Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 2STATE ~ASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on September 26, 2014. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $122.50. ~/#~ &-fuIa M. Mills Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscribed and sworn to me this 26th day of September, 2014. .~ ~/..e.Vtl.a<-.. Karhleen C. Sherman, Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Buckley, Washington . • , ............ ~",,\\h\\\i· _, -, '" S '''' .§ (/(:.5'1;, '"':-ft." "f, .: ... Y '''''''''\'\\\1,. t::L-. " _ "V _, ION ", 'r: I :: ~. 2"'-<;,'" . "-t'l" /~ III 3..:r:ff-;t OlAf(. ~:;,,~~ ~ ~ !:t:f}o ~ J-.~'l.~ ~ ~ ~u m~ ~ ~ ::; .... :;:: ,; ~ ~ ~ -;:. ~~ /:} C;::;~ ~ tP,'i'11 UB\ .. > j < E '1/ .-:., III, ."., 9-\lQ ~ ,,0 = '1 T)". JI\ ,'" 0 -" ' J:-. \\\\\\'\\s,""" ~ .:.: " .... ~ Or-_ ,l.'~'::-"III r 'Iv p...S'r.' .;::-':::- 111\\\\\\\\, ..... ",', ..... ;';OTICEOF . E;';VIRO;l;ME;I;TAL DETERMI~ATlO;l; El'\VIRONMENTALRE· VIEW CO~IMI1TEEANI) PUBLIC HEARING RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determi- nation of Non-Significance Miti- gated (ONS-M) for the following project under the authority of the Renton municipal code Reserve at Tiffanv Park LUAIJ-OOI572 • Location: SW of Pierce Ave SE and E of end of SF: 18th St. The applicant is requesting SEPA Review and Preliminarv Plat approval for a 97·lot sub- division. The 21.7 acre site is primarily located within the R-8 zone. The 97 lo\s ...... ould result in a density of 5.70 du acre. Access to the site \vould be gained from SE 18th St with secondarv access extended from 124th PI SE. The site contains three Category 2 wet- lands two Category J wetlands. The applicant is also requesting a Critical Area Exemption for the extension of SE 18th St through portions of 'the buller associated with Wetland E. Appeals of the IlNS-M must be liIed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on October 10. 201 .... Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required il.'C with: Hearim!. Examiner clo Cit\' Clerk, Cit\' -of Renton. 1055 S Grady Wa~', Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Hearing Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more infonnation may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Ofllce. 425-430-6510, A Public Hearing will be held by the Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers, City Ilal1. on October 21. 2014 at 9:00 am to consider the submitted applica- tion. If the DNS-M is appealed. the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Interested parties are invited to attend the publ ic hearing. Published in the Renton Report- er on September 26. 2014. #1142743. • • • , ~ r Agencies See Attached Parties of Record See Attached Renton School District Owner Wayne Potter, Novastar Contact Henley LLC Applicant (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Sabrina Mirante signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes . ""'''~\II\\\ mentioned in the instrument. ~~"'''~OWf:A.~II, .:: 'T~_ I, J ~ ~ Dated: ,IJ{J2/-uc1M J-S j «alf -\. , for the State of : I ; Notary (Print): My appointment eXPires:---~~I~.J.Ll"";;~q':'"""c)::-:()::-/:-:1:;---4~~~~~~ ( The Reserve at Tiffany Park LUA13·001572 template -affidavit of service by mailing .. Dept. of Ecology " Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region' Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers· Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-37SS Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers ••• Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dey. & Environmental Servo Attn: SEPA Section 35030 SE Douglas St. #210 Snoqualmie, WA 98065 Metro Transit Senior EnVironmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Jailaine Madura Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 -AGENCY (DOE) LEITER MAILING-' (ERe DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Larry Fisher' Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept .• 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 _172 nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office' Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program· 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172'" Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division· Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation- Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Tim McHarg Attn: Jack Pace Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 12835 Newcastle Way, Ste 200 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98056 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Kathy Johnson, Steve lancaster, Responsible Official 355 lloth Ave NE 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Mailstop EST llW Tukwila, WA 98188 Bellevue, WA 98004 ·Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNSII, the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. ··Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov ···Department of Natural Resources is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice the following email address: sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov template· affidavit of service by mailing Renton. WA 98058 Caroline Fawcett 3207 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Karen Walter Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn. WA 98092 Renton. WA 98058 Lvnn Familv 12904 SE 160th St Renton. WA 98058 James & Mary Haber 1716 Monroe Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 __ ~3""""'" Maxwel Ligon BOBBY SENGVILAY 1724 Edmonds Way SE 1701 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 ~_-HDI_. ___ Linda Shink Lee & Adrienne Lawrence 12910 SE 160th St 1721 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98057 Riddle 12620 5E 158th St Renton. WA 98058 Helen Pacher 1809 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Henley USA LLC 11100 Main St. 100 Bellevue. WA 98032 John Knutson Renton School District 300 SW 7th St Renton. WA 98057 Barbara Yarrington Henley USA 11100 Main St, Ste. 100 Bellevue. WA 98058 1lIJIilIlII1IIIIlBlIlII11Il'iIIilllJIliIllIfIII _"II"" ...... Belinda Calhoun 1708 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 June Ritualo 1633 Edmonds Way Renton. WA 98055 JANE WORDEN 15624 129th PI SE Renton. WA 98058-4744 Rvan & Jennifer Spencer Marie Antoinette Gallardo 3313 SE 20th Ct 1832 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 Gary Tavlor 1709 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 .----_ •. Christine Wren 1831 Ferndale Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 EVAN & Lanissa YOUNGQUIST 1720 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Gavle Millett 1602 Olympia Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 ~.L_mlllll~_lillll_ Emma Gutierrez Colleen Bowman Tracev Compton 1802 Kirkland Ave SE 2600 Edmonds Ct SE 19426 68th Ave S Renton. WA 98058 Albert & Sharon Ocho 1711 Pierce Ave 5E Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 Kipepeo Brown 1725 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98055 Kent. WA 98032 Anthonv & Margaret Dean 16917114th Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Art Dahlberg 2604 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Warren & Nancv McPherson 3213 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 980S8 Heidi Maurer 2605 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 . , Pamela Roberson 1724 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 William Roenicke 3112 SE 18th St Renton. WA 98058 Karan Gill 11622 SE 76th Ct Renton. WA 98056 Jill & Derek Jones 1413 Newport Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 Karen Collen 2609 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 ROBIN H+MIATKE MARY L JONES 3624 SE 19TH CT RENTON. WA 98058 Renato Santos 1815 Lake Youngs Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 RENTON SCHOOL DIST 403 300 SW 7TH ST RENTON. WA 980S5 Dewavne Klinger 2201 Maple Valley Hwy. #86 Renton. WA 98057 Claire Jonson 1719 Monroe Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Jav Ahlbeck 3228 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Ethel Garman 1816 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Barbara Owens-Smith 3619 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Wavne Potter Novastar 18215 72nd Ave 5 Kent. WA 98032 Robert Schauss 3227 SE 18th St Renton. WA 98058 YVONNE BURGESS 15629 129TH Ct SE RENTON. WA 98058 I Melonson 1701 Monroe Ave 5E Renton. WA 98058 Barbara Smith 3619 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Ben & Rose Depusav 3208 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 980S8 Bruce Wilson 1824 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Adele & Ed Harvev 3226 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Ed Baker 3209 SE 18th St Renton. WA 98058 Erik Fisher 12364 SE 158th St Renton. WA 98058 Marina Higgins 1401 Olympia Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Cvnthia Sharp 1800 Edmonds Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Maraea Albinio 1824 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 ---------------------------------------------------------- ,------------------- Beth Asher 436 Mill AveS Renton. WA 98057-6022 ~!--.& Marina Higgins 1401 Olympia Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 MICHAEL GARMAN 1816 EDMONDS Way SE RENTON. WA 98058-4613 KvleiRh Jones 1413 Newport Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 Robert & Cynthia Garlough 3203 SE 18th St Renton. WA 98058 Gurmit Gill 19314 138th Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 ImoRene Graves 1808 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Vicki Hou 1717 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Bob & Suzanne Swanson 3307 SE 20th Ct Renton. WA 98058 HamidivadeRhani 3000 Royal Hills Dr SE Renton. WA 98058 IIIIIlIJ!IIJIIIJIRlIlliIlllIPIlil Art DahlberR 2604 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 _1 •• 11_- Mike Mastro 1717 Edmonds Way 5 Renton. WA 98058 Lvnn Desmarais 15632 lS9th Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 Donna Thorkildson 2621 SE 16th St Renton. WA 98058 _ •. 1I~. Pat Velotta 1708 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 DAVID & RENATE BEEDON 1725 PIERCE Ave SE RENTON. WA 98058-4747 LARRY GORG 1800 LAKE YOUNGS Way SE RENTON. WA 98058-3812 Renton. WA 98058 .... ·_11111._.111. ~"II.I-". Dennis Anderson Belinda Mathers PO Box 58338 2806 SE 16th St Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 James Ahlbeck 3228 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Rachael Mandy 1402 Olympia Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 James Roberson 1724 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 Phil & Tammv Schaefer 3301 SE 20th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Presley Richardson 3113 SE 18th St Renton. WA 98058 Dennis McClaughlin 1633 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Aaron Brendehl 2509 SE 16th St renton. WA 98058 O"oh,.ol Bell 1402 Olympia Ave Renton. WA 98058 Laura KilRore 1825 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 " * -11 ~);! ROBIN H+MIATKE MARY LJONES 3624 SE 19TH CT RENTON. WA 980S8 Anita & Pattv Phillips 1517 Newport Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 I,, _____ ! ___ mliliM ALAINE IKUTA Laura Silbernagel 1709 PIERCE Ave SE RENTON. WA 98058-4747 _ii __ Doug. Elizabeth and Michael Frisch 1717 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Geoff & Meredith Erickson 1719 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 ~ .... -Daniel Goldman 1608 Glennwood Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Clint Maurer 2605 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 Shervl Anderson 1727 Monroe Ave SE Renton. WA 98058-3809 i~ Rav Roberts 1700 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 11&-~ff.~lIIIf" ~ ... _ Sarah Brendehl Delbert Sharp 2509 SE 16th St 1800 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 ,, __ ._ .. ___ II Greg & Jennv Swanson Mike Harwood 1819 Ferndale Ave S 2609 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98055 Renton. WA 98055 kKarsten Sathre 1706 Olympia Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Lisa CabalQuinto 1824 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 ROSEMARY QUESENBERRY 3609 SE 18TH Ct RENTON. WA 98058-4754 Diane Tavlor 1709 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Claudia Donnellv 10415 147th Ave SE Renton. WA 98059 Frances Roberts 1700 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Jan & Spero Rockas 1686 Monroe Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 ,-• ._--_ .. ----_. CERTIFICATION I, hereby certify that .3 copies of the above document posted in .3..-conspicuous places or nearby the described property on 0"" qj4~11 S;""d~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ~o co R« "T""iAmatll?!y"\ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the ~~~I\~urposes mentioned in the instrument, $~"'" ~9W. 1 1 "1 ff OV 1ft~1 I, £ Ol tf : :t _o'CAIt#-~\ ~ -:: 41""" ~ ~ '" ..... !z::; '<0. <0"-~ \II "t, "'Ct8"'~ '\ § 12 E 'I ,. "'" 8 29.'\ ",'" r.= I .., 'I" ~ ... '" _,v -. :..>-~ 11"""\",,,'" ~~ ._- OF W"'S ,,- blic in and for the State of Washington .,'; Notary (Print): II \' :P ____ ~tln~~CJ~_~n~IA~)~e&5~ ________ __ My appointment expires',, ___ .t::.bDJ.184-~w;;~l-=---";:Z£.!l)~2:J£).L(LTL' ______ _ I ------------------------------------~r_----- \ . Sabrina Mirante From: Rocale Timmons Sent: To: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 4:28 PM Sabrina Mirante Cc: Angelea Wickstrom Subject: Tiffany Park POR Request LUA13-001572 Hello Sabrina, Can you add the following parties of record: Barbara Yarington Land Acquisition Manager Henley USA 11100 Main Street, Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98004 (direct) 425.709.6557 Spero Rockas , 1686 Monroe ave se Renton WA 98058-3810 Rocale Timmons City of Renton -Current Planning Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Tel: (425) 430-7219 Fax: (425) 430-7300 rtimmons@rentonwa.gov 1 i------.. ----~ I I '~ 1_- NAME COMMUNITY MEETING SIGN-IN ~~~ ~-r Tiffany Park PP LUA13-001572, PP, ECF, CAR ( l/ ;u/ILPIJL{ September 9, 1:00 PM PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY ADDRESS ~~\('5 \), "5z;-<=L80 D{\Q'~ . CbW£K ---I Phone # with area code Email Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: ~-.--. I --------- I Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Dear Ms. Timmons: • Helen Pacheco <helenmrenton@msn.com> Wednesday, September 10, 2014 12:04 PM • carguy97@aol.com; sclynn@comcast.net; secmast@aol.com; yburgess@gmail.com; ladyjanecody@gmail.com; et; sueart@msn.com; anthony.kranz@hotmail.com; bill@cwdesigninc.com; clarkjessica65@yahoo.com; mmelonson@msn.com; Isilbernagel@comcast.net; rachael.mandy@USU.edu; kristinaJaramillo@rentonschools.us; manuellayork@comcast.net; robinhj@msn.com; dxswasskb@yahoo.com; tgschaefer@aol.com; dwarfalope@yahoo.com; thorkildson3 @gmail.com; kathleen.butler.kb@gmail.com; asherforrenton@gmail.com; Ipgorg@comcast.net; anderson7836@comcast.net; Shawn_Hill_70@Yahoo.com; frimama@gmail.com; patty@getintouchtherapy.com; marina.higgins@comcast.net; dma@seanet.com; nhonhaque@yahoo.com;jfornalski@comcast.net; pcarino@comcast.net; bertchgirl@yahoo.com; bob@gariough.org; bzlenny@live.com; barbiandlance@live.com; sclynn@comcast.ent; byrdjmb@aol.com; georgerock518 @comcast.net; joanfrome@comcast.net; dajones89@comcast.net; cajones52 @comcast.net; renton-opposites@comcast.net; davebeedon@comcast.net; I risingr@integrity.com; jmhbr@aol.cori1; ednsusanbaker@comcast.net; I Iynndesmarais@comcast.net; mikeandkelliejh@hotmail.com;janelworden@gmail.com; pkplmarcie@comcast.net; Helen Pacheco; maureh@u.washington.edu; mrseix@aol.com; fennell.t@comcast.net; belindakm@gmail.com; sarahbrendehl@gmail.com; pamelaschmidt1@comcast.net; lobias618@comcast.net; silvestreceg@hotmail.com; running4renton@msn.com; thedonnellys@oo.net; slol1l1@live.com; zapo008 @Iive.com; Rocale Timmons Concerns about the reserve development from last night's meeting Follow up Flagged Thank you for your clear presentation of the steps towards the development of the Reserve and the explanations of when the community members may be heard. I understand that you and the other city officials are doing your jobs according to state and local laws and set occupational duties so your powers are extremely limited by legal constraints. Saying this, I will go on record to voice my concerns about the negative impact this development will have on our entire neighborhood. Sadly, the city government and state regulations must balance the rights of private property owners to their own properties and the neighborhoods that these actions impact but developments do not take placewithout great sacrifice to the existing community. There are NO benefits of this development to the local community, just damage to be mitigated. As the plans of this development show clearly to any thinking person, the damages are almost impossible to mitigate and those closest to the development are to sacrifice their property values, quality of life, and the character of the neighborhoods that that they live in. Their only effective recourse is to retain legal counsel and take action against the city government to recover the monetary damages caused by their decreased property values and if possible, sell those homes and move someplace else that will not be affected by constant noise, dirt, rumbling equipment up residential roads and overall disruption taking place for up to five years during construction. 1 Stressing that damages can be mlted for everyone is really an empty sament because this development MUST have two outlets for traffic somewhere in the surrounding neighborhood. In the present plan, all those on 118th will have the quiet cul-de-sac that they live on turned into a major traffic nightmare when all those people exit in the morning and come back at night from work. Nobody wanting a quiet neighborhood will buy a house in that location. All of these cars will then be sent through a neighborhood of winding neighborhood streets towards 116th which is the only road intersecting with Puget Drive. Already, Puget Drive is loaded with all the traffic from this hill going down to the freeways. On the top of this hill, we do not even have a cross walk to cross either 16th or 116th. With increased traffic, this intersection will become even more dangerous, especially for people like the blind person who gets off at the bus stop on top of the hill. The intersection of 116th, 16th and Edmonds Wy is already impassable much of the day so many people, including us use the only other decent route out of our neighborhood, turning on 1S7th and then on to 116th. People in the neighborhood on Beacon Way also will be almost trapped in their neighborhood as they have only ONE exit onto 116th at the top of a major blind hill that is dangerous even under the best of circumstances. Traffic impact cannot also be judged in isolation from a single development. Many other developments are currently being planned that will also dump massive amounts of traffic onto 116th and funnel down Puget Drive. The Reserve Development must be considered in context ofthese other developments so that our hill won't "die a death of a thousand cuts" with traffic decreasing the quality of the neighborhoods on this hill. Increased traffic also makes our neighborhood so much less "walkable" as the wait to cross streets can effectively cut the access our hill has to Phillip Arnold Park. Walkers and cyclists making mad dashes across 116th are accidents waiting to happen. Many of us also walk in the neighborhood streets as Ponderosa Estates even lacks sidewalks. Increased traffic will increase risk for that activity. Many children walk down the hill to Tiffany Park Elementary from our hill as well. The increased traffic around that school and all through the walking routes to get there will definitely increase risk to all the children. Schools all over the district do not have "extra" space and capacity. Cascade Elementary is obviously way over capacity as they were forced to place all those portables in the field to accommodate all the students attending. The school district's statement that the Reserve piece of land was unsuitable for their development but suitable to sell for residential development is confusing given the current crowding of local schools and planned developments. Unfortunately, the Renton School district added to their own woes with this decision to sell this parcel to a developer so when the next educational referendum comes around asking for more money for expanding the existing schools before they are inundated with the flood of students from all of these developments put together, my friends and I will be in active opposition to any tax increases. The school district will be forced to cram more sardines into their existing cans while those of us unsatisfied with that situation support private schools and other schooling options in this area with our dollars. That certainly will not lead to more "equitable" education or situation for Renton as more of us put our effort into structures . we DO have control over because we are active consumers instead of attending meetings "hoping to be heard". I'm sorry that the neighboring residents have so little real power or say in the Renton planning of new developments and people like you are doing your job well within the powers you have, but the hearings need to focus on whether the new developments are putting Renton "ahead ofthe curve" or throwing its neighborhoods full of long time involved homeowners "under the bus". Sincerely, Helen Pacheco, concerned resident 2 ,-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Hi Rocale • Caroline Fawcett <cmcfawcett@hotmail.com> Wednesday, September 10, 2014 5:26 AM Rocale Timmons * Follow up Flagged As you looked around the room I am sure you may have noticed that most of those who attended the meeting this evening were senior citizens with a few that were in their fifties. In my cui de sac, SE 19th Ct, alone out of 14 houses, 7 of them are owned by people who are home during the day. The demographics show that there are about 500 residents in the Tiffany Park area who are over the age of 50. In other words many of those people no longer work outside the home and are in very close proximity to the forest and the noise pollution caused by the construction. Many at that age deal with stress and anxiety related issues, and this stress and anxiety will be increased by the noise pollution that will be ongoing day after day for a very long time. Much research has been done to show how harmful noise pollution is both to the body and the mind. It can have severe consequences. I will gladly send you links to articles outlining research that has been doing proving all that I have said and more. That said, if this project needs to go through, what will the city or the construction company do for those in the area who are being affected like this by the constant noise of the project? I personally want to move, but will not be able to for a few more years because the funds are not available yet to buy the type of property I want. Just the thought of the destruction of our beautiful forest and the ongoing noise that will be caused by it is causing me stress and anxiety. It will only get worse once the destruction starts. I can only imagine how bad it will be for those seniors whose houses back right onto the forest. In one of the articles it also mentions the affect that noise pollution has on the wildlife in the area. There is a lot of wildlife in that forest. Not only will they be seriously affected by the noise but their habitat will be destroyed. Keeping the noise between certain hours will not be of any help to those who are at home during those hours as there will be no escape for them. Caroline Fawcett 3207 SE 19th Ct. Sentfrom my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID 1 Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: • Caroline Fawcett <cmcfawcett@hotmail.com> Tuesday, September 09, 2014 10;00 PM Rocale Timmons Articles on Noise Pollution Follow up Flagged • http;llwww.conserve-energy-future.comlcauses-and-effects-of-noise-pollution.php http;llwww.symptomfind.comlhealth!causes-of-noise-pollution-and-its-effects-on-health! http://www.psychologytoday.comlblog/changepower/20l309/what-did-you-say-how-noise-pollution-is- harming-you 1 Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: • Barbi Smith <barbiandlance@live,com> Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:43 PM Rocale Timmons Tiffany Park Reserve -Follow up Flagged Re: Tiffany Park Reserve/Additional Comment Hi Rocale, • Thank you for having the meeting last night. I left after your presentation and I can only imagine how bombarded you were with questions. I hope you truly understand that we are very passionate about those woods and what the destruction of them will mean for us to have to deal with. I actually followed the two folks that I believe were the developer out to the parking lot and they scampered away quickly. Can't say I blame them. - Anyways, I'm taking you up on your offer to add a few more comments after hearing what I heard last night. Given I've lived in my home for 34 years, I've seen it all up here and driven the in-roads up here day in and day out. I have real concerns about the access for the construction vehicles, dump trucks, equipment hauling trucks -all the huge trucks involved in that undertaking and I simply cannot fathom what their access will be. They cannot use the existing pipeline roads as that kind of weight repeatedly over a very lengthy period of time will damage what the pipeline road is there to protect. 'NO MOTORIZED VEHICLES' is clearly posted at all entrance gates. Given the damage I had here back in April, it's clearly a volatile issue. For them to even travel on say Pierce SE to and from whatever their in-route to those woods - are is going to be a dangerous thing to do given the cars parked up and down both sides of Pierce. As it is, there is barely room for Z cars to pass each other now. Adding all those large trucks to the mix is going to create some hazards that are likely to turn into bad, bad accidents. As far as traffic goes as well, up on the top of the hill getting out of here is going to be a nightmare beyond imagination with all the increased traffic this development, when completed, will bring. I truly do have a question and concern about how our lowered property values will be addressed by the city? With the market finally coming back, those of us that have the woods as a privacy screen stand to lose resale value if/when selling our homes. (I'm sure you don't remember but I'm the only house on the greenbelt that has the side of my home (versus the rear) facing the direction of the woods.) I do understand that the city has to balance development within the footprint of the regulations but somewhere along the line it has to become apparent how much of a negative impact this 1 development will have on thetmmunity of Tiffany Park, the hOl.wners and the good citizens who have called Renton their home. The city website seems to contradict itself in this regard. Specifically: Welcome to Renton Renton is the center of opportunity where families and businesses thrive. My comment is that families cannot thrive when they and everything they have worked for are sacrificed for the sake of a development. Neighborhoods The City of Renton's vision is to create a vibrant place to live, work and play. It is not vibrant if the place where "we" live no longer becomes a place that we can enjoy to live, work and play in our neighborhood. Renton offers a wide range of neighborhoods from historic homes to well-established areas to brand new developments, all with easy access to shopping, parks and schools. Renton's diverse neighborhoods remain the foundation of our city and we continue to witness positive improvements in many of our unique neighborhoods .. We are not witnessing any positive improvements with regards to this development. Quite the opposite. The City supports the vitality and positive appearance of neighborhoods through community involvement which is one of the primary reasons Renton residents enjoy such a high quality of life. Given what we are experiencing with this developments' potential impacts, the city has no regard for our quality of life. Thanks, Rocale -I look forward to getting the emails you send you were going to send. (The powerpoint from last night with the dates and the how to for the testimony at the public hearing.) Regards, Barbi Smith 2 Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Hello Rocale, • Mary & Jay Ahlbeck <Jayag@comcast.net> Friday, September 12, 2014 7:34 AM Rocale Timmons • Re: Tiffany Park PP -Community Meeting Followup Follow up Flagged Thank you for the information addressed in the meeting. Thank you also for the opportunity to submit comments / questions -until just recently we had not received any information in the mail about the proposed construction. Comment # I: Water Drainage Background: We own a home adjacent to the woods -just west of Tract A (3228 SE 19th Court). After we moved into our home in 1980, we discovered that a significant amount of water from the wooded area behind our house drained into our yard -creating a "swamp" during the winter months. In 1981 I installed a drainage ditch at my own expense to evacuate water from my backyard. The ditch runs along my back property line, and carries water from my back yard between my house and my nebohor's house to the street (19th Court) In the winter, the drainage ditch carries enough water to the street -that water can be seen running down the street for a day after the rain stops. Question: Will the proposed construction eliminate the water flow into my yard? Comment #2: Trees Background: There are -5 very tall trees just behind my backyard property line. Some have large branches that were broken during previous storms. These broken branches are hanging down (parallel to the truck of the tree) and seem like they could fall at anytime. Questions: 2a. Can anything be done now to remove the broken limbs and avoid damage when they fall? 2b. If some of these trees are cut down and others are left, I believe that we will be at greater risk of these trees falling down in strong winds (since the protection of surrounding trees will be removed). -Can you tell me if the construction plan includes the removal of the trees adjacent to my property (on the west perimeter of Tract A) Best Regards, Jay Ahlbeck On Sep 10, 2014, at 3:46 PM, Rocale Timmons <RTimmons@Rentonwa.gov>wrote: Hello Interested Parties, 1 Thank you to those of you who part'ated in last night's Community Meeting f.iffany Park Preliminary Plat. In response to requests made at the meeting I have attached the following: • Power Point Presentation from last night (pdf) • Revised Preliminary Plat Plan • Instructions for Commenting on Proposed Development • Land Use and Appeal Process Information • Instructions on Testifying at a Public Hearing Additionally, I will hopefully be sending out responses to those of you who submitted comments during, and since, the last comment period soon. Please feel free to contact me with questions and/or requests for additional information. Thank you. Rocale Timmons City of Renton -Current Planning Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Tel: (425) 430-7219 Fax: (425) 430-7300 rtimmons@rentonwa.gov <TIffany Park Neighborhood Meeting lI.pdf><Commenting on Proposed Development.doc><Land Use_Appeal Process.doc><Testifying at a Public Hearing.doc><16055-D-Tree Cutting Land Clearing-2014-08-20.pdf> 2 Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: • Craig & Jill Jones <cajones52@comcast.net> Monday, September 15, 2014 8:50 AM Rocale Timmons. • SUbject: Development proposal of Tiffany p'ark Reserve LUA 13-001572 Follow up Flagged Subject: Development proposal of Tiffany Park Reserve LUA 13-001572 Dear Ms Timmons: Thank you for the information you have provided about the city's process in regard to the proposed development in our neighborhood. I have previously expressed concerns about the safety and traffic issues the construction of this development will create on SE 18th SI. and around Tiffany Park Elementary School. BI.II there are also traffic considerations beyond the immediate area of the developmenl. As a Tiffany Park resident of 28 years I am very familiar with the traffic patterns in and around my neighborhood. There is only one route out of the greater Tiffany Park neighborhood that leads directly to the freeways and downtown Renton: Puget Drive. Already, access to Puget Drive via SE 16th Street and f16th Avenue SE gets backed up in the mornings and there are usually several cars waiting to tum into the neighborhood at SE 16th SI. in the evenings. The intersection at SE 16th SI. and 116th Avenue SE is further complicated by cars from Ponderosa Estates exiting by Edmonds Way SE. Those cars already have long waits yielding to 16th SI. traffic. In addition, Traffic at the bottom of Puget Drive as it empties onto Talbot Rd S. (Hwy 515) is already heavy and backed up at a long traffic signal. This traffic will be worsened by additional traffic from Tiffany Park Reserve development and the many new apartments going up around Benson Rd. S. Heavy construction vehicles will be using the Puget Drive/116th and 16th rol.lle to access the construction site off SE 18th SI. Construction vehicles are not likely to use a different route to the 124th PI. SE access point, as they would have to use a round-about route through the Cascade Vista neighborhood and over many speed bumps. It would be irresponsible for city planners to ignore such traffic issues while granting permits for denser developmenl. Sincerely, Jill M. Jones 1413 Newport CI. SE Renton, WA 98058 1 Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Dear Rocale Timmons: • Craig & Jill Jones <cajones52@comcast.net> Wednesday, August 06, 2014 3:51 PM Rocale Timmons Denis Law ., Tiffany Park Reserve LUA 13-001572 development proposal Follow up Completed I am writing to register my strong objection to Tiffany Park Reserve LUA 13-001572 development as it is currently proposed. I fear that city leaders and planners will see this proposal on paper and conclude that there is no drawback as there is money in it for the school district and revenue for the city. But as a 28-year resident of the community, I am concerned that a very high price will be paid by the current Tiffany Park community, and possibly by the school district and the city in the future. The woods at Tiffany Park not only contain valuable natural habitat and wetlands, they act as a sponge during heavy winter rains and as a cooler during hot summer weather. When a thousand mature trees are removed and most of the area is paved or roofed over, the negative impact on the wetland remnants will be significant. At the very least, no Critical Area exemptions should be allowed. In addition, the proposed water retention pool is directly upland from current homes and the city park. The park is already in a low area on top of a creek and the playfield becomes mushy in wet weather. What guarantee do we have that the water retention will not fail? If the water retention fails, then basements will be fiooded and the park will become a pond. Who will be liable? The foreign-owned developer will be long gone, having made their private profit, but leaving a public expense. Development that is so densely packed as to require a water retention feature should not be allowed in this location. Road access to the proposed development is also problematic. The development places a horrific and unfair burden on the families on SE 18th Street. Their street will be torn up, they will have no street parking, and they will have to endure the noise and traffic of construction for 4 years. During this time they will be unable to sell their homes. The entrance to SE 18th Street (a street that is about a block long) is directly opposite of Tiffany Park Elementary School. During the 4- year-long woods removal and construction process, school traffic, buses and children will compete with heavy trucks and equipment. The proposed 124th Place SE entrance will do little to mitigate construction traffic on the 18th Street side because there are speed bumps (problematic for heavy vehicles) on the roads leading t0124th Place. In fact, there are no neighborhood arterials to accommodate a project of this massive scale and all construction traffic will move through residential areas. Also, the addition of the children from 97 housholds to Tiffany Park Elemenary, a school that is already at capacity, will increase school traffic and push neighborhood children into portables or to schools farther from their homes. This proposed development is too large to adequately preserve sensitive natural areas, too dense to handle runoff water in the safe way the surrounding neighborhood does, and too massive for the neighborhood streets and school to accommodate. It simply does not fit the neighborhood. I urge the city to deny this project as proposed. Sincerely. Jill M. Jones 1413 Newport Ct. SE Renton, WA 98058 . , 1 • • ,..-:-----.-.. -----~--- • • Pileated Woodpecker -on property Icent to Tiffany Park Woods Unfortunately the pictures are fuzzy, and don't pick up the beautiful red crest. • • • Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat COMMUNITY MEETING, 9/9/14 PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED SEP 1 0 2014 CITY Of RENTON PLANN:NG DIVISION Name Address Telephone/email /J1{!f?{m-l!tjp/6-/@/t!I<'$t/;4k5 F XJ?-2/3-!.JC/Y7 Comments: Written comments can be sent to: Ms. Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 I '\ email: rtimmons@Rentonwa.gov Name Comments: • Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat COMMUNITY MEETING, 9/9/14 PUBLIC COMMENTS Address ------- SEP 1 0 2014 CITY OF r.ENTON PLANNiNG DIVISION Telephone/email Lf.).S -;). 7/-,,~ Jj oldlMtI'" <!? ci-.J.p.k r..q",,, jed.iI'S <tilO, co",.se, +~.c+ + .... (.ff:c \I.':tl be -.J 'd R. u:// Written comments can be sent to: N\lJc(.j. IIJo.r"e JIJ "'; ~ ~"'s+"'(Jcf; On _ e..rD~ C<l .. +0+" (LI( bled,: aft /{ ~+reet_ We c«,,4 Ms. Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner ..J Department of Community & Economic Development se+ <eue... WI~ ... : """ { I"e ..... ed :<1+; D",' Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 email: rtimmons@Rentonwa.gov • J Name Comments: Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat COMMUNITY MEETING, 9/9/14 PUBLIC COMMENTS Address RECEIVED SEP ! 0 2014 CITY Of RENTON PLANNING DIVISION Telephone/email -it,~R '~./1" ,.~ :$?eJt.,~ ~ ~ ~~. -::£ fM1 ~r,.,ed Written commef1ts can be sent (0: o)"Gi:t ~ i~e--r D~ 7#-/~ K/;f.~.lo~-c ()I? ()v.Y f1 ei5I;ro,rhoe1d, Ms. Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 email: rtimmons@Rentonwa.gov ------------------- COMMUNITY MEETING SIGN-IN SHEET c VED of RECI-\ TI fany Park PP LUA13-001572, PP, ECF, CAR sEP 10 20\4 September 9, 1:00 PM CilYOfREN10N NNING DIVISION PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY pLA tV ADDRESS Phone # with orea code Email NAME -- Je-Uj COMMUNITY MEETING SIGN-IN SHEET Tiffany Park PP LUA13-001572, PP, ECF, CAR September 9, 1:00 PM PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY ADDRESS Phone # with area code RECE\VED SEP 1 \) 20\4 CITY Of n~NTON PLANN1NG DNISiON Email _J •.. 1--I Y02 k It-k \ It.vL .271-041Q I -eYl'\.~2 COMMUNITY MEETING SIGN-IN SHEET Tiffany Park PP LUA13-001572, PP, ECF, CAR RECEIVED September 9, 1:00 PM SEP 102014 CITY Of RENTON PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY· PLANNING DIVISiON ADDRESS Phone # with orea code Email ./ v/ 2E ~ J,)-. ~ 2 3,fb .Jl'ry 'A h,l6 e vk I"}rtf-C-T ~0-.;L 7/-3078 COMMUNITY MEETING SIGN-IN SHEET Tiffany Park PP LUA13-001572, PP, ECF, CAR September 9, 1:00 PM PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY Phone # with area code 'fA:rfl.c-~~S-r:f=, { , ~ t l I ,~ c+- \Il ~ Av~ -,J~5"'-.:nt -,. RECEIVED SEP ! 0 2014 CITY Of P.ENTON PLANNING Email anJ.-1 tlJttL ~ .D~\I~ ~ t 72 S Pte~A~e~' st= 1'2...'0-217-0'1+5\ clo..~V\~ J0" COMMUNITY MEETING SIGN-IN SHEET Tiffany Park PP LUA13-001572, PP, ECF, CAR September 9, 1:00 PM PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY ADDRESS Phone # with area code 05131 L/2S c;a# QS- ._, l/-2S -?o2&-5 3~ LI d-)-C;{:+,·o.. CCLVrf vOl RECEIVED SEP 1 0 2014 CITY 0;: ReNTON PLANNING O!V!SlON Email -- 3609 Southeast 18 Court Renton, W A. 98058 August 4, 2014 Subject: Proposed Reserve At Tiffany Park, LUAI 3-001 572, ECF, PP, CAR Dear Rocale Timmons: This proposed development has many areas of concern. First, the destruction of nearly 90% of the significant trees will adversely impact the area. More specifically, the destruction of large, old, cedar trees within the wetland buffer zone will greatly disrupt and potentially destroy sensitive wetland areas. Diagrams submitted regarding this development indicate the removal of several large, old trees that exist within buffer zones for sensitive wetland areas This is unacceptable. The wetland areas should all retain a protective buffer to assure the integrity of the wetlands. It is well established that development negatively impacts sensitive areas and assuring an adequate buffer reduces the disturbance of critical areas. I oppose any reduction in wetland buffer areas and mitigation. I opposed a Critical Area Exemption for the extension of SE 18th Street through portion of the buffer associated with wetland. Exemption would have a detrimental impact on a sensitive wetland area. Establishing the primary egress for this development at the 124 th Place SE would preserve a critical wetland. Secondly, I oppose the proposed development magnitude. The existing neighborhoods will be negatively impacted with increased traffic onto residential streets. There is not an existing major arterial street to relieve the pressure of a substantial increase in traffic. Reducing the number of proposed homes would alleviate a portion of the negative impact to the existing area due to increased traffic. Third, I oppose the lack of significant preservation of sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, access, pedestrian walkways and open space. I also oppose a lack of usable open space within the new development. The increased population would create additional use on the existing Tiffany Park. There is also a small private neighborhood park that new residents may be tempted to use. I believe that usable open space within the proposed site would be appropriate. I also believe that a monetary contribution would also be needed for the extra demand on the existing Tiffany Park. . I encourage the denial of this project as proposed. cord.iallY, ~ . (::rPIl .. ~.~ Eddie Rivera RECEIVED AUG 07 2014 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIV!SION 3112 SE 18 th Street Renton, Washington August 11,2014 • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner \055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057-3232 Ref: Reserve At Tiffany Park LUA13-001572 Rocale Timmons, -----------------~_c_--~~-, We gathered this SE 16th Street slope / visibility data twice. Upon examining the completed information from the first effort back in the Fcbruary-March time period, it was obvious that some meaningful detail was missing from the photos. Thus, we took a second set of photos. Friday, August 8, 2014, I (Bill) mistakenly copied the first set of photos. Upon discovering my error I realized there was not enough time to redo and make the August 8, 2014, deadline. Additionally, I did not realize then that some of the explanatory information also needed a little rework. We appreciate your allowing us to submit thc supporting data August 11,2014 (or now August 12, 2014), to Question 4 I did submit on August s· 20 14. The attached information does not add to, or subtract from, the question noted In Friday's submittal. I can submit the attached to you digitally if you so prefer. My thoughts are that the safety question is easier to understand if one can view more than one page of information at a time, thus this hard copy submittal. Thank you. I noticed this morning that the top of the layout sketches is to the south, which makes the view momentarily a little confusing. As I visualized and prepared the sketches, the desk I was sitting at looks south, and I apparently mentally made the sketch as I sat. The concern in this mattcr is onc of safety, principally due to limited visibility down, or up, the slope ofSE 16 th Street until one is at the precipice break point. As we gathered traffic data we discovered that SE 16th Street is the vehicle drivcrs route-of-choice for those entering or leaving the Tiffany Park neighborhood area, not Royal Hills Drive the designatcd bus route. That choice holds for automobiles, delivery trucks and many busses. Respectfully Submitted, ~~ David Beedon William L. Roenicke I • • SE 16 th Street Slope Visibility Study • Speed is assumed to be 25 MPH, 36.66 feet / second. Greater than 25 mph speeds are even more likely to provide an accident. • 2' tall is assumed to be a small child or animal. Taller is assumed to be a grade school child or fully grown person. • The initial top l~ block of the SE 16th Street appears to be 12% slope. The below data is for maximum 9% slope. • Recognition / reaction time for an attentive driver assumed to be 2 seconds. Distance traveled during the 2 second reaction time is 73'. • Without measurement, it is difficult to believe a multitude of the drivers drive 15 mph down hill, or uphill. Available DOT Pboto-From tbe Indicated "A" More Distance to Braking Braking Anticipated Distant Location on the Flat Top Area Person Distance to Distance for Result Impact 9% Slone A I 2' tall person 137' 54' 173' Injury I Accident A2 4' or taller person, shorter than 3' not 184' III' 173' Injury I readily visible Accident A3 5' or taller person, shorter than 4' not 196' 123' 173' Injury I visible. Accident A4 6' tall person, shorter than 5' not 208' 135' 173' Injury I visible. Accident A5 6' tall person slightly visible, 5' or 212' 139' 173' Injury I shorter not visible Accident A6 6' tall person slightly visible, 5' or 217' 144' 173' Injury I shorter not visible Accident Available DOT Pboto -From tbe Indicated "B" More Distance to Braking Braking Antici~ated Distant Location on the Flat Top Area Person Distance to Distance for Result Imnact 9% Slone 81 2' tall person Ill' 54' 173' Injury I Accident 82 4' or taller person, shorter than 3' not 137' 64' 173' Injury I readilv visible Accident 83 5' or taller person, shorter than 4' not 149 76' 173' Injury I visible. Accident 846' tall person, shorter than 5' not 157' 84' 173' Injury I visible. Accident 85 6' tall person slightly visible, 5' or 175' 102' 173' Injury I shorter not visible Accident 856' tall person slightly visible, 5' or 187' 114' 173' Injury I shorter not visible Accident One wonders why the Hazardous Road Sign (#10) was removed sometime last winter? Or, would a more informative replacement sign be: "Avoid When Icy"? • • Chapter 1260 Sight Distance 1260.01(2) Effects of Grade The grade ofthe highway has an effect on the stopping sight distance. The stopping distance is increased on downgrades and decreased on upgrades, Bxhlbll 12/lO.