Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLarson_Variance_PUD_Chronology.pdfProposed short plat of Tim D Annexation lot 2605 Monroe Court NE January 3, 2019 Preapplication with applicant: Larsen not involved in project yet. Site is constrained with protected slopes on northern portion and unincorporated lot protruding into general layout area. Proposed layout did not meet R-4 lot standards. Initial proposal is for 9-lots. Applicant misinterpreted the lot width averaging provision that is only applicable to R-6 and R-8 zones and for preliminary plats. They also attempted to utilize protected slope area in lot design and calculation instead of placing in tract. March 25, 2019 Matt H. Meeting w/ Lee White: Lee White is the original applicant that came in January for the preapplication meeting. He voices his displeasure that the R-4 zone does not allow lot averaging. He asks if a PUD would be an option. I provide information on the PUD process and requirement for public benefit. April 2019 LDC Engineering gets involved: Ian Faulds of LDC Engineering attempts to schedule another preapplication meeting for the property. I inform Mr. Faulds that we do not schedule multiple preapplication meetings for the same parcel with similar proposals. I let Mr. Faulds know that I would continue to be the project manager for future short subdivisions on this property and if they would like to discuss options for a PUD that I would work directly with them. I am clear with Mr. Faulds that any PUD proposal needs staff approval of the public benefit prior to accepting the application. May 2019 Matt H. First Contact w/ Ryan Larsen: Ryan Larsen emails me a proposed site plan and asks if the density calculation is correct. I respond that the density calculation is correct. In phone conversations with Mr. Larsen I am clear that PUD applications require a public benefit and must meet the criteria for a superior project. I am clear in my conversations that PUDs are a discretionary approval process. In my conversations I am also clear that the proposal shown to me did not have an identifiable public benefit and he would need to articulate this before I would accept his application. June 27, 2019 PUD Neighborhood Meeting: The applicant conducts their neighborhood meeting at the Renton Highlands Library. The notice sent out provided a concept of an 8-lot short plat that did not identify or articulate a public benefit for the proposed PUD. The meeting was well attended with 16 attendees that voiced concerns with the project related to geotechnical work, HOA maintenance of tracts, retaining walls, trees, vault maintenance, and construction. July 9, 2019 Requesting Project Intake: Email correspondence and phone calls regarding setting up project intake. I continue to voice my concerns regarding the absence of a public benefit or superior project design. I tell both Mr. Faulds and Mr. Larsen that I will not accept their PUD application until they propose and show me the public benefit and articulate why this project is superior. Site July 11, 2019 PUD Concept Review: Mr. Larsen provides a PUD concept layout with trail and open space on remnant portions and on top of the vault. This is the first time I see any attempt at showing a public benefit. He does not articulate how this project is superior to a typical short plat. July 18, 2019 PUD Concept Response, Propose Variance Alternative: I phone Mr. Larsen and explain that his concept does not rise to the level of a superior design and the trail proposed as the pub lic benefit we could likely require through the subdivision code for pedestrian connectivity. I suggest to Mr. Larsen that instead of a PUD that he apply for a variance instead as the environmental constraints do present a hardship. I asked that he provide a variance concept that placed the protected slopes in tracts, protected at least 30-percent of the trees, and the density did not exceed 4 du/ac. I was clear that I could make no promises, but wanted to see what this would look like. July 25, 2019 Variance Concept Review: Mr. Larsen emails a concept that on paper appears to meet the 3 parameters (slopes in tracts, 30% tree retention, and sub 4 du/ac ) I provided above, however all of the lots would need a variance from dimensional requirements, only two lots meet the minimum lot size, and he is also requesting setback variances on each lot to 10-feet front, 10-feet rear, and 5-foot side. August 1, 2019: Mr. Larsen follows up regarding the variance concept. I respond that unfortunately I was unable to review with Vanessa but hope to have a follow up for him the first part of the following week. August 6, 2019: Mr. Larsen emails to ask about variance concept. I am unable to follow up and I am out of the office the following day. I am working on a more acceptable variance alternative that would require only lot dimensional variances for four of the lots resulting in a 6-lot short plat. August 7, 2019: Clay White contacts Chip to schedule meeting.