms"`y IMAM Ira it N III TWA. .12w POPP NOK.oPPS O. warps. k . Ism .SD1 011120.00 V L S • -i) SITE ter e.-tl `E74-1-4-t.921 l' 1 \\ 1 I —' LOT 12 I 1 j 1_ \ I j j FERRARI \ __J 1 I I DESIGN r------•---'-------'—'—'----------------------'---'----------•—'-------'---------'---- -----•-----------------•--I j I i GROUP —• ARCHITECTS.Pe \ ,Qw. ,m� I I je..a E ✓ I -- Tf < j f e 1won¢ Ss IFNX ,,- r7:..Arx ryti a j - i" - z s D m ..ab \g ��..ae s I r. 1.1 e �� 0 a l k i w nay — • : I 1 \ ,'O'er •�• . I in ABERDEEN \ I I i AVENUE 1 I i APARTMENTS \ I I I \ I I 1r011iMj I j 1 E,EA�NE �w�� \ I I 1 I j I •n.wm.,Q I FIRE LANE \\ LOT 10 i i j DETAIL DRAWING SITE ELAN k'/HAMMERHEAD TURN AROUND FIRE LANE DETAIL I�+"" N Oa o..' CAMS RID GE HOMES NW SIM NE ME Plaw..I REHOVREVIonMS • NIA ?AT EZP • •.M , memo SD2 m -- v 1 47 t") T E rLbrJ E.- -H-t FS[T1 11/2001 14:05 '1bbo44t74oa - -- r 3 = a'� 6f�f��y Y,�ey ��,✓G� 34.1.- r54/. - 1 I ,p,e)> \.-4 ' ,-/ p...f>$ T 8 �\ �---Ga G. ,.".//, -G i ,,./y �,�,pY,G �r�/ o Gf1/j . T _ _ -� ` � . 04-Ga�f f9e A.� in .rYiv - a ,p4-#f y®, . z2,v<4*,p 1 I •i I r i', 0.1 4a );.S. , )1-0'-•c'4. j7,4i, I ., , 341 , ff fax y-o2�Za,-0 M IL y_1" moo.' g, f-yf', ,4W��%,/i,"G ,-vAl1 ig-Z'I ,✓o>--' ✓�,l�fy,� 1) -lc'iG �- G zoo yr1 C, fi".�O , 0. ) C""'G' 1G ".0 1AJir r s ey /� 6..... � Soot No. * 0:_,. - WotecUSubi9ct . __ (/ , :' s,T ,ear. ,../� s� ' , rAV 114 r Pa w W t-t- P-oo'fl 1.1& P Er•tvc c ., 1gr-r 6 . (INT7 • January 22, 2001 Sunset Garden Home Owners Association 949 Aberdeen Ave. NE, #318 Renton, WA 98056 Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Kaufman: As president of the board of directors of Sunset Garden Homeowners Association, I am submitting this appeal of the City of Renton's environmental determination for Aberdeen Ave. Apartments, #LUA-00-040, SA-A, ECF. I am speaking on behalf of 60 homeowners. Deny Request for Construction Permit We are requesting that you deny a permit for construction for this project. The parking lot and driveway are only three feet from Sunset Garden's property line, not eight feet. Also the extension of the driveway, puts it back into the ravine, an area of critical slope. In the City of Renton's letter to Ferrari Design Group, dated January 4, 2001, there are six issues identified that could cause this project to be denied approval. I would like to bring to your attention #3. It appears from the revised plan, that new grade lines would be extended off the property to the retaining wall located on the neighboring property to the south. This would require that an easement be recorded, granted by the Sunset Gardens Condominium Homeowners'Association benefiting the Aberdeen Apartments property. Because this property has filed an appeal of the site plan approval, we suggest this agreement be negotiated as soon as possible. • As of January 22, 2001, the developer, Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Rieker of Cambridge Homes NW, has made no attempt to contact Sunset Garden. Is the City of Renton, the developer, or both liable for any damage to Sunset Garden's retaining wall during the construction at 917 Aberdeen Ave. NE? Given that the City has to grant variances in order for this project to be built, it would seem that the City will be responsible for any ill affects on adjacent properties. On January 17, James Strichartz, Sunset Garden's attorney, sent the attached letter to the developer and a copy to the City of Renton. This letter states that: Sunset Garden will not grant an easement Sunset Garden will take,legal action if the itemized actions take place. Drainage Problem Documented for Hillside Five out of six buildings located at 949 Aberdeen Ave. NE, directly south of 917, have suffered from moisture drive up through their floors, causing damage to vinyl-covered surfaces. The slope of our hillside is steep. The slope of the property at 917 is even steeper. How could a building be constructed on this property without considerable in- fill? How would this in-fill be stabilized? Building on this site defies all common sense. In addition to the run-off that comes down the entire hill, the water table is relatively close to the surface. At several places at 949, underground springs seep up through the surface of our driveway throughout the year. Sunset Garden has gone through a three year saga of paying a hydrologist and two engineers to determine a cause and solution to our moisture problems. In a nutshell, our condominium complex, built in 1991, has paid approximately $225,000. (The high bid was over$500,000.) This work is caused by water, that naturally drains down the west facing hillside above I-405 due to pavement (streets and parking lots) and houses and apartment buildings. The City of Renton's planning process failed to require adequate mitigation to avoid the costly problems we face today. The developer and builder of Sunset Garden failed to provide the necessary construction methods and materials to mitigate the problems of building on such a hillside as ours. To locate several buildings as well as an asphalt driveway and parking lot north of our property will.only exacerbate our problem. Certainly the new buildings will have problems of their own. Living proof at 949 shows that a developer and builder must go beyond the narrow requirements of applicable codes in order to build on this type of site. It is extremely frustrating to read the City of Renton's "Determination of Non-significance (mitigated) Advisory Notes." The section "Plan Review— Stormwater Drainage" is not adequate. I see that the city is requesting $15,985 as a Surface Water System Charge. The charge may be a way to finance city expenses. But not a penny of this charge will be seen by adjacent property owners, who literally will be or currently are financing solutions to hillside drainage and its accompanying damage to homes. As of July 10th, each homeowner at 949 Aberdeen has paid over $4,000 lump sum payment in order to redo all footing drains on the property and repair floors in 13 units. We are nurses, airline inspectors, school teachers, news reporters, retirees, technical college employees, secretaries, paralegals, office furniture installers, bookkeepers, manufacturing employees, and construction workers, many of whom are faced with financial hardship at best, bankruptcy at worst (three homeowners), due to poor planning and development practices in regards to drainage system requirements and installation. Not only is there the monetary cost, but also endured was the considerable inconvenience of removing all landscaping in order to dig a 6' deep trench around all perimeters of each building, cutting down our larger trees, and jackhammering out and replacing the patios and sidewalks. In conclusion, the site at 917 is very narrow with a sharp drop and extreme negative impacts to adjacent property owners. Sincerely, L-5 Gay Kiesling President, Sunset Garden Home Owners Association • LAW OFFICES OF JAMES L. STRICHARTZ JAMES L.STRICHARTZ A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION RICHARD H.LEVIN Internet e-mail: SUITE 511 JERRY H.STEIN jim@condo.com 200 WEST MERCER STREET MARK B.MOBURG SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98119 JO M.FLANNERY (206)282-8020 OF COUNSEL (206)282-5041(FAX) January 17, 2001 Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Rieker Cambridge Homes NW 12228 NE 112th Place,#A-1 Kirkland,WA 98033 Re: Sunset Garden Owners Association General Representation Our File No. 99F94-00 Dear Mr. and Mrs.Rieker: This office represents Sunset Garden Owners Association(the"Association"). I have been directed by the Board of Directors of the Association to write to you regarding your proposed development of the Aberdeen Avenue Apartments at 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Renton. As you are aware,the Association owns the property to the south of yours. The Association wants you to be fully informed that it is not willing to grant any easements to you in connection with your proposed development. In addition,please be advised that the Association will pursue claims for both civil and criminal trespass against you and your agents and contractors if there is any trespass on the Condominium property by persons,equipment, soil, dust or water. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. I look forward to your prompt response. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF JAMES L. S RICHARTZ James L. Strichartz JLS:s cc: Gay Kiesling Elizabeth Higgins, AICP Frank Heffernan, AIA G:VaJ\CONDO\LETTERS\Sunset Garden Letter to Gerald Rieker re Aberdeen Avenue Apartinents.wpd • •_ . • s, ... . i.•• , -,I.-1-.. 1.It , • 1.• ....ii ' .1:,• p. . - ,r . 0 . . •- 'I, , • t • . i ,. '11'. I' :11.' , `..1., V•'lk t - • ..-1 • -, - - .. . , ,...A t•*. , I I. t .• . 4. 4%, 14r.• . ' 41610, • '44 . .. . . ' ..-:-•••4;.ett " r.1.sA.r'.l'1e,,',....‘ , II a1 m 1 V% irI 4•..4 i.,,,-,•,i,,„e..'4.•,•1•'"...",,.--''.'"••-• it iir-, to,,r,. e,tIt_f.'_S.r_.._,•,..•,A .•,.) :••n .•: - Wohilloglim'i"-. • ....,- , e 444, . . •. _ Yi. I • . 1:.t•S„, r-- - . . .,. . - •la ,• ::••••r•••••: e •- . - t e ,, Ire.-• - . -, • ....A.74. , .,,:-.4. 7 , -• - ••••• ''.... • ,.- ' . ... • .c-- - .. ".:".. ••!, . 17- - .. . -;1":"."' -1••••., ,,,, „,..„ . _ ', lAc'i ^ - .46,40. .• . ,. -• ---.i• .--— ..,., •-•;;- .- - ,Ctt•dr*.'...'t rd. •"••••.... t, • ... 4 .•',', gellr •• ti•'-,t't rt.„ , 4 , • •"•' C.•• ' ''t 4 .;-- • _ . .N.., •,„41. .,... . ._ ••• • -.-- • f-)61-4-1 r))I T- SA • , r ... •t• 1 • ,*I.31/14f*:".. Aillth,'•••••••• ' •. • • , I. .. . ... : . e'.' -•,- • '14 • ... k VI I.VIIII Li_ • o .. *1 I do ; •r • f'-,- •• ..' ti•..fare—. ' ..., • li. likrile ''• .•' • ' ...: '-'.*.? -'...v- •. • --.." •• '? 'f.i At. .• • .. . 6 -3' • • i', . . • . • ....-- 1 7 • st-N. P• • -- . *e. ' • • . - I _ z 2 . • ..:.. _ ..... . . . • .. . ... ' .. .• .. ,.......„. . A , , I 0 • A • 6 I. eci _ . # t km. 416,k, 'Pr 01 t 4 a4rtioh. 1, `k 0111thYl. c• `. it I 1, i%t ‘itt, w 7 ., • • .ftr. At 00• " .1 4 r ,' 4' e' _. .fires , [. , ,.1 f .. v) : (: • ../�•_0 > y, • •I; 4, ,T'C , 41/r .' •'��r .- t•_ /' r i- • 1.1' SI C, r�, II�C•�� ..w.y �.n, 'all. ', t ) i R! + k•`//� wit. .�. +�• „,4I'14..,.A • •:40T,Ir1 a., ,l r ~. )f�l /�. i. f) 'iy. ,, r, �r:' r. vaC�,, • fit. f!-r5� ail 1c''� i�ir • 4_ ia�• r+ + "''may,.r' -",v, �1"1 p • jr..1 J 44'isal ., (~- C.,,;- .,"o\C,_'�'C. :i,1'i TAtM - • Jt.:"Pry,��'r'�•IA '1� •i�, �is j i 9r , • _ / •'� 1 1 5,- • -'r`. •,�xOfet l lk 1• '"Q .� l• 1"Y •I.•41) 4 E.�,y a .y,r I �.`` t• S 1 t _ i .1,�1 r t r+`•j, afr'Y'y`�,44 ,IL,'; V*f> 1i 1. I `J') _ �F., ♦ ` .�p 1' ( • 1 �llii�.!'1� .{ i ... .�rd• I S' /4 = '",> , .jam` �f1' ). x s i� (� n 4" �1.�1� ter' 4 � �+'S ; +� •� .{' 11 T•1;• :".' Ikc A. \ ,.., .1 , 7 iii. , • ,,,• k , .4... 1°11; , 'hi iti'•'.1 S �' `iP< < '� t il.��.t1, >s)� '.wt1: f • I Yf ; a/�. t ,/ ,,,,. . .. . .,. tom, , k'a ,ikr. «ram � 4 .. = . J t yif•'jjam�_ 7. .1 if r, •�•,-J �.4 a 1. •�- , Sti4'21. \/ + _ . . - ,Y L},'+i f4 III' I. .L �. •' t ,�! ' ♦ •1` .7I y_s ;� fir` •' :+ ' ' a Yak : + { , \\ • �'., y`k L WO, u. 4%y t !f- � " ' ♦ l , , •"' j� + r �'\7', iiy ' j+r 1 r '' J 'r v ' 4 ,r.''4,+. :,t ?. •, • .'',-.,`(. L` 1. �� 1 1. ! h + •-. • 1, S. ; ' • .\\ T-----•-:: -" - . .. _ • --, '-'-'2..-1'-.:;‘:1.; -:,-,-.J., -''-: _ : •':':;1, .-'i 1 .; •,i -.', .. 1.-t..--2.•.)t.i,2;,...".'-•-./..:':.:....• ....... II il I I , II I il=1.1IMMili . 11.1.11111. I I 1 1 :i 1 LL:1 '1 I iri SEC 8, TWN 23 N, R 5 E., W.V. 1 I , = INSTRUMENT: NIKON TOTAL STATION DTII-AIOLG (5 SECOND INSTRUMENT). METHOD USED: FIELD TRAVERSE PATH ACTUAL I 1 FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANGLES WAS.332-1.30-070 'ASEIT213.69 GRAPHIC SCALE iNv EL-20784 ' T DATE OF SURVEY: JANUARY,2000 III 5iTRil • CENTER UNE OF ABERDEEN AVENUE NE I lir Teat) 1 Irett Al II. N 01.5917'PP A •gicithigCTYj;RVLTn' r3P2 /gRASS 'SKrrva.R OF i Z5 9E0tASEC77gVOF . 1 41 I 11 Ili‘ HAW.wfin. ABERDEEN AVENUE NE AND NE 12TH STREET. ELEVATION=284.63'(86.76M) LOT 12 e IMRE 0 ALDER ie EVEROLEM I l 1 11 , \ q•• , e 3...., t -...,, -.;., _,, s t% ro%3 PLIEEPIC • APPLE I \ \ m• \ W al, i . ‘,..„, ,, ,.. ......e. .. .........„......„ :,. \ L..- ,.. ,.........-..,. ...-....,.......-......-...;,_,.--...-........., ,....‘, ..,w951.00'W‘,807.61-‘, 7,.., / ,,,,..g.-- ,-;fL,,i,=-,, \ el , .,...- .:..- , A 1 1 Lu 10 i • _ . . „ ...— . -. --'.!': a.- .1 - ''''''.7- '76i. 'N''...,:••••-.'''. -7"........ .T..,Ift:,.•;.E-....2......;=..*;...=...::::,.:::::-:.:.:•.147=r7, — - -L'....:".:::. 4 .;:::,-.•:•:•:•:•:,::::::::.:::-;.:,z::::,:„.::.:::.::::::,...::::::::::::::„..::•5::::::::::::44,.•. : : - .,..,:::::::•::.:.•.:.:.:.:.::::::::.::.:,-........ ,_...... ..... 1 i __ILI . .ff,- ";:*7-'%,•4` :.- #''" -•,:•:•:••:•:•:•:....X.•:;:;.i.....i.:•:•it..•:•Ifi:.::•:..7:::•:•:•••••••,If,..I.I1::•:•:•:•:•... '.'.'3,,•"•:•Ii..."..........I.I.. :::::::::::::::.:..i.3:.:.:..:.:::::•Vk -- W2 . ,f.....,tz:.:W.c......1 , —,— , ' 411:,..• .11127- .-4,-.----)--- _„la Lvs--,,,,:::..y,%:,, Eil .,,2' II 1 • ,..7i1, . ' .....-- ,ffil It kkr:...f:7%444 , M .1 i.,,. I t...350 .. ,, .."....w„g4; _ffigmi. .. ,w -..t. -* 5 — ; -' lir IM:::i:.'ididi;''' , s 0. ty) / __ WE:. IIIIrp.$111., :--,, mapyr-gi* 4 wiiii‘TWILzmirgs_kL , - , , , , , , :- .,. •••-:.2,.._. ._-••:,,,- ,••••, - , , ,,, ,,,, ,,,,,------ , • • I w la !Et I i, Lig'i i ____,____ I, / ,/ r •!....-5. ;.,,,..,.. r . , • CO 4 , i , I I ! • I 1 • . / —. :=,-;..---------. "."' / --'1-1 = C F rt ,-- - -1-L-- w'L-----L-4----------1 ;73 , ,' I. ' ,v ei ,, i..,„. '7. ] ...,.1 1 # lett i 1.01.011 , I I . EILILAIII0 , if, • -----1.--- „A LOT 10 I , 1 fril-M1 I I :. . I* , !'1 ; ,,•Vil---N.,./,' ! I I , -ift e I ,...,..."..'i'l --4.7j1- LEGAL DESCRIPTION •TRACT II OF HARRIES GARDEN HOVE TRACTS,ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RIM EL.-212.15 RECORDED IN VOLUME 34 OF PLATS PACE 38,IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON: INv EL-202.10 EXCEPT THE NORTH 37.5 FEET THEREOF. •EX.SSMH '? i g •:i!I.-- .. n ..............i. „ II • , • IMINEEMINIIIMEM I I • IF.. .‘1 IS T'') colf%6 ,tijcp— ri..40 -•,<I-ki P7 IT 1 q , i., t� CITE', -;JF-•RENTON`' _ . tr' - • - }learing,Examinet • Jesse"Tanner,Mayor• Fred J:Kaufman " ` • • March 15,.2001_ Helen.D..Burch-: Gay Keisling 957•Aberdeen Avenue NE • Sunset Gardens Homeowners.Association :Renton; WA 98050 .; 949 Aberdeen Avenue#318 - " _ • , Renton,WA9..805.6 • :Re: APPEAL OF SEPA ANDSITE•PLAN DETERMINATION:` • FILE No. LA00-10 U 8,AAD; " Dear Appellants: The Examiner's Report and Decision'onthe above�referenced matter,which was.issued on - February:26,2001'-was not appealed witlun the 14-day:period established by ordinance.: ' Therefore,this Matter is considered final•-by this office'and"the file on your appeal is being transmitted to the.City.:•Clerk"as'of'this.dater Please feel free to contact this dice if further assistance or information is required. • • Sincerely; - Fred J::Kau Hearing Examiner FJK/jt cc: Elizabeth:Higgins,..Development Services. . Sandi"Seeger,Development Services • • • 1055_South Grad Wa -Renton_Wasliia on 98055 425 ;43G 6.515: :::..:,. : .• `'.: ' +` ;,.; ' '` ThispaPercontairis 50%Yecycled materiat120/post consumer. : • ' ," `,-';::•-""':::..,'•<:. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. County of King ) 9 d-so ate, being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on they"-'day of ✓1 ,�-D/ , affiant deposited in the mail of the United States a sealed envelope(sntaining a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Z--9Signature: � 4ir, � SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me thi _`—day o ,'2 , 2001. %,OMe 11 �'Oy�pl1 I ,,, p II ii ; n. 10, „ a ,,,,,,,,,„,0 o Zi'iv o ' Not r Publip,in and for the State of Washington, i '`.0 pU��o' Residing at ea therein. .Og: , I/", 4TE cet1;'_ Application, Petition, or Case No.: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Appeal LUA00-108,AAD The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT February 26,2001 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: Helen D.Burch Sunset Garden Homeowners Association - Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval for Aberdeen Avenue Apartments File No.: LUA00-108,AAD LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeal of SEPA and Site Plan determination 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 November 28, 2000 hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,November 28,2000, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. Russell Wilson, City Attorney, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 explained that new information on this project had been received last week. The City is not prepared at this point to defend the SEPA determination without more information from the applicant. The Examiner asked if the appellants would be willing to continue this matter to a later date. Helen Burch,957 Aberdeen Ave NE,Renton, WA 98005, appellant replied that she was willing to present her appeal at a later date. Frieda Coon, representing Sunset Gardens Homeowners Association, stated she was also willing to have the hearing continued to a later date. Leslie Drake, counsel for applicant,PO Box 817,Kirkland,WA 98083 stated that the applicant does not object to the continuance. The applicant requests the matter be placed on the calendar as soon as possible. The Examiner closed the hearing at 9:12 a.m.,to be continued at a future date. ********************************************************* Aberdeen Avenue Apartments I°41.