~ gives the stopping sight distances for grades of 3% and steeper. When evaluating sight distance with a changing grade. use the grade for which the longest sight distance is needed. Design Spe~cI Stopping Sight Distance (ft) Downgrade Upgrade (mph) 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 ·3% ·6% ·9% 3% 6% 158 165 173 147 143 205 215 227 200 184 251 271 281 237 229 315 333 354 289 278 378 40Q 421 341 331 44,2 474 501 405 388 520 553 59i! 469 450 59.!! 638 68,2 53.!! 515 682 72.!! 785 612 584 771 822 891 690 658 86,2 921 1,00i! 772, 736 965 1,035 1,121 859 811 Design Stopping Sight Distance on Grades Exhibit 126IJ..Z 9% 140 179 222 269 320 375 433 495 561 631 70! 782 For stopping sight distances on grades between those listed, interpolate between the values given or use the equation in ~xhlblt 12tJO'l s = 1.47V(2.5)+ [ ()] 30 0.347826 ± .!!..... 100 v' Where: S = Stopping sight distance on grade (ft) V = Design speed (mph) G = Grade (%) Stopping Sight Distance on Grades Exhibit 1261J..J 1260.01(3) Crest Vertical Curves When eyaluating an existing roadway. refer to 1260 Qj(jl, Use I~xhlbll 12604 or the equations in Bxhlblt 1260.~ to find the minimum crest vertical curve length to provide stopping sight distance when given the algebraic difference in grades. Bxhlbll 12M.!! does not show the sight distance greater than the length of curve equation. WSDOT Design Manual M 22·01.10 July 2013 Page 1261J..3 72" 80" 48" Observer • • 24/1 Visibility Marker Details .... y. 12" ....... ~ ... 12" ~16"~ I .E...L Printed: Idu,J./JJJ)I I KI)i:J"'(:K~ Printed: Signed: Signed: '\. ,;:", .,,' . .'.~:. • • Visibility Marker -Sighting Details 9861 9858 .,.", .. ~ . ."-.,,. 9855 9849 =~~ "A" (Greater Distance) Observer Printed: &0 (!om! L 0 <q~l-J iCKt:- Signed: Po Eo Printed: Signed: 9882 9879 "B" (Lesser Distance) • • Slope Visibility -SE 16th / Beacon Way SE Measurements taken on 04/03/14, a somewhat sunny day. South \ Beacon Way SE ,>·'-O·~.·'fr-"'~<.~ '"-:'"'~ ) ~", ... ",..,. .. "".., <'"'''' _':-. Photographs 1, 2 ==='" f' -"'':,-= .. ~~-~ ~-"';-:::::it~ Approximately 2(l' "-~le . o,Ci!!i.9,n c:>f"~;;~f ~,~, ,,~err~v~~ ~~i; .. ,. ,.Hazardous ,!;,/;t 1,:' 5' -,,",;_~"-<-<" -, ;< ... '&'~<""'t§, v .. -·.R6adSign"""" ~~t~:~~~L~i:,[~ffi Observer E...&.. Printed: tRW r,tJ.'J\ t., kb ~J\J(~/Q; Printed: Signed: ),~M2t>t?a Ai J..,) .:gfi, Uy Signed: • • "A" Slope Visibility -SE 16 th / Beacon Way SE Measurements taken on 04/03/14, a somewhat sunny day. South Observer \ "tt. " f f f .'~' '~' I ,..,,;:;.,==~= 0 Beacon Way SE 131', 3.6 seconds . ·f·· 137',3.7 seconds, 9879 Ai 184', 5.0 secondl:S'~:9:8:8:2~A:2~~~t;~l;;iZiGfl,!,cct"I~~llli~llll~ 196', 5.3 seconds, 9885 A3 208', 5.7 seconds, 9888 A4 212',5.8 seconds, 9891 AS 217', 5.9 seconds, 9894 A6 P ri nted: tOo,/. 14m b , .?c GA 1Ndi' P. E. Printed: Signed: Signed: 1 --I ~-------------------------------------------~ • • liB" Slope Visibility -SE 16 th / Beacon Way SE Measurements taken on 04/03/14, a somewhat sunny day. South \ --~. ~-- Observer ---(;I, I 91', 2.5 seconds 111',2.8 seconds, 9855 81 137', 3.7 seconds, 9858 82 149', 4.0 seconds, 9861 83 157',4.3 seconds, 9864 84 175',4.8 seconds, 9867 85 187',5.1 seconds, 9870 86 Printed: fOlJ.0711l I., I?l! e-.cJ If' tsii Signed: P. E. Printed: Signed: Beacon Way SE .. '--"-;.'~ . ::;,:',: N'Oie::,Drawi,ng .:. -:".', is''not f(;"s~~fe '~'::'. : ~!:~:::',~.;.-.-. • • Sight Distances for Motorists Along SE 16th Street (in Renton, Washington) CAMERA POSITION 2 (METAL UTILITY LID IN GROUND) (Distance from camera to "zero point" [a reference point] on pavement is 128 feet) - SIGN DISTANCE IN SIGHT PHOTO FILE MARK FEET FROM DI~TANCE NAME "ZERO POINT" IN FEET (PREFACED TO SIGN (FIGURE IN BY"DSC_") PREVIOUS COLUMN + 128 FEET)- 1 36 164 none 2 42 170 9879 3 89 217 9882 4 101 229 9885 5 113 241 9888 6 117 245 9891 7 122 250 9894 -Dave BeedOri--------C'IUsers(OwneMppDatiillocaIITemplSigntDistances":SE16tnStreeCdOC--Last-Save(jc04/03J14-2'51-PM- Page 2 of 3 10 • • Sight Distances for Motorists Along SE 16th Street (in Renton, Washington) CAMERA POSITION 1 (PAINTED SURVEY LINE) (Distance from camera to "zero point" [a reference point] on pavement is 65 feet) . ~ -. ---~ -.-- SIGN DISTANCE IN _ SIGHT PHOTO FILE MARK FEET FROM DISTANCE NAME - "ZERO POINT" IN FEET (PREFACED TO SIGN -(FIGURE; IN BY"DSC_") PREVIOUS COLUMN + 65 FEET) 1 13 78 none 2 18 83 9855 3 36 101 9858 4 42 107 9861 5 46 111 9864 6 55 120 9867 7 61 126 9870 --Dave Beedon---------C'IUsersIOWnerVippDatiilLocaIITemplSigtitDistances_SE16ttiStreet~doc--last-Save~'-0<II03l14--2'51-PM--­ Page 1 of 3 • • Sight Distances for Motorists Along SE 16th Street REV LEVEL NEW (in Renton, Washington) . DATE ----. REVISIONS . -_.- 3 Aor 2014 Created file. C;\Users\Owner'.AppData\Local\Temp\SightDisti:mceS:SE16ttiStreet~oc --Last-Saved:04/03l14-2:51-PM- Page 3 of 3 I ( • 3112 SE 18 th Street Renton, Washington 98058 April 20, 2014 Renton City Government • The following is offered as an added observation to the slope study with safety in mind. As the information has been stated by observers ... As you are aware, on February 8, 2014, Renton experienced a snowfall beginning about dusk, which totaled a couple of inches. Roads became very slick, perhaps treacherous is an appropriate description. During the evening a young woman driving a recent Honda Accord with a California license plate heading north when over the brow of SE 16 th Sin"". Once on the slope there was no hope of maintaining control of the car. At Glennwood the automobile slid sideways into the curb and the wheels, suspension system on the right side of the car were folded under the body. The condition of the driver is unknown to the observers who provided information for this letter. And as in the past the neighbor who lives on that comer usually suffers non-recovered damage to their fence. A few moments later a second car came down the slope and crashed into the first car. This driver was able to back up and drive off. This was repeated again as a third and shortly later a forth car came down the slope crashing into first car. Value of the total damage loss is unknown but probably around $70,000. Injury damage is unknown. There was a sign at the top of the hill warning of the slope danger, but sometime in the past sign was removed, only the posthole remains (see photograph). 25 months ago the TPNA suggested some simple improvements be incorporated this slope I intersection and at the hairpin tum around the water tower. It is our understanding that the Renton traffic department was generally in agreement with our suggestions, even offered a couple of additional improvements not in our suggestions. But, to date there has been no action. Several more cars have crashed into Ginger Creek Park. New observation: With the Renton School District and City considering developing the Tiffany Park Reserve by adding 97 homes, with probable considerable added traffic to this street, accident potential is likely to increase -and the accident that Saturday evening, probably to unsuspecting drivers, again brings this issue to the forefront. The above comment letter was prepared as dated above, noting the hazardous condition of the street when icy. The intent was to submit it with the SE 16'" Street slope s/u~. I submit itfor information purposes. Sincerely, William L. Roenicke /2- ,. • • .:' . • • " -------------------------------~ ~. ~. 15 15 • 15 • • • ,-- r------------------- • • Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: August 1, 2014 Rocale Timmons City of Renton -Current Planning Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 ·\ Barbi Smith <barbiandla~nce@live.com> Friday, August 01, 2014 5:23 PM Rocale Timmons Public Comment Re: Tiffany Park Reserve LUA 13-001572 • As per your email dated 7/25/14, I am providing this written statement regarding the Tiffany Park Reserve Proposed Development. Per you, I am allowed this statement be submitted via email versus regular postal service mail. My opposition to this development remains unchanged. I remain steadfast in my position that this development will destroy the very quality of life that we have come to enjoy and for the quality of life for the generations to come. And when I say "we" I mean not only us homeowners and families impacted but all the wildlife that lives IN those woods. If I had my way, those woods would be designated as "unbuildable" or "undevelopable". That is what was originally told to me when I purchased my home here 34 years ago. There is no study in the world that could be done that would make me change my mind because no study in the world will ever realize or capture the devastation that destroying these woods for the sake of development will cause. WILDLIFE In my 34 years of living here, I've seen it all and continue to see it all each and every day. It's a daily part of life seeing all that lives in those woods. When those woods surrounding the water tower at the top of the hill were destroyed like a thief in the night some years back, all that wildlife migrated to our Tiffany Park woods. It is just totally mind boggling to me that not one public official gives a care about where they will go or what will ultimately become of all of them. No one cares about wildlife preservation anymore? Some study said there would be no impact? Maybe I grew up in a different time or maybe it's just being a person of faith, that it runs in the roots of my very being to respect life -that means ALL LIFE. It appears in this world of increased revenue and making money and then more and more money, that the most baSic principals of doing what is good and right is ignored and is not relevent or important. Not important to the developers, not important to the city, not important to those that do the studies. Money is what has become of utmost importance. Sad -very sad Situation. The propose buffer does nothing -serves no purpose except to give lip service and avoid the real issue at hand. THE WOODS My home is different than others up here. I am on the greenbelt -the Mercer Island Pipeline road. Other homes on this greenbelt have the back of their homes facing the woods that are to be developed. Mine, however, is configured on the lot so that one entire side and a part of the front of my home faces those woods. My primary view is that of the woods. Additionally, when going out on the back upper deck off the dining room, the view is that primarily of these woods. A property with a view, even though it's JUST a view of the woods, and the privacy it offers, is going to be able to sell at a higher price than a traditional box lot with a view of nothing but other homes. 1 The buffer referenced in the propose!at means nothing in that regard either. If.se woods are destroyed, so is part of the homes'value. Who will pay for that difference for me? OTHER IMPACTS Traffic: Given the proposed access routes to this development, there is going to be a significant and detrimental impact to the surrounding area -not to mention folks living on those access routes. Have any of you actually seen this area in person so you will know what kind of a nightmare this will be? With cars parked on both sides of the street in today's world, it's tricky to navigate when opposing traffic is coming but if this development is allowed? It will be tremendously unsafe. Drainage: Given I have had drainage issues in the easement I have on my property by the city, I'm concerned about the impact the proposed homes will have. When the city was here a few months ago to unclog a severely backed up storm drain (under the direction of Stan JObe), the workers told me they did not even know there was some sort of feed pipe into this easement that was causing my property to become totally saturated. They said it had not ever been cleaned out as far as they could tell (because they didn't know it was there). While I truly appreciate the city·taking care of this issue, it does not give me a great deal of confidence that the city truly knows where all these drains go and what possible negative and damaging impact this development could cause in that regard. ' Wetlands: When the last group of (least I think it was the last group) of surveyors/engineers came to identify and mark the wetland areas, one of them called me a "tree hugger" because he said people don't want to see homes go up. Mind you this person did not know me or know I was even in the know about houses going up. I thought they were here to fix the drainage problem in my easement since I'd called the city the day before letting them know it was flooding. I find it difficult to take seriously the merit of their evaluation of the wetlands given their demeanor. SUMMARY At the meeting that was held up at TIffany Park Elementary School some months back, we asked Randy Corman if visits were ever made to areas such as this that are about to be destroyed. His response was that they generally do not do that. We strongly encouraged him to do so but I do not know if anyone ever did. Likewise I do not know if anyone has extended an invitation to Mr. Corman or anyone else involved in this decision. I would personally like to invite whomever would like to come, to please do so. I will need to know at least a couple days in advance so I can get the day off from work. I would like for you all to experience what a day is like up here. I'm probably dreaming but I think you would find it quite remarkable. , Here is what you would see: Right at the crack of dawn, you can hear all the bird chirping being. Robins, towhees, sparrows and swallows ---even the crows. The deer wander in and out of the woods into the greenbelt -given all the blackberries on the greenbelt road, they like to nibble early in the day. The squirrels begin dismounting their trees and scamper over to see what food they may have missed the day before -then they get their drinks out of the birdbath. You would hear the absolute peace and calm of nothing more than an occasional plane in the distant sky, a random car on Pierce Avenue SE and footsteps of folks and their dogs jogging on the greenbelt. You should see the sun shine through the trees in those woods as it makes it's way across the sky. As dusk approaches, the chicken hawks (I think they are actually called Ring Tail Hawks) may come perch on the fence -up to 3 at a time sometimes. Pigeons come get their last drinks of the day from the birdbaths, and you can look up and see birds heading back to their roosts in the woods. Now and then you see a pair of coyotes trolling down the greenbelt -not bothering anyone -just on a mission to get home, I guess. And then a couple hours after dark, you can hear the owls do their night song off and on. At the end of it all, my comment comes to this: "We" did not create these woods. They were here when we all got here and they have been there for years beyond imagining. The only person that can destroy these woods is the creator of them and that is God. And for whatever 2 reason. he has seen fit for all these yl to keep them intact. No one else ShOUld" God and destroy them. developer, not the city, not the school district that is trying to sell these woods, NO ONE. Thank you, Barbara Smith 3619 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 425.917.9769 barbiandlance@live.com Tiffany Park Reserve LUA 13-001572 3 Not the \ Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Dear Rocale Timmons, Derek Jones <dajones89@~.omcast.net> Thursday, August 07, 2014 12:36 PM Rocale Timmons • Proposed Reserve At Tiffany Park, LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR Follow up Flagged The current proposal for this housing development is unacceptable. As proposed, this plan would be highly disruptive to the neighborhood. As it stands, the development plan would subject the people on SE 18th Street to four years of heavy construction traffic. At the proposed size and density, the development would add far too much traffic to a neighborhood that has no arterial streets and far too many children to a school that is already at capacity, in a district where practically every school already uses portables. I also doubt that the drainage in the area has been adequately studied. Already, rainwater pools at the western (downslope) corners of the proposed development area, on SE 18th Street and near SE 20th Court. The attached photos show the size of the latter puddles, in March after several days of sun. If the wooded land were largely paved over, as the current development plan entails, much of the rainwater that that land absorbs would instead accumulate in these locations, possibly affecting the existing houses nearby. The drainage patterns in this area, and how development may affect them should be very carefully studied. For these reasons, I oppose going the developer any critical area exemptions and urge that the size of the development be cut down. Sincerely, Derek A. Jones 1 City of Renton Planning Division AUG 0 7 2014 • city of !=,onton Planning Division AUG (), lU\4 • • • • August 6th 2014 Subject: Proposal for the Reserve At Tiffany Park, LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR Dear Rocale Timmons: As a citizen of Renton and particularly of Tiffany Park, I have a number of grave concerns for this above project. I begin with a short story: 20 years ago my husband and I purposely searched and then purchased a home on SE 18th street with a quiet cui de sac with old growth trees on the property and on the nearby green belt. (known now as the Tiffany Reserve) There are beautiful walking spaces of natural flora and fauna and we have enjoyed this precious space ever since as have many others judging by the foot prints we see and the sounds of laughter we hear. As the project stands, this peace and quiet will all come to an end and our street SE 18 th street will become the main focal access point for a 98 home development. My concerns are the following points: Traffic: I urge the City to push and expect responsible development for this project. 98 homes on 21 acres with basically only a single access point is an untenable situation. (124th barely qualifies as an access point) I personally sat at SE 18th and Lake Young's and 16 th and Lake Youngs at different times to count marks of how many cars were traveling through these key intersections. I have read your secondary 3,d party TIA report and I can state for a fact of the # of people who are also traveling to and fro in these areas as Elarly as 6am and as late as 7pm. We know that the original TIA study underestimated the school traffic by about 1/3. The TIA report writes about avoiding collisions, but it does not mention the # of back ups that will occur along SE 18 th and Lake Youngs streets when everyone is trying to leave to get to work OR to come home from work. Most of this community has dual. incomes which often means two cars are traveling. We absolutely need a 3,d access point. It will be the right thing to do for the citizens of this community. . t\\O" I vehemently oppose the closure of parking on the north siM uletl~~$~ This is a major inconvenience to everyone on the street an ~i~tI~lI1it that the Developer should force this to happen? Why shoul we who are t>.\\~ a ~ ~~M ~~~~~~~© ------------_._--- • • innocent homeowners be punished with this additional difficulty to our lives? Why is this discrimination even being allowed? Quality of Life: The Reserve has been an oasis of lush woods and vegetation, old growth trees, wonderful birds, deer, and many other critters. It is a place where children go to play and people go to walk their dogs and just enjoy the pleasures of breathing in the scent of the woods and appreciate seeing the wild greenery. In reading the reports from the Developer, they will remove most of these trees and the wild life will surely be displaced. I know the City understands the importance of protecting the wetlands, I urge you to consider the quality of life of those old growth trees and future of the wetlands. I urge the City to expect the Developer to maintain at least 50% of the trees that are already in the Woods currently. Once the Woods are removed, they are gone forever. Storm Drains: I have grave concerns that the Developer will install a pipe in the middle of SE 18 th which will support up to a 10 yr storm. Today with climate change occurring, many cities and neighborhoods are seeing 100 yr storms. It has become the norm! Where does the over flow go? I ask that the City push the Developer to act responsibly by making sure a" pipes are prepared for 100 yr storms. Otherwise there is a very real danger of the flooding of our basements and homes. Acguifer: What are the specific details or steps to protect or preserve the aquifer? Has the City reviewed the recharging of the aquifer and how it is renewed. Does the Developer take this into consideration? Vermin: When the demolition starts in the woods, what will happen to all of the vermin that surely live there, will we as innocent citizens be deluged by pests? What will be the compensation/resolution to us for having to tolerate this invasion of vermin? 4 Years of Dirt. Noise. Dust: What are the citizens expected to do for these 4 years while our streets are torn apart, our woods are demolished, and from NO fault of our own have to endure this MESS because of a profit minded venture? This is not only unjust; it is not right as we did not choose this development. What kind of compensation and accommodation will we be given? To finish, I am distressed that the notice for this project being removed from hold has occurred when so many citizens are taking their summer vacations. I am sure this was designed to occur in this way, but it does not lend credibility to the idea that the citizens' wishes are being considered. ,-------------------------- • • I vehemently oppose this project completely. If the City finds that it will go forward regardless, then I ask for SIGNIFICANT MITIGATION of the above mentioned issues. 98 homes is an irresponsible number of homes. It should be half that amount! I urge the City to do the right thing here for its citizens of Tiffany Park and the surrounding areas and protecUpreserve our quality of life. Thank you Respectfully, Cynthia Garlough • August 8, 2014 Donna Thorkildson Tiffany park Neighborhood Association President 2621 SE 16Sth St. Renton WA 980S8Dear Subject: Tiffney Park Reserve LUA13-oo1S72 ECF, PP, CAR Dear Mr./Mrs Timmons • Recale Timmons Senior Planner City of Renton I am writing to make concerned comment on the notice of Off Hold for the Tiffany Park Reserve Plan. The plan as I understand it is to build as many as 98 homes on a 20 acre green space in the middle of our neighborhood. This green space has limited access for entrance and exit of vehicles, and will effect the natural community that we have established here. I want to address two areas of concern. The first being impact of population of community. The second is the impact of the destruction of natural space. On the first subject impact of population to our community. The proposed 98 homes will bring minimum 200 adults, and since our community has just one decent bus line I can reasonably expect each adult will own a car and use it regularly. Even taking public transportation into account business commuting would be minimal"and from experience leisure commuting will be even less. This prospect will create traffic hazards on many of our small one lane each direction streets. I know that you have or are doing traffic studies and have received the study we did on our own. I live on one of the thoroughfares in and out of the neighborhood my mailbox gets hit regularly because of distracted and unskilled riving. Given that currently we have 550 homes registered for the neighborhood I can expect that to happen a little more often with 100 new homes. It is already difficult to back out of our driveway, and more than difficult to change to a back in situation since our driveway is sloped steeply. Obviously noise will bother and distract my household, but it is the danger and destruction of added cars that truly concerns me. Moving on to community as a whole the local Elementary school Tiffany park Elementary is directly across from the main exit entrance from this proposed building of homes and almost every parent out of concern for their child's safely drives them to school. There are literal lines in and out of the parking lot at 8:30 and 3:00. I would describe it as mayhem controlled or not every .------------------------------- - • • day that school is in session, again this is a cocktail for poor decision making leading to severe and costly safety concerns to vehicles and children alike if more cars are added to the mix. On the subject of population impact with each home conservatively comes one and one half children varying in age from elementary to high school. The neighborhood elementary and Middle School are already overcrowded having to use portables and this is just because th3re are more than one and one half student age kids per house. Adding 150 students distributed equally over three schools would mean two extra classes per school and you can not distribute or bus within the district because every school is overcrowded. Good schools will turn into very bad schools quickly. It has not escaped me that the Renton School District is selling the land. They are looking at dollar signs not impact. Your job should be impact. There are other ways to use this land that are not as destructive. Finally I will address the amount of value our community places on wildlife and natural space. We have used with the school districts benevolence for exercise natural wildlife appreciation and recreation for years. We place a very high value on this part of our neighborhood with it's old growth trees birds small and large wildlife. Do not undervalue this. We feel very strongly that the land could be sold for a reasonable amount and put to better uses and I implore you to consider these things that I have mentioned when considering this request to build 98 homes on the Tiffany Park Reserve. Sincerely Donna Thorkildson Thorkildson3@gmail.com -------------------- • August 8, 2014 Meredith Erickson 1719 Pierce Avenue S.E. Renton, W A 98058 • Subject: Proposed Reserve At Tiffany Park, LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR Dear Rocale Timmons: This proposed development has many areas of concern. First, the destruction of nearly 90% of the significant trees will adversely impact the area. More specifically, the destruction of large, old, cedar trees within the wetland buffer zone will greatly disrupt and potentially destroy sensitive wetland areas. Diagrams submitted regarding this development indicate the removal of several large, old trees that exist within buffer zones for sensitive wetland areas This is unacceptable. The wetland areas should all retain a protective buffer to assure the integrity of the wetlands. It is well established that development negatively impacts sensitive areas and assuring an adequate buffer reduces the disturbance of critical areas. I oppose any reduction in wetland areas and mitigation. I opposed an Critical Area Exemption for the extension of SE 18th Street through portion of the buffer associated with wetland. Exemption would have a detrimental impact on a sensitive wetland area. Establishing the primary egress for this development at the 124 th Place SE would preserve a critical wetland. 1 oppose the proposed development magnitude. The existing neighborhoods will be negatively impacted with increased traffic onto residential streets. There is not an existing major arterial street to relieve the pressure of a substantial increase in traffic. Reducing the number of proposed homes would alleviate a portion of the negative impact to the existing area due to increased traffic. I oppose the lack of significant preservation of sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, access, pedestrian walkways and open space. I oppose granting a critical ordinance exemption within any wetlands or wetland buffer areas. I request all notes, e mails, or any form of communication regarding the "recent discovery" of the wetlands on SE 18 Street. I oppose the entrance to the development on SE 18 Street. I recognize that SE 18 Street and the streets surrounding it will be impacted by traffic to and from the development. I oppose the small lot sizes as the existing neighborhoods have much larger lot sizes. I also oppose the development design as it lacks any design creativity. ----------~-~~ • • I oppose the number of homes within the development. Our local school is at a maximum with our existing neighborhoods. I propose the developer having to make a monetary contribution for any expansion of the school in the form of "cubes". I also support the developer paying for the installation of pedestrian walkways and signage to protect children as they walk to school. ---------- I request that the existing home owners surrounding the access points for the new development be provided with a detailed plan on how the developer will mitigate all the disruption caused by the construction. Please make available to the public a description of the city's requirements for minimizing the disruption of construction, such as noise, dust and traffic. I live directly opposite the proposed development -across the Mercer Island Pipeline. This development will have a severe impact on me and my family, financially, physically and esthetically. I have lived here for over 20 years and feel that the City of Renton favors high priced new developments over us middle class longtime residents who have paid their taxes for all these years. I oppose the timeline of the development. I believe that developing the area in stages would have less adverse impact on existing neighborhoods. I encourage the denial of this project as proposed. Sincerely, Meredith Erickson 206-715-3681 Mr. Robin Jones 3624 SE 19th CT Renton, WA, 98058 8 August, 2014 City of Renton Development Planning 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A, 98055 ATTN: Rocale Timmons • Subject -Tiffany Park Reserve, LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR • City of Renton Planning Division AUG 0 G 2014 I am writing to raise concerns, during the second public comment period (26 July 2014) about the Notice of Application that has been posted for the Tiffany Park Reserve. As a property owner living next door to this property, I strongly believe that I will be significantly impacted, both in terms of property value and quality oflife, by the proposed design. My concerns with proposed plans are as follows. I disagree with the city's proposed Determination of Non Significant -Mitigation for this project. Despite arriving at this overall determination, the city has not made clear how this overall determination was achieved over clear legal environmental and zoning requirements. It appears that the city staff in their review decided that regulatory environment and zoning requirements can and should be mitigateable in order to make the property plan succeed verse adjusting the plan to meeting the regulatory requirement. The City is ignoring clear indications as presented by the impacted homeowners that there are significant environmental impacts to the local community and environment under the current proposed plan. The perception is that the city is ignoring information presented by homeowners that clearly show that the project requires an Environmental Review and possible Significant Adverse Environmental Impact Determination. Despite assurances about greater inclusiveness with the local community for this project the city has continue to shelter information and limit communication with impacted homeowners. Public statements were made to homeowner that a greater reporting radius would be used in the future but this has not occurred and now is being disavowed due to potential cost. The city interaction with the local community is limiting impacted home owner a meaningful opportunity to be heard about issues with the property plan. I wish this letter to be file as a party of record and please include me on future communications on this project. • Lee & Adrienne Lawrence 1721 Pierce Avenue SE Renton, Washington 98058 August 8, 2014 City of Renton Planning Division AUG 0 G 2014 Subject: Proposed Reserve at Tiffany Park, LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CW!~«;~~W~[Q) Dear Rocale Timmons: This proposed development has many areas of concern. First, the destruction of nearly 90% of the significant trees will adversely impact the area. More specifically, the destruction oflarge, old, cedar trees within the wetland buffer zone will greatly disrupt and potentially destroy sensitive wetland areas. Diagrams submitted regarding this development indicate the removal of several large, old trees that exist within buffer zones for sensitive wetland areas. This is unacceptable, as this affects Lee and I"more directly as the back of our home is located in front of the greenbelt area where a lot of the trees are located. There is a considerable amount of wildlife in these woods, i.e. deer, bobcats, mountain beavers, pileated woodpeckers, hawks and more. We request an explanation on what is planned for the displaced wildlife. Furthermore, we also request that no trees be cut during nesting season. The wetland areas should all retain a protective buffer to assure the integrity of the wetlands. It is well established that development negatively impacts sensitive areas and assuring an adequate buffer reduces the disturbance of critical areas. I oppose any reduction in wetland areas and mitigation. We opposed a Critical Area Exemption for the extension ofSE 18th Street through portion of the buffer associated with wetland. Exemption would have a detrimental impact on a sensitive wetland area. Establishing the primary egress for this development at the I 24th Place SE would preserve a critical wetland. Again, as stated in my previous letter addressed to you in December 2013, I oppose the timeline of the development. I believe that developing the area in stages would have less adverse impact on existing neighborhoods. Again, we appeal to the City of Renton to help us by not allowing this project to destroy what has been a visibly beautiful greenbelt that also grants the homeowners a serene and peaceful atmosphere. Signature Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Rocale Timmons, • Roenicke <risingr@integrity.com> Friday, August 08, 2014 4:37 PM Rocale Timmons • Renate Beedon; Dave Beedon; Bob Garlough; Cynthia Garlough; Larry Gorg; Sue Dahlberg Tiffany Park Woods / Housing Issue A Better Heritage.doc Follow up Flagged I have several questions, concerns, which I am submitting today relative to the Tiffany Park Woods / Housing Issue: Question 1: The school system and city has noted the woods property is not suitable for development of a school due to its limited access and even published that information in a city news letter a few months back. That being the case, why is it now logical to locate a residential neighborhood where the woods now is located, which will provide school traffic, commuter traffic, and convenience traffic? One can expect this traffic to total an even greater volume of traffic than just school traffic. By an actual count of traffic we did on several intersections, on two separate occasions, during valid time periods, we concluded the first traffic study submitted by the builder was significantly low. Due to other commitments I have not had an opportunity as of this writing to review the new recently submitted formal traffic study. I am requesting an explanation as to why the housing development is not a contradiction to the governing bodies published words, rational. Question 2: The housing development has been presented as the only apparent money answer to some unexplained financial school need. I find it very hard to accept that response as it seems like the message is, "this fast money is the only fix." To me the answer lacks wisdom and foresightedness. I and others did not come here to live seeking wall-to-wall concrete such as Chicago or other eastern cities, to live where all of the great surrounding views are blocked offby the neighbor's wall or some other adjoining building. Further, the European model which it appears that government planners here are using has not proven to be a success for happy, peaceful living neighborhoods in Europe. Would you live in the midst of London? What a shame that planners here are pursuing what appears to be the same mistakes. I am requesting an explanation as to why another answer to the school's money need is not possible? Why is the housing project the only answer? Why does this have to be government only solution? By our system of government this should this be a government of the people, where the views and happiness of us who live here are included, are represented. Why are the resident citizen goals and opinions not in the solution? Question 3: The apparent excessive traffic on SE 18th Street that a housing development will, by the information we have been able to gather, suggests that our home values will take a considerable drop. In conventional just business practices, justice requires compensation. Why is the city, or more likely the builder, both who beneficially gain by that value loss, not in any way responsible to those home owners for that loss, required to compensate? Question 4: Safety for the residents on SE 16th Street and the drivers who use that street -we learned during the our traffic studies, to our surprise, that SE 16th street is the route-of-choice to most car, truck and bus 1 drivers -riot Royal Hills Drive, wa is the Bus Route. • By City Records SE 16th Street has had it share of accidents, more that I believe the City Records will show, as some drives have been observed able to drive away from the accident scene. I do not know what the city records show, but I believe the downhill slope is a about 9%. Visibility over the brow of the hill is very limited. We have done a photographic visibility study showing the visibility problem. The time to brake for a child or dog is seconds, not much longer for person four or six feet tall, or a car backing out of a driveway. The visibility problem is the same whether going up or down the slope. For those vehicles going up the slope, there are many pipeline walkers (pipeline is parallel to Beacon Way SE) crossing SE 16th Street. While the visibility distance is still limited. In the driver's favor, an uphill stop is shorter than a downhill stop. But, there are many drivers who travel in both directions, moving right along. This morning I discovered I printed the wrong set of photographs, and do not have time before 5:00 PM today to reprint and identify those pictures. My goal is to reprint, identify and provide the pictures and explanation to Rocale Timmons, Monday 08/11114. The photographs will not change or alter this question, only provide photographic evidence of and clarifying the problem described here. This street is especially dangerous when icy. Once over the brow of the hill going downhill on the ice there is no correction. The vehicle operator is powerless, an accident is just waiting for completion. Ifthe housing development goes forward the traffic on this street will likely significantly increase. According, the problem of safety for both vehicles and pedestrians will become greater. What are the cities plans to promote, improve safety on this street? Question 5: A very busy intersection around the water-tower -Puget Drive SE 1 Royal Hills Drive SE 1 Beacon Way SE 1 SE 16th Street 1 Edmonds Way SE 1 Edmonds Avenue SE 1 and two City Bus stops (one on each side of Edmonds Avenue SE) all come together within a very short distance (approximately 200-300 feet), occur in this same very limited area. There are no pedestrian marked crossings at the bus stops. Vehicle passes occur less than 5 seconds apart for lengthy periods. We have actual counts available. Vehicle operators trying to enter Edmonds Avenue SE from Edmonds Way SE have long-standing entry complaints. If the housing development goes forward, this problem will become even significantly more intense. What are the plans to alleviate this very major traffic congestion problem? Question 6: The storm sewer lines are in question. It is assumed that the existing sewer lines will handle a 10 year storm. If the housing development goes in will they still handle a 10 year storm? Will the sewer lines handle a 100 year storm? This does not imply 100 years between the storms, it may be two storms close together, as has been happening across the country, even in the past few months. If the storm sewer lines flood, where will the excess water go? In the recent past Lake Youngs Way has flooded, overflowing into the street adjacent to Tiffany Park. I'm advised it flooded nearly to the point of going into the houses on that street. If the housing development goes forward, will the storm sewer handle a 100 year storm? What corrections will be made? Question 7: "A Better Heritage", being out of the area I had intended that this attachment was to be presented in my behalf at the City Council Meeting, Monday 08/04/14. As that did not happen I am presenting it here as an Attachment. After seeing wooded areas, parks, in the past few weeks from Heritage Sites on the East Coast to Vancouver Island on the West Coast I am even more convinced that giving up the woods in our midst to a housing development is a very near-sighted action. Again I ask why is a housing development the only answer? Will you give us some time to go back and put some real serious thought into this decision, provide a more quality answer? 2 Question 8: Safety for students a.d around the Tiffany Park School wil. a greater problem. All the vehicle traffic from the development (except some small amount traveling east) will likely enter Lake Youngs Way at the Tiffany Park School. It appears quite likely that traffic will be continuous and backed up. Safety will probably be a much greater challenge. We have asked the school administration to evaluate and respond to this question. What measures will be taken to provide school pedestrian safety at the school, as well as safety from reckless / mischief issues on streets in the area? Respectfully Submitted, William L. Roenicke 3112 SE 18th Street Renton, Washington 98058 425-271-7785 Attachment: A Better Heritage 3 • • A Better Heritage .~ r, l~" I am unable to attend the Renton City Council meeting tonight, August 4, 20Ijl\lC,My appreciation to Dave Beedon for his willingness to deliver my comments to you ~~~~© behalf. ®.