HomeMy WebLinkAboutJay Covington's Response Letter to KlaasDenisLaw ITYOF—Renton 0
Mayor’s OfficeAugust10,2016
Virginia Klaas,M.D.
618532nd P1
Renton,WA 98055
RE:CITY PLANNING:VALLEY VUE SHORT PLAT,LUA16-000272,SHPL-A,MOD
Dear Dr.Klaas:
Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns and observations in your letter
dated August 2,2016,regarding the Valley Vue Short Plat.The Mayor,City Council and I
respect and appreciate the diligence and effort you and others have exercised in
following this proposed development.I’ve attempted to address your concerns below.
The city evaluates each development application rigorously,following the Renton
Municipal Code (RMC),the Comprehensive Plan,and the Revised Code of Washington
(RCW).We operate under the legal doctrines of substantive due process,procedural
due process,equal protection,authority,taking of property,vested rights,state
preemption,and first amendment rights.The city code provides for variances,
modifications,and deviations from the explicit rules due to the fact that properties are
different (size,location,sensitive areas,pre-existing conditions,access,etc.)and
property owners desire to develop and use their property in different ways.
Development,in any form,involves a balancing of private property rights with the public
interest.With each development proposal,the City Council (through its policy
guidance),the Mayor and staff strive to strike the appropriate balance.Often,that
“balancing”of these two,sometimes conflicting,parameters requires that we use the
variances,conditions,and deviations expressly provided for this purpose.
The procedures regulating short subdivisions,such as Valley Vue,stipulate an
administrative review process followed by an administrative decision fOrd.5519).
Because a short subdivision is an administrative process,there is no public hearing
required for a short plat application,and the legislative body is not involved in the
process.However,due to the public interest and response received for Valley Vue Short
Plat,CED Administrator Chip Vincent has the discretionary authority,which he invoked
in this case,to require a public hearing rather than just handle the application
administratively.The short plat application was referred to the Hearing Examiner for a
full public hearing and decision within a week of project acceptance.
Renton City Hail •1055 South Grady Way .Renton,Washington 98057 •rentonwa.gov
Virginia Klass,M.D.
Page 2 of 3
August 11,2016
Contrary to “disrespecting”the resources and rights of neighbors to the proposed
development,we invoked this extra step of public process to allow input from affected
neighbors.
In your letter,you stated that the city failed to include comment letters that were
submitted.All of the comment letters and the petition received were included in the
staff report and recommendation to the Hearing Examiner as Exhibits 16,17,18,19 and
20.
The existing Winsper Division 1 subdivision was approved in 1989 by King County.
Included in the original approval were two access tracts (Tract H and G)to 3106 and
3112 Talbot Rd.S.These tracts have been in existence for access since the creation of
your neighborhood.In an effort to balance private property rights and the unique
situation created as a result of a King County subdivision (i.e.,narrow access tracts),the
city utilized their protective regulations to first deny a 9-lot subdivision of significant
impact,which is allowed under the existing zoning.Then the city later approved a short
plat that limited the impact to the neighborhood to an emergency access road only.
Furthermore the second application for a two-lot short plat simply recognized the
existing situation of the two existing homes and brought the site into conformance with
the City of Renton regulations,which only permits one home per lot.So,this process
ultimately did not allow any additional homes on the subject property.
In your letter,you stated that you felt the “shared driveway”proposal was a violation of
city code.The Hearing Examiner’s review and analysis of the shared driveway
regulations balanced the RMC regulations and the concerns raised by the neighborhood
at the public hearing,including comments from the first hearing for the subdivision of 9
lots.In doing so,the Hearing Examiner rendered a decision that limited the use of Tract
H to emergency access only and determined that the applicant could not request a
modification from the shared driveway standards,which the code authorizes.Tract H
will not be permitted to be used as a shared driveway,screening landscaping will be
required,and the applicant shall provide proof-of-access rights to the city.
You also expressed concerns over the “disturbance limits”as presented.The
disturbance limits shown on Exhibit 7 of the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner are
not part of a city plan,nor are they approved by the city.This was created by the
applicant and included in the submittal package for the short plat application.As
addressed in the public hearing,this was a graphical representation and not a
construction drawing.The city agrees that the applicant’s graphic is not a fair
representation of appropriate disturbance limits.Despite this graphic,upon
construction permit application the city will not authorize any ground disturbance
outside the area where the applicant has rights to construct.In most cases these rights
are in the form of either property ownership or a temporary construction easement.
Virginia Klass,M.D.
Page 3 of 3
August 11,2016
Therefore,if you do not authorize the applicant to disturb your property,the city will
not approve a plan that would allow disturbance on your property.
Dr.Klaas,we take great pride in the integrity of our staff who administer the complex
codes and regulations adopted by the city.Staff are highly trained and qualified to
analyze proposals to the adopted standards and codes in place,and are responsive to
community members such as yourself.We examine each development proposal,and
strive to approve projects that add value,quality and character to the community,not
detract from it.While I can appreciate your perspective and desire to have absolute
certainty and predictability in the rules that govern new development,in practical terms
and based on respective governing laws,it does not work that way.
These kinds of projects,as you note in your letter,create a lot of work for your
neighborhood to become informed and involved.We certainly understand that there
are times when civic involvement can be inconvenient and frustrating.In this case,I
believe that the combined efforts of city staff and those of you and your neighbors—
while not always in agreement—resulted in a better outcome overall for the
community.
Thank you for your interest in this project.If you have any further questions or
comments,please feel free to contact CED Administrator Chip Vincent at 425-430-6588.
cc:Denis Law,Mayor
Renton City Council
C.E.“Chip”Vincent,CED Administrator
Jennifer Henning,Planning Director
Vanessa Dolbee,Current Planning Manager
Clark Close,Senior Planner
Sincerely,
Chief Administrative Officer