-al File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26,2001 Page 2 The continued appeal hearing opened on Tuesday, January 23,2001 at 9:03 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the appeal, Exhibit No.2: Yellow land use file,LUA00- the Examiner's letter setting the hearing date, a map, 053,PP,ECF, containing the original application, proof photographs, and other documentation pertinent to the of posting,proof of publication and other appeal. documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Zoning Map Exhibit No.4: Revised Site Plan Exhibit No. 5: Site Plan Detail of Turnaround Exhibit No.6: Footing Detail Exhibit No. 7: Letter from Sunset Gardens Exhibit No.8a&b: Photographs showing fill Homeowners' Association Exhibit No.9: Photograph showing property to Exhibit No. 10a&b: Photographs of condominium south Exhibit No. 11: Grading Plan Parties present: Appellants: Helen D.Burch 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton,WA 98056 Freida Coon Sunset Gardens Homeowners Association 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE C-109 Renton, WA 98056 Representing applicant: Frank Heffernan Ferrari Design Group PS 12277 134th Ct.NE Redmond,WA 98052 Torn Touma Touma Engineering 6632 S 191st Pl. #E-102 Kent,WA 98032 Representing City of Renton: Russell Wilson City Attorney Elizabeth Higginsz Development Services 1055 S Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Aberdeen Avenue Apartments,=.; -al File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26,2001 Page 3 Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner,Development Services, 1055 S. Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 presented a brief overview of the project. Following the hearing on November 28, 2000,which was continued to this date, City staff sent a letter to the applicant pointing out several items that needed to be addressed. The City believes those issues have been addressed,based on the information we have been given. A revised plan was submitted that did not show the stormwater being conveyed to the far northwest corner of the property, as had been directed in the advisory notes to the applicant in the earlier reports. The current plan has been revised to show that the stormwater will be conveyed from the west end of the property in a closed system the entire length of the property to the northwest corner,where it will be discharged by means of a spreader. It will not be discharged at the central protion of the property, as had been indicated on earlier plans. A retaining wall was proposed that coincided with the property along the north side. In the revised plan,which was accompanied by a report from a structural engineer,the retaining wall has been moved south of the north property line 3-and-a-half feet. A footing detail has been submitted,which indicates that the property line would not need to be crossed in order to build the retaining wall. The retaining wall along the north has to support an asphalt driveway capable of supporting the weight of emergency vehicles,not just automobiles. On the earlier plan,the grade change between the south property and the subject property was not shown. Some clearing and filling took place and revealed a retaining wall that exists on the property to the south. The applicant will be required to build some kind of retaining wall on the south property line, otherwise the existing wall would have to be used. This would require permission from the owner to the south,which the City does not believe would be forthcoming. This is a revision that will have to be made during the final construction drawings. The Examiner asked if a final plan has been submitted that shows what is actually going to be built. Russell Wilson, City Attorney, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 said that City Code states that an appeal must be combined with a final agency action. There has not been a final agency action in this case. Ms.Higgins stated that there was an Administrative Site Plan Approval on the project. It was a preliminary approval,not a final approval. The Examiner stated that the hearing would go forward with the information available, and the questions of the neighbors would be addressed as far as possible. The Examiner stated that he has received a letter from an attorney representing the neighbors to the south stating that they will not grant an easement for the construction of the retaining wall. The applicant will have to build the retaining wall on their own property without any intrusion whatsoever on the adjacent properties. Ms.Higgins said that the City has a statement from the applicant's representative,the architect, stating that no work will be done affecting grades on the property to the south,that the grade line which appeared to extend beyond the south property in an earlier submittal was an inaccuracy in the drawing file. The civil drawings have been corrected to note no work beyond the property line. There is a grade change between the property to the south and this property. It drops off along the south property boundary onto the subject property. Typically, at the preliminary approval stage,prior to the construction documents being drawn,the City notes that grade changes are taking place, and it is left to the applicant to determine how those grade changes will be accommodated. The City has a separate building permit requirement for retaining walls over 48 inches. The City does not always look at exactly how that will be done in the preliminary design phase. Aberdeen Avenue Apartments _ -al File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26, 2001 Page 4 The Examiner asked if the neighbors or other parties of interest were invited to file their appeal at the preliminary approval stage. Ms. Higgins stated that they were informed of the appeal process and she believes they felt that the majority of their concerns were based on environmental issues, so they appealed the Environmental Determination, not the Site Plan Approval. The City has an Administrative Site Plan Approval,which tells the applicant that they have the ability to meet the code requirements of the project. Following the Administrative Site Plan Approval, the applicant would then have to get building permits. The issuance of those building permits would also be based on various codes, and demonstrate that all the engineering could be done sufficiently. With the various revisions requested by the City,the project appears to be able to meet code requirements. Helen D. Burch, 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Renton, WA 98056 stated that the time requirements for appeal of the project have not been made clear by the City. She questioned how the City could allow the project to go forward based on information they received from the applicant, subsequently allow major modifications to be made, and still be certain the project would meet code requirements. Ms. Burch expressed concern that she will be adversely affected by the project, and questioned the parking lot dimensions, driveway setbacks, location of the proposed retaining wall, length and height of the proposed project, and erosion and drainage on the project. Freida Coon, 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE C-109,Renton, WA 98056 stated that she represents the Sunset Gardens Homeowners Association. Their major concern is the negative impact of drainage on the property. She explained the problems she has had with drainage in her back yard,which is adjacent to the proposed project. She asked who would be responsible if there were drainage problems on her property caused by the project. Ms. Coon submitted a letter from Gay Keisling,president of the Homeowners Association,regarding the distance of the parking lot and driveway from the property line. Ms. Higgins stated that the entrance to the driveway has been relocated to the south so that it is father away from the two cedar trees on the abutting property to the north. It will be within three-and-a-half feet of the property line to the north. Ms. Higgins submitted photographs showing the fill that has been placed on the property. A code enforcement officer did address the issue, and the amount of fill was less than the amount that would have required a permit. The applicant was asked not to do any further filling because of the critical slopes on the property. The grade will be raised, and the parking area will be on top of that,under the building. There will be two stories of living area over the parking. According to the Uniform Building Code,this will be a two-story building. The building height limit for this zone is thirty-five feet or two-and-a-half stories. The under-structure parking is considered half a story. The Code states that driveways shall not be closer than five feet to any property line. The Planning Department interprets this to mean that driveways shall not be closer than five feet from the property line at the curb cut. The driveway on this project has been at least five feet from the property line, and now will be moved back even more. The problem with interpreting the Code as meaning five feet from the property line at the curb cut is that is does not allow for any landscaping along the property line. Staff has required that a fence be placed on top of the retaining wall. The applicant has stated that the project will be at a higher elevation than the property to the north, and at a lower elevation than the property to the south. Ms. Higgins said that a question she has raised with the applicant is that the City has photographs that appear to show a considerable grade change between the proposed project and the property to the south that is not shown on the topography map. The terrain will be left in its existing state on the project side of the north Aberdeen Avenue Apartments :real File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26,2001 Page 5 retaining wall. This retaining wall will be between two and four feet in height and extend along the whole length of the property line on the north. Ms.Higgins showed the location of the original turnaround area in the parking lot, and pointed out that there was not sufficient backup area for emergency vehicles as the turnaround was originally planned. The applicant redesigned the parking area so that there would be sufficient turnaround space by moving a wall to the west. The resubmitted plans show that this has been done without intruding into the critical slope area of the property. Ms. Burch submitted photos showing the slope between the condominiums,the project property, and her property, and pointed out that the slope is toward her property. She expressed concern about the height of the project and how it will prevent sunlight from reaching her property. Ms. Coon commented on the elevations of the property in Sunset Gardens and stated that C Building drops off approximately fourteen feet,which puts it below the grade of the project property. Building C will still be below grade when the project is built, and will continue to have runoff from the project property. Tom Touma,Touma Engineering, 6632 S 191st Place, Suite E-102,Kent, WA 98032 addressed the issue of storm drainage by stating that grading and the construction of retaining walls will keep the existing grade intact. Storm water will be oriented to the northwest corner of the parking area. All the roof drains will be tightlined along the north property line to the northwest corner of the parking area where they will terminate in a spreader. A retaining wall and extruded curbing will be placed along the north to intercept surface water from that area and contain it into two catch basins and a conveyance system which will funnel it all the way to the northwest corner of the property. Mr.Touma explained the planned grading and location of the retaining walls on the property. The applicant estimates 1,980 cubic yards of fill material will be excavated,approximately 750 cubic yards will be used for fill and the balance exported. Mr. Wilson stated that the appellant had asked what the final overall length of the structure would be. Frank Heffernan,Ferrari Design, 12277 134th Ct.NE,Redmond, WA 98052 stated that the furthest intrusion onto the property is 330 feet,to the back of the trash enclosure. The Examiner stated that the revised grading plan shows grades perpendicular to the property, but does not show any grades along the south boundary of the property. Mr. Touma explained the revised grading plan,pointing out the location of the grading and retaining walls on the property. Mr. Touma stated that the final grade will be terminated in a retaining wall from two to four feet deep to meet the elevation of the property to the north. The retaining wall will maintain the setback of 3-and-a- half feet from the property line for the entire length of the wall. Ms.Burch questioned whether the project will meet Code regarding setbacks. Ms.Higgins stated that the project requires an eight-foot building setback on the south. There is no building setback requirement on the north. The Code regarding driveway setbacks is open to interpretation in this case. Ms. Burch asked what the finished height of the retaining wall will be at the far northwest corner of the project. Aberdeen Avenue Apartments _ al File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26,2001 Page 6 Mr. Touma stated that the retaining wall will be approximately four to five feet in that location. Ms. Burch asked if it would be possible to have a third party survey done of the property. Ms.Higgins stated that Code stipulates the applicant would be responsible for paying a third party to do a survey in situations where there is a lack of agreement. The City would select the third party surveyor. Ms.Higgins presented a timeline for the project. The application was filed on March 21,2000. On March 31, 2000 the City sent a letter to the applicant stating the application was not complete. The missing items were subsequently submitted, and the project was deemed complete on June 26, 2000. The Environmental Review Committee made a Threshold Determination on July 18,2000, with an appeal period that ran until August 7, 2000. Normally,the City would issue the Environmental Determination and Administrative Site Plan Approval simultaneously. In this case,the City was asked by the representative of the property owner to separate the two decisions because they thought they might be making changes to the site plan. The appeal period for the Environmental Review ended on August 7,which was about three weeks before the approval of the site plan. The appeals were filed before the end of the Environmental Review appeal period,on August 1 and August 4. The City delayed in scheduling a hearing for those appeals in anticipation that there might be an appeal of the Administrative Site Plan Approval. The Site Plan Approval was issued on September 15,2000,with an appeal period than ran until September 29. There were no appeals filed on the Site Plan Approval. On November 14, 2000,the City issued a notice of the two environmental appeals. The notice was published on November 17, 2000. The original hearing date was November 28,2000, continued to today. Ms.Burch stated that she does not understand the"rules of the game"as to when the appropriate times to make appeals are. Her appeal was based on both environmental issues and the difference in explanations of the Planning Code she received from the City. She feels that nobody knows for sure what is going to be built on this property,because there is no final project plan. Ms. Coon stated that she doesn't believe anyone can guarantee that there will be no negative impact on her property. She reiterated her concern about the drainage issue. Mr. Heffernan stated that the applicant has submitted plans for a project that complies with City requirements, substantiated by the approvals received to date for the information provided. They have been responsive to the comments in terms of tree preservation, as well as site drainage. They will continue to meet the requirements imposed on the project by the City, and work in good faith to be certain that potential negative impacts to adjacent property will be minimized to the best of their ability. Mr. Wilson stated that in light of the different procedures the City went through with this project in approving the SEPA and the Site Plan Approval at different times,he does not feel it would be just for the appellant to suffer as a result. Therefore,he will not move that the appeal is untimely and should be dismissed on that basis. This property complies with the Growth Management Act by promoting urban density within already developed areas. The appellants' concerns are all very real,but this project is demanded by the Growth Management Act. This project meets Code,and the Code encompasses the Criteria for Site Plan Review regarding impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Ms.Burch reiterated a written statement by Ms. Higgins and Ms.Nicolay stating that, "The project is compatible with other multi-family development in the area, although it is not compatible in scale with existing Aberdeen Avenue Apartments ` =al File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26,2001 Page 7 single family houses." She expressed concern about the noise from the project's driveway,which is on the bedroom side of her house. Ms.Higgins stated that the driveway was probably moved to the north side of the property because the slopes on the south were steeper. Mr. Heffernan stated that the intent in positioning the building on the south side of the property was to take advantage of the grades in that area,resulting in a building that was lower in order to qualify as a two-story structure with parking underneath. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The hearing closed at 10:58 a.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellants,Helen D.Burch and The Sunset Gardens Home Owners Association,represented by Gay Kiesling and Freida Coon, filed appeals of a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M)and a Site Plan approval issued for a proposed Site Plan for a two-story,twelve unit apartment building. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. 2. In processing the preliminary plat application the City subjected the application to is ordinary SEPA review process. The City, in the course of and as a result of its SEPA review, issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the project. The Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M)was conditioned by the City. 3. The subject site is a vacant lot located at 917 Aberdeen Avenue Northeast. The subject site is zoned RM-I(Residential,Multiple Family-Infill). 4. The subject site is a long,narrow rectangular parcel approximately 62.5 feet wide(north to south- Aberdeen frontage)by approximately 600 feet deep. 5. The subject site is approximately 37,585 square feet in area. 6. The subject site slopes downward from Aberdeen, at first moderately and then very steeply. The eastern, approximately one-half to two-thirds of the subject site slopes between 5%and 10%. The western half has slopes in excess of 40%, and those steep slopes are regulated. 7. The ERC imposed five conditions. One limited the months for construction to April through October (the dry months). The second condition required following the recommendations of the geotechnical report. The final three conditions imposed transportation, fire and parks mitigation fees. Aberdeen Avenue Apartments. ;al File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26, 2001 Page 8 8. The City waived any possible objections to the timeliness or subject matter of the appeal due the fact that the proposal was modified a number of times during the course of City review, even after the ERC issued its determination. The project was termed a "moving target" by the various parties. 9. The appellants' homeowners association represents residents of a multiple-building apartment complex located immediately south of the subject site at 949 Aberdeen NE. Ms Burch, the individual appellant, owns the parcel immediately north of the subject site and resides in a single family home located on that adjacent northerly site. She or her family have lived in that home since approximately 1950. 10. The homeowners' appeal is aimed at the environmental determination. They were concerned about runoff from the subject site because the proposed filling and grading and slopes would appear to direct water to their property. There are documented drainage problems for the apartment site. They are involved in repairing footings and damage caused by drainage and a high water table. 11. The individual appellant living in the single home north of the subject site raised a number of objections which in part are: a. The height of the proposed structure and how it would block sunlight. b. How filling will affect drainage and create possible erosion. c. Bulkhead and retaining wall issues. d. The density of the project compared with the property size. e. Noise and carbon monoxide due to the driveway location. f. Building overhang effects on adjacent site. g. Construction schedule. h. Wildlife and habitat questions. 12. The subject site is located northeast of downtown Renton. I-405 and a Puget Power line corridor are located west of the subject site and steeply downhill from the site. 13. The subject site was an old orchard and is overgrown with trees, shrubs and brush as it has not been maintained for many years. The applicant did deposit fill material at the eastern end of the subject site near Aberdeen. 14. The applicant proposes constructing a two-story apartment building over a lower level of parking. The building would have twelve(12)units. It would have 21 parking stalls. Fifteen stalls would be located in garages while 6 stalls would be uncovered 15. The building would be a wood-framed structure. 16. The proposed building would have an area of approximately 16,332 square feet. Aberdeen Avenue Apartments ::� .°al -- File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26, 2001 Page 9 17. Staff concluded that the 62.5 foot lot would normally require seven(7)foot side yard setbacks with an additional one(1)foot added for the additional story above two. Therefore,the side setbacks would be 8 feet. The applicant's plan did not reflect this requirement. 18. The building would be calculated to be 35 feet high or 2.5 stories. The height is calculated with pitched or peaked roofs-the absolute height would be taller. The building does step down the hill as it moves west and the roofline drops with those steps. 19. The building coverage permitted is 35%,whereas the applicant proposes a coverage of approximately 17%. The impervious surface permitted is 75%,whereas the applicant proposes 43% impervious area. 20. The property is 62.5'wide and approximately 600 feet long. 21. The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject site as Residential Multi-Family-Infill. The designation is intended to encourage infill existing multi-family districts with compatible projects. 22. The Comprehensive Plan calls for new multifamily uses to be compatible with existing similar complexes but also compatible, and possibly scaled downward to be compatible,with the existing development patterns. (Policy LU-65; Policy LU-66;Policy LU-67) 23. The RM-I Zone permits a density between a minimum of 10 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of 20 units per acre. The property is 37,451 square feet in size. Approximately 10,097.83 square feet of that is protected slopes. The net acreage is 0.63 acre. The proposed project has a density of 19.11 dwelling units per net acre for 12 units. 24. The area contains a mix of uses that has been trending toward multifamily from its single family roots. Along with the Burch single family home,there are two other single family homes north of the subject site. A 168 units complex is located north of those homes, and additional multiple family and single family uses are located east of the site across Aberdeen Avenue. 25. As staff noted in its analysis and decision: "Unfortunately,the single family residential property, abutting to the north,would be very heavily impacted by the proposed project. Due to the narrow configuration of the project site,the proposed building would be built close to the adjacent property. Even though the building is designed to be closer to the opposite property line, leaving the width of the driveway between the new building and the existing single family house, an existing greenhouse to the north would be heavily shaded by the new structure." In discussing the landscaping proposed for the complex, staff stated the following: "Landscaping has been proposed for the front and south side setback areas. The north setback, abutting the single family residence, does not have landscaping proposed because the driveway falls within the setback area. This is extremely unfortunate given the impact the development will have on the existing home." Aberdeen Avenue Apartments,-;1-•.,t al -- File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26, 2001 Page 10 26. Staff recommended that a fence be constructed at full permitted height to screen the single family home. Staff suggested it be located atop the retaining wall. 27. Code requires landscaping in setback areas,but the applicant proposes a driveway along the north property line. The appellant noted that according to code, driveways need to be five(5)feet from the property line. Staff noted that they interpret this to be limited to the immediate frontage at the curb cut and not for the interior portions of the driveway. 28. Staff noted that the proposed setback on the south side should be eight(8)feet and that setback could alter the location of the building and then affect the driveway width on the north side of the building. 29. Staff recommended that a sidewalk be provided. If it were provided along the north edge, it would provide some additional separation between the home to the north and the driveway and its traffic. 30. Staff approved the proposal subject to the following conditions: 1. A sign permit application shall be submitted and approved prior to building permit approval. 2. A site lighting plan shall be submitted and approved prior to building permit approval. 3. A fence at the maximum height allowed shall be installed on top of the retaining wall along the north property line. Such installation shall be completed prior to occupancy of the building. 4. A site plan revision shall be submitted prior to building permit,that demonstrates that a walkway will be provided that is physically separated from the driveway by either a curb or raised curb and sidewalk. Such revision shall be made by the applicant and approved by the Development Services Department prior to building permit issuance. 5. A revision to the landscape plan shall be made to ensure visibility at the driveway entrance to and from the project. Such revision shall be made by the applicant and approved by the Development Services Department prior to building permit issuance. 6. A Native Growth Protection Easement(NGPE) shall be established for the area of the property having slopes at forty percent(40%)or greater(approximately the western half of the property). The NGPE shall be recorded prior to obtaining an occupancy permit. 31. The Zoning Code contains the following definitions: STORY: That portion of a building included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor, or ceiling if there is no floor, above it. STORY,FIRST: The lowest story in a building which qualifies as a story, as defined herein, except that a floor level in a building having only one floor level shall be classified as a first story,provided such floor level is not more than six feet(6')above grade, as defined herein,for more than fifty percent (50%)of the total perimeter, or not more than twelve feet(12')above grade, as defined herein, at any point. Aberdeen Avenue Apartments I al File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26,2001 Page 11 32. By backfilling materials around an "at-grade" building floor,the basement garage does not count as a story as defined above. Employing such a fill and grade technique of filling around a floor that would have been a "story" makes this three(3) story building a two story building-the lower level does not count. The partially "submerged" lower floor is treated as a"NON-story" and allows a building that might not otherwise be permitted in this zone. In this case, due to the grades of the site and location of the adjacent single family home to the north,the impacts of this grade manipulation magnify the impacts. 33. What appears to be a driving issue in this case is the complexity of the site and its surroundings. What appears to be causing the consternation of the neighbors, staff; and the applicant is that a Site Plan generally does not provide the platform for detailed review of such complexities. Generally the main questions asked are whether the main plan, such as a small apartment building,meets the zoning requirements and provides reasonable setbacks and complies with the Comprehensive Plan. In this case there is a topographically difficult site that makes the building placement and access substantially affect its neighbors. Details such as the exact location of retaining walls,the grade and steps of those structures are not usually provided in a site plan. But in this case that information is crucial so that the adjacent property owners know how they will be affected. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. This office has determined that the appeals that were filed in this matter represent both an appeal of the ERC's DNS-Mitigated and an appeal of the administrative approval of the site plan. 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. Similarly,the determination of staff on its administrative site plan review is entitled to substantial weight. 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. Aberdeen Avenue Apartments =a1 File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26,2001 Page 12 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, 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 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. Environmental impact is also related to the location. A development whether an office building or a single family development may or may not create impact depending on the existing surroundings. 8. In determining environmental impacts,the issue is not solely the untoward impacts on the immediately adjacent property or properties,but the impact or impacts of the more pervasive type or on the more global environment. Any time development occurs next door,the impacts can be profound or dramatic. But as profound as the impacts might be,they are very localized and will not introduce dramatic, unanticipated changes in the overall character of the neighborhood. In this case the subject site and surrounding properties have been zoned for multiple family uses for a number of years. An apartment complex consisting of multiple buildings already is located immediately south of the subject site. Other apartment complexes are located somewhat east and north of the site. A single family home is developed fairly close to the north property line,but that home and the ones north of it are zoned for multiple family uses. The Comprehensive Plan has designated this area, including both the subject site and the lots of the adjacent single family uses, for multiple family uses. The change proposed is going to change the immediate character of the undeveloped lot and will affect the single family home to the north. Nonetheless,the impacts were foreseen with the adoption of both the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning. The changes are not great in terms of the entire neighborhood. The various appellants did not carry their burden of proof. 9. The major specific issue is probably drainage. The drainage issues appear to have been addressed by the methods required by the City under existing code, and by the ERC's and staffs decisions in this matter. The other issues raised by the northern neighbor are more related to site plan issues than Aberdeen Avenue Apartments, .al File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26, 2001 Page 13 environmental issues. They will be addressed below. As noted at the public hearing, even a single family home placed on the subject site could substantially alter the subject site in a fashion similar to those being proposed now with the possible exception of additional traffic. A single family home could clear as much vegetation and loom just as large as the proposed apartment building. These are not SEPA issues. 10. The development or redevelopment of any site brings with it changes. There will be inconvenience. There will be more traffic. The site will be altered from wooded to developed. Again,these aspects of development were contemplated. The changes in this one lot from vacant to developed do not necessarily rise to the level mandated by SEPA for the preparation of an EIS. The development will not significantly alter the character of the community. It will remain a mixed multiple family and single family neighborhood. It will remain a neighborhood trending toward multiple family uses. It will not create any precedent that encourages changes that the Comprehensive Plan has not already envisioned for this area. Both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning slated the area for urban densities. 