~ Let's keep all of the Tiffany Park Woods as an oasis of enjoyment in the midst of our busy community. The Tiffany Park Woods has 40 to 60 years of old trees and other natural growth right here where it can be enjoyed by the public. Consider, we have a small parcel of untouched wooded nature with its seasonal changes right here in our midst. Schools can provide lab trips to the local woods to educate students about nature and the environment. It is a popular playground for today's and hopefully for tomorrow's youth as evidenced by the well traveled paths by those who walk it regularly. Our out-of-state visitors (08/01114) have noted how well kept it is. Further consider what it might look like if this small 21- acre woods parcel is left untouched and nature is allowed to mature it for another 60 years. In those same 60 years the proposed housing development will be showing its age, while the woods will grow to an even greater value than it is today. Future generations will talk of the wisdom and forethought oftheir ancestors, who are sitting here today, and they will say, "They chose not to trade this valuable natural beauty, right here in our midst for immediate money. If they had chose immediate money these woods would have been lost forever." I have talked to over 100 of the households in the Tiffany Park area and not a single one is in agreement with the decision to populate that tract of woods with houses. The decision to change the woods into a housing development is very, very unpopular. Surely this "immediate money" is not the onlyway you can solve the school boards financial need. Lets apply more forethought and wisdom to this issue. Give us the time a chance, and the freedom to work with you on this problem. 8/1/14 4:05AM A Better Heritage.doc .-------------. • • A Better Heritage Let us function as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I submit these thoughts and photographs you will be provided of the woods, thoughts and photographs ofleaving a legacy. Let us leave something superior to another expensive park constructed over a downtown freeway. One additional concern: It is very disconcerting to learn that the city leaders will so freely devalue the homes of Tiffany Park property owners for the benefit of a special interest group. The 16 property owners whose property abuts SE 18 th Street bought into a relatively quiet neighborhood years ago. A member of the TPW AG has researched property values and it is apparent that our homes will lose 6% to 16%, (approximately $30,000 more or less) of their value because of the new excessive traffic load on SE 18 th Street and neighboring streets. Upon inquiry we understand that the city expects the property owners "to eat that loss" to the benefit of the builder. Respectfully submitted, William L. Roenicke 3112 SE 18th Street Renton, Washington 98058 425-271-7785 (h) risingr@integrity.com 8/1114 4:05AM 2 A Better Heritage.doc • • City of Rerit9fi PISARIA!! EllvlsloR Subject: "Reserve At Tiffany Park", LUAI3-001572 Rocale Timmons, AU~ 0 G 2014 I have many concerns regarding the subject development. Environment: 1Rl~~~~W~fj)) As planned, most ofthe significant trees are to be destroyed. This inc1udeifarge, old, ce':Far trees, even some within the wetland buffer zones. How can this be considered environmentally acceptable? I am opposed to this destruction. I'm opposed to any reduction in wetland areas. Installing artificial "runoff pits" only addresses the issue of storm sewer capacity and does not mitigate the true environmental issues. I oppose the proposed "Critical Area Exemption". Any such Exemption would have a further detrimental impact on sensitive wetland areas. I'm opposed to granting a critical ordinance exemption within any wetlands or wetland buffer areas. Furthermore, I request copies of e-mails, letters, notes, or other forms of communication regarding the "recent discovery" of the wetlands on SE 18 Street. Traffic & Safety: I'm opposed to the development because of the additional traffic burden it will place on roads ill- designed and ill-equipped to handle it. No major arterial exists to handle the additional traffic that this development would produce. This will unavoidably place a heavy additional burden on many of the neighborhood streets -but none more so than SE 18 th Street. This street was designed and constructed as a narrow little neighborhood street, bounded private residences having relatively short driveways. This street will see an undue amount of additional traffic pressure. Access onto the street from these houses will become dangerous. Additionally, if SE 18 th Street is opened through to I 24th Place SE, as is proposed by this development, non-residents will use the new development as a shortcut, placing even more pressure onto this little narrow street. SE 16 th Street already sees quite a bit of traffic. The proposed development will also make access onto the street from these residents' driveways more hazardous. Schools: I'm opposed to the number of homes within the development. The local schools are at maximum capacity for our existing neighborhoods. Additional Expenses: I support requiring the developer to pay for the many related expenses which this project will create for the city. These expenses should include expansion ofthe school through construction or the use of "Portables", construction of pedestrian walkways, lights & signage to protect the children, as well as road adjustments (construction) and potential traffic lights. I also support the developer being required to purchase the homes on SE 18 th (reserving the owners' choice of refusal), at prices which reflect their value BEFORE this project causes their inevitable drop in value. In summary, I encourage the denial of this project as proposed. Sincerely, Phillip Schaefer 330 I SE 20 th Ct, Renton • August 8, 2014 Renate Beedon 1725 Pierce Avenue SE Renton W A 98050 Subject: Reserve at Tiffany park, LUA13-001572, ECF, PP , , • citY af ~@f\~~ Planning Division AUG 0 a 10\4 Dear Ms. Timmons -below are my comments and concerns about the proposed subject development: Traffic Impact I. The Revised Transportation Impact Analysis does not include the area South East of the proposed development, i.e. Pierce Avenue S.E., and the roads going from there to Fairwood, Maple Valley and Kent. These areas will be affected by the additional traffic and Pierce A venue will have additionill traffic going up and down the road. I request that a traffic impact study be done for the area S.E. of the proposed development. 2. The proposal by the developer to limit parking on the nan:ow streets directly surrounding the proposed development is unacceptable. The homes on these streets are approximately 30-year old (and older) middle class houses. The people living in these homes have had 30 years of peace and quiet and have settled into a tranquil lifestyle. If the City of Renton permits the development to proceed as proposed, it is discriminating against the middle class home owners in favor of more affluent residents. That is unacceptable. The Tiffany Park area has been neglected by the City of Renton for many years -there has been very little effort to include us in community and comprehensive planning or to provide any amenities. Now, to make money, they city is considering to approve a development that will benefit a small number of new residents over the existing residents. Not only will it favor the new • residents, the approval oflimited parking on the existing streets is a slap in the face to the residents who live there. The 4-year plan for the construction of this development will significantly reduce the value of the homes around it. Homeowners will not be able to sell their homes for the appraised value because of all the construction traffic, noise, and dirt. Not to mention that we will have to live with that for four years. Will our property taxes for the duration of the project be reduced to compensate us? I vehemently oppose any restrictions to existing neighbors in favor of the proposed development. 3. Nowhere in the study do r see provisions for the traffic created by and impacting the Tiffany Park Elementary School. I request that a study is conducted to determine traffic created by and impacting Tiffany Park Elementary. Environmental Impact I. The developer proposes a time schedule of approximately four years for the development. That is an unacceptable amount of time to expose the existing neighbors to all the noise, dirt and traffic. Again, this is discriminating against the existing middle class neighbors in favor of a more affiuent development. 2. Aquifer -I have not seen any mention of what the impact ofthis development will mean to the Cedar River Aquifer. It is my understanding that the property is in the Aquifer protection zone and will therefore be affected by this development. Have any studies been done or are planned to be done to ensure that the Aquifer is not damaged? Have the appropriate agencies been involved in the planning of affecting the aquifer? I request a study ofthe impact to the aquifer on the property. 3. There are many old growth trees on the property. According to the developer's plan, all trees will be removed, except for those in wetland areas. I oppose the removal of healthy old trees just because it's in the way of a house. There are at least two Cedar Groves on the property that should be preserved. There are several big Douglas Firs that should be protected -they were there long before us and should be long after us. Once these trees are chopped down, they can't be replaced, especially not by the saplings the developer is proposing. I request the city is a careful environmental caretaker when it comes to the removal of healthy cilder trees. The existing process for determining how many trees to save needs to be revised to allow more trees to be saved. 4. I request that wetlands C and E be revisited and changed from category 3 to category 2. I don't see any significant differences that would make these two wetlands category 3. I understand they are small wetlands, but that does not mean they are not as important to the environment. ,---------------------------------------------------------- • • 5. I request that the city not allow plots to encroach on any wetland buffers. On the revised plans, every wetland appears to be encroached upon by some plats. Mitigating the encroachment will not preserve the wetlands and again, once they're gone, they're gone. 6. Wildlife -the Technical Memorandum, File # 1219.0001, dated June 12,2014, states that no sensitive or priority species were identified. There are several species of woodpeckers in these woods. There is a large murder of crows; eagles and herons fly over the property and use it as a resting place during their flight from the Black River Riparian Forest in Renton to the Lake Youngs Reservoir. There is a bobcat on that property. There are mountain beavers, deer and other small animals on the property. There are numerous rodents on the property. What is the plan to ensure that all the rodents from the property will not be forced out into the surrounding neighborhoods? This could be a huge problem for us -again, the big developer against the small existing neighbors. 7. Sewer Are the requirements for the storm sewer drainage adequate for a I OO-year flood? If not, I request that such a standard be used for the upgrading of the sewer system. Are the neighboring properties protected adequately from flooding? Many of the neighbors already have problems with flooding which will made worse with inadequate storm sewer design. 8. Impact to Existing Homeowners I request that the existing home owners surrounding the access points for the new development be provided with a detailed plan on how the developer will mitigate all the disruption caused by the construction. Please make available to the public a description of the city's requirements for minimizing the disruption of construction, such as noise, dust and traffic. We, the homeowners should not suffer any inconvenience so the city and a developer can make profits. If the city decides to approve this development, we, the surrounding neighbors should be compensated for the noise, dirt, traffic impact and loss to home values. I request the city deny approval of this development as proposed. Renate Beedon (206)-715-3785 • • :1Q) ~ Subject: "Reserve At Tiffany Park", LUA 13-00 1572 (fii1l Rocale Timmons, < The subject development has a number of disturbing aspects, & I oppose it. m Most of the significant trees are to be destroyed, even some within the wetland bliiJr zones. It reduces the natural wetland areas, and even proposes a "Critical Area Exemption". Any such Exemption would have a further detrimental impact on sensitive wetland areas: It will place additional traffic burden onto neighborhood streets that are not able to safely handle it. This is especially true of SE 18 th Street. It was designed and constructed as a narrow neighborhood street, whose houses have short driveways. Street access from these houses will become dangerous or impossible. Additionally, if SE 18th Street is opened through to I 24th Place SE, non-residents will use the new development as a shortcut and put even more cars onto this little narrow street. The danger to pedestrians and residents of SE 18th Street will become very real. Many other neighborhood streets will likewise be negatively impacted. People will build their own new "preferred routes", impacting nearly every home in the surrounding neighborhoods. The local schools are already at maximum capacity for our existing neighborhoods. It's hardly reasonable to add 98 homes and their children into the system, and then require extensive bussing of these children. The city needs to consider the many related expenses that this project will demand, and bill the developer accordingly. These expenses include expansion of the local schools, construction of pedestrian features to protect our children, and road construction (e.g. perhaps widening SE 18 th ) and any new traffic lights that might be required. I also support requiring the developer to purchase the homes on SE 18th at prices which reflect their value BEFORE this project causes their inevitable drop in value. (The current owners should, of course, be allowed to refuse this and stay in their homes.) In summary, I encourage the denial of this project as proposed. Sincerely, Tammy Schaefer 330 I SE 20th Ct, Renton From: Robert Garlough 3203 SE 18th Street Renton, WA 98058 • To: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner City of Renton CED -Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057 • Friday, August 8, 2014 6itv ~j Ael'lt~11 Planning Division AUG () a LUB Subject: Comments to Proposed land Use Action entitled, "Reserve at Tiffany Park," LUA13-001572, ECF, PP I cannot believe that the City of Renton is seriously considering a proposal to pack 98 houses on a sensitive wetland with little egress. The developer will make an obscene profit and then walk away from the mess that they caused. The Renton School District will make over $10 million on the sale of property that they themselves said lacked sufficient access. The City of Renton will make the property tax revenue from the new homes. But at what cost to the local environment and nearby families? The developer will mow down virtually all of the trees on the property, scrape the topsoil (making more profit by selling both), destroy flourishing local wildlife populations (including deer and woodpeckers) and offer in return the flimsy promise to plant more trees in their place. More what? Immature trees planted along streets with inadequate surface area and topsoil-non-native species that are subjected to disease and death (if the new residents don't cut them down first)? The developer will pave over the buffers near the identified wetlands in violation of the law, and the City has told us that it won't even challenge them. Could you at least make them use pervious pavement? The developer will install a storm sewer that is just barely capable of handling the flow from a 10-year storm at a time when global climate change is making 100-year storms common-place. Where will the developer be when the local residents are bailing out flooded basements and are trapped at home due to flooded roads? The developer will not provide adequate egress, such that the lion's share of the traffic (over 1,000 cars per day) will buzz constantly past the once-quiet Cul-De-Sac on SE 18th Street, endangering local pets and children, causing traffic snarls during school hours, and costing 'each' nearby household an estimated $30,000 in lost property value. local residents volunteered many hours of their time to count traffic at several nearby intersections. The results showed that the developer's paid "experts" had underestimated traffic at SE18th Street and lake Young's Way (one of the most heavily impacted intersections by the development) by more than a third! Coincidentally, the people who were paid by the developer produced a study that was biased in favor of the developer. Robert Garlough Page 1 of2 • • As "mitigation" for traffic, the developer recommends prohibiting parking and adding stop signs (at someone else's expense). These measures will only make the traffic back-ups worse, and *increase* (not mitigate) the impact on local families. I respect the rights of property owners to do as they please on their private property, but when their plans cause grievous harm to the local environment and local families only to make excessive profit for off-shore corporations, then I expect the City government to arbitrate to ensure that the rights of the existing residents are also protected. As such, I ask that you deny this proposal in its current form. I think that a proposal to add at least one more road in and out, and/or to reduce the number of houses in half (leaving more land in its natural state) would be a more equitable solution. It would still allow the developer a handsome profit (A local developer told me that he would jump at the chance to put 50 homes there -and he could do so profitably.) while protecting the environment and the rights of the local families. Please insist on equitable mitigation and responsible development. I wish I had more time. I could share our traffic study data, and meeting notes (such as the local developer's comments), but this letter is the best that I can do in the short time allotted. Thank you for your consideration. Robert D. Garlough Treasurer -Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group bob@garlough.org 425-227-0090 Robert Gar\ough Page 2 of2 Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Dear Ms. Timmons: • Belinda M <belindakm@gmail.com> Wednesday, August 06, 2014 9:03 PM Rocale Timmons Tiffany Park Reserve LUA 13-001572 Follow up Flagged • I am writing you in regard to the Tiffany Park addition which is being considered in our neighborhood. I've got several concerns regarding this: I) The high density of the proposed development -putting that many homes on the property would definitely impact our neighborhood. Traffic is already heavy coming in and out of Tiffany Park. We have had several accidents on Lake Youngs Way and SE 16th Street and with more traffic including the heavy equipment over the next four years, then the additional residential daily traffic, it will surely get worse. 2) The newly built Tiffany Park Elementary School is at capacity -how would the additional students be accommodated? 3) The wetlands and environmental concerns really need to be addressed before any housing project can go further. Our community will be forever changed with the additional impacts on this beautiful area which currently has old growth trees. There are many more concerns that residents have about this project such as police coverage, bus transportation issues, but I am sure you have heard and are considering the entire picture of how this proposed development will affect our neighborhood. If a development is going to take place on this property, I would hope the size of the lots is revisited and the plans are changed to larger lot sizes which would result in fewer homes being built. The developer can still make money off his purchase and it would not have as much impact on our neighborhood if the houses were not so crowded into the available space. Please help our neighborhood maintain its integrity by not packing so many houses on this beautiful property. Sincerely, Belinda Mathers 2806 SE 16th St Renton WA 98058 1 Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: • Jane Worden <janelworden@gmail.com> Thursday, August 07, 2014 9:36 AM Rocale Timmons Tiffany Park ReselVe LUA 13-001572 Follow up Flagged Hello, I'm writing to deny this project as proposed. Below are the main reasons: 1) I enjoy and use this area almost daily as do many of my neighbors. this is a huge loss to us. 2) 90% oftrees will be destroyed. 3) negative impact on wetlands areas 4) project is too large, adversely impacting our traffic congestion 5) proposed lots are smaller than existing lots, packing in more homes in less space. 6) schools in area are already full. 7) there would be less impact on existing neighborhoods if this was done in stages rather than all at once. Thank you for your consideration. -Jane Jane L. Worden 15624 129th Place SE Renton, WA 98058 206.271.2675 1 Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: August 1, 2014 Rocale Timmons City of Renton -Current Planning Senior Planner J 055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 • Barbi Smith <barbiandlance@live.com> Friday, August 01, 2014 5:23 PM Rocale Timmons Public Comment Follow up Flagged Re: Tiffany Park Reserve LUA 13-001572 • As per your email dated 7/25/14, I am providing this written statement regarding the Tiffany Park Reserve Proposed Development. Per you, I am allowed this statement be submitted via email versus regular postal service mail. My opposition to this development remains unchanged. I remain steadfast in my position that this development will destroy the very quality of life that we have come to enjoy and for the quality of life for the generations to come. And when I say "we" I mean not only us homeowners and families impacted but all the wildlife that lives IN those woods. If I had my way, those woods would be designated as "unbuildable" or "undevelopable". That is what was originally told to me when I purchased my home here 34 years ago. There is no study in the world that could be done that would make me change my mind because no study in the world will ever realize or capture the devastation that destroying these woods for the sake of development will cause. WILDLIFE In my 34 years of living here, I've seen it all and continue to see it all each and every day. It's a daily part of life seeing all that lives in those woods. When those woods surrounding the water tower at the top of the hill were destroyed like a thief in the night some years back, all that wildlife migrated to our Tiffany Park woods. It is just totally mind boggling to me that not one public official gives a care about where they will go or what will ultimately become of all of them. No one cares about wildlife preservation anymore? Some study said there would be no impact? Maybe I grew up in a different time or maybe it's just being a person of faith, that it runs in the roots of my very being to respect life -that means ALL LIFE. It appears in this world of increased revenue and making money and then more and more money, that the most basic principals of doing what is good and right is ignored and is not relevent or important. Not important to the developers, not important to the city, not important to those that do the studies. Money is what has become of utmost impartance. Sad -very sad situation. The propose buffer does nothing -serves no purpose except to give lip service and avoid the real issue at hand. THE WOODS My home is different than others up here. I am on the greenbelt -the Mercer Island Pipeline road. Other homes on this greenbelt have the back of their homes facing the woods that are to be developed. Mine, however, is configured on the lot so that one entire side and a part of the front of my home faces those woods. My primary view is that of the 1 woods. Additionally, when going ou. the back upper deck off the dining roomIe view is that primarily of these woods .. A property with a view, even though it's JUST a view of the woods, and the privacy it offers, is going to be able to sell at a higher price than a traditional box lot with a view of nothing but other homes. The buffer referenced in the proposed plat means nothing in that regard either. If those woods are destroyed, so is part of the homes'value. Who will pay for that difference for me? OTHER IMPACTS Traffic: Given the proposed access routes to this development, there is going to be a significant and detrimental impact to the surrounding area -not to mention folks living on those access routes. Have any of you actually seen this area in person so you will know what kind of a nightmare this will be? With cars parked on both sides of the street in today's world, it's tricky to navigate when opposing traffic is coming but if this development is allowed? It will be tremendously unsafe. Drainage: Given I have had drainage issues in the easement I have on my property by the city, I'm concerned about the impact the proposed homes will have. When the city was here a few months ago to unclog a severely backed up storm drain (under the direction of Stan Jobe), the workers told me they did not even know there was some sort of feed pipe into this easement that was causing my property to become totally saturated. They said it had not ever been cleaned out as far as they could tell (because they didn't know it was there). While I truly appreciate the city taking care of this issue, it does not give me a great deal of confidence that the city truly knows where all these drains go and what possible negative and damaging impact this development could cause in that regard. Wetlands: When the last group of (least I think it was the last group) of surveyors/engineers came to identify and mark the wetland areas, one of them called me a "tree hugger" because he said people don't want to see homes go up. Mind you this person did not know me or know I was even in the know about houses going up. I thought they were here to fix the drainage problem in my easement since I'd called the city the day before letting them know it was flooding. I find it difficult to take seriously the merit of their evaluation of the wetlands given their demeanor. SUMMARY At the meeting that was held up at Tiffany Park Elementary School some months back, we asked Randy Corman if viSits were ever made to areas such as this that are about to be destroyed. His response was that they generally do not do that. We strongly encouraged him to do so but I, do not know if anyone ever did. Likewise I do not know if anyone has extended an invitation to Mr. Corman or anyone else involved in this decision. I would personally like to invite whomever would like to come, to please do so. I will need to know at least a couple days in advance so I can get the day off from work. I would like for you all to experience what a day is like up here. I'm probably dreaming but I think you would find it quite remarkable. Here is what you would see: Right at the crack of dawn, you can hear all the bird chirping being. Robins, towhees, sparrows and swallows ---even the crows. The deer wander in and out of the woods into the greenbelt -given all the blackberries on the greenbelt road, they like to nibble early in the day. The squirrels begin dismounting their trees and scamper over to see what food they may have missed the day before -then they get their drinks out of the birdbath. You would hear the absolute peace and calm of nothing more than an occasional plane in the distant sky, a random car on Pierce Avenue SE and footsteps of folks and their dogs jogging on the greenbelt. You should see the sun shine through the trees in those woods as it makes it's way across the sky. As dusk approaches, the chicken hawks (I think they are actually called Ring Tail Hawks) may come perch on the fence -up to 3 at a time sometimes. Pigeons come get their last drinks of the day from the birdbaths, and you can look up and see birds heading back to their roosts in the woods. Now and then you see a pair of coyotes trolling down the greenbelt -not bothering anyone -just on a mission to get home, I guess. And then a co~ple hours after dark, you can hear the owls do their night song off and on. At the end of it all, my comment comes to this: 2 • • "We" did not create these woods. They were here when we all got here and they have been there for years beyond imagining. The only person that can destroy these woods is the creator of them and that is God. And for whatever reason, he has seen fit for all these years to keep them intact. No one else should play God and destroy them. Not the developer, not the city, not the school district that is trying to sell these woods, NO ONE. Thank you, Barbara Smith 3619 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 425.917.9769 barbiandlance@live.com Tiffany Park Reserve LUA 13-001572 3 .. ------•• ~------------------- Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: • Barbi Smith <barbiandlance@live.com> Thursday, August 07, 2014 5:36 PM barbiandlance@live.com; Rocale Timmons Re: Public Comment Follow up Flagged Re: Tiffany Park Reserve LUA 13-001572 • ADDITIONAL COMMENT TO BE A PART OF THE BELOW PUBLIC COMMENT OF MINE REGARDING THIS DEVELOPMENT. Reviewed some additional information in the proposed plan and I have additional concerns/comments/opinion: The impact this development will have as a 4 year plan is yet another reason (in addition to those stated below) that this development cannot proceed. 4 years? 1 year to cut all the woods down and then all the traffic for a few years to get the big trucks in and out of here? This area cannot support/handle that activity. Has anyone actually considered this impact? As I indicate below, I live on that green belt and a good stretch of the woods to be destroyed are right out my window. The dirt, the dust, the noise? How can the city even think about approving this development? That is going to significantly cause a decline in our quality of life having to deal with all that at all-let alone for that many years? There's arsenic in that soil. 20.01-40.00 ppm per the King County website. Stirring all that up to destroy the woods? Seriously, this development cannot proceed. Thank you for adding this to my original comments below. Barbi Smith From: barbiandlance@live.coril sent: FridaY,August 01, 20145:22 PM To: Rocale Timmons . Subject: Public Comment August 1, 2014 Rocale Timmons City of Renton -Current Planning Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 Re: Tiffany Park Reserve LUA 13-001572 As per your email dated 7/25/14, I am providing this written statement regarding the Tiffany Park Reserve Proposed Development. Per you, I am allowed this statement be submitted via email versus regular postal service mail. 1 My opposition to this development re.ns unchanged. I remain steadfast in mylition that this development will destroy the very quality of life that we have come to enjoy and for the quality of life for the generations to come. And when I say "we" I mean not only us homeowners and families impacted but all the wildlife that lives IN those woods. If I had my way, those woods would be designated as "unbuildable" or "undevelopable". That is what was originally told to me when I purchased my home here 34 years ago. There is no study in the world that could be done that would make me change my mind because no study in the world will ever realize or capture the devastation that destroying these woods for the sake of development will cause. WILDLIFE In my 34 years of living here, I've seen it all and continue to see it all each and every day. It's a daily part of life seeing all that lives in those woods. When those woods surrounding the water tower at the top of the hill were destroyed like a thief in the night some years back, all that wildlife migrated to our Tiffany Park woods. It is just totally mind boggling to me that not one public official gives a care about where they will go or what will ultimately become of all of them. No one cares about wildlife preservation anymore? Some study said there would be no impact? Maybe I grew up in a different time or maybe it's just being a person of faith, that it runs in the roots of my very being to respect life -that means ALL LIFE. It appears in this world of increased revenue and making money and then more and more money, that the most basic principals of doing what is good and right is ignored and is not relevent or important. Not important to the developers, not important to the city, not important to those that do the studies. Money is what has become of utmost importance. Sad -very sad situation. The propose buffer does nothing -~erves no purpose except to give lip service and avoid the real issue at hand. THE WOODS My home is different than others up here. I am on the greenbelt -the Mercer Island Pipeline road. Other homes on this greenbelt have the back of their homes facing the woods that are to be developed. Mine, however, is configured on the lot so that one entire side and a part of the front of my home faces those woods. My primary view is that of the woods. Additionally, when going out on the back upper deck off the dining room, the view is that primarily of these woods. A property with a view, even though it's JUST a view of the woods, and the privacy it offers, is going to be able to sell at a higher price than a traditional box lot with a view of nothing but other homes. The buffer referenced in the proposed plat means nothing in that regard either. If those woods are destroyed, so is part of the homes'value. Who will pay for that difference for me? OTHER IMPACTS Traffic: Given the proposed access routes to this development, there is going to be a significant and detrimental impact to the surrounding area -not to mention folks living on those access routes. Have any of you actually seen this area in person so you will know what kind of a nightmare this will be? With cars parked on both sides of the street in today's world, it's tricky to navigate when opposing traffic is coming but if this development is allowed? It will be tremendously unsafe. Drainage: Given I have had drainage issues in the easement I have on my property by the city, I'm concerned about the impact the proposed homes will have. When the city was here a few months ago to unclog a severely backed up storm drain (under the direction of Stan Jobe), the workers told me they did not even know there was some sort of feed pipe into this easement that was causing my property to become totally saturated. They said it had not ever been cleaned out as far as they could tell (because they didn't know it was there). While I truly appreciate the city taking care of this issue, it does not give me a great deal of confidence that the city truly knows where all these drains go and what possible negative and damaging impact this development could cause in that regard. Wetlands: When the last group of (least I think it was the last group) of surveyors/engineers came to identify and mark the wetland areas, one of them called me a "tree hugger" because he said people don't want to see homes go up. Mind you 2 this person did not know me or knOl.as even in the know about houses gOingt. 1 thought they were here to fix the drainage problem in my easement since I'd called the city the day before letting them know it was flooding. 1 find it difficult to take seriously the merit of their evaluation of the wetlands given their demeanor. ' SUMMARY At the meeting that was held up at Tiffany Park Elementary School some months back, we asked Randy Corman if visits were ever made to areas such as this that are about to be destroyed. His response was that they generally do not do that. We strongly encouraged him to do so but 1 do not know if anyone ever did. Likewise 1 do not know if anyone has extended an invitation to Mr. Corman or anyone else involved in this decision. 1 would personally like to invite whomever would like to come, to please do so. 1 will need to know at least a couple days in advance so 1 can get the day off from work. 1 would like for you all to experience what a day is like up here. I'm probably dreaming but 1 think you would find it quite remarkable. Here is what you would see: Right at the crack of dawn, you can hear all the bird chirping being. Robins, towhees, sparrows and swallows ---even the crows. The deer wander in and out of the woods into the greenbelt -given all the blackberries on the greenbelt road, they like to nibble early in the day. The squirrels begin dismounting their trees and scamper over to see what food they may have missed the day before -then they get their drinks out of the birdbath. You would hear the absolute peace and calm of nothing more than an occasional plane in the distant sky, a random car on Pierce Avenue SE and footsteps of folks and their dogs jogging on the greenbelt. You should see the sun shine through the trees in those woods as it makes it's way across the sky. As dusk approaches, the chicken hawks (I think they are actually called Ring Tail Hawks) may come perch on the fence -up to 3 at a time sometimes. Pigeons come get their last drinks of the day from the birdbaths, and you can look up and see birds heading back to their roosts in the woods. Now and then you see a pair of coyotes trolling down the greenbelt -not bothering anyone..! just on a mission to get home, 1 guess. And then a couple hours after dark, you can hear the owls do their night song off and on. At the end of it all, my comment comes to this: "We" did not create these woods. They were here when we all got here and they have been there for years beyond imagining. The only person that can destroy these woods is the creator of them and that is God. And for whatever reason, he has seen fit for all these years to keep them intact. No one else should play God and destroy them. Not the developer, not the city, not the school district that is trying to sell these woods, NO ONE. Thank you, Barbara Smith 3619 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 425.917.9769 barbiandlance@live.com Tiffany Park Reserve LUA 13-001572 3 r---- Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: • Elizabeth Frisch <frimama@gmail.com> Thursday, August 07, 2014 8:32 PM Rocale Timmons • Proposed Reserve At Tiffany Park, LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR Follow up Flagged My family and I have several of concern regarding the proposed development. We have lived in Renton adjacent to the development, raised our children here, and were looking forward to retirement in our quiet, peaceful neighborhood. The woods behind our house contributes a great deal to the atmosphere of our neighborhood. The potential destruction ofthe great majority of the trees in this area, especially the large (old cedar?) trees within the wetland buffer will potentially destroy sensitive wetland areas. We would hope that all development in these area retain a protective buffer to assure the integrity of the wetlands. Development negatively impacts sensitive areas and an adequate buffer will help reduce the disturbance of critical areas. We are also concerned that the Critical Area Exemption for the extension of SE 18th street will further disturb these wetland areas. Further, we believe the size and magnitude of the proposed development will only have a negative traffic impact on our peaceful neighborhood streets. There is NO EXISTING arterial to relieve the substantial traffic increase. Traffic speeding through our street (Pierce Ave. SE) is bad enough without the proposed development. We are also concerned that the R6 zoning as compared to the R4 zoning in the existing neighorhood will impact our neighborhood. We are also wondering how the existing (at capacity) Tiffany Park Elementary School will handle the influx of students that this will bring, including the increase in traffic on Lake Youngs Way during the school year. Speaking from years of experience the traffic before and after school is a mob/nightmare of children walking and parents picking up/dropping off their children. I am not sure how a monetary contribution to the school district will help mitigate the reality of traffic conditions. We well as these concerns, we greatly fear that that the development as proposed will have a negative impact on our quiet neighborhood, our quality oflife, we well as impacting the desirability of living in Renton. We encourage the denial of this project as proposed. Elizabeth Frisch Douglas Frisch Michael Frisch 1717 Pierce Ave. SE Renton, 98058 1 -I Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Rocale Timmons: • Larry Gorg <Ipgorg@comcast.net> Thursday, August 07, 2014 10:49 PM Rocale Timmons • Proposed Reserve At Tiffany Park, LUA13-001S72, ECF, PP, CAR Follow up Flagged Let me say this first, that I am biased in this new development in that it will negatively impact my quality of life. I live next to SE 18 th Street which means both Lake Youngs Way and SE 18 th street will become more busy, not just during commute times, but 7x24, on all days of the year. I also want to note that both the original timing and this later open period leaves much to suspect. The Original development was open for comments during Christmas, when everyone is busy. This new comment period is in August, when people and off on holiday before school starts in September. I have to wonder about the scheduling as it seems that you don't want any comments, at least you don't want any meaningful comments. I have not delved very deep into the documents, so my comments will not be very lengthy. From some of the others of the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group, it appears that after Otak made their comments, that the developer simply restaked the wetlands in the same place as before. I am one of those who frequent that area two or three times in a given week. It does not appear to me that the wetlands "moved" or were enlarged. I also am opposed to granting any reduction in wetlands, especially the one I believe is labeled critical for the extension of SE 18 th Street. . On the positive side, I do like the layout of the. development better than the previous. However, I will still stand by my original statement that there are too many homes on that plot ofland. More street access should be required for the amount of homes. This development does not have any major arterials that can absorb traffic the additional traffic. Thus, anyone who lives in the area will have degraded quality oflife. Once this development is started, we will never be able to get that quality of life back. The problems that are created by this development remain long after the builder has left, and those problems will have to be solved by others. It is easiest to resolve those problems now, while they are on everyone's mind. From the little I've seen of this project, I can honestly state that I believe that the lots are too small and do not fit into the pattern of the neighborhood. I believe that lots that are slightly larger than the house, do not serve the occupants very well. Homeowners should have something more than 3 feet on a side and a 5 foot front and back yard. Most of the existing'homes in the neighborhood have substantial side or back yards. Finally, I will retreat back to the wetlands and vegetation. I have not looked into the documents concerning the number of trees, but will base my comments on what some of the others have stated. Wet lands should retain those trees that surround them. The wet lands are impacted by what surrounds them. Just because a tree grows three feet outside a wet land boundary, does not mean that its disappearance will not be felt. Vegetation surrounding a wetland is just as important as the vegetation inside the wet land boundary. The more trees saved, the better, in my opinion. 1 - ------------------------------------ Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: • Dave Beedon <davebeedon@comcast.net> Friday, August 08, 2014 12:10 PM Rocale Timmons • Subject: Traffic mitigation for the Reserve at Tiffany Park Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged Subject: Reserve at Tiffany park, LUA13-001572, ECF, PP To: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner CEO -Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton W A 98057 Ms. Timmons, I have read in documents related to the development of the Reserve at Tiffany Park that the developer (or the developer's agent) has proposed mitigating the increase in traffic on SE 18 th Street by eliminating parking on the north side of the street. I might also have read somewhere of a suggestion to widen the street. I find these ideas to be illogical and unfair to residents. It's my beliefthat parking on both sides of the street has been permitted since the street was created over 30 years ago. It is an amenity of the neighborhood that is used and appreciated by residents and visitors. The development will raise the traffic volumes dramatically on SE 18 th Street The increase in traffic alone will make the street less attractive to buyers of houses there, thus taking away some value from properties along that street. Any restriction on parking will reduce the present convenience enjoyed by residents and visitors and further reduce property values. Widening the street would also reduce property values by placing curbs closer to sidewalks, increasing the danger to pedestrians. In each of these cases, the developer, who has no interest in the neighborhood except as a vehicle for making money, gains at the expense of the existing residents. Because the proposed development is hurting the existing neighborhood, the developer should bear the burden of any mitigation for ·increasing traffic there. But the proposals I've mentioned place no burden on the developer: in each case the residents bear the burden. Restricting parking on SE 18 th Street (or on any street outside the development) is no burden for the developer .. Widening the street is no burden for the developer unless the developer pays for it. But even if the developer pays for it, the burden is miniscule because ofthe developer's great financial resources. By contrast, the existing property owners, with far fewer financial resources, suffer much more, and for as long as they own the property. 