HomeMy WebLinkAboutH. Req for Recon - CH& (1/22/2015) CITY OF RENTON
r
JAN 2 2 2015 ��
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
1�4 i�-6- S C
H&
January 22, 2015
VIA EMAIL
Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts
City of Renton
1055 Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Re: The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat
City File No. LUA13-001572—Request for Reconsideration
Dear Examiner Olbrechts:
This firm represents Henley USA, LLC ("Henley"), the contract purchaser for the property and
applicant for the above-referenced preliminary plat. Henley submits this written request pursuant to
RMC 4-8-100(G)(9) and RMC 4-8-110(E)(13), which provide for reconsideration of a Hearing
Examiner's Decision if a party of record believes the Decision is based on "an erroneous procedure,
errors of law or fact, errors in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be
reasonably available at the prior hearing." We originally sought review of these issues as a request for
review of technical errors under RMC 4-8-100(G)(7). We are filing this request for reconsideration to
ensure that these issues are reviewed as we have not yet received a ruling on our earlier request;
however, we believe they should be more appropriately considered in our previously filed request for
clarification and correction of technical errors.
1. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 28, line 9. Here, there is a typographical error
referencing a"15 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement." That should be revised to reference a
"10 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement."
2. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 40, lines 7— 10. Here, the first portion of
Examiner's Condition Lb, which revises MDNS Condition 6, reads: "The applicant shall revise its
landscaping plan to provide for a 10 foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots." As revised, this
Condition also goes on to address the 10 foot perimeter landscaping for certain lots with retaining walls
facing neighboring property owners, that resulted from the SEPA Appeal. The linkage of those two
issues raises a possibility for misinterpretation. We ask the Examiner to separate the issues or otherwise
clarify that there is a difference between the 10 foot front yard landscaping issue called for by code, and
the 10 foot buffer for retaining walls along the edge of the property that resulted from the SEPA Appeal.
nrogers2cairncross.com
direct:(206)254-4417
102743372.DOCX;2}
Hearing Examiner Phil OlbrJ,
January 22, 2015
Page 2
The record reflects that these are two separate issues. Specifically, the City Staff Report to the
Examiner(Exhibit K.La), at p. 13, described how 10-feet of street frontage landscaping was required by
RMC 4-4-070(F)(1), which provides: "Ten feet(10') of on-site landscaping is required along all public
street frontages, with the exception of areas for required walkways and driveways and those zones with
building setbacks less than ten feet (10'). In those cases, ten feet (10') of landscaping shall be required
where buildings are not located." The Staff Report continued by noting that the code-required 10-foot
front yard landscape strip was not shown on the landscape plan in the record. The Staff Report also then
described the ERC determination to impose a 15 foot perimeter buffer, and then stated that City Staff
was recommending a condition that would require submittal of a new landscape plan to depict two
things: (1) "a 10-foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots," and(2) a"15-foot wide vegetated buffer
surround the subject site..."
We ask that the two issues be plainly separated in the plat conditions.
3. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 26, lines 4—5, that is also repeated on p. 40, line
11, which text lists Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93, and 94. Here, the Examiner's Decision text,
and Examiner's Condition Lb, which revises MDNS Condition 6, calls for a 10 foot wide area of
perimeter landscaping where retaining walls are greater than 4 feet in height above the ground surface,
so as to buffer the visual impact of those walls on the existing neighborhood. To reflect the evidence in
the record, we request that the list of specified lots either be revised or eliminated.
As noted on Exhibit K.6.a, and in the testimony of Barry Talkington, Lots 80 and 82 have a"cut"
wall, meaning that the wall is not visible outside the property line of the plat, meaning there can be no
visual impact of the wall to buffer. Lots 83 - 90, and 93 - 94 are buffered behind Tract A, which tract is
already wider than 10 feet and which tract is already planned for landscaping. Thus, if revised, the list
of lots should include only Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, plus a note that as to Lots 83 - 90, and 93 - 94, the
revised landscaping plan for Tract A should confirm that site obscuring landscaping will be planted in
Tract A. Also, the revision should note that only walls that are on the perimeter property line, over 4
feet as measured from above-ground, and visible from neighboring properties should be subject to the
buffering requirement.
Alternatively, because as described in the testimony of Barry Talkington, the plat design
continues to evolve in the engineering process, there is the very real possibility that some walls on the
perimeter may drop below four feet in height above the lower level of the ground surface, meaning that
an alternative approach for the Condition language on p. 40 would be to omit the list of lots entirely and
instead state that: "A 10 foot wide, site obscuring landscaping buffer shall be provided adjacent to areas
where retaining walls are four feet or more in height above the ground surface on the low side of the
wall, and where those walls are located on the perimeter of the property and are visible to neighboring
property owners."
{02743372.DOCX;2}
Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrci, _s
January 22, 2015
Page 3
4. There may be errors of fact or law on pp. 28 - 29, discussion of Retaining Wall Height.
The retaining wall height issue was raised as part of the preliminary plat proceeding, not the SEPA
Appeals. Accordingly, it should fall under the preliminary plat discussion that begins on p. 30 of the
Examiner's Decision.
5. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 40, Examiner's Condition 3. Condition 3 should
be deleted because it was replaced and superseded by Condition 4.
Thank you for your time and attention to this request.
Very truly yours,
v
Nancy Bainbridge Rogers
NBR/kgb
cc: Rocale Timmons
{02743372.DOCX;2}