11. While there will be a series of impacts,they do not add up in a quantifiable manner to the type of impacts or long term precedents that result in more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. 12. 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. This office was not left with a firm conviction that the ERC made a mistake. 13. The appealing party has a burden that was not met in the instant case. The decision of the ERC must be affirmed. 14. Just because the environmental impacts of a proposal are not sufficient to require the preparation of an environmental impact statement does not mean that a proposal does not create impacts on adjacent property. In this case, staff has concluded that there will be substantial impacts on the single family home to the north. The staff report and analysis states: "Unfortunately,the single family residential property, abutting to the north,would be very heavily impacted by the proposed project. Due to the narrow configuration of the project site,the proposed building would be built close to the adjacent property. Even though the building is designed to be closer to the opposite property line, leaving the width of the driveway between the new building and the existing single family house, an existing greenhouse to the north would be heavily shaded by the new structure." Site plan review requires a review of the impacts of a site plan on adjacent properties. It is clear that the proposed site plan will substantially impair the northern neighboring appellant's use and enjoyment of her property. In fact, it appears that the proposed apartment building will blight the single family home by shading it during substantial portions of the year and particularly in winter. It will introduce a driveway carrying between 70 and 90 vehicle trips per day. 15. Staff clearly noted the reason for this substantial impact is the rather narrow configuration of the subject site. While some of the other apartment complexes in the area are located on larger, or more importantly,wider lots,the subject site's narrow, approximately 62-foot width creates limitations. Aberdeen Avenue Apartments r: =al File No.: LUA00-108, AAD February 26, 2001 Page 14 Unfortunately,those limitations were not used to define reasonable constraints that would allow the proposed use to integrate into the community. Even if the adjoining parcel to the north were developed with an apartment complex in the future,that potential apartment would still be seriously affected by the closeness and narrow setbacks between buildings. But the future is not at issue in this current case. The Site Plan review criteria demonstrate that off-site impacts must be reviewed and that improperly blighting property cannot be permitted. 16. Another factor which seems to be compounding the impacts of developing this admittedly complex site is the way the site will be graded and the building's base elevation altered to allow a taller building, or one with more stories than might otherwise be permitted if artificial grading methods were not redefining the base elevation for this building. While it appears to make sense to afford the underlying applicant an opportunity for reasonable development rights on a parcel whose western third is too steep,the applicant should not be permitted to alter its grade and thereby magnify its impacts or height on its northerly neighbor. 17. Therefore, it appears necessary to remand this matter back to staff for further review and subject to a condition that the grades of the subject site may not be altered in such as fashion to allow the proposed apartment complex to sit up higher on the site. The applicant may grade the site downward to "hide" or accommodate an additional story but shall not be permitted to raise the site in any fashion that allows a de facto three story building to be judged two stories under the definitions in the Zoning Code or Building Code. 18. Another issue staff should consider when reviewing this matter is the placement of the driveway on the subject site. Code specifies that driveways should be five(5)feet from a property line. It does not state that this is to be maintained only along the frontage. An apartment complex's driveway carries substantially more traffic than a single family home. In this case,we also have a driveway that might have a substantial grade that results in cars revving their engines to overcome the grade to get to street level. Permitting that driveway to basically abut the adjacent parcel after it enters the site seems to create unreasonable impacts on that neighboring property. The definition shall be revisited and accommodation made to reduce the impacts. 19. Again, as proposed,the site plan will blight the property to the north. That is not acceptable. On remand staff shall review the impacts on the northerly property and make efforts to reduce the impacts of driveway traffic on that northerly property by introducing landscaping and fencing to screen and soften the impacts. 20. In conclusion,the development of the subject site should be permitted under the current zoning, but only in a manner that complements the City's goals and policies. As noted in Finding 33,the nature of the site and neighboring sites requires more specificity in order to truly understand what is proposed and how it will affect those neighboring properties. More details are needed in order for these neighbors to understand the ultimate impacts. The impacts may not be profound in a SEPA sense but still will be critical to those immediately affected. That information should be developed prior to approval of the site plan after remand. DECISIONS: The decision of the ERC is affirmed. Aberdeen Avenue Apartments; File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26,2001 Page 15 The administrative decision on the Site Plan is reversed and the matter is remanded to staff subject to the following conditions: 1. The grades of the subject site shall not be altered in such as fashion as to allow the proposed apartment complex to sit up higher on the site. The applicant may grade the site downward to "hide" or accommodate an additional story but shall not be permitted to raise the site in any fashion that allows a de facto three story building to be judged two stories under the definitions in the Zoning Code or Building Code. 2. More details on the nature of the retaining walls both along the north and south property lines and the location of any driveway are needed in order for these neighbors to understand the ultimate impacts. The impacts may not be profound in a SEPA sense but still will be critical to those immediately affected. That information should be developed prior to approval of the site plan 3. The definition of driveway separation from abutting property shall be revisited and accommodation made to reduce the impacts in this case. ORDERED THIS 26th day of February,2001. FRED J.KAU N HEARING E MINER TRANSMITTED THIS 26th day of February,2001 to the parties of record: Elizabeth Higgins Helen D. Burch Frank Heffernan 1055 S Grady Way 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE Ferrari Design Group PS Renton, WA 98055 Renton, 98056 12277— 134th Ct.NE Redmond,WA 98052 Russell Wilson Freida Coon Tom Touma 1055 S Grady Way 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE C-109 Touma Engineering Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98056 6632 S 191st Pl., Suite E-102 Kent, WA 98032 TRANSMITTED THIS 26th day of February, 2001 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Admin. Members,Renton Planning Commission Neil Watts,Development Services Director Larry Rude,Fire Marshal Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Aberdeen Avenue Apartments -.al File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26, 2001 Page 16 Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Sue Carlson,Econ. Dev. Administrator Betty Nokes,Economic Development Director South County Journal Larry Meckling,Building Official Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100G of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,March 12,2001. 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. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. 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. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Charlotte Ann Kassens, first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 a daily newspaper published seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a legal newspaper of general publication 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, NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING HEARING Washington. The South County Journal has been approved as a legal REN REONTON,WASH NGTONER newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King An Appeal Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular County. meeting in the Council Chambers on the The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South 7th floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, County Journal (and not in supplemental form) which was regularly distributed to on November 28, 2000 at 9:00 AM to consider the following appeal: the subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS AADOO-108 Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Appeal of the issuance of an Administrative Site Plan Approval by the City of Renton for the Aberdeen Avenue Apartments as published on: 11/17/00 project Cambridge Homes L A-00-040, A-A,ECF). construction of a 12-unit apartment s The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of partment building located in a Residential, Multi-family—Infill $37.38, charged to Acct. No. 8051067. Zone. Location: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE. Legal Num T 8410 Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Services Division, 6th Floor, Renton City Hall. All interested persons are invited to be present at the Public Hearing. Published in the South County Journal ,1�� November 17,2000.8410 Legal C erk, Soouth County Journal o. Subscribed and sworn before'me on this L ay of �II\[, , 2000 ,,'`'tuft. F,',,fe. �i ` 11 —41±.(11-- ~ _ fujy � Notary Public of the State of Washington ••% PUBO• oi�: residing in Renton ,� :`�' ? 6 ZQ.61N.` King County, Washington ,,�;OOp AW t%•``�� 2U.� o ) m C*D , a44. MAD LAW OFFICES OF JAMES L. STRICHARTZ JAMES L.STRICHARTZ A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION RICHARD H.LEVIN Internet e-mail: SUITE 511 JERRY H.STEIN jim@condo.com 200 WEST MERCER STREET MARK B.MOBURG SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98119 JO M.FLANNERY (206)282-8020 OF COUNSEL (206)282-5041(FAX) January 17, 2001 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JAN 1 8 2000 Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Rieker Cambridge Homes NW 12228 NE 112th Place,#A-1 Kirkland,WA 98033 Re: Sunset Garden Owners Association General Representation Our File No. 99F94-00 Dear Mr.and Mrs.Rieker: This office represents Sunset Garden Owners Association(the"Association"). I have been directed by the Board of Directors of the Association to write to you regarding your proposed development of the Aberdeen Avenue Apartments at 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Renton. As you are aware,the Association owns the property to the south of yours. The Association wants you to be fully informed that it is not willing to grant any easements to you in connection with your proposed development. In addition,please be advised that the Association will pursue claims for both civil and criminal trespass against you and your agents and contractors if there is any trespass on the Condominium property by persons, equipment, soil, dust or water. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. I look forward to your prompt response. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, LAW OFFAICES OF JAMES L. S RICHARTZ James L. Strichartz JLS:s cc: Gay Kiesling Elizabeth Higgins,AICP Frank Heffernan,AIA G:\@1\CONDO\LETTERS\Sunset Garden Letter to Gerald Rieker re Aberdeen Avenue Apartnents.wpd CIT --OF 'RENTO. Hearing Examiner Jesse Tapper,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman • • • December 11,2000. Freida Coon Sunset Garden Home Owner's Association 949 Aberdeen Ave NE C-109 Renton, WA 98056 RE: Appeal of Environmental Determination re Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Appeal File No..LUA00-108,AAD Dear Ms. Coon: This office has reviewed your letter of December 6th,received on December 12th. The Hearing has already been rescheduled to 9 00 a.m.,Tuesday,January 23,2001. This letter will serve tonotify all parties of the new hearing time and date. This is an administrative appeal hearing on a challenge to the Environmental Review Committee's decision. The issues will be,limited to those raised in-the appeal letters. There will be limited opportunity for general public testimony:"The City's land use public hearings are held duringnormal business hours with very limited exceptions due to unusual circumstances: Sincerely, • Fred J. Kaufm Hearing Examiner FJK:jt cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry.Warren, City Attorney Elizabeth Higgins Applicant - Parties of Record NN 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 (425)430-6515 December 6, 2000 Sunset Garden Home Owners Association 949 Aberdeen Ave. NE C-109 Renton,WA 98056 Mr. Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Requesting an evening hearing; Appeal of Environmental Determination re Aberdeen Avenue Apartments, Appeal File No. LUA-108, AAD Dear Hearing Examiner: As President of the board of directors of Sunset Garden Homeowners Association for the past two years and homeowner I was ask to represent the Sunset Garden Association at the November 28,2000 hearing. I was in attendance and the Assistant City Attorney ask for a continuance which was granted. No date was scheduled for the hearing. I spoke with Ms. Elizabeth Higgins regarding scheduling the hearing for a time in the evening and she thought it might be possible. Sunset Garden Homeowners are requesting that the hearing be scheduled for an evening time which would afford them the opportunity to attend the hearing. Most of the homeowners work during the day and find it very difficult if not impossible to attend the hearing between the hours of 8:00a.m.- 5:p.m. Sincerely, IR $ R0 " 111) Freida Coon 12u3 Sunset Garden Home Owners Association �`�` CITY OF RENTON cc: Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, AICP Senior Planner HEARING EXAMINER December 6, 2000 Sunset Garden Home Owners Association 949 Aberdeen Ave. NE C-109 Renton,WA 98056 Mr. Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Requesting an evening hearing; Appeal of Environmental Determination re Aberdeen Avenue Apartments, Appeal File No. LUA-108, AAD Dear Hearing Examiner: As President of the board of directors of Sunset Garden Homeowners Association for the past two years and:homeowner I was ask to represent the Sunset•Garden Association at the November 28,2000 hearing. I was in attendance and the Assistant City Attorney ask for a continuance which was granted. No date was scheduled for the hearing. I spoke with Ms. Elizabeth Higgins regarding scheduling the hearing for a time in the evening and she thought it might be possible. Sunset Garden Homeowners are requesting that the hearing be scheduled for an evening time which would afford them the opportunity to attend the hearing. Most of the homeowners work during the day and find it very difficult if not impossible to attend the hearing between the hours of 8:00a.m.- 5:p.m. Sincerely, wuR, Freida Coon. DEC I '2000 12) Sunset Garden Home Owners Association . CITY OF RENTON " HEARINGEXAi�INER cc: Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, AICP Senior Planner "`'' ( NOT10ENTo� CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,CITY HALL ON NOVEMBER 28,2000 BEGINNING AT 9:00 AM CONCERNING: APPEAL OF ISSUANCE OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN APPROVAL IN RE: ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS AAD-00-108(File No.LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF) Appeal of the issuance of an Administrative Site Plan Approval by the City of Renton for the Aberdeen Avenue Apartments project(File No.LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF). Cambridge Homes Northwest proposed construction of a two-story,twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential,Multi-family—Infill Zone(RM-I). Proposed Site Location: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE gai �1641, � .� �y± SITE `=" Ors ty sgrar y, � lillg N: \ v. 7:, v.,,,,,,,,a ,,,,,,r,„ , , _. . , ,.,. v., mpacivin,..,1 \\\\\\ ..