1 Long after the developer sells the. and is gone, the residents will continlo suffer the consequences of such "mitigation." That might be legal, but it is not fair. To levee a traffic impact fee on the developer might help the City justify the size of the development, but does absolutely nothing for the people who live on SE 18 th Street, whose property values will drop. The only sensible mitigation for the increase in traffic is to limit the amount of traffic going to and coming from the development. This can be accomplished by reducing the number of lots that can be built. Rather than allowing the developer to create 97 lots, the number oflots should be limited to a much smaller number. City government exists primarily to serve its residents. Fostering a good business climate is also important, but should not override concerns for the people who live in the City, the people who vote government officials into office. An overwhelming majority of residents oppose the development in any form. My suggestion for traffic mitigation conflicts with the way things are done but it places the burden for the development where it belongs---on the developer.. I hope the City will reject the types of mitigation I have read about and significantly limit the number of lots that can be built at the Reserve at Tiffany Park. Dave Beedon 1725 Pierce Avenue SE Renton W A 98058 2 Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Aug. 8,2014 • Mary&Jim <jmhbr@aol.com> Friday, August 08, 2014 2:03 PM Rocale Timmons Tiffany Park Reserve LUA 13-001572 Follow up Flagged • Subject: Tiffany Park Woods Development (Tiffany Park Reserve LUA 13-001572) AnN: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner We are opposed to the development of this area. Our main concern is the retention ponds you are proposing. They will, without question, add additional drainage problems to already existing water coming from the wetland area behind our home during the rainy season. Any more water could lead to seepage under and into our house, which would cause the house to settle, the foundation to crack, or the structure itself to be damaged. Also, we opposed the entrance on SE 18th Street. We live less than one block from the proposed entrance. The construction vehicles, parking, dust, and dirt over the four years that you are projecting, and the heavy volume of traffic once the project is complete, will have a severe impact on us and all our neighbors. Please reconsider this project due to the negative affect it will have on this community. Thank you. Jim and Mary Haber 1716 Monroe Ave. SE. Renton, WA 98058 425-271-0147 jmhbr@aol.com 1 • • Rocale Timmons From: Sent: John Knutson <john.knutson@rentonschools.us> Friday, August 08, 2014 3:08 PM To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Rocale, Rocale Timmons Barbara.Yarington@mainvuehomes.com FW: Response for: Permission to bring an independent wetland specialist on to the property owned by the Renton school district, LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR Follow up Flagged Re: Reserve at Tiffany Park, Project LUA13-001S72, ECF, PP, CAR For your files: Renton School District's response to Ms. Renate Beedon's request for permission for an independent wetlands review. Let me know if you have any questions regarding this matter. John Knutson, CPA Assistant Superintendent, Business Operations Renton School District (42S) 204-2387 -----Original Message----- From: Merri Rieger Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 1:49 PM To: rentonwa1@gmail.com Cc: Randy Matheson; John Knutson; AI Talley; Denise Eider; Lynn Desmarais; Pam Teal; Sandy Dolph; Todd Franceschina Subject: Response for: Permission to bring an independent wetland specialist on to the property owned by the Renton school district, LUA13-001S72, ECF, PP, CAR Dear Ms. Beedon, I received your request of August 6, 2014 for access to the District's undeveloped land near the Tiffany Park neighborhood for the purpose of conducting an independent wetlands review. After determining that the property was no longer necessary for school purposes, Renton Schools Board of Directors decided in 2012 to offer it for sale and dedicate the proceeds toward school construction. To that end, the Board approved a purchase and sale agreement on May 22, 2013 putting into motion the sales process. The agreement authorized the purchaser to assess the property's suitability for the intended development, and to take steps to obtain the necessary approvals in compliance with City of Renton ordinances and regulations. The purchaser has submitted environmental and wetlands surveys as required .by the City, and is currently working with the City to obtain the approval necessary to finalize the sale. Unless required by the City of Renton, additional surveys 1 will not serve to advance the distric.nterest to finalize the sale on the terms ctained in the purchase and sale agreement. For this reason I am denying your request as it is not in the best interest of the district, its students, taxpayers and its educational mission. Sincerely, Merri Rieger Superintendent -----Original Message----- From: rentonwa1@gmail.com [mailto:rentonwa1@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 12:40 PM To: Merri Rieger Cc: Randy Matheson; John Knutson; Lynn Desmarais Subject: Permission to bring an independent wetland specialist on to the property owned by the Renton school district, LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR Dear Dr. Rieger, We hereby request permission from the Renton school district to bring an independent wetland specialist onto the subject property to review the wetlands therein. Thank you. Renate Beedon, President Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Sent from my iPad 2 Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: To: Rocale Timmons • Alaine Ikuta <bzlenny@icloud.com> Friday, August 08, 20144:06 PM Rocale Timmons ·v Proposed Reserve at Tiffany Park: LUA13-001S72, ECF, PP, CAR Follow up Flagged I have been a homeowner in Tiffany Park since 1981 and live on Pierce A venue SE. I have many concerns regarding the development of the woods that is directly behind my home. The destruction of almost all the trees, displacement of all the wildlife and the building of approximately 90+ homes in close proximity to sensitive wetlands is unacceptable. The proposed development will cause increased traffic in our neighborhood that is currently already experiencing high traffic. I oppose the current timeline of the development/construction of the woods. I have concerns about the noise, dust, traffic and construction traffic delays in my neighborhood. I am hopeful that the City of Renton and the developer will keep Tiffany Park residents in mind when making decisions that impaCt our existing neighborhood. I encourage the denial of the proposed project. Alaine Ikuta Sent from my iPad 1 \lot1 ~H;VLR ftvl C£5' ~\vJA ~~o(~ Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: • Georgerock <georgerock518@comcast.net> Friday, August 08, 2014 4:54 PM Rocale Timmons Tiffany Park, LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR Follow up Flagged • Subject: Proposed Reserve At Tiffany Park, LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR Dear Rocale Timmons: After living in Tiffany park since 1976 this area and the school can't handle this or any other new housing development. The whole Renton SE hill not only has this development but several others that will bring in hundreds of people to the area . . The roads cant handle the traffic know in Tiffany Park area and the whole hill. r know from the past that this is going to pass and all the correspondences will not even be considered and/or read. It maybe time to sell and move or rent the single family house to KC multiply families. ~.ovost( This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. ~ .. r- 1 Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Dear Rocale Timmons: • • Rachael Mandy <rachael.mandy@aggiemail.usu.edu> Friday, August 08, 2014 5:12 PM Rocale Timmons Tiffany Park ReselVe LUA 13-001572 Follow up Flagged I oppose the development of the Tiffany Park woods. We visit these woods everyday and it will simply be heartbreaking to see the destruction of this beautiful landscape. It will also be a tragic loss of habitat for many wildlife creatures (coyotes, deer, raccoons, owls, woodpeckers, moles, birds, squirrels, etc.) We currently see this type of wildlife almost weekly behind our home and know this will all be gone after the woods are destroyed. I also have STRONG concerns about the influx on students at the local elementary school. We have a one year old that will be attending this elementary school in a few years. We know the school is already at capacity and we will be moving if we are forced to bus to a different school even though we live two blocks away. We also have concerns about the increased traffic. We currently have such a quiet street and I allow my child to run freely on the sidewalks without much concern. I also use the public transit and know my park and ride and bus will be even more full (already over capacity) with all of the new developments. I am forced to stand even when arriving 15 minutes early for my bus. I know of several hundred apartments units being built in our area which will also put a strain on these resources. Please explain how this development will actually benefit our current community? I know they sayan increase in tax revenue but that is clearly not going to the schools because they were forced to sell this land (Tiffany Park Woods) in the first place. I also don't think these new houses will increase the value of our home as it will make traffic worse, schools more crowded, and there is now less space for recreation (one of the main reasons we moved into this neighborhood). Please take my comments into consideration for the denial of this application. Please look at these woods as more than just revenue for the city; they are a place for our children to explore nature, a little piece of heaven and untouched by urban sprawl. I strongly encourage you to take the time and actually VISIT these woods before you decide to tear them all down (maybe watch Fern Gully or the Lorax) as good reminder of how quickly and carelessly we destroy beautiful things. Thank you for your time, Rachael Bell Please add this to the official record. 1 , . -, • August 6, 2014 City of Renton Community & Economic Development Dept. 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Wa 98057 Ref: Reserve at Tiffany Park, LUA13-001572, EC, PP, CAR Attn: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner • Thank you for providing the information and documents related to the Tiffany Park Project. I am a neighbor to the Tiffany Park Woods. My home is directly next to the woods, separated only by a chain link fence. Thus, I am privileged to receive many visitors to my backyard, who live in the woods, particularly the avian neighbors. What a wonderful assortment of unique birds currently inhabit these beautiful woods! As I reviewed the Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Study, together with the SEPA checklist, I noticed that many important birds were missing from their inventory. I would like to take this time to list some of the many birds I have observed (or heard) in or near these woods. Woodpeckers -Pileated. Downey. Flickers The Wildlife study seemed to indicate that the pileated woodpecker was not present in the woods. They definitely are present as I and my family have seen them on various occasions. In fact, this is the only place I have seen them. Though I have lived in Washington my entire life, mostly in the Seattle area, and have visited many city parks, state parks and national parks and forests, I have only seen these beautiful birds since moving to my home next to the Tiffany Park Woods 5 years ago. I have had pileated woodpeckers in my backyard and also saw one just last week on a street near the woods. I am attaching pictures that although fuzzy, still show the bird. I have no doubt these were pileated woodpeckers as they were large and had a beautiful flaming red crest. I have also seen many flickers and downey woodpeckers, but did not take pictures of them. SongBirds and other small birds-I have seen all types of sparrows, chickadees, nuthatches, wrens, bushtits, hummingbirds, juncos, goldfinch, and most recently golden crowned kinglets. I have especially enjoyed the visiting of the kinglets to my backyard, as these are birds I had never seen before living next to the Tiffany Park woods in Renton. Larger birds -Robins, stellar jays, towhees, hawks, and owls -in particular I have enjoyed hearing at night, the deep loud call of what I believe is the great horned owl. I am taking the time to write this letter, because I believe these are special woods that should be preserved. They are full of a large variety oftrees and shrubs that provide habitat for all of the beautiful birds I mentioned above, as well as deer, rabbits and other small wildlife. They also provide a lovely place for people to walk, explore and enjoy the peace and quiet they provide. Once the woods are gone, they are gone forever. Houses can be built anywhere. I wish that there could be some way to preserve them for generations to come. Thank you, .~A~ Susanne Swanson 3307 S.E. 20th Ct. Renton, WA 98058 Pile~ted Woodpecker -on property liacent to Tiffany Park Woods Unfortunately the pictures are fuzzy, and don't pick up the beautiful red crest. • • • Denis Law. ~ayo~ August 6, 2014 Claudia Donnelly . '10415 147th Ave'SE . Rent()n, WA98059 Community & Economic Development Department .' C.E."Chip'Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE ATTIFFANVPARKCOMMENT RESPONSE 1£JTER ....•. LUAi~-OOlSn,pl',ECF . ,', ".' · Dear Mrs~. Donnelly: .. ' . ":' . •. : Thankyou for your comments related to the ReserVe at Tiffany Park; dated July 28, 2014 (received on August4, 2014), Yourletter wHl.be added to thepubli~ reeordfor consideration by the reviewing cifflcialand you have been added as a party of record. -,-. . . . ., , . -. . To address your concerns the applicant;""m be required to co'mply with the CitY's · develop~erit (tree)rE!gulations as~elrasWashi~gton State;s·Envlr~nmentaiPolicy ... (SEPA) which inciudesreq~irE;me~t; formitigationfor impacts caused by the .• de~el~pmerit. . . . . . The City will review the proposal with regar.d toth~ protection of .,faluable . • ..... erivironnientalameilities andtci enslirethe'develoPrnent is as compatible as possible with the ecci,logicalbalanceof the area.' The goalsofth~ City are top reserve drainage' patterns; .protect groundwater supply, preventerosiciri 'and to preserve trees ·and ... · natural vegetation. Additionally, the applkantis required to demon~tr~te pr~per . . . provisions for all public facil,ities(including access; circulation, 'utilities, ~ndservkes).·· . '. Thank you for interest in.thisproject and if you haveaily furtherquesti6ils please' feel.' f~eetoeontaCt~ea~ 425"430~n19 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov, Thank Y()u.. . . . .' ~ . . . . .. Sincer~eIY':'" ..............•• ' .. ~ ........................ . ....... ~ .. ac leTim .'.' . . . . Se or Planner' .' .'. ". .' , ,-:'.. . .' '. -",' ... ' '. ':" ." .' . Re,nto~ City .H~!I .• 1 055 ·South-(;rady.wa~ -. Re~t~nl W~shi~'g~on' 98057 .; ren~onw,a.gov i '1 . I I . I i I I I , • Ms. Rocale Timmons, Planner City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 RE: Tiffany Park Reserve Dear Ms. Timmons: • 10415 -147'" Avenue SE Renton, W A 98059 July 28, 2014 iljZ/~! ILwL- !l!1lJ4tbJ52 lu?LtffV, 'lit6 , RECEIVE::; AUG 0,4 20:t, CITY OF REf,;"'" 'J PLANNING OII.";;"J' ' I would like to submit these comments on the above referenced proposed plat. According to the statement, this property has 1,305 trees and the developer proposes to "save" 147. According to Renton's tree ordinance, at least 30% of the trees must be retained. In the Renton Reporter, you stated that all the trees would be coming down. As an employee of Renton, why didn't you say something about the tree ordinance? b. ,Residential: . ~, ' :. r; _ . i. RG, R-1, R-4 and R-a Zones:,Thirty percent (30~/o).of the trees shall . . _ !!" ;'J. ." >. be retained in a residential or institutional developmerit " ii. R-10, R-14, RM-F, RM-T, RM-U and RMH: Ten percent (100~o) of the trees shall be retained in a residential or institutional development c. All Other Zones: Five percent (5%) of the trees located on the lot shall be considered protected and retained in commercial or industrial developments. How will Renton officials protect the "protected" trees? One of the people wanting to develop this property is Wayne Potter -who is also involved with Windstone. The contractor in this project also allowed all the trees to be cut -now they are putting in "replacement trees", Replacement trees take years to grow to the point to where the trees cut do~n are. Why not make them replace, the removed trees with "big trees"? Also, who will stop the clear cutting like what took place on the "protected trees" of Piper's Bluff? I will be providing pictures later. ,. According to the preliminary plat reportJor Piper:sBluff, there are 211 trees on site. The developer must retairi'at least 47 trees on site. All of the trees are gone. I've been told that higher caliper trees will be planted to "replace" said trees. That remains to be seen for the future. How many of the 1305 will be mitigated or replaced? .. .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------• • A third concern would be the stormwater detention pond that is proposed to be built. How will the developer protect the wetland from yellow water? At Windstone, the detention pond broke in August 2004 and spilled yellow water into May Creek. At Piper's Bluff, the detention pond broke 3 different times and spilled yellow water into a wetland and Honey Creek. How will the City of Renton protect the wetland close to this proposed development when Renton officials don't work on the weekends? Renton doesn't have a very good track record in protecting wetlands. I have spoke to residents of the Tiffany Park area and they know about yellow water. Also, Renton has an ordinance that talks about hours of construction. How does Renton officials propose to enforce that ordinance so that neighbors aren't bothered by the noise? In addition, Renton is supposed to have an ordinance keeping dirt off the road and protecting streams. How do you propose to keep the dirt off the road? Saying that the developer is.supposed to keep the roads clean and actually seeing it done are 2 different things. This ordinance also says no construction on Sundays ---but they don't enforce it. b. Commercial, Multi-Family, New Single Family and Other Nonresideutial Construction Activities: Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. Another concern is that Renton officials don't require the contractor to get the necessary NPDES permit required by DOE before works starts. In addition, the city doesn't require erosion control fences to go up to protect wetlands or other people's property or streams before clearing starts. They also don't make contractors to have the necessary permits before clearing starts -from Renton. In the late 1 990s, a developer --at Stonegate --cleared 3 lots without having the necessary permits. They didn't do anything to the developer. Thank you, in advance for any consideration you give·these topics. Sincerely, ~~ ~~ ~ -~ "- ~~ ~ '-- ~ ::( -:J-t:- ~~ ~~ o 'I .r era "'00 ,<ii" boa o ~ • : .9 \1 o o . " . . .. ,,'h- o· , , , • <0 \ \ .. ' '00 00 '" o • ( f' . 7 ; 'I' 1(" o • , "'\)" 0 "" . . oP, ~ .. '\ " \ cj o o • • "''I> "i • -'." o ... .,- • 0'1" s~· ~ 0,. ~ o o ';P' o· • • , • a a , •• a ,? , . "'" • ,i '''iI • '<;,> , ",:, , '!\ "01 '0(>. q, B ~Q '('-.9"'» • a , , .. o . • 0 :(i; () 00"0 '; o • • a "'~ 0 . , " O~,. ,,;P ,', z Q ~ ~ o ~ iii z :5 .. z g z w '" ~ o ~5 -------------------------- • Smith. Barbi M. From: Sent: To: " Subject: Barbi Smith <barbiandlance@live.com> Tuesday, November 18, 2014 10:10 AM Smith, Barbi M. Fw: From: BarbLM.SMith@welisfargo.com Sent: Friday, October 10, 20142:14 PM To: barbiandlance@live.com Re: MainVue Homes -Any Feedback? Options 09-27-2013 04:26 PM We have the same issue with appliances and customer service. Everything becomes a "do it yourself' after the purchase of the home. They pass the ball from one person to the next, mainvue employees will call to let you know they care:it is all a PR stunt. If they care they will be proactive, take ownership fix the issues and deal with suppliers themselves. When a supplier doesn't stand behind the quality of their products, how is that the home owne~s responsibility to fix when Mainvue is the one that made the deals with the suppliers? ' Their priorities are backwards; If problems arise, they need to work through them so that their buyers feel satisfied about the situation in the end. The last thing you want is a string of unhappy buyers, because that will not help you establish a favorable reputation under any circumstances. Providing excellent customer services, and addressing problems promptly, has to be a top priority .. The most important thing this builder can do to protect their reputation is to be proactive. By focusing on the things that will make, and keep, their buyers happy, and then spreading the word about that happiness and trust, their business will come out on top! (their choice 10-14-2013 08:31 AM I am a potential buyer and as toying around with the idea of Mainvue homes. This past Saturday, I went by their upcoming property in Renton and saw some workers in action. I must say they dont seem to have an organized way of doing things. There was one finished proerty with it's fencing broken. The build process was haphazard and they just seemed to be interested in finishing the project and move on rather than building with care and quality. 05-24-2013 01 :51 PM I am a MainVue home owner and when I was buying there we're no reviews on MainVue, so now I want to share ... I have found the quality of the homes to be lacking. The homes are slammed together so quickly that a lot of short cuts are taken. We have cabinet handles in the kitchen that are off center by over 2 inches, uneven floors in the downstairs, base molding that is bowed over 1I4in and the list goes on. My husband is a finish carpenter and he get very disgusted with the quality of work and materials. Unfortunately, we did not catch these things in the walk through and even what we did catch was only "repaired" to the bare minimum and some of the repairs later have failed. Lots of short cuts taken and it's pretty disappointing. I am not a happy MainVue home owner. I would not recommend them to a friend. In my optinion it's simply not quality construction Customer Service: non existent. If you buy the appliances through ManView al~n>!d.Js"O!illlilll!illiIlhllla!rul~~).l.IJarec.QJt:O~UR OWN. 'We purchase a refrigerator, a washer and dryer. EXHIBIT,-' .'-7_::Aq", ..... 'fe-.. ,--'-~_ LUA· ':'-'--',.....,-'--'-"-'-.,----,........,-"...:. 1 DATE: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION, • The refrigerator (1 month old!) broke down 2 days ago. We called MainVue, one of their agents finally pick up the phone and he promised top help us find someone. He coulnd't, no one picked up the phone. No rep from the MainVue "warranty" dept answered. Apparently, everyone was in ~ome kind of training. NO BACKUP • In the meantime, our refrigerator is leaking and damaging the hardwood floors. • We finally got the lady that did the walk through of the house, she couldnt do anything, it is not her department. Sent us back to "frigidaire" so, , we got another person from mainvue, can't do anything because she doesnt work the 'waranty" department. • TODAY the third day, we finally got the women in charge of "warranty" she cant do a thing and send us back to "frigidaire" which by the way .. we have been calling from day one with zero luck. • Finally got to talk to Mark and has been the only one going the extra mile for us making phone calls and truly trying to help us. Interesting fact he is an agent, sales office and it is doing things "not relateo to his department" . • On the other hand: we are still waiting for items (from the walk through) that need repair: brok.en windows in the living room and kitchen (they promised to install new windows in 2 weeks, it has been a month). Scratched windows in other areas, touch up paint around the house etc, so far, nothing has happened. '. Recommendation: We highly recommend Ms. Laura Hanes (the MainVue agent that sold us the house). This lady truly goes the extra 10000% for her customers, if it wasn't for her we would have walked away from this house. And Mark, for understanding customer service, going the extra mile and truly care for the reputation of MainVue. • Advice: review everything you sign with the lender ASK ASK ASK for clarification. Document all your questions and answeres received. If you buy applainces from them, make sure you understand the mainvue 'warranty'. During the walk through, do not be shy, LOOK everywhere. In one of our bedrooms, the door has a missed chunk of wood on the buttom, one of the workers was instructed to fix the issue on the spot. We came back the next day and nothing was repaired. We are still waiting .... • During our walk thorugh we were told "do not expect perfection" and I am thinking to myself, "you do expect full payment for the house", right?? • 09-17-201310:16AM-edited09-17-201310:23AM • We purchased earlier this year. In a few words, no customer Service, low quality home and the appliances are crap. • To get someone to resolve any issue related to the house requires divine intervention. • • Mainvue rely only on the good floor plans and outdoor room (novelty) to sell their homes. However, the value of a good reputation it's how customers purchase a product. It's what a loyal customer gravitate towards, what makes it easier for people to trust what you have to say and the products you offer. . • • The outdoor room and floor plan may get, Mainvue to the top, but it takes good customer service and good quality homes to keep them there. If they can't change the way they conduct business, In all good conscience, I could not recommend that you buy their homes. • 09-19-201303:04 PM -edited 09-19-2013 03:10 PM • We've fell in love with the Mainvue home eversince we stepped into thier model homes in Auburn when they first appeared a couple of years ago. What we love best is the style of thier home. They're mondern and the open layout with the huge slidedoor to the outdoor . room. We've rencently purchased our mainvue home and although we love our home there were a few things that we're not too happy about. Two biggest complaint about Mainvue is the customer service and the craftsmanship. When we decided to buy we were a bit deceived by Mainvue.The home was jusrabout to be built right before we've purchased it. They told us what the model was and a • photo of that model was posted on the lot and well as on thier website but it wasn't until we've received the blueprint of the house that we realized that we were not going to get the facade we thought we were going to get. We never realized that there were different facade for that particular model.When we did our walk through, it appears they dont want to fix anything but to touch up paint. I've pointed out a few things and the lady just kind of play it down like it's supposed to be like that. It's like I've never seen a brand new home before. I have to keep mentioning things a few times before she would write it down to get it fix. They left a mess of cable on the side of the house and she said the cable guys will clean that up when they installed our cable but that was not the case. The quality of the stuff is pretty mid range as I'm sure they have to cut corner to make some profit as they put in a lot of things many other builders don't. Now that we've live there for a few months, I've noticed few things, like the lock in our bathroom door doesn't even lock, floor creaks in certain area and the fridge they installed for us doesn't even make any ice. That's just to name a few. Also it's great that they did all the landscapping and even built a fance for us, but unfortuanally it wasn't so great for us since we lost like about 10" to a foot of our land to .our neighbor because of the way they built the fance and laid the stone. 2 -------------------------- --------------------~---------------------------------------------------- • Finally what really turns me off the most is that after closing, the keys to our house was just left on the fence post for us to find. It's the most expensive thing we've ever purchased but the keys can't even be handed to us by a real person. Our real estate agent even asked to get the keys and then will hand it to us but they don' allow that. So pretty much once they have your money they don't really care to provide you any service. • • Besides that everything went well, we've closed on time as we used our own lender. Thier sales agent worked with our agent and was responsive to our questions. I'm not asking for perfection but it would be nice if they care about thier homes and thier • reputation. Mainvue build such beautiful home so it's a shame that the the craftsmanship is lacking. I would never pay $600K that they are asking, for this quality of thier home in Renton. Other builders who price thier home for that much usually has high quality homes. • 10-15-2013 05:32 PM • In general I agree with the comments previously made by mainvue owners. The build process is haphazard and done by individuals with no clue what the word quality means. No personal pride in doing a job well by the contractors and no oversite to control quality by the builder. Too many errors and omissions to list here. They also went to great lengths to avoid having to fix things by denying the existence of a problem and bringing in their own "expert" to corroborate their position. Fortunately I had a highly competent inspector who was able to refute their argument by describing the problem in great detail and providing photo evidence as backup. The main selling point is the design concept but if could do it over again I would just copy the design as best I could and hire my own builder. After the sale I've had mixed results with their customer care people. Most items that I report under warranty are handled fairly but in a couple of instances I have been told that they will not fix the problem because i "should have caught that during the walkthrough inspection". So much for owning their work and standing behind it. Bottom line is that if you care about qua lily workmanship and customer care, my recomendation is that you look elsewhere and AVOID AVOID AVOID this builder. Did I mention that you should AVOID using Mainvue Homes? • 10-1 5-2013 05:46 PM • Armada, • • They don't deserve your hard earned money. I'd look somewhere else. • 11-12-201308:07 AM • This is where I found that I am not the only one dealing with horrible customer service stories from builder and their worthless WORTHLESS vendors, after a year I will tell this company how I feel. • • I work in a national retail company that stresses customer service. I also know in my company when a customer fills out a survey the management is informed the next day and is required to contact the customer immediatly and FIX the problem. I feel like Mainvue and all their worthless vendors is ignoring the situation. I have bought property before and always recieved immediate action to reasonable requests. But nothing from them, this builder does not feel the need to give their customers the well deserve appreciation and respect! • • This is what we hear from them "I am so sorry, our manager or president (or whatever) is informed and he will personally contact the 'vendor to expedite this".and this is where it stops. Fiddle dee dee! From this point on it becomes a viscious cycle of phone calls between YOU and the worthless vendorlwarranty rep. You have an emergency? may the force be with you my friend. You will have all the "understanding, pity and sorrow" from mainvue and the vendor rep or office person, followed by 2, 3, 4 maybe 5 weeks of waiting only to find out IE they can do whatever it is that you need to resolve your emergency. How about that? • • What is going to take for Mainvue to wake up and realize this vendors will dig their grave? a lawsuit?!!?! WAKE UP PEOPLE! • CHANGE VENDORS and their non existence warranty support> YOU PICK THEM, YOU GET RID OF THEMI DO not pass the burden to the customer that pay a great deal of money expecting good quality homes and service. I do not need your syumpathy, I need you to stand by your product with true actions. Making a phonecall to your vendor DOES NT DO SQUAT, AND it doesn't wash away the responsibility you owe to the customer that believed in you and your ability to manuifacture a good quality home and your WISDOM TO BE ABLE TO CHOOSE GOOD VENDORSIWARRANTY . • I am sharing my story in hope to help other customers avoid the worst companies with the worst service praclices. Based on my experience and some of the other reviews I blogs I have seen it is clear MAINVUE AND THEIR VENDORS AND BUILDING CREW has a flaky home quality control and serious vendors warranty issues. • 03-20-2014 11 :55 PM • I am a MainVue home owner. I am moving in 4 months now. I bought the house in 400K range but the house built qualities are nowhere near that price. My outdoor gutter always has water in it even there is no rain for days. Carpet floor up stair makes noise 3 o when you walk on certian area and stair as well. They didn't stitch the carpet properly because there are string threads everywhere. About Bob& Air Conditioning, is the worse contractor ever. All Mainvue home uses them. Now I am trying to ask them to fix the restroom moister built up on the fence-sometimes i have to take shower opening the bathroom door. I called them and left voice message twice with two days apart from each other and got no phone call returned. The house garage is very small. You can't park SUV or Van or truck in there. So don't trust the picture on the internet showing van and car parked in there because it only fits car like Accord, Camry etc, for us we can only use one side of the garage because other side they have water tank so the car can't go all the way in else will hit the tank. Very bad builder decision. o Their services are very slow. You report them and 2 months later they will respond you. If you report too much, they will treat you like you are shoppiing at walmart. For us buyer, this is the expensive purchase that we will spend money on yet they don't really care. After they have your money, they don't care anymore. I know it's hard to not buy MainVue home that was how I felt because I couldn't find any unique floorplan like them. So if you plan to buy their houses, just be prepared. o Message 22 of 32 (1,906 Views) o o In the frame walk, we noted our Grand utility room was missing a sink and noted the schematics of the utility room were off. MainVue's represented "assured us" that "everything will be fixed and to contract". Despite other contractual issues and disagreements we purged on. We finally came to the walk through May 2014. The walk through was a disaster our list was 3 pages of work orders. After 3 hrs and more issues to address, we decided to look into the crawl space since it's cover was also mIsaligned and not closing properly. And what do you know ... It was filled with murky water, standing smelly murky water! This of course was undisclosed to us, prior to the walk through. We immediately scheduled an inspector and requested them to use a 3rd party contractor to come in asses the issue and fix the problem. They refused to do this, stated they already had someone scheduled to come and take of the issue. MainVue then pressed us to close, we pushed closing, requested a follow up inspection and guess what he found??? Mold EVERYWHERE. They even replaced insulation behind moldy rafters. The inspector also stated that whatever MainVue did to solve the water problem (digging a giant hole in the comer and covering it up with gravel), probably wouldn't resolve the initial issue that caused the water retention. o o So this is for the buyers buying lot 66 Kendall Ridge 30606 134th ave ... yeah, I hope you got an inspection because your home has mold in the crawl space and it's only been 12 days since we rescinded the offer and it's now pending. I doubt the mold issue has been properly resolved or treated in 12 days. o I also hope you have a an agent that showed you that one of the rooms upstairs doesn't have a closet because they built the grand utility room and omitted the closet in one of the rooms due to it being off schematic at framing. Legally, it's not a 4 bedroom house if it doesn't have a closet, and they have continued to list it as a 4 bedroom since we dropped our offer. o o Do yourselves a favor, BUY FROM ANY BUILDER IN WASHINGTON THAT ISN'T HENLY OR MAINVUE. It's cheap work, it's bad customer service, and their cheap laborers do not know how to read a blue print or a floor plan. They obviously have no clue how to build a home since there are nothing but complaints online and from the neighbors in that developement. o o We got lucky and got out of a disaster. Our goal is to inform people of our negative experience with a horrible company that wasted our time for 7 months and destroyed the dream house we wanted to build for our family. o o 07-17-20t4 05:29 PM o Please stop with the nonsense. o o I WOULD AVOID MAINVUE AT ALL COST!! Sure homes look nice and that is what tricks everyone. Their warranty department is horrendous. o o We just bought a home with mainvue. I made a huge mistake. I should have never closed until everything was fixed. We did the walk through with Carrie she assured us everything will be fixed. Guess what lies. She does not reply to our emails or our phone calls o o . Mainvue touts that they are building 300 homes, guess what, QUANTITY DOES NOT EQUAL QUAliTY o o All the contractors are lazy, i have spoken with our neighbors we all have problems. Cheap paint being used, some cases does not even match. One of my neighbors breakfast bar has a different color piece to it. I mean seriously are these guys blind, how do you 4 ... , I , . ----------------------------------------------------- • install a 3 foot piece that is different color than rest. Dry walling appears to be done by kids. Cheap fioors they easily scratch. Doors do not sit fiush and close properly. Uneven walls. Come on is there no quality control? • Please actually drive by and look, i can point out multiple homes with problems with shingles in roofs 5 • Henley Reviews -ProductReview.com.au • • • • Up/henley.html?rating=5#reviews) Good .ill Up/hen ley .htm I ?rating=4#reviews) OK 12 _ (/p!~~!1I~Y·~!!!l1 ?~~!i~g",,}~E~yi_~~_~) __ __ . Bad 10 Up/henl ey .htm I ?rating=2#revi ews) Terrible 42 Up/henley.html?rating= I #reviews) Moved 2 months ago. 2 out of 5, reviewed on Sep 08, 2014 Page 3 of24 PeterM (/profile/561857.html) • I review • 2 helpful votes How would you rate Henle Click to rate Title of your review IExample Your review While we love our new house there have been many downsides due to lacl of attention to detail. Many unprofessional finishes. I thought not to write any more negative comment to Henley but just sitting in the living and listening to the outside wind: But feel the wind inside. The roller blind is moving in and out. This is just another window where double glaze is useless due to dodgy work. First Read more issue was in master bedroom. Bottom of window frame had a gap between wall and frame causing cold wind blowing inside. Have no idea how the 6.2 stars energy rating is calculated. I mentioned this to Henley. The response was -you've been provided double glazed windows, isolation, etc. Bollocks. Also gaps in front doors, laudry doors -everywhere can feel the gaps. The energy ratin! is just terrible! Someone mentioned dodgy plaster work. We have same issues. When we switch on the light -there's so many visible "lines" in every room. Henley' http://www.productreview.com.au/p/henley.html 10/22/2014 - ---------------------- '" ,Henley Reviews -ProductReview.com.au Page 4 of24 response: this must be visible in daylight! This is not visible during daylight! But when the light is on at night you can see and feel the lines! Another lie they will feed you by daylight test only! Beware! Just got a leakage around the valve in heating system. The dropping water. all around the water tank. Found out the alfresco door is not straight but curved -the bottom leading wooden frame is not straightly layed. It was fixed so we can close the doors nicely but at this price. However don't thin the doors will be covered by warranty anymore. Laudry doors can't close smoothly already. Still remember I kept telling Henley about both issues - every time got answer it'll be OK. For who I forgot to ask. Already got fixed Brivis heating system, replaced main suite shower set, fixed gap in the master bedroom window frame, fixed few plaster cracks which happened just few hours after handover, fixed main doors handle. This was all done after handover. As been adviced by Henley at handover. Don't expect it will be perfect. And they made their word! I'm just thinkin! how it'll be in 1 year. + 85-90% of reported issues will get fixed. -You need t~ report the issues. Even obvious ones. Similar opinion? Write a review! 1 person found this helpful, do you? ~ Rhonda 0 (/prolile/593181.html) • 1 review At least 20 words. State accurate facts and be. objective. Henley very bad finish lout of5, reviewed on Jun 20, 2014 http://www.productreview.com.au/p/henley.html 10/22/2014 Henley Reviews -ProductReview.com.au Page 5 of24 I just built a house with Henleys the quality of the house is very poor and the finish is disgusting I have walls where they have just painted over the plaster and not sanded it so I have bumps and lumps on my walls instead c a smooth finish.I told them when I moved in and they said it depends whic way the lights coming in so they are not going to fix it I have windows tha don't open because th Read more ey have painted the seals. I have a lump in my dining room sealing look I can sit hear and write a book on the poor building of Henleys.I have built with alot of builders and ifI had to pick a quality builder i would. Henley is all show there displays look good but your house is not going to be the same so just beware oh and I have built with Henleys before when they first started and it was good then but they have gone down the drain now. Similar opinion? Write a review! 