HomeMy WebLinkAboutC_Virginia_Klaas_Letter_20170629_v1Charles Vincent, Administrator
Department of Community and Economic Development
RECEIVE®
Renton City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way
JUL 0 5 2017
Renton, WA 98057
June 29, 2017
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNING DIVISION
Dear Mr. Vincent,
I was contacted by the Winsper HOA president, Lynn Rastelli -Lee, regarding the civil construction permit (C17001891) for Valley Vue
Short Plat that is now being reviewed by the City. Review of this permit request seems a bit premature, as the applicant has not
obtained access rights to the Winsper Division, Tract H, and has never even made a written request to utilize the tract. Our
understanding, from the Hearing Examiner findings from July 11, 2016, is that the applicant must acquire emergency access rights
before ever receiving final approval.
The Winsper HOA hired Davis Wright Tremaine to represent the community after receiving harassing calls from Mr. Dees. As noted
in the March 14, 2017 letter from our attorney to Mr. Dees, we believe that the Winsper HOA is not required to convey such an
easement to RAD. Nonetheless, to avoid a protracted dispute, the Winsper HOA rendered, in good faith, through our attorney's
letter, detailed conditions which we would like met for utilization of Tract H. Please note, Mr. Dees has not responded to the letter
from our attorney, nor has there been any discussion or agreement regarding terms. The June 2, 2017 letter from the City stating
that a permit was being considered was the first indication the HOA has had that Mr. Dees even received the correspondence from
legal counsel with the conditions.
I spent over an hour meeting with Clark, and have subsequently reviewed the information and plans given to the City by the
developer. The plans include the following image:
9'JAP A 1/0�
6W17'OA 1P -00A 29 A ;r2'11
_o
O BE VEMT)fi 'OA R•G 1
— — '— — — �
i •aa
v
\ o'OA
' T I Bma o
—\ CE LIMITS �\ evnorlc
;'ti"'.. P
• O 6 �' 8 . Bp "' 194.`. h
;_1172.59'
1E IT1£r our _ �7
SILT FENCE L •yT✓' r _ ,a`•"
wsi� �it
,S 23 IVD PL,
_s
4/`f fCB PROTECTION j •<,� l
�•"• SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET
-i. INSTALL ON ALL CBS
9w - 1T170 600 HITFINY NILE OF THE SITE
1E "M 6Y E.-18&28• R!M I .91
1E "Va /1 NW. -16&75'
1e 8 n our s-1se.o8' 8" CPP IE 168.65 (NW)
12' CMP 1E 168.39 (NE)
12- CMP IE 168.J7 (SW)
TREES TO BE REMOVE
4-10'6 OA
Clark has asked the developer to remove the triple grey boundaries
that indicate construction related disturbance zones from the plans.
Making this change on the plans does not change the fact that the
developer's engineer thinks the disturbance limits, and construction
site entry go 10 to 15 feet over the top of both adjacent houses and
properties. This is obviously not acceptable. While I believe that the
Winsper HOA is willing to convey Mr. Dees an easement as described
in our attorney's letter, I do not believe that it is willing, under any
circumstances to permit any use or disturbance, even on a
temporary basis, of any property outside of Tract H. I would like to
see a plan with a 12 foot paved (20 foot clear) emergency access,
and the disturbance limits. If these do not cross over any of the
existing homes or properties, we may be able to negotiate. It
appears that Tract H may not even meet the width requirements for
construction of an emergency access.
n
3
Clark indicated that a 12 -foot paved access might be difficult,
however, the alternate plan (depicted to right) drawn by the City's U.2
engineers in 2014 proposes a 12 -foot -wide access, these plans
indicate that the City found a 12 -foot -wide access acceptable. — — —
However, the developer rejected the concept. The developer was willing to accept this proposal the day of the first Valley Vue
hearing, but the Hearing Examiner said he could not render a decision for this proposal, as it had not gone through the public
process. The Examiner did not review the plan for any merits it may or may not have had.
Additionally, Clark indicates that the City will likely allow the developer to retain the 12 foot wide easement segment along the
primary Talbot access. Winsper should have the same standard, certainly a "secondary access" should not be held to a higher
standard than the "primary access." Frankly, the primary access should be improved and maintained to its full capacity, which
would be 12 -foot -wide up to tax lot 28, then increased to 16 -foot width with a required hammerhead to serve the two homes. There
is an existing 20 -foot easement running the length of tax lot 28 that was established in 1964 when the second house was built, but
no improvements were ever made.
It is problematic that the proposed emergency access is referred to as a "16 -foot shared driveway." The HEX finding clearly stated
that Tract H could only serve as an Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA), as it doesn't meet safety and setback requirements of a shared
driveway, or any other path to carry other vehicle traffic. We also note that a secondary fire access for a two -lot subdivision is not
required by Code, so this holds the Developer to a higher standard at the expense of the Winsper Community. If an emergency
access is even feasible through this narrow tract, we would like to see the emergency vehicle "tum around" rotated 90 degree so that it
serves the "primary access". Mr. Dees will need to provide a written request to utilize Tract H and agree to Winsper HOA terms. It
will be essential that if Tract H is designated as EVA, it will remain an EVA forever.
Sinc ely/%
Virginia Klaas
Cc: Jennifer Henning, Planning Director
Clark H. Close, Senior Planner