`•,o y ._ „gym Yr a 'O ,,,, 4, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION,425-430-7382 DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. CERTIFICATION I, At cl vr De. ba.0 , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on %(,;,,,,/ r y , 6 Signed: G CL ,c,...2 ,.....„ i ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me,a Nortary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing in *c -,,„A©,-, , on the /(c tri, day of h&-- -2 c1)0 d / /') ,k, a&RIL.Y CHEFS NOTARY PUBLIC MARILYN KAMCHEFF STATE WTG� COMMOFI; ,IJN!ASHING EXPIRESN 'i NNTMENT EXPIRES:6-29-03 1 JUNE PP, 2003 CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING NOVEMBER 28,2000 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM,.. :< ,:. COUNCIL CHAMBERS,7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing'Examiner. PROJECT NAME: APPEAL Aberdeen Avenue Apartments PROJECT NUMBER: AAD-00-108 (LUA-00-040) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Appeal of the issuance of an Administrative Site Plan Approval by the City of Renton for the Aberdeen Avenue Apartments project(File No. LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF). Cambridge Homes Northwest proposed construction of a two-story, twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). Location: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE. • PROJECT NAME: Liberty Ridge Subdivision PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-00-123,PP,ECF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 107.5-acre parcel into 436 lots intended for the eventual development of detached single family residences. The proposed lot sizes range from 3,480 square feet to 14,418 square feet. The net density of the proposal is 7.0 dwelling units per acre. The site is accessed from Edmonds Avenue NE off of NE 3`d/4th Street. Location: South of NE 3`d/4th Street; East of Edmonds Avenue NE; North of Maple Valley Highway. hexaoenda CITE OF RENTON ..LL Hearing Examiner . Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman October 16, 2000 Ms. Helen D. Burch Gay'Keisling, Secretary 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE Sunset Garden Homeowners Association Renton, WA 98056 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, #318 Renton, WA 98056 Re: Appeal of Environmental Determination re Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Appeal File No. LUA00-108, AAD.:,: _: Dear Appellants: We received your appeals dated August 1 and August 4, 2000,-and.the hearing will be scheduled for Tuesday,November 28,`at.9:00 a.m. in•the..Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Should you have any further questions,please contact this office. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner - cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington;.Chief Administrative,Officer Larry Warren,City Attorney • Elizabeth Higgins. Applicant ; Parties of Record 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98055 (425)430-6515 D .. AUG 7O 2000 [ d � — e August 1, 2000 ��sFxroa EXAMINER CI OF RENTON Mr. Fred Kaufman if 54/4.m Hearing Examiner AUG 0 7 2000 Seventh Floor RECEIVED 1055 South Grady Way art CLERK'S OFFICE Renton, WA 98055 Re: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Project No.L UA-00-040,SA A,ECF 917Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Dear Mr. Kaufman: This letter is being sent to you as an appeal regarding the recent application to build a twelve (12) unit apartment complex adjacent to my single family home. I have deep concerns, reservations, and questions regarding this project. The property in question,to date,has never been developed. A previous attempt to due so was aborted due to the narrowness of this site. The property was once an orchard with a wide variety of fruit trees, but has been left unattended by its previous owners for the past fifty years.It is now covered in thick vegetation and very heavily wooded with large maple, elms and leftover fruit trees. My parents and I have owned the adjacent property(957 Aberdeen Avenue NE) since 1950. The proposed development and construction at 917 Aberdeen Ave NE will have a significant, adverse impact on my home and property. If the City of Renton allows the proposed structure to go up the effect on my home will be denial of my right to the "quiet enjoyment" of my property. The new property will block the needed sunlight from reaching my home and garden. I am submitting this letter;a list of my concerns and comments for your expert consideration. 1. Total height of the structure vs. sunlight. I assume that one underlying reason for including height restriction in the land use code is to disallow or mitigate new structures from blocking solar access to neighboring homes. The proposed structure would be one floor of garage parking,two floors of living area, plus a pitched roof. With a pitched roof the overall height of the structure may exceed thirty-five feet (35'). I also understand that the City of Renton may allow the structure to be built on fill dirt with a concrete retaining wall,that would then add several feet more in overall elevation. The impact on me will be significantly worse if the proposed structure will not be required to be built on the existing grade. The east portion of my home is two feet (2') below the present grade,which will put my living room at a minimum of Mr.Fred Kaufman August 1, 2000 Page 2 forty feet(40')below the proposed structure. How is a thirty-five foot(35') height restriction to be measured? Winters in the Pacific Northwest are cloudy at best and the sun is at a very low angle and sets in the southwest. The increased fmal grade level will allow the structure to block out needed sunlight and place the south side of my home in shadow for over six months of the year. Frost, ice, and snow could last much longer without the sun's warmth. This condition will undoubtedly cause harm to my home, side yard, and garden. 2. The finished grade,drainage, and surface run-off. If the project is allowed to raise it's elevation it will undoubtedly cause run-off and drainage problems to be generated on my property. I have a basement and a greenhouse that are below present grade, which will become even lower in relation to the project site. Water seepage will become a problem, as water tends to seek a lower level. How does the project propose to deal with increased run-off and drainage? Will any retention or holding pond be employed? The northwest portion of the project and the southwest portion of my property come together to form a natural drainage trough that will be greatly affected with added changes in elevation and run-off. A large(80') California Redwood tree is located at this juncture,on my side, only twenty-one feet(21') from the property line. The proposed project bulkhead wall extends westward beyond this point. The damage here will be significant. A drainage system required to be tightlined and dispersed via a spreader at the northwest corner of the site will damage or require the removal of more trees. It will be over 250 feet long and be located on the western portion.of the site having a forty- (40) degree slope. 3. Bulkhead, retaining wall, and fence If a bulkhead or retaining wall is proposed to support the difference in elevation, how can it be placed directly on the property line, without a footing to support it? My property has many trees, rhododendrons, and shrubs in close proximity of the property line. For example,there are two (2) seventy-five foot(75') Cedar trees within three feet(3')of the property line. Any digging will cause irreparable harm and could even kill them. These trees cannot be replaced. Various other trees and plants will be disturbed or would have to be removed to erect a wall on the property line. I do not wish to sign any construction easement agreement that would allow any damage to the two Cedar trees or other trees,plants, or shrubs. I also noticed that no mention or references were made in the applicants Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan regarding any of the before mentioned trees or the location of my home which is within the 20 foot impact zone. I wonder why the omission of environmental impact to the vegetation,trees, and my home DO NOT appear in the applicant's file? Mr. Fred Kaufman August 1, 2000 Page 3 4. The size of the project vs. usable land. The square footage of the site in total is about 37,585 with the western half having a forty degree slope or greater. This leaves the remaining usable land at only forty-five percent (45%). How then is it possible to have a fair evaluation using the land density codes? The project plan shows almost the entire site to be covered by either pavement or building. 5. Noise and carbon monoxide fumes. My home is located nineteen feet (19') from the property line, with an attached greenhouse only nine and one-half feet (9.5') from the property line. Two of my bedrooms have a southern exposure also within nineteen feet (19')of the property line. The project places it's driveway egress and parking garage on the north side, making my home subject to constant car noise and lethal carbon monoxide fumes. I will be directly exposed to vehicles entering and leaving at hours of the day and night. It is one thing to have one new neighbor,but twelve (12) families certainly will erase any privacy and quiet. How does the project propose to deal with the added noise and carbon monoxide fumes? 6. Building size vs. narrowness of the site. The plan shows that the upper two stories extend out over the parking area an additional four feet (4') on the north side. This makes the building thirty-two feet (32') in width. Is this architecture keeping within the allowable square footage based on the narrowness of the site? 7. Construction schedule. If this project is allowed to go forward, how will the added noises from the machinery and labor be addressed? My home life will be greatly affected by the noise, dust, and debris throughout the construction phase. 8. Urban wildlife and habitat. There are many species of wildlife living on the site. Has an analysis been done of the impact on wildlife that live on the development site? Are there plans to do one? Has it been determined if any of the wildlife that lives there is listed as Species of Concern? There are currently squirrels nesting on the property, a deer recently gave birth, and many different birds including hawks-Merlins, woodpeckers, finches, wrens, and sparrows are nesting as well. Raccoons also Mr. Fred Kaufman August 1, 2000 Page 4 live on the development site, and it is my understanding that raccoons are game animals and cannot be disturbed. In conclusion,I have enclosed a project layout and pictures showing the location of my home, greenhouse, trees, and shrubs in relation to the property line and project. The proposed project covers almost all of the 325' x 62.5' site with pavement and building. The real problem with the site is that it is too narrow for how severely it drops off topographically. The developer will have to increase the existing elevation with fill-dirt for ingress and egress to work on the site The structure is over three stories with the pitched roof shown in the plan. The elevation plan using views from east and west show a finished slope towards my home on the north side. This development, given just a few of the problems, which will undoubtedly occur can only degrade and have an adverse effect on the environment, my home and property. I hope that you will consider closely all of my concerns and questions regarding this project. Thank you for your attention to this letter. Sincerely, Helen D. Burch 957 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 (425) 255-4921 August 4,2000AUG - 7 20U0 Sunset Garden Home Owners Association CITY OF RENTON 949 Aberdeen Ave.NE,#318 HEARING EXAMINER Renton, WA 98056 CITY OF RENTON Hearing Examiner W.'l02 Q' ° City of Renton AUG 0 1 1000 1055 South Grady Way CITY RECEIVED Renton,WA 98055 OFFICE Dear Hearing Examiner: As secretary of the board of directors of Sunset Garden Homeowners Association,I am submitting this appeal of the City of Renton's environmental determination for Aberdeen Ave. Apartments, #LUA-00- 040, SA-A,ECF. Deny Request for Construction Permit We are requesting that you convene a hearing. We will provide testimony to support our request to deny the approval for a construction permit for the property identified as 917 Aberdeen Ave. NE. Drainage Problem Documented for Hillside Five out of six buildings located at 949 Aberdeen Ave. NE, directly south of 917, have suffered from moisture drive up through their floors,causing damage to vinyl-covered surfaces. The slope of our hillside is steep. The slope of the property at 917 is even steeper. How could a building be constructed on this property without considerable in-fill? How would this in-fill be stabilized? The 917 buildings could slide down the hill, like those in Seattle. In addition to the run-off that comes down the entire hill, the water table is relatively close to the surface. At several places at 949,underground springs seep up through the surface of our driveway throughout the year. Sunset Garden has gone through a three year saga of paying hydrologist and engineers to determine a cause and solution to our moisture problems. In a nutshell, our condominium complex,built in 1991, has just received bids for approximately$250,000 worth of work. (The high bid was over$500,000.) This work is caused by excess water,that naturally drains down the west facing hillside above I-405 due to pavement(streets and parking lots)and houses and apartment buildings. The city of Renton's planning process failed to require adequate mitigation to avoid the costly problems we face today. The developer and builder of Sunset Garden failed to provide the necessary construction methods and materials to mitigate the problems of building on such a hillside as ours. I am aware that building codes are to insure health and safety,not quality. However,it seems that sheer common sense, called Plan Review and Environmental Impact Review,would have prompted the city of Renton to require adequate drainage for multiple buildings accompanied by an asphalt driveway and parking lot. The city of Renton should be protecting the taxpayers who were to move into these buildings and trusted that the city's planning and inspection departments would have required adequate construction methods. • My understanding is that the city of Renton did not in 1991 and still does not inspect drainage systems. Let me tell you what our engineer and construction contractor have uncovered so far. * There is no drainage blanket(gravel or rock)under our foundation slab. * The footing drains are wrapped in a water impermeable plastic. * The pipe was often installed with the holes facing the wrong direction. * There was several inches of water standing alongside the nonfunctioning drains today after two weeks of no rain. To locate several buildings as well as an asphalt driveway and parking lot north of our property will only exacerbate our problem. Certainly the new buildings will have problems of their own. Living proof at 949 shows that a developer and builder must go beyond the narrow requirements of applicable codes in order to build on this type of site. It is extremely frustrating to read the city of Renton's"Determination of Non-significance(mitigated) Advisory Notes." The section"Plan Review—Stormwater Drainage" is not adequate. I see that the city is requesting$15,985 as a Surface Water System Charge. The charge may be a way to finance city expenses. But not a penny of this charge will be seen by adjacent property owners,who literally will be or currently are financing solutions to hillside drainage and its accompanying damage to homes. As of July 10th,each homeowner at 949 Aberdeen is facing a least a$4,000 lump sum payment in order to redo all footing drains on the property and repair floors in 13 units. We are nurses, school teachers, news reporters, retirees,technical college employees, secretaries,paralegals, office furniture installers, bookkeepers, manufacturing employees, and construction workers, many of whom are faced with financial hardship at best,bankruptcy at worst, due to poor planning and development practices in regards to drainage system requirements and installation. Not only is there the monetary cost,but also to be endured is the considerable inconvenience of removing all landscaping in order to dig a 6 ft deep trench around all perimeters of each building, cutting down our larger trees, and jackhammering out and replacing the patios and sidewalks. I look forward to updating you on our drainage investigation at the hearing. Sincerely, GayKiesling g Sunset Garden Home Owners Association I . 3 ,.:r., CITE[ OF RENTON LL. t . . Hearing Examiner . . Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman • October 16, 2000 Ms. Helen D. Burch Gay'Keisling, Secretary 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE - Sunset Garden Homeowners Association Renton, WA 98056 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, #318 Renton, WA 98056 Re: Appeal of Environmental Determination re.Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Appeal File No. LUA00-108,AAD;;-: Dear Appellants: We received your appeals dated August 1 and August 4, 2000, arid the hearing will be scheduled for Tuesday,November 28 'atr9:00.a.m_ .-in:the.Council Chambers`on,the seventh floor of the • Renton City Hall. Should you have any further questions,please;contact this office. Sincerely, • Fred J. Kaufman • Hearing Examiner • cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren, City Attorney Elizabeth Higgins Applicant Parties of Record • 1055 South Grady Way- Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515 11 Q U l5 ILIJ AUG - 7 2000 August 1, 2000 HFJZDRENTONIAMINER CI OF RENTON Mr. Fred Kaufman //:544Q.4 Hearing Examiner AUG 0 7 2000 Seventh Floor RECEIVED 1055 South Grady Way aTY CLEWS OFFICE Renton, WA 98055 Re: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Project No.LUA-00-040,SA A,ECF 917Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Dear Mr. Kaufman: This letter is being sent to you as an appeal regarding the recent application to build a twelve'(12) unit apartment complex adjacent to my single family home. I have deep concerns, reservations, and questions regarding this project. The property in question,to date,has never been developed. A previous attempt to due so was aborted due to the narrowness of this site. The property was once an orchard with a wide variety of fruit trees, but has been left unattended by its previous owners for the past fifty years.It is now covered in thick vegetation and very heavily wooded with large maple, elms and leftover fruit trees. My parents and Ihave owned the adjacent property(957 Aberdeen Avenue NE) since 1950. The proposed development and construction at 917 Aberdeen Ave NE will have a significant, adverse impact on my home and property. If the City of Renton allows the proposed structure to go up,the effect on my home will be denial of my right to the"quiet enjoyment" of my property. The new property will block the needed sunlight from reaching my home and garden. I am submitting this letter, a list of my concerns and comments for your expert consideration. 1. Total height of the structure vs. sunlight. I assume that one underlying reason for including height restriction in the land use code is to disallow or mitigate new structures from blocking solar access to neighboring homes. The proposed structure would be one floor of garage parking,two floors of living area, plus a pitched roof. With a pitched roof the overall height of the structure may exceed thirty-five feet(35'). I also understand that the City of Renton may allow the structure to be built on fill dirt with a concrete retaining wall,that would then add several feet more in overall elevation. The impact on me will be significantly worse if the proposed structure will not be required to be built on the existing grade. The east portion of my home is two feet (2')below the present grade,which will put my living room at a minimum of Mr.Fred Kaufman August 1, 2000 Page 2 forty feet (40')below the proposed structure. How is a thirty-five foot(35') height restriction to be measured? Winters in the Pacific Northwest are cloudy at best and the sun is at a very low angle and sets in the southwest. The increased final grade level will allow the structure to block out needed sunlight and place the south side of my home in shadow for over six months of the year. Frost, ice, and snow could last much longer without the sun's warmth. This condition will undoubtedly cause harm to my home, side yard, and garden. 2. The finished grade,drainage, and surface run-off. If the project is allowed to raise it's elevation it will undoubtedly cause run-off and drainage problems to be generated on my property. I have a basement and a greenhouse that are below present grade, which will become even lower in relation to the project site. Water seepage will become a problem, as water tends to seek a lower level. How does the project propose to deal with increased run-off and drainage? Will any retention or holding pond be employed? The northwest portion of the project and the southwest portion of my property come together to form a natural drainage trough that will be greatly affected with added changes in elevation and run-off. A large (80') California Redwood tree is located at this juncture, on my side, only twenty-one feet (21') from the property line. The proposed project bulkhead wall extends westward beyond this point. The damage here will be significant. A drainage system required to be tightlined and dispersed via a spreader at the northwest corner of the site will damage or require the removal of more trees. It will be over 250 feet long and be located on the western portion of the site having a forty- (40) degree slope. 3. Bulkhead, retaining wall, and fence If a bulkhead or retaining wall is proposed to support the difference in elevation, how can it be placed directly on the property line,without a footing to support it? My property has many trees, rhododendrons, and shrubs in close proximity of the property line. For example,there are two (2) seventy-five foot(75') Cedar trees within three feet (3')of the property line. Any digging will cause irreparable harm and could even kill them. These trees cannot be replaced. Various other trees and plants will be disturbed or would have to be removed to erect a wall on the property line. I do not wish to sign any construction easement agreement that would allow any damage to the two Cedar trees or other trees,plants, or shrubs. I also noticed that no mention or references were made in the applicants Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan regarding any of the before mentioned trees or the location of my home which is within the 20 foot impact zone. I wonder why the omission of environmental impact to the vegetation,trees, and my home DO NOT appear in the applicant's file? Mr.Fred Kaufman August 1, 2000 Page 3 4. The size of the project vs. usable land. The square footage of the site in total is about 37,585 with the western half having a forty degree slope or greater. This leaves the remaining usable land at only forty-five percent (45%). How then is it possible to have a fair evaluation using the land density codes? The project plan shows almost the entire site to be covered by either pavement or building. 5. Noise and carbon monoxide fumes. My home is located nineteen feet (19') from the property line,with an attached greenhouse only nine and one-half feet (9.5') from the property line. Two of my bedrooms have a southern exposure also within nineteen feet (19')of the property line. The project places it's driveway egress and parking garage on the north side, making my home subject to constant car noise and lethal carbon monoxide fumes. I will be directly exposed to vehicles entering and leaving at hours of the day and night. It is one thing to have one new neighbor,but twelve (12)families certainly will erase any privacy and quiet. How does the project propose to deal with the added noise and carbon monoxide fumes? 6. Building size vs. narrowness of the site. The plan shows that the upper two stories extend out over the parking area an additional four feet (4') on the north side. This makes the building thirty-two feet (32') in width. Is this architecture keeping within the allowable square footage based on the narrowness of the site? 7. Construction schedule. If this project is allowed to go forward,how will the added noises from the machinery and labor be addressed? My home life will be greatly affected by the noise, dust,and debris throughout the construction phase. 8. Urban wildlife and habitat. There are many species of wildlife living on the site. Has an analysis been done of the impact on wildlife that live on the development site? Are there plans to do one? Has it been determined if any of the wildlife that lives there is listed as Species of Concern? There are currently squirrels nesting on the property, a deer recently gave birth, and many different birds including hawks-Merlins, woodpeckers, finches, wrens, and sparrows are nesting as well. Raccoons also Mr. Fred Kaufman August 1, 2000 Page 4 live on the development site, and it is my understanding that raccoons are game animals and cannot be disturbed. In conclusion,I have enclosed a project layout and pictures showing the location of my home, greenhouse, trees, and shrubs in relation to the property line and project. The proposed project covers almost all of the 325' x 62.5' site with pavement and building. The real problem with the site is that it is too narrow for how severely it drops off topographically. The developer will have to increase the existing elevation with fill-dirt for ingress and egress to work on the site The structure is over three stories with the pitched roof shown in the plan. The elevation plan using views from east and west show a finished slope towards my home on the north side. This development, given just a few of the problems, which will undoubtedly occur can only degrade and have an adverse effect on the environment, my home and property. I hope that you will consider closely all of my concerns and questions regarding this project. Thank you for your attention to this letter. Sincerely, Helen D. Burch 957 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 (425) 255-4921 NUM ljAugust 4,2000 AUG — 1 20U0 Sunset Garden Home Owners Association CITY OF RENTON 949 Aberdeen Ave. NE,#318 HEARING EXAMINER Renton, WA 98056 CITY OF RENTON Hearing Examiner /0' a Q' ' City of Renton AUG 0 4 1000 1055 South Grady Way CITY CRE RK QED Renton, WA 98055 OFFICE Dear Hearing Examiner: As secretary of the board of directors of Sunset Garden Homeowners Association, I am submitting this appeal of the City of Renton's environmental determination for Aberdeen Ave. Apartments,#LUA-00- 040, SA-A,ECF. Deny Request for Construction Permit We are requesting that you convene a hearing. We will provide testimony to support our request to deny the approval for a construction permit for the property identified as 917 Aberdeen Ave.NE. Drainage Problem Documented for Hillside Five out of six buildings located at 949 Aberdeen Ave. NE, directly south of 917, have suffered from moisture drive up through their floors, causing damage to vinyl-covered surfaces. The slope of our hillside is steep. The slope of the property at 917 is even steeper. How could a building be constructed on this property without considerable in-fill? How would this in-fill be stabilized? The 917 buildings could slide down the hill, like those in Seattle. In addition to the run-off that comes down the entire hill,the water table is relatively close to the surface. At several places at 949,underground springs seep up through the surface of our driveway throughout the year. Sunset Garden has gone through a three year saga of paying hydrologist and engineers to determine a cause and solution to our moisture problems. In a nutshell, our condominium complex,built in 1991, has just received bids for approximately$250,000 worth of work. (The high bid was over$500,000.) This work is caused by excess water,that naturally drains down the west facing hillside above I-405 due to pavement(streets and parking lots)and houses and apartment buildings. The city of Renton's planning process failed to require adequate mitigation to avoid the costly problems we face today. The developer and builder of Sunset Garden failed to provide the necessary construction methods and materials to mitigate the problems of building on such a hillside as ours. I am aware that building codes are to insure health and safety,not quality. However, it seems that sheer common sense, called Plan Review and Environmental Impact Review,would have prompted the city of Renton to require adequate drainage for multiple buildings accompanied by an asphalt driveway and parking lot. The city of Renton should be protecting the taxpayers who were to move into these buildings and trusted that the city's planning and inspection departments would have required adequate construction methods. My understanding is that the city of Renton did not in 1991 and still does not inspect drainage systems. Let me tell you what our engineer and construction contractor have uncovered so far. * There is no drainage blanket(gravel or rock)under our foundation slab. * The footing drains are wrapped in a water impermeable plastic. * The pipe was often installed with the holes facing the wrong direction. * There was several inches of water standing alongside the nonfunctioning drains today after two weeks of no rain. To locate several buildings as well as an asphalt driveway and parking lot north of our property will only exacerbate our problem. Certainly the new buildings will have problems of their own. Living proof at 949 shows that a developer and builder must go beyond the narrow requirements of applicable codes in order to build on this type of site. It is extremely frustrating to read the city of Renton's"Determination of Non-significance(mitigated) Advisory Notes." The section"Plan Review—Stormwater Drainage" is not adequate. I see that the city is requesting$15,985 as a Surface Water System Charge. The charge may be a way to finance city expenses. But not a penny of this charge will be seen by adjacent property owners,who literally will be or currently are financing solutions to hillside drainage and its accompanying damage to homes. As of July 10th,each homeowner at 949 Aberdeen is facing a least a$4,000 lump sum payment in order to redo all footing drains on the property and repair floors in 13 units. We are nurses, school teachers, news reporters, retirees,technical college employees, secretaries,paralegals, office furniture installers, bookkeepers, manufacturing employees, and construction workers, many of whom are faced with financial hardship at best,bankruptcy at worst,due to poor planning and development practices in regards to drainage system requirements and installation. Not only is there the monetary cost,but also to be endured is the considerable inconvenience of removing all landscaping in order to dig a 6 ft deep trench around all perimeters of each building, cutting down our larger trees, and jackhammering out and replacing the patios and sidewalks. I look forward to updating you on our drainage investigation at the hearing. Sincerely, Gay Kiesling Sunset Garden Home Owners Association • - CITT DF RENTON • ` Planning/Building/Public Works Department Greg Zimmerman P.E. Administrator- Gregg � September 13, 2000 • Gay.Kiesling ; Sunset Gardens Home Owners'Association 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton,WA 98055 Re Aberdeen Avenue Apartments, Project No:LUA-00-040, SA-A, ECF Dear Ms. Kiesling This letter is being sent following several unsuccessful attempts to contact you by.telephone: It is 'regarding the date of the public hearing scheduled before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner for September 26, 2000..The purpose of the public meeting is to hear the appeal of the Environmental Determination for the above referenced project filed by the Sunset Gardens Home Owners'=Association. A second appeal of the Determination was alsofiled by another party. Typically,the site plan review decision would have been made concurrently with the environmental determination,with combined appeal periods and a single public hearing. In the caseofthis project however,the applicant requested that a site plan review decision not be made until a potential sale of the property had taken place Apparently,the potential buyer would have revised the plan: Subsequently, ' the sale of the property did not take place ardcity staff was requested by the applicant to resume the site plan review:. . I anticipate that a site plan review decision will be made by the end'of this week.. In order to consolidate - appeals of the environmental determination with potential appeals of the site plan review decision,the hearing of September 26;.:2000;will have to be rescheduled to a date following the end of the site plan review decision appeal period.: If the site plan review decision is reached by Friday of this week, September.15, 2000,the appeal period would terminate on at 5 pm.on Monday, October 2, 2000. A new hearing date would be set approximately two weeks following that date (dependent upon the Hearing Examiner's calendar): ' , I hope this change of date will not be too inconvenient for you and the other members of the Sunset Gardens Home Owners'Association who wish to attend the hearing. We will inform you • • of the new date as soon as it is known. - Please contact me at 425-430-7382, if you have"any questions, Thank you. Sincerely Elizabeth Higgins,AICP Senior Planner. . Copy: Mr.Fred Kaufman,Hearing Examiner . • flea • 1055 South Grady:Way-Renton,Washington 98055 " • :: This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer• ' u.f;. • CITE F RENTON w NAL Hearing.:Examiner. Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman August 10, 2000 • Ms. Helen D. Burch . . .. Gay Kiesling, Secretary 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE . Sunset Garden Homeowners Association . Renton, WA 98056 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,#318 :Renton, WA 98056 Re: Appeal of Environmental Determination.re Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Appeal File No. LUA00-108,AAD' Dear Appellants: We received your appeals dated:_August 1',and August 4,,,2000, and,the hearing will be scheduled foriTuesday,September-26,—i:00:a:m. irkhe`C;ouncil Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City-Hall Should you have any further questions,please contact this Office. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner • Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren,City Attorney " Elizabeth Higgins Applicant 1055 South-Grady Way- Renton, Washington 98055.- (425)43,0-6515 M' > f vlr. Norm Mode ---Gay Kiesling - Jeff Clousing )49 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. C-310 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. E318 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. C210 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Susan Lauth Cheryl Jayne Phyllis Turner )49 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. E315 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. D211 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. D11 Renton, WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 terra Schmidt Karen Loos Melody Grieves )49 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. B106 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. B105 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. B206 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Vlicheal Bradley John &Patricia Clayton Annelle Perry )49 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. B306 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt.A-102 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt A101 �V Renton,WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 NtN v vluhammad Faisal Patty Reynolds Patricia Dolan )49 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt.A101 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. C107 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. 307 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 =rancia Personett Juanita McIntosh Natalie Hester )49 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. F220 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. C110 949 Aberdeen Ave NE, Apt. C308 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 a� Or. & Mrs. R. Beach Kathryn Carrigan Terrie Cater )49 Aberdeen Avenue NE, E115 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. E116 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. E216 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 -lelen Del Rasario Lawrence&Carol Lanczak Albert&Sandra Jarvela )49 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. E215 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. E118 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. E117 Renton,WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 _an Le Darsie Brown Cheryl Waid )49 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. F219 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. F119 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. C108 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Ed Niblock Eleanor Brown Hal & Erin Pugmire )49 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. D213 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt D313 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. D314 Renton, WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 4-k/Ligewiie-- ftP.e . frtidcsii, , PARTY OF RECORD LIST/ �J (< / ® g Ronal Yasui 'L)oug Graef Helen Burch )49 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. E317 New Home Trends 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton,WA 98056 8034 118th Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Kirkland, WA 98033 _isa Young Art Gossan 1000 Aberdeen Avenue NE 7301 NE 175th, #124 Renton, WA 98056 Kenmore, WA 98028 PARTY OF RECORD LIST/ AUG - 7 ,2000 August 1, 2000 RENTON �EXAIVINER CI OF RENTON Mr. Fred Kaufman //:54/q.m Hearing Examiner AUG 0 7 2000 Seventh Floor RECEIVED 1055 South Grady Way CITY MEWS OFFICE Renton, WA 98055 • Re: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Project No.L UA-00-040,SA A,ECF 917Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Dear Mr. Kaufman: This letter is being sent to you as an appeal regarding the recent application to build a twelve (12)unit apartment complex adjacent to my single family home. I have deep concerns, reservations, and questions regarding this project. The property in question,to date,has never been developed. 'A previous attempt to due so was aborted due to the narrowness of this site. The property was once an orchard with a wide variety of fruit trees, but has been left unattended by its previous owners for the past fifty years. It is now covered in thick vegetation and very heavily wooded with large maple, elms and leftover fruit trees. My parents and I have owned the adjacent property(957 Aberdeen Avenue NE) since 1950. The proposed development and construction at 917 Aberdeen Ave NE will have a significant, adverse impact on my home and property. 'If the City of Renton allows the proposed structure to go up the effect on my home will be denial of my right to the "quiet enjoyment"of my property. The new property will block the needed sunlight from reaching my home and garden. I am submitting this letter,a list of my concerns and comments for your expert.consideration. 1. Total height of the structure vs. sunlight. I assume that one underlying reason for including height restriction in the land use code is to disallow or mitigate new structures from blocking solar access to neighboring homes. The proposed structure would be one floor of garage parking,two floors of living area,plus a pitched roof. With a pitched roof the overall height of the structure may exceed thirty-five feet(35'). I also understand that the City of Renton may allow the structure to bebuilt on fill dirt with a concrete retaining wall,that would then add several feet more in overall elevation. The impact on me will be significantly worse if the proposed structure will not be required to be built on the existing grade. The east portion of my home is two feet (2')below the present grade,which will put my living room at a minimum of Mr.Fred Kaufman August 1, 2000 Page 2 forty feet (40')below the proposed structure. How is a thirty-five foot(35') height restriction to be measured? Winters in the Pacific Northwest are cloudy at best and the sun is at a very low angle and sets in the southwest. The increased. fmal grade level will allow the structure to block out needed sunlight and place the south side of my home in shadow for over six months of the year. Frost, ice, and snow could last much longer without the sun's warmth.. This condition will undoubtedly cause harm to my home, side yard, and garden. 2. The finished grade,drainage, and surface run-off. If the project is allowed to raise it's elevation it will undoubtedly cause run-off and drainage problems to be generated on my property. I have a basement and a greenhouse that are below present grade,which will become even lower in relation to the project site. Water seepage will become a problem, as water tends to seek a lower level. How does the project propose to deal with increased run-off and drainage? Will any retention or holding pond be employed? The northwest portion of the project and the southwest portion of my property come together to form a natural drainage trough that will be greatly affected with added changes in elevation and run-off. A large(80') California Redwood tree is located at this juncture, on my side, only twenty-one feet(21')from the property line. The proposed project bulkhead wall extends westward beyond this point. The damage here will be significant. A drainage system required to be tightlined and dispersed via a spreader at the northwest corner of the site will damage or require the removal of more trees.It will be over 250 feet long and be located on the western portion of the site having a forty- (40) degree slope. 3. Bulkhead, retaining wall, and fence If a bulkhead or retaining wall is proposed to support the difference in elevation, how can it be placed directly on the property line, without a footing to support it? My property has many trees,rhododendrons, and shrubs in close proximity of the property line. For example,there are two (2) seventy-five foot(75') Cedar trees within three feet(3') of the property line. Any digging will cause irreparable harm and could even kill them. These trees cannot be replaced. Various other trees and plants will be disturbed or would have to be removed to erect a wall on the property line. I do not wish to sign any construction easement agreement that would allow any damage to the two Cedar trees or other trees,plants, or shrubs. I also noticed that no mention or references were made in the applicants Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan regarding any of the before mentioned trees or the location of my home which is within the 20 foot impact zone. I wonder why the omission of environmental impact to the vegetation,trees, and my home DO NOT appear in the applicant's file? Mr.Fred Kaufman August 1, 2000 Page 3 4. The size of the project vs. usable land. The square footage of the site in total is about 37,585 with the western half having a forty degree slope or greater. This leaves the remaining usable land at only forty-five percent (45%). How then is it possible to have a fair evaluation using the land density codes? The project plan shows almost the entire site to be covered by either pavement or building. 5. Noise and carbon monoxide fumes. My home is located nineteen feet (19') from the property line,with an attached greenhouse only nine and one-half feet (9.5') from the property line. Two of my bedrooms have a southern exposure also within nineteen feet(19')of the property line. The project places it's driveway egress and parking garage on the north side, making my home subject to constant car noise and lethal carbon monoxide fumes. I will be directly exposed to vehicles entering and leaving at hours of the day and night. It is one thing to have one new neighbor,but twelve (12) families certainly will erase any privacy and quiet. How does the project propose to deal with the added noise and carbon monoxide fumes? 6. Building size vs. narrowness of the site. The plan shows that the upper two stories extend out over the parking area an additional four feet (4') on the north side. This makes the building thirty-two feet (32') in width. Is this architecture keeping within the allowable square footage based on the narrowness of the site? 7. Construction schedule. If this project is allowed to go forward,how will the added noises from the machinery and labor be addressed? My home life will be greatly affected by the noise, dust, and debris throughout the construction phase. 8. Urban wildlife and habitat. There are many species of wildlife living on the site. Has an analysis been done of the impact on wildlife that live on the development site? Are there plans to do one? Has it been determined if any of the wildlife that lives there is listed as Species of Concern? There are currently squirrels nesting on the property, a deer recently gave birth, and many different birds including hawks-Merlins, woodpeckers, finches,wrens,and sparrows are nesting as well. Raccoons also Mr. Fred Kaufman August 1, 2000 Page 4 live on the development site, and it is my understanding that raccoons are game animals and cannot be disturbed. In conclusion,I have enclosed a project layout and pictures showing the location of my home, greenhouse,trees, and shrubs in relation to the property line and project. The proposed project covers almost all of the 325' x 62.5' site with pavement and building. The real problem with the site is that it is too narrow for how severely it drops off topographically. The developer will have to increase the existing elevation with fill-dirt for ingress and egress to work on the site The structure is over three stories with the pitched roof shown in the plan. The elevation plan using views from east and west show a finished slope towards my home on the north side. This development, given just a few of the problems, which will undoubtedly occur can only degrade and have an adverse effect on the environment,my home and property. I hope that you will consider closely all of my concerns and questions regarding this project. Thank you for your attention to this letter. Sincerely, Helen D. Burch 957 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 (425) 255-4921 11 [j • August 4,2000 AUG - 7 20U0 Sunset Garden Home Owners Association CITY OF RENTON 949 Aberdeen Ave. NE,#318 HEARING EXAMINER Renton, WA 98056 CITY OF RENTON Hearing Examiner /0'4,2 aim City of Renton AUG 0 4 2000 1055 South Grady Way RECEIVED Renton, WA 98055 CITY CL.ERK'S OFFICE Dear Hearing Examiner: As secretary of the board of directors of Sunset Garden Homeowners Association,I am submitting this appeal of the City of Renton's environmental determination for Aberdeen Ave. Apartments,#LUA-00- • 040, SA-A,ECF. Deny Request for Construction Permit We are requesting that you convene a hearing. We will provide testimony to support our request to deny the approval for a construction permit for the property identified as 917 Aberdeen Ave. NE. Drainage Problem Documented for Hillside Five out of six buildings located at 949 Aberdeen Ave. NE,directly south of 917, have suffered from moisture drive up through their floors,causing damage to vinyl-covered surfaces. The slope of our hillside is steep. The slope of the property at 917 is even steeper. How could a building be constructed on this property without considerable in-fill? How would this in-fill be stabilized? The 917 buildings could slide down the hill, like those in Seattle. In addition to the run-off that comes down the entire hill,the water table is relatively close to the surface. At several places at 949,underground springs seep up through the surface of our driveway throughout the year. Sunset Garden has gone through a three year saga of paying hydrologist and engineers to determine a cause and solution to our moisture problems. In a nutshell, our condominium complex,built in 1991,has just received bids for approximately$250,000 worth of work. (The high bid was over$500,000.) This work is caused by excess water,that naturally drains down the west facing hillside above I-405 due to pavement(streets and parking lots)and houses and apartment buildings. The city of Renton's planning process failed to require adequate mitigation to avoid the costly problems we face today. The developer and builder of Sunset Garden failed to provide the necessary construction methods and materials to mitigate the problems of building on such a hillside as ours. I am aware that building codes are to insure health and safety,not quality. However, it seems that sheer common sense, called Plan Review and Environmental Impact Review,would have prompted the city of Renton to require adequate drainage for multiple buildings accompanied by an asphalt driveway and parking lot. The city of Renton should be protecting the taxpayers who were to move into these buildings and trusted that the city's planning and inspection departments would have required adequate construction methods. My understanding is that the city of Renton did not in 1991 and still does not inspect drainage systems. Let me tell you what our engineer and construction contractor have uncovered so far. * There is no drainage blanket(gravel or rock)under our foundation slab. * The footing drains are wrapped in a water impermeable plastic. * The pipe was often installed with the holes facing the wrong direction. * There was several inches of water standing alongside the nonfunctioning drains today after two weeks of no rain. To locate several buildings as well as an asphalt driveway and parking lot north of our property will only exacerbate our problem. Certainly the new buildings will have problems of their own. Living proof at 949 shows that a developer and builder must go beyond the narrow requirements of applicable codes in order to build on this type of site. It is extremely frustrating to read the city of Renton's"Determination of Non-significance(mitigated) Advisory Notes." The section"Plan Review—Stormwater Drainage" is not adequate. I see that the city is requesting$15,985 as a Surface Water System Charge. The charge may be a way to