2 people found this helpful, do you? ~ Backyard Family Cottages Custom Designs For Your Relatives. We Finance and Build For You! PaulF (/profile/S6698S.htm\) cranbourne west • 2 reviews DO Henley Homes poor finish 3 out of 5, reviewed on Apr 12, 2014 We chose Henley to build our home. I've spent 20 years looking at Henley homes and I liked their home designs a lot. Nearly everything Henley http://www.productreview.com.au/p/henley.html 10/22/2014 ------- ,Henley Reviews -ProductReview.com.au Page 6 of24 make, I love. So we chose to build with them. I think that was a mistake and I should have gone with a different builder. They built the house in record time even through winter with rain and wind. A testament to them. And they build a nice house, but we Read more are now in April and I've been complaining since December about items. In brief, 2 out of3 toilets were disfunctional, the oven was severely damaged -yet installed and it took quite some arguing to get it replaced. The two drains at the back are higher than the water level and crooked, so the rear alfresco floods, the telephone and data cabling in the house is wrong, the hot water system hac a leak -dripping every second, one downpipe was blocked and back- flooded onto the ground, roller doors didn't line up with locks. The list continues. The point I make is that it took 3 months and a lot of phone call and emails to get these resolved. I had to take days off work to attend hom for tradesmen. Henley get to 95% and then they just drop the ball. This leaves such a bad finish to what would have been complete satisfaction. Instead, I will never build with them again. They are becoming high volume builders with disarray in organising things. Speaking to vendors 01 the toilets and the oven, they didn't receive calls until the day they rang m\: So Henley sat on my complaints for 3 months before calling the vendors! Not good enough. If Henley read this, the problem is that you put all the responsibility on the guy in the field who is visiting the clients. There's no back end office person chasing these things up. When the handover manager comes to my house with a list of issues I have, he needs to be abl to ring that through to the office and it gets sorted out, starting that day. Instead, you've lost a future customer and upset an existing customer. My neighbour also built with Henley and his complaint is identical! + the design of the house -follow up on issues Similar opinion? Write a review! 2 people found this helpful, do you? ~ , Satisfied Henley customers. http://www.productreview.com.au/p/henley.html 10/22/2014 . Henley Reviews -ProductReview.com.au Satisfied customer (/profile/565739.htm\) • 1 review 5 out of5, reviewed on Apr 09, 2014 Page 7 of24 Built our 40sq 2 storey home with Henley II yrs ago and was very pleased with the building stage and the quality of the home since. No cracks in plaster or brickwork. We live in between two Malishev homes and feel we are at least equal in standard to them with more money left in the pocket. I think it helps a lot if you have a building supervisor that is good to deal with. Would build with Henley again. Similar opinion? Write a review! Was this review helpful? ~ Broker Co-Op Available. Exclusive Short Sale Listings. Preview Before Bidding, Buy Today! LJ Dsalmonl982 Jenny Rachael Malcolm (/profile/558568.htm\) (/profile/532521.htm\) (/profile/512071.htm\) (/profile/; Adelaide melbourne Lower Plenty • 1 I • 1 review • 1 review • 1 review • 1 comment • 1 comment http://www.productreview.com.au/p/henley.html 10/22/2014 ,-------------------- . Henley Reviews -ProductReview.com.au Page 8 of24 Appaling Customer service lout of 5, reviewed on Mar 21, 2014 Bought our first home brand new henley property, helpful until we paid then customer service went out the window 10 calls t speak with one person only to be told the listed fault was not his problem and ours to deal with then after going to the ceo finally got the problem death with. Will never deal with henley again or any associated companies avoid!!!! -No customer service, poor attention to detail, cowboy solutions Similar opinion? Write a review! 2 people found this helpful, do you? ~ Comments I found a well worded email to CEO did the trick Dsalmonl982 (/profile/558568.htmi) posted on Jun 18,2014 Henley does not help with appliance faults lout of 5, reviewed on Jan 15, 2014 Henley built our house a year ago. Fault with water system dumping out hot water in tonnes every day when it is hot. Henley dont want to know an passed the buck to supplier who wants to charge to come a check whats wrong. My concern is Henley was responsible to choose the appliance and supplier not us. They should have researched the product before http://www.productreview.com.au/p/henley .html 10/22/2014 . Henley Reviews -ProductReview.com.au Page 9 of24 installation. We should be helped by Henley not Read more the supplier at least in the first two years cause we did not purchase the product Henley did. I did call Chromagen they cant help till 1 week. In the. meantime my water is being wasted, boiling water running and killing my plants. I need to rectify this HELP. If i get outside help it will not work with the warranties. + Appliances and warranties issue -Responsibility by the builder and then supplier Similar opinion? Write a review! 1 person found this helpful, do you? ~ • 2 answers Love Henley 5 out of 5, reviewed on Nov 24, 2013 We are currently building our 3rd home with Henley. When start looking t build a new home we always check other builders, once we even signed with another builder and cancelled the contract as they couldn't get contra( stage halfway completed in 18 weeks! I believe Henley offers great value for money and a good quality home. I have never written a review before but feel compelled this ti Read more me to do so. We have had excellent customer service and outcomes from our team at Henley. We always choose Sean at the sales stages, and we were fortunate to have Amanda through the drafting and contracts stage who was extremely professional and well organised and ensured our paperwork was always moving. It was nice to see Rob again who waited back late with Amanda to sign our contracts. We had Dee as our interior design consultant, she is easy to get along with and understood our vision for the house and helped us through the difficul http://www.productreview.com.au/p/henley.html 10/22/2014 ---------------------------------- Henley Reviews -ProductReview.com.au Page 10 of24 task of choosing every element of the house down to the grout. I am confident the decisions she assisted us with will make the house feel exactly what we set out to achieve. Even though we had the more difficult task this time of demolishing a house before rebuild Henley were always there to provide us with guidance. We got to site 1 week later than projected. Justin our site supervisor is wonderful and is available to answer any of ou questions and has kept our job well ahead of schedule. He manages his trades well, we have just started completion stage and are very happy with the quality of workmanship to date. Our site is clean and trades are pleasar when we attend. Weare building in an old estate and our neighbours have lived there for decades, Justin has a good relationship with them so we fee we won't be moving in to a new home with our neighbours hating us from day one! Vicki in the office is very helpful and calls us religiously every second Friday afternoon to update us on progress and has assisted us with variations and has helped to keep our job ahead of schedule. Overall we can't be happier with the team at Henley and are crossing our fingers for a set of keys just in time for Christmas. + Great customer service Similar opinion? Write a review! Was this review helpful? ~ Comments http://www.productreview.com.au/pihenley.html 10/2212014 · Henley Reviews -ProductReview.com.au Page 11 of24 I wrote this r~view ....... Since we paid our final payment Henley have dropped us like a hot potato. We have been battling to get them back to finish work that was promised to be completed 14 days ... read more» Rachael (/profile/512071.html) posted on Oct 08, 2014 Excellent 5 out of 5, reviewed on Nov 14, 2013 13th November 2013. I have just taken possession of my new Henley Home early Nov 2013. It has been a dream run from beginning to end. Th( new homes consultant was extremely helpful. She gave very good practica advice regarding the siting of the house on the land. Her preliminary contract preparation was very precise. Henley provide Saturday morning colour selection etc., where you are free t Read more 0 roam around their showroom 1 displays and slowly gather your thoughts as what suits best. Then there is a follow up appointment for final colours. Again this is after hours. This is great when you have trouble taking time off from work. Finally all the planning came together and then there was the wait for the land titles to come through. This was a very long time and Henley were very understanding 1 patient about this. When finally it did come through Henley were quick off the mark to begin construction. Received call from Construction Supervisor ([name removed]). He introduced himself and would ring on a regular basis to keep me updated. There is constant conta( by very friendly staff in head office, as well, keeping you updated. Henley have department called Excellence and you receive regular phone calls from the staff based in this section checking to see that the staff, you are working with, are providing great service. They request a score out of 10 and request why you gave that score. But the most important thing is that Henley have built the house to exact specifications. The build finish i~ excellent. There has been no dramas. We have built before with other builders and so many things went wrong. http://www.productreview.com.aulp/henley.html 10/22/2014 Henley Reviews -ProductReview.com.au Page 12 of24 All in aliI cant speak more highly of Henley. There are an exceptionally professional firm. I was referred to Henley by a friend whose family has built four homes with them and are currently just about to build another. They spoke so highly of them I never really considered any other builder. This home is an investment property and should I build another, I would g straight back to Henley again. Malcolm C. + Excellent design, finish, great inclusions. In my opionion great value fOJ money. Similar opinion? Write a review! Was this review helpful? ~ Denise (/profile/S03328.htmll • 1 review "Very very poor workmanship" 2 out of 5, reviewed on Oct 24, 2013 I am extremely angry at the workmanship in my Henley Home. I purchase the house just over six years ago I purchased the home already built, uptil now I had been reasonably happy with the home ,however I have just discovered that my shower base has developed a large crack it started with a few hairline cracks that you wouldn't see Easley then when I got into the shower it popped and the crack 0 Read more pened widely. After going back and forth between my plumber my insurance company comm insure we need to get the base out to see what had happened underneath. Finally http://www.productreview.com.au/p/henley.html 10/22/2014 r ---.. --.-~ Henley Reviews -ProductReview.com.au Page 13 of24 it's out to find that not only is ther a huge hole around the drain but alsonc support what so ever for the base also there is water leakage because they haven't sealed and used the correct materials The hole is a couple of feet deep, and now aim left with having to take all the tiles of the walls, the tiles are now almost impossible to get replacements. What enoys me the most is there lack of help and spport the don't want to know about it. I wonder how many other homes are like this. It's neglect at not even coming to look at how they built one ofther homes is appalling. The compliance certificate that was issued as they say is supposed to certifY that all is ok to go a head and lay the shower base. On what???????????? A 2foot hole. Now I feel my em suite shower is probabJ the same. Great!!!!!! -Dangerous as my foot could have gone through and it would have been cut to pieces Similar opinion? Write a review! 3 people found this helpful, do you? ~ HenleyNightmare (/profile/S02818.htm\) melbourne • 1 review • 2 comments • 1 answer .~ Incompetent. Unhelpful. Unfriendly. Terrible http://www.productreview.com.au/p/henley.html 10/2212014 · Henley Reviews -ProductReview.com.au Page 14 of24 lout of 5, reviewed on Oct 23, 2013 From the start of choosing colors it has been the worst experience! [name removed] helped us and she was so rude, I couldn't believe it. We spent 3 hours with her and went home so stressed. Everything seemed like it was too much trouble. At tender we spent 3 hours correcting the mistakes that the design team made on the drawings and they left out quite a few things from our list of our extras. Wen Read more t home shocked. [name removed] helped us at admin and she never got back to us about anything and constantly had to call her for any info. They changed what we had chosen without our permission and we got stuck with it as they didn't rep I) to us on time and without our final signature they went ahead and ordered the wrong thing. Also, we got new items allocated at the final stage than what was selected. The Porter Davis homes are at frame stage of building on our street and we are still waiting for them to correct mistakes. We haven't started building, yet. IfI could start again, I would never in a million years build with Henley. Nightmare!!!! + the mortgage broker was fantastic to us. Right on the ball. Keen, friendl: and helpful. -Unhelpful and incompetent Similar opinion? Write a review! 2 people found this helpful, do.you? ~ Comments The layout is fantastic, love the look of the house, but I agree that their customer service is disappointing. Their staff are not focused 01 helping and making the experience outstanding. They hav ... read more» http://www.productreview.com.auip/henley.html 10/2212014 . Henley Reviews -ProductReview.com.au Page IS of24 HenleyNightmare (/profile/S02818.html) posted on Mar 21, 2014 We also had similar issues with the wind coming into the house real! badly. Under the frames, on top of the frames. The external doors an not straight or the frame and there are gaps everywhere .... read mon » HenleyNightmare (/profile/S02818.html) posted on Oct 16,2014 MattL (/profile/502297.html) Geelong • 1 review • 1 comment • 2 answers Building the Beckham 27.80 sq home S out of S, reviewed on Oct 22, 2013 I am currently building the Beckham 27.80 sq home in Armstrong Creek (Geelong). To date I cannot fault Henley from the sales desk at the display village, through to tender 1 colour selection and now at construction phase. This is our first home and I went in not knowing what to expect·-Henley made it very easy for me to understand the contract I was entering into all( http://www.productreview.com.au/p/henley.html 10/22/2014 Henley Reviews -ProductReview.com.au Page 16 of24 also were first to offer advice based on our requirements. I would recommend Henley to anyone looking to build. + transparent advice, inclusions, design Similar opinion? Write a review! Was this review helpful? ~ Comments Good luck with the build. We are nearing lock up stage and its amazing how quick it goes up!!! Matt L (/profile/502297.html) posted on Nov 20, 2013 Tintin (/profile/469657.htmll Mrlboume • 2 reviews Incomplete air conditioner installation 1 out of 5, reviewed on Oct 20, 2013 http://www.productreview.com.aulp/henley.html 10/22/2014 · Henley Reviews -ProductReview.com.au Page 17 of24 We purchased a Henly built house past winter, during spring we tried to w the ducted cooling system and we found out that the installation was not done properly. We tried to contact Henley to ask about it and as usual as soon as they get your money, they don't care about you. Similar opinion? Write a review! 3 people found this helpful, do you? ~ Write a review Review something else ---+ global.html) Your display name le.g. John Your email address le.g your~ iew's Posting Guidelines (Ii/review-guidelines Submit your review I . ~ Questions & Answers Is anyone building with Edgewater Homes in Sydney Western Suburbs? Block2014 (/profile/6l7763.html) asked on Sep 22, 2014 Answer this (lq/is-anyone-building-with-edgewater-homes-in-sydr, suburbs/9ll07.html#post-answer) Hi Guys im looking at building teh Carmelle Lux Q2, i have been told they, site fees will cost and they can blowout to $45 thousand, im a bit worried al should go with Henley there seems to be alot of hidde cost. Can someone ph amylee06 (/profile/605192.htm\) asked on Aug 04, 2014 htlp://www.productreview.com.aulp/henley.html 1012212014 Henley Reviews -ProductReview.com.au Page 18 of24 Answer this C/g/hi-guys-im-Iooking-at-building-teh-carmelle-Iux-q f-l "'-Inn Hi Amylee, I am a new home buyer .. As far as I know you w cost, it really depends on your block of land. However 45k St you might want to have a word with other builders and get th . . your engmeenng. Ben (/profile/560923.html) replied on Oct 08, 2014 Has anyone build with Henley on their Henley First range? We are looking house has anyone had this house built? We have been told by a sales assista 2014 5PM Henley won't be taking deposits to build their Henley First hous~ or just a sales tactic to get us to purchase a house of theirs? RJ (/profile/599200.html) asked on Jull2, 2014 Answer this (/ g/has-anyone-build-with-henley-on-their-henley -firs 1 Don't do it!!! I am one year in and still having workmen in tc workmanship and now having arguments with them about wI So is my neighbour. As in first lot of repairs, second lot, or tl year check. A nightmare from move in day ... and still not ove now supervising countless tradesmen, some redoing one plas time ... About to take it the next step -Lawyers -Media -Hot Not a happy camper at all Andy is over it (/profile/62 1 652.html) replied on Oct 03,201 http://www.productreview.com.au/p/henley.html 10/22/2014 -Henley Reviews -ProductReview.com.au Page 19 of24 See all 21 I agree with Andy is over it. We gave Henley the keys to hOl moved in for 5 weeks when we were overseas. Still didn't m, problems in this time and now we are taking days off all ove] supervise tradies if they turn up. Try another company or bet established. It is not worth the grief. Rachael (/profile/512071.htmi) replied on Oct 08, 2014 Thanks Andy is over it and Rachael your opinions are both a I'm trying to convince my wife to build with another builder Great idea about buying established Rachael but we have aln land. I hope things get better for the both of you. RJ (/profile/599200.htmi) replied on Oct 10, 2014 Get an answer from our members and . Henley Ask your questIOn representatives_ Submit your question I I Similar Home Builders VIC • http://www.productreview.com.au/p/henley.htm I 10/22/2014 1 I . Henley Reviews -ProductReview.com.au Page 20 of24 Little Projects See ~W-W&W I3l¥l.4~W VIC ~ Clclhome-builders-vic.html) 1-3 of 12 8 tUJ1;m~ :::l Hom e? ~ lec . tmI) . BCljl ~Owned Homes At Auction.com Low Starting Bids, Bid Now! [] :J Listing monitored by Henley mily Cottages Custom Designs For Your R~liu«'~3~rfJ~ance and Build For You! • 4.5 from 32Teviews Clp/latitude-31- homes.htm!) Other Home Builders VIC • ~~tIU~Ff~t~io~r~ne;;::sJ • • "'Ii 'WiN \# i£# Little Projects 5.0 from 1 review Red Bluff Homes 4.5 from 32 reviews http://www.productreview.com.au/p/henley .html Stay connected Like our Facebook page to ~ new products. Get more info • Contact Us ( • About Us (Ii • Help and FA • Brand Mana • Site Map (iii • Write a Revi • Posting Oui( guidelines.hl • Terms of Us . • Privacy pon • Site Map (Iii (http://www . productreview .( © 2014 ProductReview.com third party trademarks, imag comparative advertising, crit 10/2212014 Henley Reviews -ProductReview.com.au • • Red B1ulTHomes 3.5 from 2 reviews Hensley Park Homes 5.0 from 1 review Sloping Block Solutions (~{f'ftBm&-9&~~01utions.html) ~~~~titl§l&~el VIC -> (/c/home- Winter's Chill is t C()min~j S09n~. Make a plan to replace your win ,s today. f http://www.productreview.com.au/p/henley.html Page 21 of24 opinions on selected product reflect the opinion of Produc (/i/disclaimer.html). Close I 10/22/2014 .Henley Reviews -ProductReview.com.au Listing monitored by Henley repre~atj.Ws4 reviews • • • (/p/country-Iane- homes.html) SM Design Concepts 1.0 from I review (/p/sm-design- concepts.html) GK Bruinsma Homes 3.0 from 4 reviews (/p/gk-bruinsma- homes.html) http://www.productreview.com.aulp/henley.html Page 22 of24 10/2212014 ,-------------------- . Henley Reviews -ProductReview.com.au • Aaron J Homes 3.5 from 8 reviews Up/aaron-j- homes.html) I~ DAVIS SANDERj HOtylE Davis Sanders Homes 5.0 from 2 reviews Upl davis-sanders- homes.html) • Hometec Industries 2.8 from 5 reviews http://www.productreview.com.au/p/henley.htmi Page 23 of24 10/22/2014 -Henley Reviews -ProductReview.com.au • (/p/hometec- industries.html) Macalister Prestige Homes 2.0 from 4 reviews (/p/macalister- prestige-homes.html) http://www.productreview.com.au/p/henley.html Page 24 of24 10/22/2014 lJenley Properties Building Practices -30105/200 I -AD] -NS ... Henley Properties Building Proctices i\h')l,1 li'li<, i!c~rn Sreak(!rs BusintlSs Ryan The Hon doh,l,1 Adjollmmt)"nl HENLEY PROPERTIES BUILDING PRACTICES Page 1 of2 Page: 13967 The Hon. JOHN RYAN [10.16 p.m.]: Tonight I describe an example of what passes for regulation of the building industry in this State by the Department of Fair Trading, I refer to a story that has been running in the media relating to a building company, Henley Properties Ltd. It has now become the famous object of a number of television exposes of some spectacular examples of shoddy building. Even the Department of Fair Trading admits that it has received up to 114 complaints. I have an office full of paperwork relating to complaints about the company, and this story is actually hordfic. My specific concern tonight concerns a report to me by a constituent about the home built for her by Henley at Cherry brook Among many serious complaints was a report about a serious burn mark that appeared in the wall behind her kitchen oven. It is apparent fmnl the photographs that she was reporting a serio LIS fife risk. She made this report to the Department of Fair Trading in late January this year. My constituent was told by a building inspector f'rom the department that it was likely that the burn mark occurred becallse her oven was not fitted with the ventilation required by the manufacturer. He even went to the trouble of faxing ovel' details from a manual as to 110W the oven should have been fitted. To any casual observer it raises the potentlalthat if suell an event could occur in one project home, there may well be many similar examples in the many homes constructed by this large building company throughout the State. The complaint justified a swift and strong reaction from the Department of Fair Trading. Commonsense suggests that the regulator should have demanded thai the company supply details of all homes in which the same oven fitting had been installed and submit an appropriate independent technical expert report addressing the obvious safety issues. But nothing happened. It was not until the company became concerned that it might be exposed on a Sydney radio talkback program that it acted of its own accord. twill qllote from an email sent within the whitegoods company that manufactured the oven. My constituent obtained this extraordinary communication, which was written by a company officiaL from the technical expert who visited her house to inspect the oven fitting. The email stated: We wellt into "(j<lIYlage control" mode wtlen I received the attached" photos of a walloven installation, because Henley Prop are a BIG'cllstomer of ours and this paf1iclilar customer had a long list of defects in I'ler home. prepared by some building consultant, I prepared tile attached letter from home Wed night which was ernailed to HP director @ 22.30- that is 10,30 p.m. for those not familiar with the 24~hour clock- because l1e was due to be gritl~~d by customer 011 all the dfo)fects on a Sydney talkback radio e~\rly Thuf"S am . HP & us want to avoi(j at all costs having to modify either the product or the installation in 1 DaDs of homes unless there is a serious tire risk. It is apparent how mllch regard the whltegoads manufacturing company £lnd Henley Properties Ilave for public safety and what motivates them. They have no fear whatsoever of the Department of Fair Trading. which has been sitting on tllis complaint for months. What finally got action was the possibility of exposure 011 talkback radio. Today I note that a local newspaper, which circulates in the Hills district. reports the comments of tl18 Melbourne~based director of Henley Properties, MI' Peter Hayes, III response to this matter he said: The supplier- that is tile author of that extraordinary communication I just read- had investigated the complaint and provided a report to the Department of Fair Trading "" There is not an installation or manufacturing faliit with wall ovens and the office of Fair Trading is satisfied with the ilwestigt:ltion. I Sincerely hope that they are starting to take belated action against this company. I can see no reason why we should take any notice of this man, of his company or of the company which admits that its main concern in this maHer is damage control. How could anything they say be regarded as objective or trustworthy? Sincerely hope that the Department of Fair Trading has something more independent and reliable on Wllicll to base its reported satisfaction before it decides to close the book on til is http://www.pariiament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/hansArt .... 10/2212014 1 I • Benley Properties Building Practices -30/05/200 I -ADJ -NS ... Page 2 of2 matter. I arn becoming extremely concerned about the investigation of this company. I have received from clistomers dozens of reports sent to the Department of Fair Trading that do not appear to have been acted upon by a building inspector for months. It is high time that this company was brought to book by the Department of Fair Trading, even prosecuted if thatis necessary. I know that it is a large buitding company but I see no reason why it should be able to get away with tile outrageous things it has been doing. 1t has already decided to buy liP to three homes that have had to be almost demolished to be made Tltlbitable. What concerns me is that some of these houses are now being offered for sale and no-one is quite sure as to whether those homes have been properly rectified. I hope the Department of Fair Trading has a good look at those houses before they are offered fo:" sale to tile public of New Soufh Wales, http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/P ARLMENT /hansArt.... 10/22/2014 '. ,Not Good Enough -Australia's Customer Complaints Website Page 1 of2 IOJ I Log In II Sign up II Tell a friend home editorial gripe hq hys media contact us faq forum rules Custom Home builder Complementary consultation We offer the free pre budget cost 00 Henley Homes Author NG' Back to top wlnnlngcircle Back to top NG' Back to top [) Posted: 12 Feb 06 08:42 Post subject: Henley Homes Dear NGE, View previous topic :: View next topic Message Many thanks to NGE for getting my garage wall fixed. At first C supervisor rung & was very pleasant, promising they would fix It within a week. The painter turned up on the last ,afternoon of that promised week with a can of normal paint. After I explained again that it had to be render paint, the painter said we will fix It but not sure when they would be back. The following week had a call from a director from Henley asking me what the problem was, I explained It, he said he would get it fixed, The next day the painter arrived with 20lltre drum of render paint, painted the wall & left me the remains of the paint. The Site supervisor apologised for messing me around. Pity I could not have spoken to the director in the beginning, or maybe nobody listens until you started broadcasting your problem. Again many many thanks to NGE a Posted: 07 Feb 06 09: 56 Post subject: Henley Homes Hi Winterway, By the complaints I have heard to date It would appear that there are a lot of BUSinesses under the control of C's, Henley Properties seem to be Just another group lacking ability and manners. I believe they would build a pretty good "Chook House" though. Best of luck. I) Posted: 06 Feb 06 21:44 Post subject: Henley Homes Henley Homes have just finished building a new home next door & during this process their render contractor sprayed concrete over my newly rendered garage wall. They also placed building materials against the same wall damaging the finish. I have spoken to 2 Henley site building supervisors about this during construction & was promised It would be fixed. The owners of the Henley building also requested that the wall finished be fixed. Again they were promised It would be, along with lots of other promises made by Henley. Owners' comment to me on the wall was "good luck you well need It & thank god Henley were out of their lives". I then started dealing with a person called C in the Henely Homes admln section (the reason for the owner's comments). I have made a number of phone calis to this person over the last 4 months, each time to be told "yes I will get it fixed". last time on 5 December I also faxed C the colour & manufacture of the render, & here its 24 January and It's stili not fixed. I rang Henley this morning trying to speak to C's supervisor and was given the run around by the switchboard. Some one promised me C's supervisor would ring ASAP, again a false promise made by Henley. I am hoping NGE can get thru to someone in Henley Homes who can keep a promise. Otherwise It will be back to VeAT again to get the wall finished a second time just a different builder this time. . NGE Member: Wlnterway NGE Note: Henley Homes has requested and been given wlnterways contact details. DiSplilY posts from previous: Ali Posts Newest First http://www.notgoodenough.org!viewtopic.php?t=27058 W-::::---······::·"-···~I­ : I Cornplaints i I i I ! Compliments !--------'. deluxe products stop renting today/sunvista homes/kevin watson integrating teChnology bendigo stop renting today, sun vista Ilomes and kevin watson dolphinco clinton brown builder tpg / telstra dreamseeker caravans brad summers builder stop renting today View more Tags TOp Issues Anyone else having trouble keeping up? Look Boss, the plane, the plane. Tis a sca ... y thought •••• One punch laws More price, less product - coincidence or subterfuge? Top Gripes Wotif and Hilton require photo IO scan It for data base Virgin Airlines refuses to allow medic .. l donor board plane Jetstar is a dishonest organization calling itsel an airline VW Australia: Worlds worst lemon '"' Fadel ~ shocking customer service Kogan needs to improve customer contact Nissa" X-trail rattling CVT PANASAL.ES elCtended warranty Catch or the Dav: No response on exchange of Faultv laptop e8ay: DodgV ebav seller practices 10/22/2014 '. ··Not Good Enough -Australia's Customer Complaints Website Page 2 of2 Jump to: Top 10 Gripes Contact the customer' Gripes Archive Should we increase restrictions on Chinese investment in residential property? Yes No Login to vote Do you think current housing prices are sustainable over the next 12 months? Yes No login to vote HOME I About Us I F AQ I IV1edia I Contact Us I Privacy Policy \ Philosophy I Speakers Bureau (~~ Copyright 20.14 NotGoodEnough http://www.notgoodenough.org/viewtopic.php?t=27058 10/22/2014 Smith, Barbi M. 19th October 2010 3:57 pm "You do not get what is displayed in the homes, although they display the larger size house, what they dont tell you is that the smaller size house (with the same name) is completley different. They also tried to change building materials for cheaper ones, even though the better materials are stated in their contracts. You need to really look over your contract and see what you get before you sign it. Have been intimidated by building supervisors into not making a complaint. Not happy with these big builders treating us like we dont know anything about building." Bv celener -50% Trust 21 st May 2010 3 :09 pm "I am currently building with Henley and we are having the total opposite, similar with SteveO. 1 am very disappointed with their administrative department whom are disorganise and cannot follow the plan. Absolutely nightmare to deal with their admin staff who have not "care" attitude!" By joslS -0% Trust 17th June 2010 2:00 pm "1 agree. In SA once they've got your money you're done! The problems started right from contract & then with the follow thru. Now they've completed & done a 12 month inspect we are still waiting. It has never felt like new finished house By kerryD -50% Trust 7th September 2010 1:15 pm "We moved into our new home early December 2009, up until then things went well however once in, the poor after sales commenced. The most frustrating was the built in mircowave 'that was installed incorrectly by Henely's electricans. The air deflector was not installed, the mircowave over heated. I contacted warranties@ henley, provided a copy of the installation manual in early July 2010, here were are 7th September and they now inform me we will not have the mircowave correctly installed until 17th September 2010. What an absolute disgrace for a simple item that is used every day. Once again, got your money, don't care." 1 " V':!ys Talk About Everything: Mainvue Homes Review Page 1 of 12 Guys Talk About Everything What Guys Think, Say, Want, and Do. We're just four Pacific Northwest gl talk a lot. Mainvue Homes Review Mainvue Homes is a newer builder in the Seattle area, My fiance' and I were drawn to their homes due to their unique home designs; we wanted something Just a little different. When we decided that Mainvue homes was what we wanted, we were able to go to their main hornesite center, called the Bridges, and choose frorn 'II different pre· built home desir,lns which was nice, We picked out a home model anet a color scheme (-as weltasa-STnaITaeiielopmenrtllatlhey we,'el5l:iilClingliCiines OrT"mJt's-prot5il5tY·····_·1 about whele the positive part of our experience ends, If 1 had known what the p,ocess would be like buying a home from Mainvue, I would definately look elsewhere, My two biggest issues with Mainvue homes is the extremely poor communication between our main contacl,~ during the actual home building (the sales center), the person supervising ti,e construction and us, The sales center never had accurute information with regards to where our horne construction was which we simply checked by goin(,1 to the horne itself. Hley were often short and often had incorrect information, The main issue of my disatisfactlon with Mainview homes would be their construction quality, T~ley tell you that they build with attention to detail ane:! keeping their customers happy, We just performed our final walk through inspection and I was expecting minor cosmetic issues, but I wasn't expecting the majority of walls to be out of square (to the point whele they agreed they needed to fix them), Their actual initial response to our complaint of crooked walls and ceilings was "that's norrnal", NormaL .. , NormaL, .. I know quite" few people who arc either ii" construction or deal with it an some level and they either laughed their ass off at that comn,lent or saic! "That's B·SHITI", which 1 agree with, Cabinets not true or hung square or flush, Extenor roof boards so ciramatically warped thei' response when I pointed it out wa? "011, we have to Just replace that There's no way we can fix that board". DUH, Deck posts that had a twist to them, probably 20', I asked "is that because lower grade wood is used for decking')" The response was '·no, it's actually supposed to be good quality/qrade lumhar", I told him I ,I I'd hate to see what poor quality lumbar looked like, replace it The list goes on. I Betweell extreme lack of caring tOl' dOing a job with any level of pride by the sub, I contractols "nd piss·poor communication I would give Mainvue homes a lout of 6 ' 1 stars, simply due to the deSigns ... , Posted by Millk Wila!(;uys at 10/07/201207:53:00 PM , Recommend this on Google Labels: Purci1dses I Banter Area 1 () 'led!" mc)rig v.'h.:!,\r!!Y r,:ell ::OOklll:, CC debt debt·! FoocJies t>.'i the CabllH:nt I Pdcifi,~ f(Xld~ Preparedne Ti:Gh 'rIJl~' Th Backyc Cottag Custom 0, Relc·ltives. ' Buile! For y {"------- 8100 Archivi ... 2013 (3 T 2C1"'I2 (). ... r,jove I ! T Octol 'I The Fl I Coste I Pedel http://whatguys.blogspot.com/20 12/1 O/mainvue-homes-review.... 1011 0/20 14 'J':""" •. .~ ; , .. .',' t .. ~ . . ," -:., r{~i~;>:" :-~.".' -~ -,) .",. ' ... -:~. , .. ~. •• G~ys Talk About Everything: Mainvue Homes Review h ~,.! More Next Blog» I 26 comments: 1[1 ! Todd WhatGuys October!, 2m 2 nl 8:38 PM Well, Charlie B, that is just awful. Stick to your guns and make them fix everything to your satisfaction. r1eply Ethan Barnbock October 8, 2012 al 8:'16 PM Wow' That's pretty bad, I hope you can get all that taken care of without anyrnOie hassle than you've al,eady went H1r()U(lh Gooclluck. f1eply Chris Schwab November I ,2012 at 10:29 PM Any update on the house issues since this pas!? I've checked them out and the houses seem nice, so I'd really like to hear more from an actual buyer My only question is if you had an a(Jent or did this on your own? Reply Colleen Poland December 8. 2012 at 9:22 lIM Could you post a update on your MaillVue home. We thinking about buying a home with them. Thanks' fleply Replies Hesh January 31, 2013 at 3:'13 PM Not that it matters but I'm curious which of their communities you bought in. I'm having an almost identical experience with them at their Stonewater Creek community. Mark WhatGuys April 30, 20 13 at 9:00 f'M We purchased 'n lhe Carrins]tol1 Point clevelopment I'd like to hear what issues you had. (Sorry about the late reply') Page 2 of 12 What' iPhon DOl Genir Maim ncb ie, Credit Flu SE Thanl Coste rna ['(JIll" in I ~ Sep\f http://whatguys.blogspot.com/2012110/mainvue-homes-review....l011 0/20 14 G.uys Talk About Everything: Mainvue Homes Review i ,I ., :1 Reply Mark What Guys [JecemiJerI3, 2CJI2 at 3:32 PM Hello, thought i'd post a follow up on our horne purchase through· Main View. As I stated in the main post, we had several issues with our home-the biggest issue to me is lack of quality control, in addition to the process that Main View employs during the home construction process. One of the items that really struck me as odd was that they have home buyers sign off on the home befOie the home is 'complete' i.e. before they fix all of the items on your final walk· through list. Meaning, you have to sign their paperwork if YOll want the home, even if there are still major repairs to be clone. "oh don't worry, any problems will get fixed". On our final walk through we found quite a few items that were wrong. As I said the minor cosmetic things I expected but again the lack of attention throughout the hOllse ... I just don't get it. ·toilet paper hangers crooked or loose -incorrect gutter install -incorrect master tub install with a botch grout patch -horribly warpecllJoard on roof line -crooked walls. I mean .. CROOKED -paint lines that were crooked at the wall-celing line -carpet pad is not same quality as model home, and in the -middle of master bedroom there's a patch of missing pac! under the carpet -poor quality lumbar on deck -discrepancy between Main Vrew and us on exposed wood at roof line-below shingles-by gutters. inspetor we hired said it should howe metal flashin\l Main view said-No, we don't do that. It's not necessary. nothing we can do. -During our final walk througl·l inspection every item we pointed out was met by "I don't know what we can do about tha!?" I mean evelY item. It was even said by Main View rep when I pointed out the crooked paint line. I looked at the guy and said "seriously?1 give me a paint brush and by hand I can get it straighter than this (pointing at the crooked paint line). He said, "weli, I'll point it out to. my painter buLl don't know". I watched direclty after our inspection was over and he spoke with his painter and the painter said "oh yeah, that's easy no problem I can fix that". The Main View Inspection I·ep wasn't sorne idiot either. He hus been in home construction for many years, with Bennet homes . . Bottom line is that I JlIst want to let people know ahead of time-don't expect high quality, don't expect organization, expect average across the board, unlike their marketing blOchures. websites, etc ... Reply· Mark WhatGuys Decernberl3. 20·,2 at 3:50 PM postscript .. we are allowed to schedule return visits with Main View for the following year to fix iterns-cracked walls, nail pops (both normal, I agree with Page 3 of 12 I http://whatguys.blogspot.com/20 1211 O/mainvue-homes-review. ... 1011 0/2014 ,------------------------------------ Guys Talk About Everything: Mainvue Homes Review 1 'I thern on thaI), items breaking, etc " so I will provide follow-up erncils on that process, F1eply Thor Johnson February 3, lUI3 all ()03 AM Besides all the issues you had, how is the house goir19 now that you've settled , in? I've been looking at Mainvue's website and the quality and style of the houses look very nice corn pared to a lot of other builders in the area, After reading your' review I'm not so sure thou,lh Heply Thor Johnson f'ellruary 3, 2013 at 'I O:Oli AM Besides all the issues you had, how is the house going now that you've settled in? I've been looking at Mainvue's website and the quality and style of the houses look very nice compared to a lot of other builders in the area, After reading your review I'm not so sure though, Heply Heplies I,eply Mark What Guys April 30, 2.013 CIt fJ:55 PM My input on this .. hmmrn Well, the homes always look impr'essive, We were sold on ti,e desi(lnS", Of course, you have to pick out the horne you want and then IT has to be built They are like all the other builders-they are going to try to save money where they can end with our home build they obviously SErved money in the construction of it Thank God we had the ability to periodically check the home while it was being built If we hadn't I arn POSITIVE> p"'OOSSIITTIIVVEE < some issues would not have been found and we would have had to bear the bur'den a few years down the road, I had a Quadrant home built from the sticks (I know, Quadrant'iI) and it was constructed much better than this one, Just beware I guess", Henry Pan February 4, 2.013 at 10:09 AM Page 4 of 12 http://whatguys.blogspot.com/20 1211 O/mainvue-homes-review.... 10/1 0/20 14 Guys Talk About Everything: Mainvue Homes Review I 'I Should we purchase a new MalnHue horne? Reply Replies Reply Mark WhalGuys April 30, 7013 al 3:58 PM Hello Henry, Should you purchase a ManVue horne? Well ... For me it comes down to the details. I guess it depends on how detail onented you are and what is acceptable 10 you on a personal level. If I had it all over to do again knowing what I know, I most likely would not be in this home ... I would have continued to shop around. Knowing what I know now, I would have researched quality of construction and made a decision based on that. heman April 7,2013 at '12() PM MainVue Homes: more blogging to report ' Part 1 Hello, I thought I would follow up on our MainVue Home purchase or lathel' some more (gmTiI') issues we've had recently. It all started about a month and a half ago wilen I noticed some funny brown circular spots growing on the sheetrock walls in the garage ... Brown Spots??? Luckily I DID happen to notice these funny spots. The spots ran up and down the length of the garage wall from ceiling to the cement floor- a wall/corner adjacent to the pantry-by our garage door to the house. My wife emailed and called in to MainVue Homes about these funny spots. They sent a customer service rep out to check out the spots. We were concerned that it could be mold I The rep met us one afternoon at our home. Her initial reason for the now confirmed mold was that our whole house fan in our upstairs laundry room's automatic fan was not functioning. (WTF??ill). "oh yeah, if the timer isn't turning that fan on 4 times a day, moisture can accumulate in the garage and cause surface mold growth". I explained I'd never heard of that before, I've owned several homes without these fans/timers and no issues-additionally we don't even park our cars (adding moisture in the winter) in the garage. She said we could simply wash the walls with bleach (these are unpainted sheetrock walls, mind you). I wasn't satisfied with that resolution so she said she would agree to have the affected sheetrock replacecl, anci in· house fan timer switched replaced. In my minel I knew that when this work would be done we would be able 10 see in the walls and most likely where/why the mold was growing. I pointed out my first thought of the culprrt-the roof directly above the affected wall creates a valley and potential water collection or access for water to penetrate the walls. She almost C1sslHecily saiel this was not the issue here. "but If it would make you feel better,. I will have our roofer come out and take a look at the roof". Uh, yeah, ya think??11 Of course,.when the sheetrockers came to Page 5 of 12 http://whatguys.blogspot.com/20 1211 O/mainvue-homes-review.... 10/1 0120 14 Guys Talk About Everything: Mainvue Homes Review :i \! i .1 I I ,I i :1 .1 " " , ,ri !i 'i !i " I !\ ,j , ! " .' removelreplace the moldy sheetrock (I'll add that MainVue will only schedule repairs Mon-Fri, 8-5) we were instantly able to see once the sheetrock was removed that yes indeed, there was water intrusion inside the wall, corning from the ceiling/roof. On the day MainVue scheduled the sheetrockers, they also scheduled Bob's Heating & Air Conditioning company to look at the water heater which was directly next to the wall to make sure it .had been installed correctly, and MainVue's roofinC) subcontractor. Bob's rep was on time, as well as the sheetrockers (8am). The roofer finally showed up at 6:30 pm ' only I 0.5 hours late is all. He added some flashing to fix the roof leak, and had said he would have the rain gutter installers come out to do some re-routing of a portion of the second story gutter that was draining directly at the water leak location. I'll add that this was only done after I point out that with the current· design of the gutters, and the amount of water flow th,lt was coming out that particular gutter (all water from front half of second floor rooD it would be a matter of time before that water flow would eventu,illy wear down the roof shingles and create more waler damage. I'll discuss the gutter work later. ... end of part 1 Reply Andy Chou i\rxiI10, 2013 at 423 I"tv! Hi' Sorry to hear about your troubles with the qc at Mainvue l My sister and parents are looking to purchase in the Mainvue Parkhaven community and I'm surprised to find this ... is there "nything else I should be telling them to watch out for? They've already delayed completion by saying that they're backed up on "permits" . .thanks for L1ny advice! Mark WhatGuys Hi Andy, April 30, 2013 at 843 PM Sorry to hear about your pmblems, we had the same when issue with permits too. In addition, we had a problem with getting them to finish our home. It was supposed to finish the beginning of October, but they wanted a "buffer" of two weeks "in case they ran into unexpected delays". Well, they took all of those two weeks two. This was a huge issue for us because we had to hlwe the house closed before we got married, which was the 21 st of October-we were getting married in I<uaui and were leaving a few days before that. So we did end up closing but had one weekend instead of two weeks to move in. Again, there communication was horrible between sales, construction, etc ... No one would tell us the same thing with regards to progress or when we could expect the home to be finished ... If you read the rest of rny blog, you will read things to watch out for. I guess it depends on what kind of quality you expect out of a horne this price. I believe that people should do their best no matter what the price but I'm afraid I alT) old fashioned in that respect I pay attention to details, and from what I saw In our home-their construction guys do not Period. Can't say that enough ... Good luck if it's Mainvue Dr someone else 'll ---------- Page 6 of 12 http://whatguys.blogspot.com/20 1211 O/mainvue-homes-review.... 10/1 0/20 14 Guys Talk About Everything: Mainvue Homes Review 'f Reply , ,j Mark WhalGuys April 30, 2013 at 847 PM ... PART 2-AND TO CONTINUE OUR WATER DAMAGE ISSUE WITH MAINVUE HOMES Long Story Short. The fix of our water intrusion/mold issue is corning to an encl, albeit with plenty of aggravation. Here is the list of things that had to be done: 1. sheetrock in the garage repla'ced 2. fix of roof where water was coming into walls 3. sheetrock replaced inside the house, in the pantry (wall adjacent to affected garage wall). This required removal/re-installation of installed shelves in pantry. 4. lhe sheetrock work required our water heater to be removed and replaced (twice) so the slleetrockers could do their work 5. spray for mold. MainVue rep 'assured' us (another assurance l) that the mold was contained, the spray is all that was needed. 6. in-house fan timer switch replacecl. **MainVue Homes customer service rep said that Bob's Heating & Air Conditioning company fixes that .. they install all the HVAC for MainVue. Spoiler alert-WRONG' Only a licensee! electrician can replace switches like that' 7. gutter work done. All told this work will take 6-7 days. Again, all work sheduled by MainVue will only take place mon .. fri, 8 .. 5. I bring this up again because every day this work takes place, one of us (my wife or I) has to be in the horne while the work takes place. Every day that my wife is home for the repairs is time without pay from work. Every day I am here IS vacation time used up. This upsets-no, it realllly pisses me of-because I use my vacation time when my kids visit me in the surnrner-so this IS clays taken away from rne with rny kids. So even though this is warranty work and MainView Homes "agreed" that it is warranty work and will repair it, our new horne is cosling us in tirne trom work well over 81000. That is even with farnily rnembers staying home for sorne of the work for us. Broken Prornise?? When the MainVue rep initially came to see the moldy. garage walls, she assured us tlley would do everything they could to arrange the necessary work to impact our work schedules as as little as possible. When the scope and scheduling of all the work actually took place, MainVue Homes then said that absolutely not they would not schedule work evening or on weekends. Hunh? But the rep said? But we? Dammit ' Issues we've had with MainVue sub-contractors? Going to the incorrect house. At least 2 or 3 times work has been sclleduled, the MainVue subs went to the wrong house, had been "knocking on our door, ringing the doorbell for over an hour". Meanwhile, one of us had been home the whole tirne, waiting for them to arrive. This has caused quite a few hours of phone calls back and forth between my wife and I, MainVue customer service rep, and the subs. The wrong house')"? We have a street address, and a street. Simple. WTF are people really that ignorant? We had to finally tell the MainVue rep to MAI(E SUflE to tell the subs to MAKE SURE AND GO THE THE CORRECT ADDRESS AND STREET. There is a 301 st Ct and Street. Tiley were gOing to the wrong one. We've Ilad to do the ['ollow up on a lot of this work and scheduling Otller than that issue, just some Page 7 of 12 http://whatguys.blogspot.com/2012/10/mainvue-homes-review....10/1 0/20 14 Guys Talk About Everything: Mainvue Homes Review \ 'I :i e, :1 'I crappy workmanship, nothing bige (?) (END DF PART 2) lieply Mark What Guys April 30e 2013 "t 850 PM PART 3 (sorry, I have to enter this in sections due to length) "The Contract SaYSeee" This is MainVue's response when we asked for work to be scheduled evenings/weekendse The 'contract says' work will take place mon eefri, Se-5e Well.eeel understand the adclecl cost of having subs work off-hourse 1 realized purchasing a new home tllat issues would arise-known issues with settling of a new home and what-not I didn't mind a few days spread throughout our first year that we would have to take days off for these pre- known potential problemse But I really thought MainVue's sticking hardfast to Hlis rule, albeit maybe within their legal rights, was pretty shitty when it comes to customer caree At my job, when we have a customer who isn't pleased-or even before that happens-we go beyond what we are only 'required' to do_ Must be old fashion or something_ MainVue Homes current owners or potential/future purchasers beware; ALL work that MainVue may have to do to your horne after you purchase It will take place during normat business hourse Any outside costs associated with any lepail work (lost wages for time off of work)-F you homeowner, eat it' Just be happy we're fixing our shitty workmanshipl Extrapolatee DI<, Mark, it's only a few days of lost wages and the problem is getting fixed, quit youl bitchin, right? OK, yeah, I see that poinLto 8 point What happens if our water damage occuled on the second flool of our house, and we hadn't discovered rt as early as we did? Two floors of walls to be ledone, carpet, cabinets, etc How many days would that take') How many days of work would we have had to miss clue to MainVue Home's hardline stance of "work will only be clone Mon-Fri, 8-5"e How much would that cost us') HOW MUCH WOULD THAT COST YOU' The Work's Almost Donee So, our water and MainVue Home's mold issue will hopefully be completed in two days from the date of this bloC), What I have really started doing now is noticing ALLLL of the work still to corne to the house -the typical things that need fixing during the first year of a new home build- cracks in walls from settling, grout Clacking, caulking coming off, etCeee And oh boy, do we have our fair share of that comingl Why not schedule that now at the sarne time" Well, you want as much time durin9 that first year to pass before getting the common issues like this-fixede We have plenty of wall and qraul crackse And chrorne corning off and door handles. And caulking corning off in the shower. If we get some 'of it fixecl now, there will definately be more to come so later, so you wait until hopefully all of the deficiencies will be showing and have it all worked on at the same time, closer to the one year purchase anniversary, instead of fix this cracke then fix this cracke then fix this caulkinge then fix this grout (actually the caulking is something I will have addressed sooner as I don't want MORE mold and water damage occulTing)e Take Them Up On Their Ollel' MainVue Homes did say that they would give to us the estimated cost of repairs, and then we could go find our own contractors who work work on our time scheclulee Sounds wonderful' :-J Sorry, but at til is Page 8 of 12 http://whatguys.blogspot.com/20 1211 O/mainvue-homes-review.... 10/1 0/20 14 Guys Talk About Everything: Mainvue Homes Review , i I i I point... I'm Just a little too MainVue Homes saavy. What happens in six months post repairs, if we have more water damage/mold in the same area') Who's gonna fix it then? Mall"lVue Homes? The contractors we used? lIh, yeah .. 1 foresee a latta finger pointing and you know who stuck in the middle and eventually paying for everything on that one' END OF PART 3 Reply Mark What Guys April 30, 20lCl ill 851 PM ... AND, PART 4 Bob's Replaces Switches? And That Gutter Work' So. ,yeah, Ihe MainVue Homes rep scheduled Bob's Heating & Air Conditioning to replace the in-house fan timel' switch, The unfairly accused reason for the mold, A Bob's HVAC rep shows up, not sure exactly what th9 true problem with the system is-in fact was told the fan wasn't working, and I tell him that no, In fact it's the switch, He says, oh, no, I can't replace that, I'm not a licensed electrician' I'd lose my job,,' OOOHHH, I'm sorry about that' You see, I would have I guess foolishly assumed MainVue Homes, who constructs these homes, would have known that! Silly me' 011, so, yeah, another appt needed 10 be made to have a licenseci electrician corne out and swap out the fan switch. Thanks again for the confusion and extra lost time, MainVue Homes' You guys are sooo precious"" Now to the gutter work, The gutter re·routing gets clone, I take a look at the work after it was completed (gutte,' guy was gone or I would have spoken to him). I'm like (Suprise') WTP') Who installed that crap on my roof,,' It looked like Joe Home Owner went to Home Depot, bought himself some stuff that looked like gutter, and screwed It to the existing gutter. It looks like it will help the problem, but ever the foreshadower in me, I think to the future". What happens when I go to sell my home ... If I saw that and was looking to purchase a horne, I'd say 1) that looks like SHIT' and 2) why is that hunk of SHIT attached to that gutter? What, were there leaks in the roof') What else IS wrong with this MainVue 1 .. lorne POS? Alright, I'll Just Stop There. phew' I'm tire of typing' Well to be perfectly honest I'm just effing tired of typing about my MainVue Homes problems' If you aie reading this and have any questions at all about ANY of Ihis, please don't heSitate to add a questionlr'esponse. If further info you would like, we could probably arrange a phone conversation if you want more information on OUi delightful MElinVue Homes home purchase' ps, We do like our horne, it's design. I mean, we picked the design, the homesite, watched it being built from dirt to a fully finished (?) horne, It's truly unfortunate that instead of blogging oN the problem's we've encountered I could have instead be blog(ling about some wonderful things about OUi horne and the process. Fleply Anonymous' December 5,2013 atl :12 PM Page 9 of 12 http://whatguys.blogspot.com/2012/10/mainvue-homes-review....l0/l 0/20 14 Guys Talk About Everything: Mainvue Homes Review ~I " , ", ' .", ',"',",' ',,, ! f( '[II, Just an fyi it seems like there was some concerns with your horne for sure but I can tell you first hand it sounds like they are at least addressing your concerns and fixing these items, I sued my last builder and still nothing accomplished, I would take that MainVue home with the concerns over the countless builders around here that truly don't give a crap, they have a customer svs team lilat actually cares it seems from your comments",Good luck Reply Emily Stephens "Ianuary 2/, 2014 at 9:26 Alv! I second all of this' I bought a house in December in Oakleigh, So many things wrong with it Completely shotty paint job from top to bottom, Foggy windows, DO NOT PURCHASE THE $495 SURROUND SOUND PREWIRE' We did this both upstairs and downstairs, They stapled the wires back and faith along the ceiling boards over a dozen times (no srnurf tubes) and then covered that in insulalion. After hours of trying to clear installation. pull loose the wiring. cutting our heads on the nails sticking out of the tresses--we tinally gave up and started a wire install from scratch, Our biggest problem is we have repeatedly contacted the seller to fix things and there is NO REPLY, And the guy's blog is . accurate--when there is a walk-through or some reply, it is "that's norrnaL" They completely skimp wherever they can and take advantage of inexperrenced new build buyers like myself My lawn was laid down in freezing temperatures so the yard was never flattened down and is filled with ankle breaking holes, When the ground thawed, the entire place turned into a gigantic lake with standing water for days, I don't regret this purchase, but I often wonder if it was worth the half million I paid. Gorgeous floorplans' Spectacular windows' Nice fireplace. But they will SKIMP EVERYWHERE ELSE THEY CAN. And then be non'fesponsive. Speaking of, I better call Ihem again to give them my list (like above, we have a list that easily fills an entire page) of major issues I would still recommenci the homes--just know what you are getting into and lower your expectations, (Another weird thing" They attach the fences directly to your house--nail it directly into the siding. HOrrible idea for Washin~lton State. Yet another thing, that I the buyer, now has to fix on my own dime because "that's norrnal", No. no it's not Maybe the customer service team care, but certainly not the people that are meant to corne fix the stuff that should've been built right in the first place, They guy who stained our fence completely missed the TOP of the fence. Stuff like lIlat It's like you need to be there 24/7 as tlley are working on tllings,) f1cply mark wicklund FebrualY 6. 2014 atl 0:b9 .LIM I just submitted a list of'! 8 items for mainvue to repair under our warranty, I arn anxious to find out how it will be handled, Stay tuned, Page 10 of 12 http://whatguys.blogspot.com/2012110/mainvue-homes-review....l011 0/20 14 --------- Guys Talk About Everything: Mainvue Homes Review Anonymous March 14, 2m 4 at 6110 PM You are not alone. I have owned MainVue horne for 3 months now. I start to experience the defects around the house. Floor squeaky, doors make noise when close and one of the doors we don't have to turn the knob and we can open it. TIle gutter on the outdoor room still has water in it after 3 sunny days. When take warm shower, moister build up on the fan and droppinq onto Ihe bathlOom floor. We had Bob's Heating & Air Conditioning coming to fix it, but the guy found nothinq wrong and moister continues to dmp whenever i take warm shower. There are rnany of small things around the house which I think they should have done it better especially for house at $400K. And customer service is not good either. Whenever I ask for services, they treat like you buy stuff from Walmart. Attractive blueprint, but poor quality built and bad customer service, i hope they get screw like they screw me. Reply Anonymous Marcil 20, 2014 atll :20 AM Any recent purchases in mainvue any more feedback, we were looking at their house in Bellevue, but this thread scares me .. not sure if I should look at this as a one off or if this is a trend any pointers? Reply Anonymous April 2, 2014 c.t2:59 PM Ok, so we moved into our Mainvue horne at Parkhaven in Bothell. Worst decision of our lives r The quality of these homes ... err ... lack of quality in these homes is undeniableI' What's funny is they (Jet you with all the fancy finishes and keep you mesmerized by the idea of carefree "outdoor" living. Our home has so many problems, from appliances, to flooring issues that squeak throughout the horne, walls off center, fixtures wossly off center and annoying neighbors we originally thought were decent people. Our plans are to move very soon. For anyone looking for a quality home, run, RUN FAST away from Mainvue! Reply Kirthi MiN 9, 2.0 j 4 ilt 2:20 PM Anybody purchases a MainVue Home in Bothell'> What/How rs your experience so far? How are they handling your concerns after you moved in? Anything i should be concerned about" We finished our contract and after seerng the comments in the blog, we are very concerned. Page 11 of 12 http://whatguys.blogspot.com/2012/1 O/mainvue-homes-review.... 10/1 0/20 14 9uys Talk About Everything: Mainvue Homes Review We 90t a pre sale horne, which is yet to be built. Is there anythinq i can do during the construction process to make sure some of the problems do not arise? Thank You in advance. r1eply COlllment as: Select profile .. Publish I Preview Let's hear what you think. Why Buy A I~ Manufactured realityhomesinc.com Custom Homes As Low As $49.900 Ask how we can help you build if. II , Newer Post f Horne Older Post " Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) Page 12 of 12 http://whatguys.blogspot.com/2012110/mainvue-homes-review....l0/l 0/2014 - ---------------------- Smith, Barbi M. Re: MainVue Homes -Any Feedback? 09-27-2013 04:26 PM We have the same issue with appliances and customer service. Everything becomes a "do it yourself' after the purchase of the home. They pass the ball from one person to the next, main vue employees will call to let you know they care, it is all a PR stunt. If they care they will be proactive, take ownership fix the issues and deal with suppliers themselves. When a supplier doesn't stand behind the quality of their products, how is that the home owner's responsibility to fix when Mainvue is the one that made the deals with the suppliers? Their priorities are backwards; If problems arise, they need to work through them so that their buyers feel satisfied about the situation in the end. The last thing you want is a string of unhappy buyers, because that will not help you establish a favorable reputation under any circumstances. Providing excellent customer services, and addressing problems promptly, has to be a top priority. The most important thing this builder can do to protect their reputation is to be proactive. By focusing on the things that will make, and keep, their buyers happy, and then spreading the word about that happiness and trust, their business will come out on top! (their choice . 10-14-201308:31 AM I am a potential buyer and as toying around with the idea of Mainvue homes. This past Saturday, I went by their upcoming property in Renton and saw some workers in action. I must say they dont seem to have an organized way of doing things. There was one finished proerty with it's fencing broken. The build process was haphazard and they just seemed to be interested in finishing the project and move on rather than building with care and quality. 05-24-201301 :51 PM I am a MainVue home owner and when I was buying there were no reviews on MainVue, so now I want to share ... I have found the quality of the homes to be lacking. The homes are slammed together so quickly that a lot of short cuts are taken. We have cabinet handles in the kitchen that are off center by over 2 inches, uneven fioors in the downstairs, base molding that is bowed over 1/4in and the list goes on. My husband is a finish carpenter and he get very disgusted with the quality of work and materials. Unfortunately, we did not catch these things in the walk through and even what we did catch was only "repaired" to the bare minimum and some of Ihe repairs later have failed. Lots of short cuts taken and it's pretty disappointing. I am not a happy MainVue home owner. I would not recommend them to a friend. In my optinion it's simply not quality construction Customer Service: non existent. If you buy the appliances through ManView and something happen, you are ON YOUR OWN. We purchase a refrigerator, a washer and dryer. The refrigerator (1 month old!) broke down 2 days ago. We called MainVue, one of their agents finally pick up the phone and he promised top help us find someone. He coulnd't, no one picked up the phone. No rep from the MainVue "warranty" dept answered. Apparently, everyone was in some kind of training. NO BACKUP In the meantime, our refrigerator is leaking and damaging the hardwood floors. We finally got the lady that did the walk through of the house, she couldnt do anything, it is not her department. Sent us back to "frigidaire" 50, , we got another person from mainvue, can't do anything because she doesnt work the 'waranty" department. 1 l TODAY the third day, we finally got the women in charge of "warranty" she cant do a thing and send us back to "frigidaire" which by the way .. we have been calling from day one with zero luck. Finally got to talk to Mark and has been the only one going the extra mile for us making phone calls and truly trying to help us. Interesting fact: he is an agent, sales office and it is doing things "not related to his department" On the other hand: we are still waiting for items (from the walk through) that need repair: broken windows in the livingroom and kitchen (they promised to install new windows in 2 weeks, it has been a month). Scratched windows in other areas, touch up paint around the house etc, so far, nothing has happened. Recommendation: We highly recommend Ms. Laura Hanes (the MainVue agent that sold us the house). This lady truly goes the extra 10000% for her customers, if it wasn't for her we would have walked away from this house. And Mark, for understanding customer service, going the extra mile and truly care for the reputation of MainVue. Advice: review everything you sign with the lender ASK ASK ASK for clarification. Document all your questions and answeres received. If you buy applainces from them, make sure you understand the mainvue 'warranty'. During the walk through, do not be shy, LOOK everywhere. In one of. our bedrooms, the door has a missed chunk of wood on the buttom, one of the workers was instructed to fix the issue on the spot. We came back the next day and nothing was repaired. We are still waiting .... During our walk thorugh we were told "do not expect perfection" and I am thinking to myself, "you do expect full payment for the house", right?? 09-17-201310:16 AM -edited 09-17-201310:23 AM We purchased earlier this year. In a few words, no customer Service, low quality home and the appliances are crap. To get someone to resolve any issue related to the house requires divine intervention. Mainvue rely only on the good floor plans and outdoor room (novelty) to sell their homes. However, the value of a good reputation it's how customers purchase a product. It's what a loyal customer gravitate towards, what makes it easier for people to trust what you have to say and the products you offer. The outdoor room and floor plan may get Mainvue to the top, but it takes good customer service and good quality homes to keep them there. If they can't change the way they conduct business, In all good conscience, I could not recommend that you buy their homes. 09-19-201303:04 PM -edited 09-19-2013 03:10 PM We've fell in love with the Mainvue home eversince we stepped into thier model homes in Auburn when they first appeared a couple of years ago. What we love best is the style of thier home. They're mondern and the open layout with the huge slidedoor to the outdoor room. We've rencently purchased our mainvue home and although we love our home there were a few things that we're not too happy about. Two biggest complaint about Mainvue is the customer service and the craftsmanship. When we decided to buy we were a bit deceived by Mainvue.The home was just about to be built right before we've purchased it. They told us what the model was and a photo of that model was posted on the lot and well as on thier website but it wasn't until we've received the blueprint of the house that we realized that we were not going to get the facade we thought we were going to get. We never realized that there were different facade for that particular model.When we did our walk through, it appears they dont want to fix anything but to touch up paint. I've painted out a few things and the lady iust kind of play it down like it's supposed to be like that. It's like I've never seen a brand new home before. I have to keep mentioning things a few times before she would write it down to get it fix. They left a mess of cable on the side of the house and she said the cable guys will clean that up when they installed our cable but that was not the case. The quality of the stuff is pretty mid range as I'm sure they have to cut corner to make some profit as they put in a lot of things many other builders don't. Now Ihat we've live there for a few months, I've noticed few things, like the lock in our bathroom door doesn't even lock, floor creaks in certain area and the fridge they installed for us doesn't even make any ice. That's just to name a few. Also it's great that they did all the landscapping and even built a fance for us, but unfortuanatly it wasn't so great for us since we lost like about 10" to a foot of our land to our neighbor because of the way they built the fance and laid the stone. Finally what really turns me off the most is that after clOSing, the keys to our house was just left on the fence post for us to find. It's the most expensive thing we've ever purchased but the keys can't even be handed to us by a real person. Our real estate agent even asked to get the keys and then will hand it to us but they don't allow that. So pretty much once they have your money they don't really care to provide you any service. Besides that everything went well, we've closed on time as we used our own lender. Thier sales agent worked with our agent and was responsive to our questions. I'm not asking for perfection but it would be nice if they care about thier homes and thier reputation. Mainvue build such beautiful home so it's a shame that the the craftsmanship is lacking. I would never pay $600K that they are asking, for this quality of thier home in Renton. Other builders who price thier home for that much usually has high quality homes. 10-15-201305:32 PM In general I agree with the comments previously made by mainvue owners. The build process is haphazard and done by individuals with no clue what the word quality means. No personal pride in doing a job well by the contractors and no oversite 2 to control quality by the builder. Too many errors and omissions to list here. They also went to great lengths to avoid having to fix things by denying the existence of a problem and bringing in their own "expert" to corroborate their position. Fortunately I had a highly competent inspector who was able to refute their argument by describing the problem in great detail and providing photo evidence as backup. The main selling point is the design concept but if could do it over again I would just copy the design as best I could and hire my own builder. After the sale I've had mixed results with their customer care people. Most items that I report under warranty are handled fairly but in a couple of instances I have been told that they will not fix the problem because i "should have caught that during the walkthrough inspection". So much for owning their work and standing behind it. Bottom line is that if you care about quality workmanship and customer care, my recomendation is that you look elsewhere and AVOID AVOID AVOID this builder. Did I mention that you should AVOID using Mainvue Homes? 10-15-201305:46 PM Armado, They don't deserve your hard earned money. I'd look somewhere else. 11-12-201308:07 AM This is where I found that I am not the only one dealing with horrible customer service stories frorn builder and their worthless WORTHLESS vendors, after a year I will tell this company how I feel. I work in a national retail company that stresses customer service. I also know in my company when a customer fills out a survey the management is informed the next day and is required to contact the customer immediatly and FIX the problem. I feel like Mainvue and all their worthless vendors is ignoring the situation. I have bought property before and always recieved immediate action to reasonable requests. But nothing from' them, this builder does not feel the need to give their customers the well deserve appreciation and respect! This is what we hear from them "I am so sorry, our manager or president (or whatever) is informed and he will personally contact the vendor to expedite this".and this is where it stops. Fiddle dee dee! From this point on it becomes a viscious cycle of phone calls between YOU and the worthless vendorlwarranty rep. You have an emergency? may the force be with you my friend. You will have all the "understanding, pity and sorrow" from mainvue and the vendor rep or office person, followed by 2, 3,4 maybe 5 weeks of waiting only to find out IE they can do whatever it is that you need to resolve your emergency. How about that? What is going to take for Mainvue to wake up and realize this vendors will dig their grave? a lawsuit?!!?! WAKE UP PEOPLE! CHANGE VENDORS and their non existence warranty support> YOU PICK THEM, YOU GET RID OF THEMI DO not pass the burden to the customer that pay a great deal of money expecting good quality homes and service. I do not need your . syumpathy, I need you to stand by your product with true actions. Making a phonecall to your vendor DOESNT DO SQUAT, AND it doesn't wash away the responsibility you owe to the customer that believed in you and your ability to manuifacture a good quality home and your WISDOM TO BE ABLE TO CHOOSE GOOD VENDORSIWARRANTY I am sharing my story in hope to help other' customers avoid the worst companies with the worst service practices. Based on my experience and some of the other reviews I blogs I have seen it is clear MAINVUE AND THEIR VENDORS AND BUILDING CREW has a flaky home quality control and serious vendors warranty issues. 03-20-2014 11 :55 PM I am a MainVue home owner. I am moving in 4 months now. I bought the house in 400K range but the house built qualities are nowhere near that price. My outdoor gutter always has water in it even there is no rain for days. Carpet floor up stair makes noise when you walk on certian area and stair as well. They didn't stitch the carpet properly because there are string threads everywhere. About Bob& Air Conditioning, is the worse contractor ever. All Mainvue home uses them. Now I am trying to ask them to fix the restroom moister built up on the fence-sometimes i have to take shower opening the bathroom door. I called them and left voice message twice with two days apart from each other and got no phone call returned. The house garage is very small. You can't park SUV or Van or truck in there. So don't trust the picture on the internet showing van and car parked in there because it only fits car like Accord, Camry etc, for us we can only use one side of the garage because other side they have water tank so the car can't go all the way in else will hit the tank. Very bad builder decision. Their services are very slow. You report them and 2 months later they will respond you. If you report too much, they will treat you like you are shop piing at walmart. For us buyer, this is the expensive purchase that we will spend money on yet they don't really care. After they have your money, they don't care anymore. I know it's hard to not buy MainVue home that was how I felt because I couldn't find any unique floorplan like them. So if you plan to buy their houses, just be prepared. Message 22 of 32 (1,906 Views) In the frame walk, we noted our Grand utility room was miSSing a sink and noted the schematics of the utility room were off. MainVue's represented "assured us" that "everything will be fixed and to contract", Despite other contractual issues and disagreements we purged on. We finally came to the walk through May 2014. The walk through was a disaster our list was 3 pages of work orders. After 3 hrs and more issues to address, we decided to look into the crawl space since it's cover was also misaligned and not closing properly. And what do you know ... It was filled with murky water, standing smelly murky water! This of course was undisclosed to us, prior to the walk through. We immediately scheduled an inspector and requested them to use . a 3rd party contractor to come in asses the issue and fix the problem. They refused to do this, stated they already had someone scheduled to come and take of the issue. MainVue then pressed us to close, we pushed closing, requested a follow up inspection and guess what he found??? Mold EVERYWHERE. They even replaced insulation behind moldy rafters. The 3 ,-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------, inspector also stated that whatever MainVue did to solve the water problem (digging a giant hole in the corner and covering it up with gravel), probably wouldn't resolve the initial issue that caused the water retention. So this is for the buyers buying lot 66 Kendall Ridge 30606 134th ave ... yeah, I hope you got an inspection because your home has mold in the crawl space and it's only been 12 days since we rescinded the offer and it's now pending. I doubt the mold issue has been properly resolved or treated in 12 days. I also hope you have a an agent that showed you that one of the rooms upstairs doesn't have a closet because they built the grand utility room and omitted the closet in one of the rooms due to it being off schematic at framing. Legally, it's not a 4 bedroom house if it doesn't have a closet, and they have continued to list it as a 4 bedroom since we dropped our offer. Do yourselves a favor, BUY FROM ANY BUILDER IN WASHINGTON THAT ISN'T HENLY OR MAINVUE. It's cheap work, it's bad customer service, and their cheap laborers do not know how to read a blue print or a floor plan. They obviously have no clue how to build a home since there are nothing but complaints online and from the neighbors in that developement. We got lucky and got out of a disaster. Our goal is to inform people of our negative experience with a horrible company that wasted our time for 7 months and destroyed the dream house we wanted to build for our family. 07-17-201405:29 PM Please stop with the nonsense. I WOULD AVOID MAINVUE AT ALL COST!! Sure homes look nice and that is what tricks everyone. Their warranty department is horrendous. We just bought a home with mainvue. I made a huge mistake. I should have never closed until everything was fixed. We did the walk through with Carrie she assured us everything will be fixed. Guess what lies. She does not reply to our emails or our phone calls Mainvue touts that they are building 300 homes, guess what, QUANTITY DOES NOT EQUAL QUALITY All the contractors are lazy, i have spoken with our neighbors we all have problems. Cheap paint being used, some cases does not even match. One of my neighbors breakfast bar has a different color piece to it. I mean seriously are these guys blind, how do you install a 3 foot piece that is different color than rest. Dry walling appears to be done by kids. Cheap floors they easily scratch. Doors do not sit flush and close properly. Uneven walls. Come on is there no quality control? Please actually drive by and look, i can point out multiple homes with problems with shingles in roofs 4 r--i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 F. Lots 27 and 28 are proposed to be accessed vi.a separate private driveways, located within abutting pipe stems, which would be spaced very close. Staff recommends a shared driveway for primary and sole access to Lots 27 and 28. An access easement shall be recorded concurrently on the face of the Final Plat. The proposed plat is anticipated to generate additional traffic on the City's str~et system. A Transportation Wpact Fee, per net new average d;Uly trip attributed to the project, with credit given for the existing single-family residence, was recommended as part of the, SEPA review. The fee would be used to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the City's transportation syst~ and is "payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Conditions of approval Will require the Applicant to submit a revised street improvement , plan for approval by the Development seivices Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. This plan will demonstrate compliance with the City's half street improvement standards, compliance with the City's design standards for internal roads and a joint use driveway for Lots 27 and 28. Tree Retention. The City received a comment letter expressing concern about tree retention on-site. There are a total of 211 trees located on site. Twenty-four of these are proposed to be retained,(12 located within the critical area and its buffer). The Applicant is required to retain 30 percent of the trees located on site outside of critical arell;S, proposed rights of way and access easements. Of the 21 I trees located on-site, 54 trees would be excluded from the tree retention requirements because of their location in the critical area or proposed rights of way or access easements. The remaining 157 trees are subject to the 30% tree retention requirement. The Applicant must retain at least 47 trees on site or mitigate the'relnoval of trees by planting new trees. The Applicant has proposed to retain only 12 of the 47 required trees. When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, new trees; with a two- inch caliper or greater, shall be planted. The replacement rate is 12-caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. As the Applicant proposes to retain only 12 of the required 47 trees, the Applicant must mitigatefor 35 additional trees, or plant 420- caliper inches of trees on-site. The Applicant is proposing a total of 2 I I replacement trees of2 caliper inches each, for a total of 422-caliper inches. Staff recommended as a SEPA mitigation measure that the applicant be required to retain those trees located on proposed Lots 29 and 30, as they can best be used to save existing PREL~ARYPLAT-7 I I I i I ! ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ 3 - } Co cJ (II ~ ~ ~ G- ...c.. (\\ I 8 -c -(II -\) ~ 0'1 ""'B ~ 1r C- oO 0 dJ --I)..- --+-C> C' ~ -1> \ 1 =-tJ L u ~ / Q ~ r cD -+--s:::- t \ www.rentonreporter.com February 21, 2014 (3) Dancer outshines illness to compete on top stage BYTRACEY COMPT ON tcompton@rultotlrtporter.com A Ren ton ball e t dancer h as overcome heal th chal- lenges to compete for the th ird t ime in th e pres tigi ous Youth America Grand Prix Finals in New York this April. Even though Jamie Castill o, II, has been to the compe tition twice before, she's still excited about th e rience of a lifetime," Jamie sa id . "So I'm just re all y exci ted ." It 's al so an amazin g fea t co nsidering what she's had to endure to get t o where s he is today. When Jami e wa s four years old, she came down with self·healingjuvenile cutaneous mucinosis . It's a skin condition that is char- acterized by skin lesion s and forms of arthritis . It's also rare. Jamie's modate h er diet. It 's also the ballet trip of a lifetime with access to the who's who of ballet sch ools a nd teachers in th e city. Last year, Jamie attended classes and rehearsals at the Manhattan Movement and Arts Center, Alvin Ailey Ame ri ca n Dance Com - pany a nd LaGuardia High School. She a lso competed at the SkirbaU Ce nt er at New York University and she for the gala, Lin- "~---, ... (4] February 21,2014 (HOUSES from page 1] who has taken one of the lead roles in speaking against the project. Beedon said the residents have built the series of trails that criss-cross the woods and use those, as well as the pipeline right -o f-ways , to do some walking, as well as get around their neighborhood. The patch of green space provides a bit of peace for the neighborhood and its residents. "People go in there just to watch birds;' she said. Residents are also concerned that adding 98 homes to an area with only two access pOints. both of which run ~ __ ... __ .Fiaillmlllli*!Y. www.rentonreporter.com through the neighborhood, could bring a dangerous level of traffic to the area. "The traffic is going to be a major, major problem," Beedon said this week. "It's going to be a nightmare for the neighbors there." Beedon a]80 said she was concerned the parcel contained more wetlands than previously thought. In response to concerns from residents. as well as some of their own, the city placed a hold on the plans for the development and have requested additionaltrallic and wetlands studies as well as a habitat report.The developer, Henley Homes, has up to six months to provide the additional studies and there will be a second comment period once they are received. "We're waiting for that information to come ba ck .... Timmons said. Resident of the area are hoping the additional studies s how that the land is not viable for so many homes and that the developer will decide to leave the land a natural, wooded area, «When it's gone. il's gone;' Beedon said. Reacll Editor Brian Beckley at 425 - 255-3484, ex t. 5050 Thl. atrial.hot from Google Maps shows the 21 -acre wooded parcel slated to be developed Into 98 homes. COURTESY IMAGE BALLET DREAMS I Dancer outsh ines illness to compete on top stage. [3] POSTSEASON SPORTS I Wre stl ers, swimm ers, and th e Renton gir ls ba sketb all tea m mov e on to state tourn aments. [Sport s 11] NEWSLlNE: 425.255.3484 Renton schools to need 42 additional classrooms in near future • Enrpll ment report sh ows rapid gro wt h, need for sp ace in ne xt th ree year s of two new elementary schools, under normal enrollment growth circumstances it is a five-to seven-year process to justify the expense for new buildings and then convince our taxpayers to fund them; sa id Lynn Desmarais, board president via email. "Two to three years is a timeline I don't think we've seen since the 1960s during a period of rapid growth. last year's middle -school boundaries and conside rin g the potential impact on school facilities due to the McCleary decision and district-wide enrollm ent growth. The McCleary decision refers to the 2012 State Supreme Court decision that ruled Washington state is not amply funding basic education under the state Constituti on. The specifics and guidelines as to how th at will happened aren't know yet, but district officials warn the effect cou ld be sig nifican t. BY TR AtlY COMPTON tcomptoll @rcnto,.reporter.com Experiencing a rapid period of growth lo<ally and s tate- wide, th e Renton Sc h ool District is projected to need 42 new classrooms in the next two -and -a -half to three years, a district com mittee fo und. The Enro llm e nt Review Committee, led by Chairperso n Louis Pappas, presented the findings at a di strict sch ool board meeting Feb. 12. "But keep in mind," she added, "this is a statewide issue, unlike the local expansion of Boeing back then, and each district's approach will depend on the number and condi - tion of buildings th ey hav e available." "We've got to be creative and we've go t to plan; the clock is ticking," said Pa ppas. Rent.on's annual growth rate is I .S percent a nnua ll y, which amounts to about 210 to 220 kids a year. Pappas called the steady growth rate fortunate, but ca ll ed out the "Forty-two new classrooms represents the equivalent It was the task of the 25-person review committ ee to re - view enrollm ent projections, building capacity and analyze portab le classroom needs for the 2014 to 2015 and 2015 to 2016 school years. They were also tasked wiLh reviewing [II.,," ENROLLMENT,..p 4 J Housing proposal has neighborhood worried 98 -home development would be built on 'pseudo park ' used by res idents BY IRIIN BICKlEY bbeclcley@re,.,otlreporter.com Every day Helen Pacheco takes t o the informal trail sys tem that runs thro ughout her neighborhood to get a little fresh air and so me exercise. With h e r golden retriever Lucky or with her daughter, Pacheco estimates that she walks about six miles each day, st arting from her Ponderosa Estates home and wandering through the large patch of green space that sits in the ce nler of her neigh- borhood . _But the trail s on which Pacheco and hundreds of her neighbors walk every day are not part of the fo rmal , city trail s and parks system and th e 21-acre piece of land has been sold and is se t to host up to 98 homes in the near future, if developers have their way. "It's a crying shame," Pacheco said this Hele. Pacheco and Lucky walk alo ng one of the unofficial walking trails that criss-cross the Tiffany Park neighborhood but are th realened by a pote ntial housi ng develo pm ent. BRIAN BE(KlEY, RtntonR'ptN'er week. Located near Tiffany Park Elementary School in the Benson Hill Neig h borhood and formerly owned by the Renton School District and bordered on two sides by a pair of pipelines, the tract of land is a spot of green in the neighborhood, but a November app lication from Henley Homes to build a new housi ng development is cur- rently working its way through the city and neighbors are fighting to keep it from being turned into homes . "The community h as seve ral concerns," said City of Renton Se nior Planner Rocale Timmons. According to Timmons, a recent neigh - borhood meeting about the proposal drew a large number of comments from the comm u nity, with many residents con- cerned about an increase in traffic in their neighborhood as we ll as the proposa l's call to clear approximately 1,3 00 trees from a property that Timmons said residents use as a "pseudo park:' "A U those trees would come down," she said, adding that the Benson Hill area lacks in parks. according to the Benson Hill Community Plan . "It's a travesty to lose these woods," said Renate Beedon, a Tiffany Park resident [_ HOUSES p.Ige 4) Renton High • magazine wins national award BY TR AC(YCOMPTON tcomptotl @rentotlreporter.com Renton Hi gh School's newsmaga - zine. Arrow, was recen tly hono red with a national di ve rs ity award. This spring, the Journalism Ed uca - tion Association will hono r Renton High with its Diversity Award on April 13 at the JEAlNSPA Spring National High School Journali sm Convention in San Diego. Renton's newsmagaz ine staff is be- ing honored for p romoting diversity in the scholastic media arena and taking steps to break down walls of misunderstanding and ignorance in their issue "Perfect Language:' Student editor Vanessa Abenojar and Ksenia lvanova, student manag- ing editor, have bee n credited with using the newsmagazine to share the stories of English Language Learners, or ELL students. at the school. Arrow staff interviewed ELL students and their stories appeared in print and on CD, through a project with KUOW Puget Sound Public Radio. Renton High School's student body reflects an ethnic, racial and reli - [llor. AWAlO ~.10 J DATE : CITY O F RENT ON PLANNING DI V ISION ... Weekend weather www.rentonreporter.com ..., , , ..., , , Friday Cloudy with a 30 percent chance of showers and a high of 45 . Show - ers overnight. low of34. Saturday Mostly cloudy with a high of 45 and an overnight low of36. Sunday Cloudy with a chance of show- ers. high of 44 . Chance of rain overnight, 36 . SEND USYOUR PlCSI W. wlntto Stt ,ou, your friends :L ...... ___ ~_~ ____ ~~ ___ ..... and family members outdoors somewhere in Renton, whatever Property tax bills sent out; valuation back to pre-recession levels Property tax bills for 2014 were mailed to King County residents on Feb. 14 and should arrive at taxpayer mailing addresse s shortly. Total property valuations are approaching pre·recesslon levels at 5340.6 billion. (2008 total property value was 5341 billion) up 7.6 % overall from 2013 (5314 .7 billion). Commercial real estate valuations have also reflected this upward trend, the overJII valu- ation for commercial property in King County has increased from 5110 .1 billion in 2013 to $120.3 billion in 2014. • Find out your tax levy rate and more property related information by visitin~eReal Property Search on the King County A;!!