finance city expenses.But not a penny of this charge will be seen by adjacent property owners,who literally will be or currently are financing solutions to hillside drainage and its accompanying damage to homes. As of July 10th, each homeowner at 949 Aberdeen is facing a least a$4,000 lump sum payment in order to redo all footing drains on the property and repair floors in 13 units. We are nurses, school teachers, news reporters,retirees,technical college employees,secretaries,paralegals,office furniture installers, bookkeepers, manufacturing employees, and construction workers, many of whom are faced with financial hardship at best,bankruptcy at worst, due to poor planning and development practices in regards to drainage system requirements and installation. Not only is there the monetary cost,but also to be endured is the considerable inconvenience of removing all landscaping in order to dig a 6 ft deep trench around all perimeters of each building, cutting down our larger trees,and jackhammering out and replacing the patios and sidewalks. I look forward to updating you on our drainage investigation at the hearing. Sincerely, C47-.76--C1‘ ;1'0 Gay Kiesling Sunset Garden Home Owners Association 1Elg1E11W I - AUG - 7 2000 �V �A� �p�RENTON August 1, 2000 t. .3; 1�HFARIN6EXAMlNER CI OF RENTON Mr. Fred Kaufman //:51/4,m Hearing Examiner AUG 0 7 2000 Seventh Floor RECEIVED 1055 South Grady Way am CLERK 3 aFFICE Renton,WA 98055 Re: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Project No.LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF 917Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Dear Mr. Kaufman: This letter is being sent to you as an appeal regarding the recent application to build a twelve (12)unit apartment complex adjacent to my single family home. I have deep concerns,reservations, and questions regarding this project. The property in question,to date,has never been developed. A previous attempt to due so was aborted due to the narrowness of this site. The property was once an orchard with a wide variety of fruit trees, but has been left unattended by its previous owners for the past fifty years.It is now covered in thick vegetation and very heavily wooded with large maple, elms and leftover fruit trees. My parents and I have owned the adjacent property(957 Aberdeen Avenue NE) since 1950. The proposed development and construction at 917 Aberdeen Ave NE will have a significant, adverse impact on my home and property. If the City of Renton allows the proposed structure to go up the effect on my home will be denial of my right to the"quiet enjoyment" of my property. The new property will block the needed sunlight from reaching my home and garden. I am submitting this letter, a list of my concerns and comments for your expert consideration. 1. Total height of the structure vs. sunlight. I assume that one underlying reason for including height restriction in the land use code is to disallow or mitigate new structures from blocking solar access to neighboring homes. The proposed structure would be one floor of garage parking,two floors of living area, plus a pitched roof. With a pitched roof the overall height of the structure may exceed thirty-five feet(35'). I also understand that the City of Renton may allow the structure to be built on fill dirt with a concrete retaining wall,that would then add several feet more in overall elevation. The impact on me will be significantly worse if the proposed structure will not be required to be built on the existing grade. The east portion of my home is two feet (2')below the present grade, which will put my living room at a minimum of Mr.Fred Kaufman August 1, 2000 Page 2 forty feet (40')below the proposed structure. How is a thirty-five foot(35') height restriction to be measured? Winters in the Pacific Northwest are cloudy at best and the sun is at a very low angle and sets in the southwest. The increased fmal grade level will allow the structure to block out needed sunlight and place the south side of my home in shadow for over six months of the year. Frost, ice, and snow could last much longer without the sun's warmth. This condition will undoubtedly cause harm to my home, side yard, and garden. 2. The finished grade,drainage, and surface run-off. If the project is allowed to raise it's elevation it will undoubtedly cause run-off and drainage problems to be generated on my property. I have a basement and a greenhouse that are below present grade, which will become even lower in relation to the project site. Water seepage will become a problem, as water tends to seek a lower level. How does the project propose to deal with increased run-off and drainage? Will any retention or holding pond be employed? The northwest portion of the project and the southwest portion of my property come together to form a natural drainage trough that will be greatly affected with added changes in elevation and run-off. A large(80') California Redwood tree is located at this juncture,on my side, only twenty-one feet (21') from the property line. The proposed project bulkhead wall extends westward beyond this point. The damage here will be significant. A drainage system required to be tightlined and dispersed via a spreader at the northwest corner of the site will damage or require the removal of more trees. It will be over 250 feet long and be located on the western portion of the site having a forty- (40) degree slope. 3. Bulkhead, retaining wall, and fence If a bulkhead or retaining wall is proposed to support the difference in elevation, how can it be placed directly on the property line,without a footing to support it? My property has many trees,rhododendrons, and shrubs in close proximity of the property line. For example,there are two (2) seventy-five foot(75') Cedar trees within three feet (3')of the property line. Any digging will cause irreparable harm and could even kill them. These trees cannot be replaced. Various other trees and plants will be disturbed or would have to be removed to erect a wall on the property line. I do not wish to sign any construction easement agreement that would allow any damage to the two Cedar trees or other trees,plants, or shrubs. I also noticed that no mention or references were made in the applicants Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan regarding any of the before mentioned trees or the location of my home which is within the 20 foot impact zone. I wonder why the omission of environmental impact to the vegetation,trees, and my home DO NOT appear in the applicant's file? Mr. Fred Kaufman August 1, 2000 Page 3 4. The size of the project vs. usable land. The square footage of the site in total is about 37,585 with the western half having a forty degree slope or greater. This leaves the remaining usable land at only forty-five percent(45%). How then is it possible to have a fair evaluation using the land density codes? The project plan shows almost the entire site to be covered by either pavement or building. 5. Noise and carbon monoxide fumes. My home is located nineteen feet(19') from the property line, with an attached greenhouse only nine and one-half feet (9.5') from the property line. Two of my bedrooms have a southern exposure also within nineteen feet(19') of the property line. The project places it's driveway egress and parking garage on the north side, making my home subject to constant car noise and lethal carbon monoxide fumes. I will be directly exposed to vehicles entering and leaving at hours of the day and night. It is one thing to have one new neighbor,but twelve (12)families certainly will erase any privacy and quiet. How does the project propose to deal with the added noise and carbon monoxide fumes? 6. Building size vs. narrowness of the site. The plan shows that the upper two stories extend out over the parking area an additional four feet(4')on the north side. This makes the building thirty-two feet (32') in width. Is this architecture keeping within the allowable square footage based on the narrowness of the site? 7. Construction schedule. If this project is allowed to go forward, how will the added noises from the machinery and labor be addressed? My home life will be greatly affected by the noise, dust, and debris throughout the construction phase. 8. Urban wildlife and habitat. There are many species of wildlife living on the site. Has an analysis been done of the impact on wildlife that live on the development site? Are there plans to do one? Has it been determined if any of the wildlife that lives there is listed as Species of Concern? There are currently squirrels nesting on the property, a deer recently gave birth, and many different birds including hawks-Merlins, woodpeckers, finches,wrens,and sparrows are nesting as well. Raccoons also Mr. Fred Kaufman August 1, 2000 Page 4 live on the development site, and it is my understanding that raccoons are game animals and cannot be disturbed. In conclusion,I have enclosed a project layout and pictures showing the location of my home, greenhouse,trees, and shrubs in relation to the property line and project. The proposed project covers almost all of the 325' x 62.5' site with pavement and building. The real problem with the site is that it is too narrow for how severely it drops off topographically. The developer will have to increase the existing elevation with fill-dirt for ingress and egress to work on the site The structure is over three stories with the pitched roof shown in the plan. The elevation plan using views from east and west show a finished slope towards my home on the north side. This development, given just a few of the problems, which will undoubtedly occur can only degrade and have an adverse effect on the environment,my home and property. I hope that you will consider closely all of my concerns and questions regarding this project. Thank you for your attention to this letter. Sincerely, Helen D. Burch 957 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 (425) 255-4921 • August 4,2000 AUG - 7 2000 Sunset Garden Home Owners Association CITY OF RENTON 949 Aberdeen Ave. NE, #318 HEARING EXAMINER Renton, WA 98056 CITY OF RENTON Hearing Examiner /0./02 Q•in. City of Renton AUG 0 4 2000 1055 South Grady Way RECEIVED Renton, WA 98055 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Dear Hearing Examiner: As secretary of the board of directors of Sunset Garden Homeowners Association,I am submitting this appeal of the City of Renton's environmental determination for Aberdeen Ave. Apartments, #LUA-00- 040, SA-A,ECF. Deny Request for Construction Permit We are requesting that you convene a hearing. We will provide testimony to support our request to deny the approval for a construction permit for the property identified as 917 Aberdeen Ave.NE. Drainage Problem Documented for Hillside Five out of six buildings located at 949 Aberdeen Ave. NE, directly south of 917, have suffered from moisture drive up through their floors, causing damage to vinyl-covered surfaces. The slope of our hillside is steep. The slope of the property at 917 is even steeper. How could a building be constructed on this property without considerable in-fill? How would this in-fill be stabilized? The 917 buildings could slide down the hill, like those in Seattle. In addition to the run-off that comes down the entire hill,the water table is relatively close to the surface. At several places at 949,underground springs seep up through the surface of our driveway throughout the year. • Sunset Garden has gone through a three year saga of paying hydrologist and engineers to determine a cause and solution to our moisture problems. In a nutshell, our condominium complex,built in 1991, has just received bids for approximately$250,000 worth of work. (The high bid was over$500,000.) This work is caused by excess water, that naturally drains down the west facing hillside above I-405 due to pavement(streets and parking lots)and houses and apartment buildings. The city of Renton's planning process.failed to require adequate mitigation to avoid the costly problems we face today. The developer and builder of Sunset Garden failed to provide the necessary construction methods and materials to mitigate the problems of building on such a hillside as ours. I am aware that building codes are to insure health and safety, not quality. However,it seems that sheer common sense, called Plan Review and Environmental Impact Review,would have prompted the city of Renton to require adequate drainage for multiple buildings accompanied by an asphalt driveway and parking lot. The city of Renton should be protecting the taxpayers who were to move into these buildings and trusted that the city's planning and inspection departments would have required adequate construction methods. My understanding is that the city of Renton did not in 1991 and still does not inspect drainage systems. Let me tell you what our engineer and construction contractor have uncovered so far. * There is no drainage blanket(gravel or rock)under our foundation slab. * The footing drains are wrapped in a water impermeable plastic. * The pipe was often installed with the holes facing the wrong direction. * There was several inches of water standing alongside the nonfunctioning drains today after two weeks of no rain. To locate several buildings as well as an asphalt driveway and parking lot north of our property will only exacerbate our problem. Certainly the new buildings will have problems of their own. Living proof at 949 shows that a developer and builder must go beyond the narrow requirements of applicable codes in order to build on this type of site. It is extremely frustrating to read the city of Renton's"Determination of Non-significance(mitigated) Advisory Notes." The section"Plan Review—Stormwater Drainage" is not adequate. I see that the city is requesting$15,985 as a Surface Water System Charge. The charge may be a way to finance city expenses.But not a penny of this charge will be seen by adjacent property owners,who literally will be or currently are financing solutions to hillside drainage and its accompanying damage to homes. As of July 10th, each homeowner at 949 Aberdeen is facing a least a$4,000 lump sum payment in order to redo all footing drains on the property and repair floors in 13 units. We are nurses, school teachers, news reporters, retirees,technical college employees, secretaries,paralegals,office furniture installers, bookkeepers,manufacturing employees, and construction workers, many of whom are faced with financial hardship at best,bankruptcy at worst, due to poor planning and development practices in regards to drainage system requirements and installation. Not only is there the monetary cost,but also to be endured is the considerable inconvenience of removing all landscaping in order to dig a 6 ft deep trench around all perimeters of each building,cutting down our larger trees,and jackhammering out and replacing the patios and sidewalks. I look forward to updating you on our drainage investigation at the hearing. Sincerely, Gay Kiesling Sunset Garden Home Owners Association ,---. ) . , . NOTES *1' . RECEIPT DATE 9 '-- i - CA/ - NO 0 7-0 8 .cc LIU . —.1 RECEIVED FROM ad1-44-1 D, ‘..) ADDRESS >- cierssft q`S--:7 0,4 .4 iliL le.),44.. eu g,'to,s-6, $ 75, 84) 0 133 ›..to 1 , 124 TIN 4421, FOR (1,..A-114041- - LIM- 60- 01/4)- 5,1 -7,41 ECF ' .. . 1 O -.5 ACCOUNT . ; . ' HOW PAID CO. q 0 0 ACCOUNT CASH i-L =Fil = AMT. , CHECK 75-JO 1' 1.1- (I) 74 a) PAID • I' 0 CC r-:CC BALANCE MONEY BY 1 .1-1' '\-1- (4142- --- I _ _ DUE ORDER 01998 gDIEORN0aLso2 • . — . . . . . , • . . r,, 14INOTES RECEIPT DATE i- Ar/- 62 No. 0706 1 cc J W J art-/ 6 ;'ILA 9 r / n 'J kRECEIVED FROM sC / Q �c. i t"1 !:�'CG•n? �az/tcli s 737, ,J FOR � /1 ® �- ° 'r�, A"' i "� / , 0 -.—ms4iiACCOUNT • HOWPAID W •'5 AMT.OF U g,C.O.t.r ACCOUNT CASH • LL PAID . CHECK 74- 00 0 Ir BALANCE MONEY By 44,41-,0 °Qr ("0 = -01L, 11 DUE ORDER • ° ©1998 ACWORM©8Lao2 f NOTES RECE I PT DATE NO. 0706 CC LI.1 f —J 0 /2 //7 / RECEIVED FROM VW-It dj--1 a2A,d/44--i gehlf/ nem 6/,.6 ,..,. ....i.4-1 : • ›,,, / ..1 ?:- co us . ADDRESS )f)(9-4,414 M-edi 4 ...1=:2 FOR 0r12 .e al- Z.- /' - 00-7)V g ,3/9 4 1 :--:0 0 4=_,,, '!..-wACCOUNT:'..;,''"i-',.^^!,'`•,.'i',• 'HOW PAID - '-' Uj a , ANT.OF ASH O e.,9 Crj,,,„= ACCOUNT C : . • :I 'Z5Li_ = 02 AMT. CHECK CV L. in = PAID"CC.--CC / / . / 0 .!: BALANCE MONEY BY /2071,41L/ `sd Wal?*-erk DUE • ORDER ©1998 rtf.DIFORM®8L802 i • . - - .._ ... . ., 911C7..:i =': : .‘, '?"..•-:;,..,::. , ': , • t,.? 19-8150/3250 " 3 i 4 8 pi, NORM MODE-:,. , 1 ' • 949'ABERDEEN AVE.NE#C-310 , Deice \ i , :RENTON,:WA:,98056-2879 , - ' ,;:',I-,,'1: ' ;- ':::,;:), :,) ' Pay to the 1 ' 6 Orcier of .,,,,,,,,,...- ...-7.----- Defliars Eigztt. 1 : , ,,, ;', i; . --;‘, •,..?,,„'q:-.2,;,: ....,..,...:•,:'. •r , I I, Center Branch l South ‘ i :','.,'s''E'ATT' 'ILE L.'''..METI3'opprpLcIT0A:Nti :Seat",WA 98188 -: For 1.--....4vil--------7.77.7 ,-,. , ,, !./ _ . 3 I,L.Bi--7-T 13. S- '' ..: L,1111.- . .