>es - sor's website at www.kingcounty.gov/asses- sor. 2014 property taxes in King County have Increased 5.64 percent overall, from 53.72 bil- lion to $3.93 billion . However, your property tax Increase will vary depending on where your property Is located and what voter- approved levies were passed. Countywide, voters approved a six -year temporary lid lift for the renewal of the Parks levy at a rate of $0 .18 cents per 51 ,000 of all ~:::::::;:;::::::::::;:;;;:;~::::::::::W~=====~=~===~ taxab le assessed value that would generate r 563 million in revenue, and a si x-year renewal You Sat t t! Web poll results of the Emergency Medical services (EMS) levy the weather. Send your photos to bbeckley@rentonreporter.com to be considered for publication on the new 'At A Glance' page . RI"nt rains have caused the Cedar River, seen here from a pedestrian bridge along the Cedar RlverTrall, to fill its banks and overflow in some sections, prompting trail closures along th e lower portion of the trail. BRIAN BECKtEY, R"tof! RtpOfItf Thh _ i •• ""rt< in ""I"'~ I _do,... can' wrap my head around this. Pr y • or him and his family." -Facebook user Kimberly Collins on the story about police searching Lake Kath- leen for a missing 51-year-old mbn. Smile. Your search for a new dentist is over. W e pro vide thoughtful. modern d e ntal c are. Ca ll f o r an appoi ntment today. Emergency appointments available. $59 Cleaning. Exam & Dig it al X-rays ' $50 off Any Dentistry' I Meet your new dentists! Dr. William Mc Glashan , owner den t ist A nd now in t roducing Dr. Fesaha Gebrehlwotl ~25793-6003 RentonModernOentlstry.com • Do you agret with Gov. Jay In - slt.t.'s ban on executions while he~ in office, Yes ........................................... 21% No ............................................ 79% Visit www.rento nreporter.com to vote on this week's poll question . SPECIALIZED AREAS OF EXPERTISE: at a rate of $0 .335 cents or less per 51 ,000 of all taxable assessed value . State and local schools receive 53 .8 percent of property tax revenu e coll ec ted in King County. Cities and other local governments, such as fire districts and hospital d is tricts, receive about 26 percent of the property tax collection (there are 161 local taxing districts in King County). King County government receives approximately 17 .8 percent, and the Port of Seattle receives just under 2 percent of the property tax. To avoid Interest and penalties, first half property taxes must be paid or postmarked by April 30, 2014. Second half property must be paid or postmarked by Oct. 31, 2014 . We are proud to have Top Docs in our urology department. PacMed has 4 Convenient ~ocatlons for All Your Dr. M ic hae l H a n Dr. Don ald Pic k Dr. Ric h a r d Wo nd erly $(o,tf,lIld Pac Med II a trademark of PaCI fi c Medi ca l Ce nte" "')logy N eds. paci fIC medea! centers .eM 'd.org/urology _III 0 r-» c n .... » ~ m 0 ~ .. "' ~ z .. s; z z Z CO ~ to 0 z I en --r-+ CD r o () Q) r-+ --o :::J I C/) (') :::T 0 0 0 --en r-+ -. --(') r-+ -u .., 0 -c CD ::+ ~ I ............... ~ ~ <~ ......................... .... ~~ .......... .... ~;p; .. .... --::J co () o C ::J .-+ '< o C Q) ;::l. CD .., en CD (') .-+ --o ::J I I I , (0 W ! • I • j . (j) j .'. " . , ~" » --..., \J :::r 0 r-+ 0 0 h (J) --r-+ CD I '-C '< , CD CD 0 » ---., -u ::::r 0 , I 0 CO -., Q) "'C ::::r Google Maps Terrain Map - rr--5CA&./RELICT RIYERBANK7{ r i '!(-i I T ~;:' J ~z~ , ~1 1..·1 , ,1 'j ,1-«: .... ~ , ~ -, ' ~ 'rr '; .. -"'~"'-'-. I • • w » -- - Geologic Map From the 1965 Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington, Mullineaux, D. R., USGS I en CD Q) 1"'+ 1"'+ -CD " Q) c -1"'+ N 0 ::J CD .. C en G) en .. I\J 0 ---'" ~ z o ro- CO (1) ::l ---I m ,f/) I --I ., Q) -- o ::l --I --~ ::J '< -u Q) ., =" ~ o o c.. en I 0 ::::J CD 0 .. s: Q) :::J '< ... ... " 0 ::+ --.. --() Q) .-+ --0 :::J en .... .... I en ro+ ..., C C1 ro+ C ..., CD 0 :J en --ro+ CD -------------- I » ::J 0 ,....... ::r-eo ..., ... ... 11 0 ::+ --It --() Q.) ,....... --0 :::J .... .... I z CD --CO ::::T CT 0 -, en () CD Q) ::J C -C :t> (') r-+ --< --r-+ --CD en From DERCR _c------ -' ----- o The DERCR relied on 18 documents: • Exhibit 1 ERC Report • Exhibit 2 Preliminary Plat Plan (dated July 16, 2014) • Exhibit 3 Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (dated July 16,2014) • Exhibit 4 Tree Protection Report (June 6, 2014) • Exhibit 5 Revised Wetland Determination and Response Letter (dated June 3, 2014) • Exhibit 6 Habitat Assessment (dated January 16, 2014) • Exhibit 7 Geotechnical Report (dated September 28,2012) • Exhibit 8 Drainage Report (dated February 24,2014) From DERCR _c------~ • Exhibit 9 Traffic Impact Analysis (dated April 23, 2014) • Exhibit 10 Public Comment Letters: 10.1-10.70 • Exhibit 11 Alternative Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (August 29, 2014) • Exhibit 12 Alternative Tree Protection Report (August 27,2014) • Exhibit 13 Independent Secondary Review -Traffic • Exhibit 14 Independent Secondary Review Wetland (April 3, 2014) • Exhibit 15 Supplemental Independent Secondary Review -Wetland (July 9, 2014) • Exhibit 16 Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (dated February 11,2014) • Exhibit 17 Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (dated June 12,2014) • Exhibit 18 Landscape Plan (dated July 16, 2014) • It is unclear how the public can review and comment on these 18 documents and the DERCR in 14 days. Reports & Studies used for the SEPA Checklist "'~I------------------------------------------------ 1. Storm water Technical Information Report (TIR) prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. dated November 2013 2. Geotechnical Report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences dated September 28,2012 3. Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by the Transpo Group dated November 2013 4. Wetland Determination Report prepared by C. Gary Schulz Wetland/Forest Ecologist dated October 30, 2013 5. Tree Protection Plan and Report prepared by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc., dated November 13, 2013 Reports and studies used for the SEPA checklist prepared by Wayne Potter with Novastar Development on November 7, 2013 is the only "SEPA" document that is presented and still used in the evaluation process. 1J Q) - ~ w C/) m ~ (') :J" CD () " r-ClIo - . __ ~_,.J, ._. __ J, l ~----~ ! 1------I ! ' ! "---i f ---~ i '-. _. ; I , , --~ \ ; '--_.!.. ~--'- ." ..., o 3 -- 3 -- -u Q) ::J ~ .. L _ From Otak Reserve at Tiffany Park Wetland Review, April 3, 2014 ... , . D Wetland Determination: Reserve at Tiffany Park, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, dated February 28, 2014; D Plan set for the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., signed February 27, 2014. D Technical Information Report, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated November 12, 2013, and revised February 24,2014. D From Page 3 of the Otak April 3, 2014 report: D Wetland hydrology observed on March 17, 2014, ranged from saturation at the surface to saturation at 4 inches below the surface. I Ol ::J c.. From Schulz June 3, 2014Report _, "'F-_' D Sample Point 13 HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check an that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) 0 Surface Water (A 1) 0 Water-Stained leaves (89) 0 Water-Smined leaves (89) 0 High Water Table (Al) (ucapt MlRA 1. 2. 4A, 03nd 48) (MLRA 1. 2. 4A. olnd 'SJ 0 Saturation (A3) 0 Satt Crust(Bl1) 0 Droioage Patterns (810) 0 Water Marks (81) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (813) 0 Dry.Season Water Table (C2) 0 SedIment Deposits (82) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Ct) 0 Satur.nion Vtsible on Aerial Imagery (C9) 0 Drift Deposits (83) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along living Roots (C3) 0 Geomorphic Position (02) 0 AIg<d Mal or Crust (B4) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallcnv Aquitard (03) 0 Iron Deposits (BS) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (G6) 0 FAG-Neutral Test (05) 0 Surface Soil Grads (B6) 0 Stunted Of Stresses Plants (01) (lRR AI 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (lRR AI 0 Inundation ViSible on Aerial tnmgery (87) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) 0 SP'lrsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface W <Iter Present? Ye. S No 0 Depth (inches): 1 Water Table Present? Ye. S No 0 Depth (inches): Q Saturation Present? Ye. S No 0 Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) g Wetland Hydrology Present? Y .. S No 0 Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well. aeri<lt photos. previous inspections). if available: Remarks· From Schulz June 3, 2014Report - D SP-14 HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primaty Indicators (minimum of one required; check an that apply) Secondary lndicators (2 Of more required) 0 SLrlace Water (A 1) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (89) 0 Water-Stained leaves (89) 0 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA " 2. 4A. and 4B) (MLRA 1. 2. 4A. and 46) 0 Saturation (A3) 0 San Crust (811) 0 Drainage Patterns (810) 0 Water Marks (81) 0 Aquatic lnvertebrntes (813) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 0 Semment Oeposits (B2) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Gl) 0 S.lturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) 0 ornt Oeposits (83) 0 Oxidized Rhizosphefes along living Roots (e3) 0 Geomorphic Position (02) 0 Algal Mat or Crust (84) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallow AqUitard (03) 0 Iron Deposits (BS) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in nUed Soifs (CG) 0 FAC-Neutral Test (05) 0 SLrlace SolI Cracks (BS) 0 Stunted Of Stresses Plants (Ol) (LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) 0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (97) 0 Other (Explain in Remart.s) 0 Frost-Heave Hwnmodcs (07) 0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) FleJd Observations: Surface Water Present? Ves 0 No I!;! Depth (inches): -- Water T abte Present? Ves I!;! No 0 Depth (inches): Q Saturation Present? Ves I!;! No 0 Depth (indles): Q Wetland Hydrology P,..sem? Ves I!;! No 0 (indudes capilJary fringe) Descnbe Recorded Oala (stream gauge, monitcxing weB, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks· From Schulz June 3, 2014Report - o SP-15 HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary IndicatOtS (minimum of one required; check aD thai apply) Secondary lndicators (2 or more required) 0 Surface Water (A 1) 0 Water-Stained leaves (B9) 0 Water-Slained leaves (B9) 0 High W3ter Table (Al) (except MLRA 1. 2 • .tA. and 48, (MlRA " 2. 4A, and 48) 0 Saturation (AJ) 0 Salt Crus! (B 11 ) 0 Orai~e Patterns (810) 0 Waler Marts (81) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (813) 0 Dry-Season Water Tabfe (e2, 0 Sediment Deposits ce2) 0 Hydrogen SuWdeOdor (Cl) 0 Sonuration Visible on Aeriallnugery (C9) 0 Drift Deposits (63) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres aJong lfving Roots (C3) 0 Geomorphic Position (02) 0 Algal Mat or Crust (54) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallow Aquitard (03) 0 iron Deposits (B5) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CG) 0 fAC-Neutral Test (05) 0 Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (OG) (lRR AI 0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) 0 Sparsefy Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Ye, 0 No 0 Depth (inches): -- Water Table Present? Ye, 181 No 0 Depth (inches): I Saturation Present? Yes 181 No 0 Depth rmches): 2 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yeo 181 No 0 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorned Data (stream gauge, monitoring wen, aeri31 photos, previous nspections). if avaibble: Remarks' From Schulz June 3, 2014Report .. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ o SP-17 HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check aD th3.t apply) Secondary IndicatoB (2 or more requited) 0 Surface Water (A 1) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (89) 0 Water-Stained leaves (89) 0 High Water Table (Al) (except MlRA I, 2. 4A. and 48) (MlRA 1. 2, 4A. and 4B) 0 Saturation (A3) 0 Sail Cf1JS.t (811 ) 0 Drainage Patterns (810) 0 Water Marks (81) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (813) 0 Ory·Sea$on Water Table (e2) 0 Sediment Deposits (82) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (CI) 0 Satwation VlSibfe on Aerial Imagery (e9) 0 Drift Deposits (83) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Uving Roots (e3) 0 Geomorphk: Position (02) 0 Algal Mat or Crust (64) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 ShaUow Aquibrd (03) 0 Iron Deposits (85) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in TiDed Soils (C6) 0 FAC-Neutral Test (05) 0 Surface Soil Cracks (66) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (lRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (lRR A) 0 lnuncbbon Visible on Aeriallm3gery (87) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) 0 Sp:1tSety Veg9tated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes 0 No Ilil Depth (inches): Water T 3ble Present? Yes Ilil No 0 Depth ("""es); ~ Saturation Present? Yes Ilil No 0 Depth (InChes): Q Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes I>! No 0 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring weD, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: From Schulz June 3, 2014Report _I is! D SP-20 HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one requited; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) 0 Surface Water (A 1) 0 Water-Stained leaves (89) 0 Water-Stained leaves (B9) 0 High Water Table (Al) (except MlRA 1, 2, .cA. and (8) IMlRA 1. 2. 4A. and 48, 0 Saturation(AJ) 0 Salt Crust (811) 0 Drainage Pattems (810) 0 Water Marks (8 1 ) 0 Aquatic Invertebfates IB 1 J) 0 Dry-Se3SOn Water Table (e2) 0 Sediment Deposits (82) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C 1) 0 Saturation VISible on .6.eriaIlmagery (G9) 0 Drift Deposits (B3) 0 O:Qdized Rhizospheres along living Roots (el) 0 Geomorphic Position (02) 0 Algal Mat Of Crust (84) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (Col) 0 Sh3lIow Aquit.atd (03) 0 '<On Deposits (B5) 0 Recent lron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CG) 0 fAC-Neutr.ll Test (05) 0 Surface SOO Cracks (B6) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (LRR AI 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) {LRR AI 0 Inundation VlSibfe on Aerial Imagery (87) 0 Other (Explain in Remarts) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (01) 0 Sp;lBely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes 0 No 0 Depth (Inches): -- Water Table Present? Yes 0 No 0 Depth (inches): ~ Saturation Present? Yes 0 No 0 Deplh (mches); l Wetland Hydrology Present? Ye. 0 No 0 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well. aerial photos, previous inspections). if available: Remarks: From Schulz June 3, 2014Report _I"".~~#C D SP-21 HYDROLOGY Wellm1d Hydrology Indicators: Pril1'l3t)' tndic31ot$ (minimum of one required; check aD that apply) Secondary lndicatots (2 or more required) 0 Surface Water (A 1) 0 Watet..$bined Leaves (89) 0 W31er·Stained Leaves (B9) 0 High Water Table (A2) (except MlRA I, 2. 4A. and 40) (MlRA I, 2. <lA. and 48) 0 Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (811) 0 Orain3ge Patterns (810) 0 Water Marks (81) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (813) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (e21 0 Seaunenl Deposits (B2) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (e 1 ) 0 Saturation Visible on Aeriallmagery (e9) 0 OrillO_IB3) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres aJong Living Roots (e3) 0 Geomorphic Position (O2) 0 AJgaI Mat or Crust (B4) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 ShaIJO'N Aquitard (03) 0 Iron Deposits (85) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in TdIed Soils (eG) 0 FAC-Neutrai Test (OS) 0 Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (lRR AI 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (lRR AI 0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) 0 Other (Expbin in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) 0 Spar$eIy Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: I Surface Water Present? Yes 0 No I!l Depth (inches): -- Water Table Present? Yes I!l No 0 Depth (inches): Q I Saturation Present? Ve. I!l No 0 Oeplh ["""os), ~ Weiland Hydrology Present? Ve. I!l No 0 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recocded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if avaifable: Remarks.- - From Schulz June 3, 2014Report - o SP-22 HYDROLOGY Wetland Hy~ology lndiutOfS: Primary Indicators (minimum of one requited; chedt aU that apply) Seconcbry Indicators (2 Of more required) 0 Swface Water (A 1) 0 Water-Stained leaves (89) 0 Water-Stained leaves (B9) 0 High Wafer Table (Al) (except MlRA 1.2 • .cA. alld .c81 IMlRA 1.2 • .tA. and .to) 0 Saturation (AJ) 0 Salt Crust (811 ) 0 OrainagePattems (Bl0) 0 Water Marks (81) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (813) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (e2) 0 Sediment Deposits (62) 0 Hydrogen Suifide Odor (e1) 0 Satutation Vrsible on Aerial Imagery (e9) 0 Drift Deposits (83) 0 Oxidized Rhizosphetes along living Roots (e3) 0 Geomorphic Position (02) 0 A1g31 MaIOI' Crust (84) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 ShaJDoN Aquitud (03) 0 Iron Deposits (85) 0 Recen! fron Reduction in TiDed Soils (C6) 0 FAG·NeutraI Test (OS) 0 Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 0 Stunted or Stresses Ptants (01) (LRR AI 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) 0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (81) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) 0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Ye, I1!l No 0 Depth (irn:hes): ! Water Table Present? Ye, I1!l No 0 Depth (inches): Q Saturation Present? Yes I1!l No 0 OepIh (onches)-Q Wedand HydJotogy Present? Yes I1!l No 0 (indudes capillary fringe) Describe Recon:Jed Data (stre3m gauge, monitoring weD. aerial photos, previous inspections), jf available: Remarks: -------- From Schulz June 3, 2014Report _ k"i';':.:'~·":C D SP-23 HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary tndic3tors (minimum of one required; check an that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) 0 Surface Water (A 1) 0 Water·$tained leaves (89) 0 Water.stained leaves (89) 0 High Water Table (A2) (except MlRA " 2 . .cA, and 48) (MlRA 1, 2. 4A, and 48) 0 Saturation (AJ) 0 Salt Crust (8 II) 0 Drainage Patterns (Bl0) 0 WaterMarb(Bl) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (813) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (e2) 0 Sediment Deposits (82) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery eC9) I 0 Drift Deposits (83) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along living Roots (e3) 0 Geomorphic Position (02) 0 Algal MaIO( Crust (84) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 $mlbw Aquitard (OJ) 0 Iron Deposits (85) 0 Recent fron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CG) 0 FAC-NeutraJ T~ (05) 0 Surface Soil Cracks (86) 0 Stunted or Stresses Pl3nts (01) (lRR AI 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) 0 Inundation Visible on Aeri3llmagery (87) 0 Other (Expbin in Remarh) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) 0 SpatSety Vegetated Concave Surface (68) Field Observations: Swface Water Present? Ve, 0 No 0 Depth (inches): ! Water Table Present? Ve, 0 No 0 Oepth (inches): Q Saturation Present? v., 0 No 0 Ilep<h (in<h .. ), Q Wetland HydrologV Present? Ve. 0 No 0 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Reo;,rded Dab (stream gauge, monitoring weD, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: I From Schulz June 3, 2014Report - o SP-24 HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology indicators: Pril1'l31Y Indicators (minimum of one required: cheek all thalappty) Secondary IndIcators (2 or more required) 181 Surface Water (A 1) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (89) 181 Watef-Stained leaves (89) 181 High Water Table (All (except MlRA 1. 2 • .tA. and 48) (MLRA 1. 2, 4A. and 48, 181 Saturation (A3) 0 Sail Crust (81 t) tll Drain3ge Patterns (810) 0 Water Marks (Bl) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (e2) 0 Sediment Deposits (B2) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (el) 0 Saturation VISible 011 Aeri3J Imagery (eg) 0 Drift Oepostts (63) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (e3) 0 Geomo<pruc Position (02) 0 Algal Mal or Crust (64) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Sh3110w Aquilard (D3) 0 Iron Deposits (85) 0 Recenllron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 FAC-Neutral Test (05) 0 Surface Soil Cracks (86) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (Ot) (lRR AI 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (lRR AI 0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) 0 Other (Expbin in Rem.ub) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) 0 Sparsefy Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Fleld ObsetVation,: Surface Water Present; Yeo tll No 0 Depth (inches); 2 Water T3bfe Present? Veo 181 No 0 Depth ("""H)· Q Saturation Present? Ye, tll No 0 Oepth (inches): Q Wetland Hydrology Present? Ye. 181 No 0 (includes capiDary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, pcevious inspections), if available: Remarks: - Water Table D From http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/gw ruralhomeowner/ fnot ground ..... 0;0'1 neld by moiocuiar attractio.-,.,.. surrounds sur12ces of rock par~tCres - -_ApproximAle levet 01 Ihe waler fablp,--_ All OOetllngs below wa'eJ' table full of "'~tef-groon(J wa!.er Water tables are the flat upper surface of an unconfined Ground Water Aquifer. This is called the Piezometeric surface. T a: w ':;::;; ;:w o:n z>-:>1Jl o u. C> Di!ieharge L --$$-t$-f$i$.'3$;....;g:gg--;=_-gI '$...gg ~-$ '-- 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual _I '" " c"c'.. ',) <,';' '"c"<;{F·," ' D PageA1 o Aquic moisture regime. A mostly reducing soil moisture regime nearly free of dissolved oxygen due to saturation by ground water or its capillary fringe and occurring at periods when the soil temperature at 19.7 in. is greater than 5 (C). D PageA5 o Ground water. That portion of the water below the ground surface that is under greater pressure than atmospheric pressure. D PageA11 D Saturated soil conditions. A condition in which all easily drained voids (pores) between soil particles in the root zone are temporarily or permanently filled with water to the soil surface at pressures greater than atmospheric. D PageA14 o Water table. The upper surface of ground water or that level below which the soil is saturated with water. It is at least 6 in. thick and persists in the soil for more than a few weeks. From AES, Sept. 28, 2012 "'~I ____________________________ ~ ________________ ~ o Page 1 o This report should be reviewed and revised as appropriate to support any specific development proposal, and is not intended to satisfy City of Renton requirements for a Special Study as outlined in Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Section 4-3-050 J2. o Page 2 o The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the explorations completed for this study. The number, locations, and depths of our explorations were completed within site and budgetary constraints. o Page 4 o Though we did not observe perched ground water in explorations completed for this study, we anticipate that perched ground water conditions are likely to develop seasonally at this site. From AES, Sept. 28, 2012 "'I~----------------------------------------------~ o Page 2 [Q] The site contains areas that meet City of Renton definitions for Geotechnical Critical Areas. o Page 4 [Q] Deeper infiltration strategies that rely on deep injection wells or pit drains might be feasible at this site. Shallow explorations completed for this limited study were not intended to determine the feasibility of deep infiltration strategies. o Page 8 [Q] Any specific development plan for the site should be supported by a geotechnical engineering report written specifically for the proposed project. From AES, Sept. 28, 2012 "'I~------------------------------------------~ D Page 8 [Q] These slope angles are for areas where ground water seepage is not present at the faces of the slopes, which may require temporary dewatering in the form of pumped sumps or other measures. If-ground or surface water is present when the temporary excavation slopes are exposed, flatter slope angles may be required. D Test pit logs [Q] AES suggests that all of the deposits on the site are glacial lodgment till. However, SNR interprets the deposits that do not have the characteristics of a diamict, as being recessional outwash deposits. First American Title Insurance Report _I . D Items 3 and 4 state that easements were granted to the "Defense Plant Corporation" in 1944. D The property was originally owned by Northern Pacific Railway. D It is known that the property was completely cleared in 1936 (it is unknown how long the site remained cleared). D It is unknown what the Railway used the site for, however, it is also unclear why a Phase I ESA was never conducted, even though the SEPA documentation states that the site is not impacted with any potential contaminants. Environmental Review Committee Report "'I~----------------------------------------------~ o Page 8 ~ Wetland B: Wetland B is a small 505 square foot wetland located on the south side of the subject property. It is likely this wetland has groundwater influence and seasonal surface water flows from surrounding upland. The report states the wetland is predominately vegetated with shrubs and is classified as a Category 3 wetland. According to RMC 4-3-050 Category 3 wetlands have a standard buffer of 25 feet. ~ Wet/and C: Wetland C is a 5,349 square foot wet/and located just east of Wet/and B and is the largest wetland on site. Wetland C is forested and has a dense shrub cover. It is likely this wetland is also supported by groundwater influence and rainfall runoff. The report states the wetland is palustrine, scrub-shrub, is seasonally flooded and is classified as a Category 2 wetland. According to RMC 4-3-050 Category 2 wetlands have a standard buffer of 50 feet. QI Wetland hydrology, per the Corps 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual, page A 11 states that wetland hydrology is at the ground surface, however, the Corps apparently does not observe it's definition for saturated soil conditions and has stated that if ground water is present within 2 feet of the surface wetland hydrology can be present (depending on the time year), however, the Schultz wetland report indicates that the water table is at or within 7 inches of the ground surface. Environmental Review Committee Report "'~I ______________________________________________ ~ D Page 9 D Wetland D: Wetland D is a small 3,381 square foot wetland located adjacent to the Mercer Island pipeline. Wetland D has a dense shrub cover. It is likely this wetland is also supported by groundwater influence and rainfall runoff. The report states the wetland is palustrine, scrub-shrub, is seasonally flooded and is classified as a Category 2 wetland. According to RMC 4-3-050 Category 2 wetlands have a standard buffer of 50 feet. D Wetland E: Wetland E is a small 665 square foot wetland located adjacent to SE 18th St. Wetland E has sparse shrub cover. It is also likely this wetland is supported by groundwater influence and rainfall runoff. The report states the wetland is palustrine, scrub- shrub, is seasonally flooded and is classified as a Category 3 wetland. According to RMC 4-3-050 Category 3 wetlands have a standard buffer of 25 feet. Environmental Review Committee Report "'~I ________________________________________________ ~ o Page 12 o 12-inch culvert crosses the Mercer Island Pipe Line and discharges runoff into the onsite Wetland "0". Runoff from this upstream basin and from Wetland "0" would be collected in a separate conveyance system and routed through the site. o This is unclear. Storm water cannot be directly discharged into a wetland because wetland have ground water hydrology and are regulated by the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. o Wetland hydrology by definition is waters of the State and United States, it is NOT a point source or a nonpoint source. This means that wetland hydrology cannot be discharged to a point source system, especially a permitted, MS4 storm water system. 1. 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., Section 502: o (19) The term "pollution" means the man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, and radiological integrity of water. Environmental Review Committee Report "'~I ______________________________________________ ~ o 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., Section 502 IQI (16) The term "discharge" when used without qualification includes a discharge of a pollutant, and a discharge of pollutants. IQI (6) The term ''pollutant'' means dredged spoil, solid waste, Incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water. This term does not mean fA) "sewage from vessels" within the meaning of section 1322 of this title; or (B) water, gas, or other material which is injected into a well to facilitate production of oil or gas, or water derived in association with oil or gas production and disposed of in a well, if the well used either to facilitate production or for disposal purposes is approved by authority of the State in which the well is located, and if such State determines that such injection or disposal will not result in the degradation of ground or surface water resources. Environmental Review Committee Report "'~I . ____ ~ __ ~~ ____ ~ __ ~ ______ ~ ____ ~ ____________ ~ o 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., Section 502 [QJ (11) The term "effluent limitation" means any restriction established by a State or the Administrator on quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, and other constituents which are discharged from point sources into navigable waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, or the ocean, including schedules of compliance. [QJ (12) The term "discharge of a pollutant" and the term "discharge of pollutants" each means (A) any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source, (B) any addition of any pollutant to the waters of the contiguous zone or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel or other floating craft. Environmental Review Committee Report "'~I ________________________________________ ~ o Page 14 o The existing tree canopy contributes to the City's physical and aesthetic character, environment, open space, and wildlife habitat. Therefore the proposed development should result in minimal adverse disturbance to existing vegetation while at the same time recognizing the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of the property may require the removal of certain trees and ground cover. o How will the physical and aesthetic character, environment, open space and wildlife habitat be preserved? Environmental Review Committee Report "'~I ________________________________________________ ~ o Page 15 o Several potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitats and priority species are identified in the vicinity of the project according the list generated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife' (Priority Habitats and Species list). The provided report identifies two mechanisms as having potential for impacting potentially regulated fish and wildlife species and/or associated habitat: temporary impacts from construction noise and long term effects associated with increased impervious surfaces. o Priority species potentially impacted by onsite project actions include the piJeated woodpecker and Townsend bats. Evidence of woodpecker presence was observed in standing snags in and around onsite wetlands; however, no piJeated woodpeckers were observed by Soundview Consultants. o Sound Consultants studies were conducted in December 2013 and January 2014, both of which are conducted during the winter, no studies were conducted during the other three seasons. o Wildlife present at the site would most likely include seasonal species and the Pileated woodpecker is known to be present on the site as are bobcats, coyote, deer, possum, raccoon, amphibians, reptiles, and numerous plant species. It his also possible that annual and perennial heritage plant species are present on the site, however these would be dormant (or dead) during the winter months. Environmental Review Committee Report "'~I ____________________________________ ~ o Page 16 D Recommended Preliminary Plat conditions will include requirements for permanent fencing of the native growth protection areas which would eliminate human or domesticated animal intrusion and would not adversely impact habitat connectivity_ D If the fencing can keep out domesticated animals and humans why isn't wildlife kept out? Environmental Review Committee Report _I .. ' .........• ; .... '< ...• ' .... ' ;.,.: .... ;.;.. .;... '1 o Page 17 D Impacts: Public comments were received related to aesthetic impacts and the removal of existing vegetation's potential negative impact on the quality of life and property values of adjacent and abutting properties (Exhibit 10). Neighboring property owners have historically enjoyed views of the natural vegetation on the subject site. While the applicant has submitted an alternative proposal to retain 300/0 of the trees on site this would still result in the elimination of 1,117 trees on site (Exhibit 11). The removal of such a large tree canopy would significantly alter views in the immediate vicinity enjoyed by abutting and adjacent property owners. Environmental Review Committee Report "I~--------------------------------~ o Page 19 D "Due to the several revisions made to the plat, and revised submittal materials ... " D The numerous iterations of documents and changes to the plat make the review of these documents by the community extremely difficult. As does the 18 reports that must be reviewed and commented on in 14 days. Environmental Review Committee Report _I ";U<"_ '," ' ' 'd'," "-";';i~1:\;;ii,~:?)t,:," </;1',,',;/ '::; l o Page 4 o All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated September 28, 2012. o Page 2 of the September 28, 2012 AES Report fQl February 8; 2008. This report is intended to provide a general geotechnical feasibility analysis of the site. This report is not intended to be used as the sole geotechnical input for any site development proposal, and is not intended to satisfy City of Renton requirements for a Special Study as outlined in Renton Municipal Code Section 4-3-050 J2. RCW 43.21 C.031-Significant Impact ... LI ______ ~ ____ ~ ________ ~ ________ ~~~~~~ __ __ o 1) An environmental impact statement (the detailed statement required by RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c» shall be prepared on proposals for legislation and other major actions having a probable significant, adverse environmental impact. The environmental impact statement may be combined with the recommendation or report on the proposal or issued as a separate document. The substantive decisions or recommendations shall be clearly identifiable in the combined document. Actions categorically exempt under RCW 43.21 C.11 0(1 )(a) and43.21 C.450 do not require environmental review or the preparation of an environmental impact statement under this chapter. (2) An environmental impact statement is required to analyze only those probable adverse environmental impacts which are significant. Beneficial environmental impacts may be discussed. The responsible official shall consult with agencies and the public to identify such impacts and limit the scope of an environmental impact statement. The subjects listed in RCW43.21 C.030(2)(c) need not be treated as separate sections of an environmental impact statement. Discussions of significant short-term and long-term environmental impacts, significant irrevocable commitments of natural resources, significant alternatives including mitigation measures, and significant environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated should be consolidated or included, as applicable, in those sections of an environmental impact statement where the responsible official decides they logically belong. Why wasn't a SEPA EIS required? _I·. '.: .' Cl· 'c,' ....,... ,·i'" ·.·i"'··....· . ~ .... .. ·'.' . .:~'".c •. >.cc.';".\; .. \'#.. .c .•• o After reviewing the SEPA process for this project, Mr. Neugebauer has indicated that the review process should have become an EIS process. This is especially the case with number of additional studies that were required after the SEPA review process began and because of the holds that were placed on this project simply to address the additional information that would have been required by an EIS anyway. D The proposed development has significant environmental impacts and City of Renton staff should have required an SEPA EIS per RCW 43.21 C.031. Where are the SEPA Documents? _I "" '. .' .' ',,' ,.",){,,;;,;.';.;1,;..... :=J D Environmental Review Committee Report relied on 18 documents that commenters must review and commented on in 14 days, and the interesting part about the DERCR is that it does not include the November 2013 SEPA checklist as an exhibit, even though this is the only SEPA document the DERCR is using in its SEPA analysis, and this SEPA checklist has numerous incorrect statements and incorrect analysis based on subsequent studies conducted after this document was prepared. The TPWAG is requesting the Hearinq Examiner to: _I - o The TPWAG submitted an appeal document as a request to the Hearing Examiner to deny the City's request for a DNS-M and to require the City to follow the correct protocols for SEPA studies and documentation for complex sites where significant environmental impacts are present (the City has acknowledged this by placing two holds on the project and requesting more information, but the City did not focus on many of the SEPA requirements and all proposed mitigation pertains to construction activities rather than addressing environmental impacts. o It is clear that the existing documents, and this document support the need for an EIS and that more citizen review time is necessary for citizen review time and commenting. ,----------------------------- I m :J c.. 0 h -C .., CD en CD :J ,....... Q) II""""Il"" ....... a 0 ~ ~-----------------------------~ Renton's policy to preserve trees just for show? I letter to the editor -Renton Reporter 8/19/146:39 P I :,UP\,'! i\,~' I Green Editions Contact Us . RENTON REpORTER~ , "" t _ .. 1· --, "-1 ,., . , ... " .0',,", j'"" ",""'" "'-." !". 'I"' . I' NEWS, CALENOAR • BlOGS 1 SPORTS I ENTERTAINMENT I BUSINESS I LIfESTYlES I COMMUNITY i OPINION i ABOUT US ! , . I I! I . ·:lASSIFIEDS COUPONS LOCAL SAVINGS GREEN EDITIONS LEGAL NOTICES CONTESTS WEEKLY ADS <lBi> . HYUnDRI ell nms TO THE EDITOR I Is Renton's policy to preserve trees just for show? I Letter to the editor o Jun 14, 2012 at !,nPM In last week's paper, Phyllis Forister complained about Renton's lack of protection for the tress on Rainier Avenue. This is not the first time Renton officials have turned the other way when it comes to protecting large trees. All you have to do is take a look at developments on the East Renton Plateau. Renton is heaven for developers. Here is one example. In early 2007, the plat of Rosemonte received approval from the King County hearing examiner. In September 2007, Renton came up with its "tree preservation" plan. In 2009 Rosemonte developers asked Renton officials to proceed to annex this property. That is 11/2 years after the tree policy beca me effective, but Renton officials didn't care. Six weeks ago, clearing started on 17 acres on NileAvenue. All the trees came down, including two large maple trees. One of the Renton planners acknowledged that Renton officials didn't say a thing about protecting any ofthe trees on this property, They told the developer he could take down all the lrees and planting small "stick" trees in their place. Renton officials don't care about saving mature trees. As Ms. Forister mentioned, the city received a Green City Award t;lot too long ago. Maybe someone needs to tell this group the truth about Renton. Renton officials should also explain to their rcsidents and people who live in Renton sphere of infiuence why they have a "tree preservation policy" but they don't use it. Is it just for show? !'''i("h~pl ~nrl r:1~llrli;:l nnnnpliv tp: I Jwww.rentonreporter.com/oplnion/letters/lS909672S.html Read the latest Green Edition Browsethe print€dition page by page, including stories ilnd ads. Au:~ 15 :;>oitior. online now. BlOWS', the iHchives. • Cub; • Pemb • Facial\ MoUIicures • Pedicu~ 25J·288·3757 435 E. Mlin Sl, Auburn 1 of ------------------------- Ms. Rocale Timmons, Planner City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 RE: Tiffany Park Reserve Dear Ms. Timmons: 10415 - I 47th Avenue SE Renton, W A 98059 July 28, 2014 I would like to submit these comments on the above referenced proposed plat. According to the statement, this property has 1,305 trees and the developer proposes to "save,,~\$~According to Renton's tree ordinance, at least 30% of the trees must be retained. In the Renton Reporter, you stated that all the trees would be coming down. As an employee of Renton, why didn't you say something about the tree ordinance? b. Residential: i. RC, R-1, R-4 and R-8 Zones: Thirty percent (30%) of the trees shall be retained in a residential or institutional development. ii. R-10, R-14, RM-F, RM-T, RM-U and RMH: Ten percent (10%) of the trees shall be retained in a residential or institutional development. c. All Other Zones: Five percent (5%) of the trees located on the lot shall be considered protected and retained in commercial or industrial developments. How will Renton officials protect the "protected" trees? One of the people wanting to develop this property is Wayne Potter -who is also involved with Windstone .. The contractor in this project also allowed all the trees to be cut -now they are putting in "replacement trees". Replacement trees take years to grow to the point to w here the trees cut down are. Why not make them replace the removed trees with "big trees"? Also, who will stop the clear cutting like what took place on the "protected trees" of Piper's Bluff? I will be providing pictures later. According to the preliminary pllit report for Piper's Bluff, there are 211 trees on site. The developer must retain at least 47 trees on site. All of the trees are gone. I've been told that higher caliper trees will be planted to "replace" said trees. That remains to be seen for the future. -How many of the 130!i ... {ill Il@ mitigated gr replaced? Who will be responsible to make sure those trees are not clear cut? Why should we believe that Renton will enforce their tree ordinancer p..' ~~ ~"L:; tv b-<. ~ .. ~ ------------- A third concern would be the stormwater detention pond that is proposed to be built. How will the developer protect the wetlands from yellow water? At Windstone, the detention pond broke in August 2004 and spilled yellow water into May Creek. At Piper's Bluff, the detention pond broke 3 different times and spilled yellow water into a wetland and Honey Creek. How will the City of RentonpMFecl'tk"e wetland close to this proposed development when Renton officials don't work on the weekends? Renton doesn't have a very good track record in protecting wetlands. I have spoke to residents of the Tiffany Park area and they know about yellow water. Renton officials allowed Safeway on NE 4'h to build on wetlands; 3 summers ago, they started getting water coming through the floor and had to rope off that area to protect customers. Also, Renton has an ordinance that talks about hours of construction. How does Renton officials propose to enforce that ordinance so that neighbors aren't bothered by the noise? In addition, Renton is supposed to have an ordinance keeping dirt off the road and protecting streams. How do you propose to keep the dirt off the road? Saying that the developer is supposed to keep the roads clean and actually seeing it done are 2 different things. This ordinance also says no construction on Sundays ---but t~n't enforce it. 'R W'1'O"" ~ r' \:;' b. Commercial, Multi-Family, New Single Family and Other Nonresidential Construction Activities: Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. Another concern is that Renton officials don't require the contractor to get the necessary NPDES permit required by DOE before works starts. In addition, the city doesn't require erosion control fences to go up to protect wetlands or other people's property or streams before clearing starts. They also don't make contractors to have the necessary permits before clearing starts -from Renton. In the late 1990s, a developer --at Stonegate --cleared 3 lots without having the necessary permits. ~ didn't do anything to the developer. T<...~.fv tJ s+-a.4 Last is how Renton announces its appeal process. On September 26, there was a legal notice in the paper talking about the "appeal time frame for this proposed development - yet the document itself hadn't even been released until I sent Chip Vincent an email about it. Please see example. If you can't trust Renton to get a notice of the proposal out -\,0 _people before the appeal time frame starts, how can they be trusted to do anything else? Thank you, in advance for any consideration you give these topics. Sincerely, From: Michael/Claudia Donnelly <thedonnellys@oo.net> Subject: Tiffany Park appeal Date: September 26, 2014 11 :46:24 AM PDT To: Chip Vincent <cvincent@rentonwa.gov> Cc: Denis Law <dlaw@rentonwa.gov>, Council <council@rentonwa.gov>, Inez Petersen <webgirl@seanet.com>, mitchellfinehomes@comcast.net Dear Mr. Vincent: In today's Renton paper, there is a notice that says the Reserve at Tiffany Park plat received a DNS-M rating and that if anyone want to appeal it, they have until October 10, to do so. Have I been banned from being a party of record for certain developments? The reason I ask is that I have not received the preliminary plat document from the city. When was it mailed out? Also, I just came back from mailing some letters and there is more mud/dirt on the road at 5626 NE 23rd. Why say the city uses the 2009 KC Surface Water Design Manual when you don't make developers adhere to its requirements? Thank you for any information you can provide. Claudia Donnelly Simple Will .. Trust Will for minor children .. Affordable Wills .................. $300.00 ..$350.00 Community Prop. Agreement ................... $200.00 . Durable Power of Attorney ................ $150.00 Directive to Physician. .... .... .... .............. . ..... $75.00 Mention this ad for package discount. MOGREN, (;LESSNER & ROTI, P.S. AltOlllc)si.ltl.<lw 15 So. (ilddv Wd\,. 100 E\ClgICCIl BUlldmg. Renton. \VA 9XO~7 (425) 255-4542· WW\\'.mgl'hm.com ~ Location: 521 Park Ave N. The applicant is requesting SEPA Review, Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, a LO[ Combina- tion of three parcels to create one 13,948 sf site, and Parking and Landscaping Modifications for a 3-story mixed-use struc- o lure in the CA lone. The first two floors would contain 7,487 sf of commercial space and the upper floor would contain 7 multi-family units with a site density of 24 dulac. Access to the site would be gained through the public alley al the east and a curb cut from Park Ave N at the west. I Appeals of the DNS-M mus' be filed in writing on or befort [5:00 p.m. on October 10,"2014. \ Appeals must be filed in writing I together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner c/o City Clerk, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. ) Appeals to the Hearing Examint!r are governed by RMC 4·8-110 and more -information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office. 425-430·6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers. City Hall, on October 28, 2014 at 11 :00 am to I co.nsider the submitted applica· tion. If the DNS-M is appealed, . the appeal will be heard as part ) of this public hearing. Interested I parties are invited to attend the public hearing. Published in the Renton Report- er on September 26, 2014. #1142739. NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL RE- VIEW COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC HEARING RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determi- nation of Non-Significance' Miti- gated (DNS·M) for the following project under the authority of the Renton municipal code. Reserve at Tiffany Park LUA I 3-001572 Location: SW of Pierce Ave SE and E of end of SE 18th St. . The applicant is requesting SEPA Review and Preliminary Plat approval ror a 97·lot sub· division. The 21.7 acre site is primarily located within the R-8 zone. The 97 lots would result in a density of 5.70 du acre. Access to the site would be gained from SE 18th St with secondary access extended from 124th PI SE. The site contains three Category 2 wel- lands two Category 3 wetlands. The applicant is also requesting a Critical Area Exemption ror the extension of SE 18th St through portions of the buffer associated with Wetland E. Appeals of the DNS·M must be filed in writing on or befort 5:00 p.m. on October 10, 2014. Appeals-must be filed in writing. together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner c/o City Clerk, City of Renton. 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Hearing Examiner are governed by ·RMC 4-8·110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office. 425-430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers,. City Hall, on October 21, 2014 at 9;00 am to consider the submitted applica- tion. If the DNS-M is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Interested parties are invited to attend the . public hearing. Published in the Renton Report· er on September 26, 2014. #1142743. PUBLIC NOTICES To.place a Legal Notice, please call 253-234-3506 -or e-mail legals@reporternewspapers.com r ,"fA!?:';' , ""I'" '. ' , . .i] , , '21 } , . , fS t26 , .. ~" . ,PRELlM1NARYPLAT.l " ,', I , .' " .. + " \ " x '.'" ... '/:. , ,,.. < 1. .1' tn n a ~ -, x ~ ~ y (X) Job Number 16055 Sheet 1 1 ...... o <0 O~ Scale: Deslgn«I BJT HorizontcJr.5Q' Drown ~ Checlcftl BJT /ot1tJnJYOd BJT Dote~ 00 O'c" For: VerljcolN/A 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT. WA 98032 (425)251-6222 (425)251-8782 FAX CML ENGlNEERlNG, WID ........ NG, $URVEYJNG, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (]I o o o RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK ARED DRIVEWAY LOTS 12-14 :cJ ~ "U ;;- en o o o CJ) ./ en o '" '" ./ '" x ::r CT ;;. en o '" '" I x o o ~ '" '3 3 "!l! tf> n o ~ -, II Job Number 16055 Sheet _1_0/_1_ Scole: lles'gnod BJT Horizontdr.so' 0.-~ t;.H~fJ.~ ChecJ<ed BJT -~-Appnmd BJT ~ ·i .... fb"': Dot.~ ~,., "' ... '''0 I!HG"'~ VerficolN/A 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)25T -6222 (425)251-8782 FAX CMI. £NGINEERINC, LIND PW<JOHC. SUIMYD<G, EN'/IIIOMIENT'" SER'/ICES For: Title: o o RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK SHARED DRIVEWAY LOTS 15-17 :!1 (b "D ;;-:d en 0 0 ~ 0 0 '" ./ '" en (]I 0 U> C (JI ./ '" 110' (]I x 0 :>" ~ 100' '·~So, ;::;- en (,,) (JI 0 lJ' o. U> o. 0) (JI I x 100' a 0 a a. " 00 g~ cO 0>. '" ~ (JI 0 o. ro c.,., "-'" -< 104' 3' :'! :d "- ..... (,,) (JI ~ "-o. N 00 a .." 122' >!' :::I: ... en "D ;:: ~ (JI o. Ul 0 0 100' (b -• -c.,.,~N . 8 0> 0 '" I • o . .... ..,Ul OJ !='~~ ~ z'" .... .., r ..,0 94' '" Z 0 0 G'J "'", -< 5~ 0 z ~~ x -< ~ ; Job Number Scol.: For: RESERVE DesIgned 8JT Horizontdra50' Ver/ico/N/A AT 18055 0rawtI ...,.!!,!!... ~GH~tJ~ TIFFANY PARK 18215 72NO AVENUE SOUTH Clle<ked 8JT KENT, WA 98032 Sheet (425)251-6222 Title: -~-(425)251-8782 FAX SHARED DRIVEWAY ~ 8JT n ' o ' " ~ ~ .": CMl. ENGIN[[RING" I.AJrfO PI.ANMJIrIG. 1 of 1 (,( i." SIJR't'EY1NG. ENYIROHUENTAL SEfMCES LOTS ,38-40 DoI4t~ I"I/riQ ENO",t: -- -- a> o o o U) /' a> o '-" ;;;- " X ::T ? ;;- a> o '-" '-" I x (f) n a f'! ~ , II I I 'I I Job Number 16055 Sh .. t _1_01_1_ Scol.: Dnigned BJT Horizontdr.so· Oro." ~ ~H~fI,,~ Cheeked BJT -~-App<o.ed BJT a . ~ -, '! . .' ~ ~~ Ool~~ "'ltg ENG\\lt: 0 I\J (J1 '-" 0 '·~So, 0 0 For: RESERVE AT VerficolN/A 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH TIFFANY PARK KENT, WA 98032 (425)251-6222 Title: (425)251-8782 FAX SHARED DRIVEWAY CIVIL ENClNtERING. LAND PLANNIIfG. SUIMY1NG, _ ... S(R'IICES LOTS 79-61 .. _ CAIRNCROS:,&HEMPELMANN 524 2nd Ave. Suite 500 Seattle. WA 98104 wwwcairncros5.(;Orn ATTORNI:YS AT I.AW office 206 587 0700 fax 206 587 2308 CH& December 8, 2014 Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts City of Renton 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Applicant's Request for Revisions to Proposed Conditions of Approval The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat City File No. LUAJ3-001572 Dear Examiner Olbrechts: Henley USA, LLC ("Henley"), the contract purchaser for the property and applicant in the preliminary plat hearing ("Plat Hearing") described above, submits this written response to the Citi s proposed conditions of preliminary plat approval numbers 4, 5, 6, 9 and 16 through 18 (the "Conditions"). For the reasons stated below, Henley asks that the Conditions be revised as noted in Attachment G to this letter, which revisions include correcting certain typographical errors occurring in the City's proposed conditions. The rationale for each requested revision is stated below. Condition 4 Condition 4 states that the "applicant shall be required to submit a revised plat plan and landscaping plan depicting curb bulb-outs where on-street parking is located." We have confirmed with Ms. Timmons that this applies at intersections only. Application at intersections rather than all the way along street frontage is an important distinction, because for a plat with driveway curb cuts where parking is prohibited next to each driveway, requiring bulb-outs would create a conflict with the existing driveways and a visually unappealing plat design. Henley recommends, and we believe the City will concur that Condition 4 be re-worded to call for curb bulbouts at intersections, or else no parking signs and no bulbouts. This also will be consistent with and fit in with the existing, surrounding neighborhood. , nrogers@Cairncross.com db·eel: (206) 254·4417 rolsen@cairncross.com d;reel: (206) 254·4418 (02688268.DOCX;S } , Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts December 8, 2014 Page 2 of9 Condition 5 The City recommends imposing Condition 5 in order to limit "all retaining walls to a height of no more [than] 6 feet[,] unless located within a required front yard setback then the walles) would be limited to a height of 4 feet." See Staff Report at pg. 32. The City explains its rationale for imposing this requirement at page 13 of the Staff Report: The applicant is proposing the use of rockeries and "lock and load" retaining walls throughout the site ranging in height from 4-21 feet of which most walls exceed the height limit noted in RMC 4-4-040. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant be required to limit all retaining walls to a height of no more [than] 6 feet unless located within a required front yard setback[,] then the walles) would be limited to a height of 4 feet. As described in more detail below, the City has no regulations in place regulating the height of retaining walls. The City is currently evaluating legislative amendments to RMC 4-4-040 that would regulate engineered retaining walls, but those amendments have not been adopted and, even if they were adopted, they would not apply to the Plat, which is vested under State law and City Code l to prior Code requirements. Finally, the City's proposed condition and analysis overlooks the fact that if Henley cannot utilize the engineered retaining walls designed for The Reserve at Tiffany Park, there will be additional grading required to build the plat which will result in increased truck traffic necessary to haul excavation and fill material to or from the site. 1. RMC 4-4-040, the Fences and Hedges section of the Code, does not apply to engineered retaining walls. RMC 4-4-040 (enclosed as Attachment A) is titled "Fences and Hedges" and its purpose is expressly stated at RMC 4-4-040(A) as follows: [RMC 4-4-040 is 1 intended to regulate the material and height offences and hedges, particularly in front yards and in yards abutting public rights-of-way, in order to promote traffic and public safety and to maintain aesthetically,pleasing neighborhoods. The following regulations are intended to provide and maintain adequate sight distance along public rights-of-way at intersections and to encourage safe ingress and egress from individual properties. These regulations also encourage the feeling of spaciousness along neighborhood streets and minimize the closed city atmosphere which tall fences along public rights-of-way can create. As RMC 4-4-040(A) makes clear, RMC 4-4-040 (Fences and Hedges) is not intended to regulate the design of engineered retaining walls. In fact, neither of the words "retain" or "retaining" even appear in RMC 4-4-040. Instead, references to "walls" in RMC 4-4-040 are meant to regulate walls that are I See RCW 58.17.033 and RMC 4-1-045(C)(I)(b). (02688268,DOCX;5 ) Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts December 8, 2014 Page 3 of9 used instead of fences or hedges-e.g., European or Californian-style stone walls. When read as a whole RMC 4-4-040 makes this clear. For example, RMC 4-4-040(C)(1) describes how to measure a wall "[i)n cases where a wall is used instead of a fence." Additionally, the height offences and walls are both measured from the side of the fence or wall that contains the highest elevation. See RMC 4-4-040(C)(3) (stating the height of fences "may be measured from the side having the highest elevation") and RMC 4-4-040(C)(1 )("In cases where a wall is used instead of a fence, height shall be measured from the top surface of the wall to the ground on the high side of the wall."). This means that, for walls, if the grade on one side of the wall is 8 feet below the grade on the other side of the wall, then the height of the wall would be measured on the high side--which means it would be 8-feet high measured to the low side or O-feet high measured to the high side. This measurement criterion is further evidence that the standards of RMC 4-4-040 do not apply to engineered walls, versus aesthetic dividers like fences and hedges. The top of an engineered wall is always at grade with the higher-grade side of the wall, rendering the height measurement on that higher grade side zero feet. Using the City's wall measurement standards, none of Henley's retaining walls extend more than 6 feet above the grade on the high side of the wall.2 . Further, the City's interpretation that the term "wall" is synonymous with "retaining wall" would lead to absurd results. For example, RMC 4-4-040(D)(3) states: "Residential fences, walls or hedges along rear lot lines of interior lots abutting alleys shall have an access gate to the alley." Unde~ the City's definition of "wall," if a portion of a rear yard abutting an alley included a retaining wall, a gate would be required within that retaining walL This would result in a gate from the alley that opens into a solid wall of earth behind the retaining wall. Plainly that absurd result is not the intent of the Code. Rather, the Code is intended to regulate walls that are used instead offences.3 Not only does the Code make sense only when "walls" are treated like "fences" instead of retaining walls, but the City has confirmed on several occasions that retaining walls are not subject to the Code's fence regulations. As stated above, the City is in the process of considering amendments to RMC 4-4-040 that would regulate retaining walls. Enclosed as Attachment B are two staff reports for that proposed amendment. Both staff reports state clearly: City staff observed that Title IV does not have standards for retaining walls. This has allowed retaining walls to be constructed with virtually no regulation except Building Code; therefore, while the structural integrity of walls is regulated, the visual effects of 2 The Staff Report does not mention the possibility for Henley to apply for a variance of the wall height restrictions. [fRMC 4-4-040 did apply to The Reserve at Tiffany Park, which it does not, and if some of the walls actually did exceed the City's measurement teChniques, which they do not, then, the City should give Henley the opportunity to apply for administrative review of variation from the height restriction under RMC 4-4-040.F. 3 [fthe Examiner determines that RMC 4-4-040 regulates retaining walls, then Henley asks that the Examiner confirm that such walls be measured as provided in RMC 4-4-040(C)(l}--i.e., from the top surface of the wall to the ground on the high side of the walL {02688268.DOCX;S} Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts December 8, 2014 Page 4 of9 retaining walls are unregulated. The Planning Division requested that regulations be created. While the City's proposed amendments to RMC 4-4-040 have not been adopted and cannot be imposed on Henley's Plat which is vested to prior Code,4 even the proposed amendments themselves carry forward the City'S current distinction between "walls" and "retaining walls." See Supplemental Staff Report enclosed in Attachment B (stating under the definition of "fence" that "[f]or the purpose of administering this Title, a wall shall be considered to be a fence unless the wall resists the lateral displacement of soil or other materials, in which case it shall qualify as a retaining wall."). As further support for the conclusion that RMC 4-4-040 does not regulate retaining walls, enclosed is Attachment C, which is a handout prepared by the Renton Planning Division to inform citizens of the "City regulations that control the height of fences, walls, and hedges in residential lots. " This handout clearly distinguishes retaining walls from the type of walls regulated by RMC 4-4-040 by stating that building permits are not required for "fences, hedges or most walls," but that "[r]etaining walls do require a building permit if they are over four feet (4') in height. ,,5 In addition to all of the above reasons why RMC 4-4-040 does not apply to retaining walls, the City actually has confirmed in writing to Henley that RMC 4-4-040 does not apply to Henley's proposed retaining walls. Enclosed as Attachment D to this letter is the City'S Memorandum titled "Tiffany Park Plat (Renton School District Property)" dated September 24, 2013, which states in relevant part at page 3: Retaining Walls -The proposed retaining walls are not subject to the fence regulations of the code. The applicant would be required to provide the City with a geotechnical report demonstrating the need for retaining walls at the heights proposed. This comment reflects the usual processing and approval of a plat, in which the neat and approximate drawing of the plat layout is approved as the preliminary plat, then construction drawings including more detailed engineering analysis are approved to authorize construction of the plat. Here, at the time that Henley applies for construction approvals, Henley will provide the City with a geotechnical analysis that demonstrates how retaining walls will be used to achieve the Plat design. For all the reasons described above, RMC 4-4-040 does not apply to retaining walls. Henley asks that the City withdraw its recommendation to the Examiner to impose Condition 5 and affirm that the Plat application is vested to the November 25,2013 version ofRMC 4-4-040. 4 See RCW 58.17.033 and RMC 4-1-045(C)(1)(b). , Because retaining walls are' not landscape features like walls used in place of fences, they require building permits and compliance with engineering codes. Retaining walls above four feet in height trigger the need for a building permit under many development codes because assuring structural stability of larger retaining walls requires a detailed engineering analysis and design (e.g., lateral load calculations). That also is why zoning codes generally are not the best source for regulating retaining walls. (02688268.DOCX;5 ) Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts December 8, 2014 Page 5 of9 2. Proposed amendments to RMC 4-4-040 do not apply to the Plat Application. The City is currently considering amendments to RMC 4-4-040 that would, in fact, regulate engineered retaining walls. Enclosed as Attachment E is the draft amendment under consideration by the City. Those new regulations have not been adopted and do not apply. Even though they have not been adopted, the City's Staff Report at page 14 discusses restricting the height of retaining walls and states that "staff would be supportive of the applicant utilizing terracing ... in order to increase the height of a wall system when the maximum height of a single retaining wall is insufficient." The City then cites standards for terracing that are contained only in the draft amendment to RMC 4-4-040 shown in Attachment E. See page 3 at proposed RMC 4-4-040(C)(I)(2)(c). The City has no authority to impose draft standards that have not been adopted. Even if the City does adopt new regulations, they will not apply to the Plat. Pursuant to RCW 58.17.033, Henley's Plat Application "shall be considered under the subdivision or short subdivision ordinance, and zoning or other land use control ordinances, in effect on the land at the time a fully completed application for preliminary plat approval of the subdivision ... has been submitted to the appropriate county, city, or town official." RMC 4-1-045(C)(I)(b) also confirms that vesting "occurs with, the filing of a complete application ... including (b) preliminary plats." Henley'S Plat Application was "complete" for purposes of vesting under RCW 58.17.033 on November 25,2013. See enclosed Attachment F (Notice of Complete Application for Reserve at Tiffany Park). Thus, Henley's Plat Application must be considered under the "land use control ordinances" in effect on that date. As described above, the version ofRMC 4-4-040 that does apply does not regulate engineered retaining walls. Further, the City cannot through a novel interpretation of the Fences and Hedges provision of the Code change the Code's application and meaning in order to suddenly regulate retaining walls. The Code's references to walls is intended to regulate walls that are used as fences, not engineered retaining walls. Further, the City has confirmed in writing that the City's regulations do not apply to engineered retaining walls. In reliance on the City'S written confirmation that the Fences and Hedges section of the Code (RMC 4-4-040) does not regulate engineered retaining walls, Henley has expended substantial time, money, and effort to design, engineer and prepare the preliminary plat for approval. Henley's efforts have relied on the City'S September 24, 2013 written confirmation, consistent interpretation that RMC 4-4-040 does not apply to retaining walls, and utter lack of communication from the City indicating any contrary interpretation until receipt of the Stafr Report for the Preliminary Plat. It would be inequitable to allow the City suddenly to change its interpretation of its Code at the 11 th hour, thereby literally sending Henley back to the drawing board. Equity and a plain reading of RMC 4-4-040 requires the conclusion that RMC 4-4-040 does not regulate engineered retaining walls. 3. RMC 4-4-040 does not restrict walls located outside residential lots. Even if RMC 4-4-040 could be interpreted to apply to engineered retaining walls, and not just walls used in place offences, and even if such walls were measured from the low side of the wall {02688268.DOCX;5 } Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts December 8, 2014 Page 60f9 instead of the high side (contrary to the Code's requirements), RMC 4-4-040 does not regulate retaining walls located outside of the lots. Thus, there are no restrictions in RMC 4-4-040 that address retaining walls located in any of the tracts located on the Plat. The City's proposed Condition 5 places height limits on "all retaining walls" in the Plat. There is no basis in RMC 4-4-040 for restricting the height of all retaining walls in the Plat. I 4. If retaining walls are reduced or eliminated, more truckloads of excavation and fill material will be required to be hauled to or from the site. Finally, Henley wants to be sure the Examiner understands that the use of retaining walls allows the site development to more equally balance the dirt in the development of the Plat. If engineered retaining walls must meet the height limits for fences, hedges and walls used in place of fences, then the need for shorter or terraced walls means that in some locations more material will need to be excavated and removed from the site and in other locations, more fill dirt will be required to be brought to the site. This will result in additional truck trips to and from the site, which would be an unfortunate additional consequence of the need to redesign the plat per the proposed conditions. Conditions 6 and 16 Conditions 6 and 16 are interrelated and so are discussed together here. The Conditions rely on RMC 4-6-060(K) and RMC 4-7-170(D). RMC 4-6-060(K) authorizes shared private driveways between up to four lots so long as one of the lots has physical frontage on a street. RMC 4-7-170(D) describes the minimum frontage (i.e., width between the two side lot lines intersecting the street edge) that a lot must have. Condition 6 states: "The applicant shall eliminate individual access directly from internal public streets for those lots abutting private streets and/or shared driveway access easements. Said lots shall be required to take access from the abutting private street and/or access easement and shall not exceed access thresholds pursuant to RMC 4-6-060.J and K." This requirement relies on RMC 4-6-060(K), which states in relevant part: A shared private driveway may be permitted for access up to a maximum of four (4) lots. Up to three (3) of the lots may use the driveway as primary access for emergencies. The remainder of the lots must have physical frontage along a street for primary and emergency access and shall only be allowed vehicular access from the shared private driveway. The private access easement shall be a minimum of sixteen feet (16') in width, with a maximum oftwelve feet (12') paved driveway. The intent of this provision is to allow access via a shared driveway while requiring that at least one of the four or fewer lots taking access from the driveway have physical frontage along a street for primary and emergency access. In other words, up to four lots may utilize a shared driveway but one of those lots must have physical frontage along a street. (02688268.00CX;S } I ---------------------------- Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts Oecember 8, 2014 Page 7 of9 Condition 16 requires that "no more than 4 lots gaining access via a shared driveway have at least one lot meeting minimum lot width requirements along a street frontage pursuant to RMC 4-7- 170.0 (a minimum of 80% of the required lot widthl40 feet or 35 feet along a street curve)." The City states that lots 17, 14, and 38 would be required to be widened to meet RMC 4-7-170(0). Condition 16 also states that in addition to being required to be widened, lots 17, 14, and 38 would be required to "take primary access from the shared driveway." Finally, Condition 16 also states that "proposed Lots 78 and 81 would be required to take primary access from the shared driveway." RMC 4-6-060(K) requires that up to four lots can utilize a shared driveway, but only one of those lots "must have physical frontage along a str~et for primary and emergency access and shall only be allowed vehicular access from the shared private driveway." Nothing in RMC 4-6-060(K) requires both lots 78 and 81 to take primary access from the shared driveway. Only one of those lots is required to utilize the shared driveway. Henley asks that the City revise its recommended condition to state: " ... "proposed Lots 78 or 81 would be required to take primary access from the shared driveway." Similar to the City's recommendation as to Lots 78 and 81, the City appears to recommend that lot 11 be required to take access from the shared driveway abutting lots 12, 13, and 14. The Staff Report at page 14 states: "There appears to be opportunities to provide shared access to proposed Lots 11,78, and 81 via abutting shared driveway access easements currently proposed .... [S]taffrecommends the applicant eliminate individual access directly from internal public streets for those lots abutting private streets and/or shared driveway access easements." Nothing in RMC 4-6-060(K) requires both lots II and 14 to take primary access from the shared driveway merely because they both abut the shared driveway. Under RMC 4-6-060(K), only one of the lots utilizing a shared driveway is required to have frontage and utilize the shared driveway. Stated differently, any lot meeting the minimum frontage requirements ofRMC 4-7-170(0) may take direct access from the street even if the lot abuts a shared driveway easement; provided that at least one of the lots sharing the driveway easement meets the minimum frontage requirements of RMC 4-7-170(0). Here, either lot 78 or 81 will provide the necessary frontage for the shared driveway and the other lot may take access directly from the street as long as it also meets the minimum frontage requirements of RMC 4-7-170(0). Similarly, lot 14 will provide the necessary frontage for the shared driveway and the other lot may take access directly from the street as long as it also meets the minimum frontage requirements ofRMC 4-.7-170(0). There is no requirement that both lots 78 and 81 or II and 14 need to share the abutting driveway. The Staff Report states that "[p]ursuant to RMC 4-4-080.1.7 shared driveways are encouraged when feasible and appropriate as they reduce the number of curb cuts along individual streets and improve safety and reduce congestion while providing for additional on-street parking opportunities." It is true that RMC 4-4-080(1)(7) encourages shared driveways, but the Staff Report appears to require any lot abutting a shared driveway to take access from that shared driveway. This requirement would lead to (02688268.DOCX;5 ) Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts December 8,2014 Page 8 of9 awkward garage and driveway configurations and extreme vehicular turning angles for lots 78 or 81 (whichever does not provide the frontage for the shared driveway lots) and lot 14. Because the Code does not require the use of shared driveways for all lots abutting a shared driveway and because such a requirement results in poor garage and driveway configurations, Henley asks that if the Examiner adopts any access restrictions pursuant to Conditions 6 and 16, that the Examiner state clearly that only one lot abutting a shared driveway must both take access from that shared driveway and meet the minimum frontage requirements of RMC 4-7-170(D). Condition 9 Henley requests that Condition 9 be revised as follows: 9. The existing wetland mitigation plan already assures that 1,331 square feet of additional wetland buffer area is being provided to mitigate for both existing buffer impacts to Wetland E that are not associated with the Plat, as well as the loss of 14 square feet of the Wetland E buffer which loss is associated with the extension of SE 18th Street. The apfllieant shall flrevide ereatien ef additienal wetilUltl !mffer, asseeiated with 'Vet/and 'E', in erder tIo provide an additional offset for the impacts resulting from the requested exemption associated with the fill of 14 square feet of buffer to extend SE 18th Street.. Enhaneement in eenjflfletien with ereatienmay be allewed in erder te effset the irapaets. Sfleeifieally, the applicant is eneellfllged te has agreed to provide and shall provide enhancement to the Wetland 'E' buffer immediately abutting SE 18th St, as well as enhanced plantings adjoining that buffer area within Tract M. A revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. There is no basis to require Henley to create yet more additional wetland buffer associated with the approval of the exemption for 14 square feet of fill in the Wetland E buffer. The mitigation has already been provided, and, arguably, the 1,331 net square feet of additional buffer mitigation area that Henley has already designed was not required because it includes mitigation for existing conditions as well as mitigation for an impact for which an Exeinption has been granted. However, Henley is pleased to provide additional enhanced plantings in the area of the Wetland E buffer and the existing additional buffer area, along SE 18 th Street. Henley's revised condition language assures the same practical result as the City's condition by simply requiring Henley to enhance plantings in Tract M, but does not also label that area as yet more additional wetland buffer. Condition 17 Condition 17 requires that the portion of the side lot lines for lots 14, IS, and 38 that intersect with the street right-of-way be widened to 35 feet. Henley believes that the reference to lot 15 is a typo (02688268.DOCX;5 ) ,--------------------------------------------- -------------- Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts December 8, 2014 Page 9 of9 and that the City intended to reference lot 17 instead of 15. Henley asks that the City clarify the lots to which Condition 17 is intended to apply. Condition 18 Condition 18 requires "the elimination of all pipestem lots (lots which are less than 40 feet in width where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way or for radial lots are less than 35 feet) within the subdivision." Henley agrees to revise the plat to eliminate pipestem lots. Henley asks that the Conditions discussed in this letter be revised as noted in Attachment G to this letter. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. NBRlkgb Enclosures {02688268.DOCX;5 } ?f LL _- Nancy Bainbridge Rogers r<#f(()(}~ Randall P. Olsen ------------------ Section 4-4-040 Page I of6 4-4-040 FENCES AND HEDGES: A. PURPOSE: These regulations are intended to regulate the material and height of fences and hedges. particularly in front yards and in yards abutting public rights-of-way. in order to promote traffic and public safety and to maintain aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods. The following regulations are Intended to provide and.maintain adequate sight distance along public rights-of-way at intersections and to encourage safe ingress and egress from individual properties. These regulations also encourage the feeling of spaciousness along neighborhood streets and minimize the closed city atmosphere which. tall fences along public rights-of-way can create. B. APPLICABILITY: The provisions and conditions of this Section regulating heights[enot applicable to fences or barri.era required. by State law or by the zoning provisions of this Code to surround and enclose public safety installations, school grounds. public playgrounds, priVate or public swlmming'pools and similar installations and improvements. Fences and hedges within the urban separator overlay are also subject to requirements of the Urban Separator OVerlay regulations (see RMC 4-3-110\. (Ord. 5132, 4-4-2005) C. GENERAL FENCE'ANDHEDGE'REQUIREMENTS:' 1. Fence Height -MethOd of Measurement: The height shall be measured from'the top elevation of the top board rail or wire to the ground. In cases where a wall is used instead of a fence, height shall be measured from the top surface of the wall to the ground on the high side of the wall. 2. Berms: A berm may not be constructed with a fence on it unless the total height of the berm plus the fence is less than the maximum height allowable for the fence if the berm were not present. 3~ Grade Differences: Where the finished grade is a different elevation on etther side of a fence the height may be measured from the side having the highest elevation. 4. City May Require Modification: Where a traffic vision hazard is created, the cay may require a modification to the height limitations and location of fences, hedges or walls to the degree necessary to eliminate the .hazard. D .. STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES: 1. Height Limitations for Interior Lots: a. Front Yard Setbacks: Fences, walls or hedges a maximum of forty-eight inches (48") in height may be allowed within the required front yard subject to these provisions. b. Side Lot Lines: Fences, walls or hedges on interior lot lines of required front yards shall not exceed forty-eight inches (48") in height. Fences, walls or hedges on interior side lot lines not within required front yards may be a maximum of seventy-two inches (72") in height. http://v,'Ww.codepublishing.com/wairentonlhtml/Renton04/Renton0404IRenton0404040.h... 11/14/2014 ,----------------------------- Section 4-4-040 '. Page 2 of6 c, Rear Lot Line: A fence or hedge a maximum of seventy-two inches (72") may be located on the rear lot line. 2. Height Limitations for Corner Lots: a. Front Yard Setbacks: Fences, walls or hedges a maximum of forty~two inches (42") in height may be allowed on anypart of the clear vision area. Fences, walls, or hedges a maximum of forty-eight inches (48") In height may be allowed within any part a! the. front yard setback when localedoutside.ofany clear-vlsionareaon said.iot.. b. Interior Side LotL/ne: Fences, walls.orhedges a maximum of seventy-two inches (72") in· height may be located on interior side lot lines to the point where they InterseCt the required front yard setback, In which case they shall be governed by SUbseCtion D.2.a of this Section. c. Side Lot Line Abutting Street: Fences. walls or hedges shall be a maximum of forty-two inches (42") in height within any clear vision area and forty-eight inches (48") in height elsewhere in the front yaid setback. The remainder of the fence or hedge shall be a maximum seventy-two inches (72") in height. d. Rear Lot Line: Fences, walls. or hedges a maximum of seventy-two inches (72") in height may be located along the rear lot line except the fence shall be limited to forty-eight inches (48") in height where they intersect the width of the required side yard setback of the side street and where the fence abuts the front yard of an interior lot. http://www.codepublishing.com)waJrenton/htmIlRenton04/Renton0404/Renton0404040.h... 11/14/2014 Section 4-4-040 (Ord. 5518, 12-14-2009) a .<12" WJG1~..tM·tJ(':oHr .CI49MAXM.)MIElGHT .. 72'/r1AlOI4IM i tBG lf Page 3 of6 3. Gate Required: Residentialferices, wallsor.hedgesalong.rear;lollinesof.i~terior.loisabutting­ alleys shall have an access gate to the alley., 4. Electric and Barbed Wire Fences: Electric andlor barbed wire fences may be·permitted,by special administrative-fence permit In all residential zones in cases where large domestic animals are being kept; provided, tflat additional fencing or an Administrator approved barrier is erected along the property lines. (Ord. 5578, 11-15-2010; Ord. 5702,12-9-2013) E, STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND OTHER USES: 1. Location and Maximum Height: A maximum of eight feet (8') anywhere on the lot provided the fence does not stand in or in front of any required landscaping or pose a traffic vision hazard. http:/ Iwww.codepubiishing.comlwalrcntonlhtmIlRcnton04/Renton0404IRenton0404040.h... ii 114/20 14 ._._----------------------- Section 4A-040 Page 4 of6 . 2. Electric Fences: All electric fences shall be posted with pennanent signs a mlnlmumofthirly six (36) square inches in area at intervals of fifteen feet (15') stating thai the.fence·ls electrified" Electric fences and any related equipment and appliances must be Installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications and in compliance with the National ElectrlcaICc:>de •. 3. Barbed Wire Fences: Barbed wire may only be used on top of fences ai least slx·feet·(6')highfor commercial, industrial, utility and.public uses . . .t:J 96' MAXI)"I. Ji.1 ff'1(..m- .mt ~C :'}I(.~C'Zr .N11l'C.~~ll'>~.·J!.,·.'IW pJ-riit-tl< rHI: Ht.c·m GC rl*;-N-l; nt. "tH 4. Bulk Storage Fences: See RMC 4-4-110. http:/ Iwww.codepubl ishing.com/wairenton/htmllRenton04lRenton0404/Renton0404040.h... 11/14/2014 ,---------- Section 4-4-040 Page 5 of6 5. Special Provisions: Fences for mobile home parks, subdivisions or planned urban development and for sites which are mined, graded or excavated may vary from these regulations as provided in the respective code sections. (Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005) F. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF VARIATION FROM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS: A property owner wishing to vary the height restrictions or placement of a fence or hedge'on a lot may make written application to the Planning Division for an administrative review of the,situation. The Department's staff shall review the application and prepare a written determination based upon criteria listed in these regulations. (Ord, 5450,3-2-2009) G, SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE FENCE PERMITS: 1. Fences Eligible for Administrative RevlewProcess: Persons wishing to have one olthe following types of fences maY,submif a letter of justification, site plan and typical elevation together with the permit fee to the Department of Community and Economic Development: a. Fences exceeding forty eight inches (48") wtlhin front yard-or sideyards along a street setback but not within a clear vision area. b. Electric fences. c. Barbed wire fences. (Ord. 5450, 3-2-2009; Ord. 5578,11-15-2010) 2, Evaluation Criteria: The Development Services Division may approve the Issuance of special , fence permits provided that the following objectives can be met: • The proposed fence improves the privacy and security of the adjoining yard space; The proposed fence does not detract from the quality of the residential environment by being out of scale or creating vast blank walls along public roadways; The proposed fence compliments the environment it serves in an aesthetically pleasing manner; and The proposed fence does not present a hazard to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. a. Acceptable Measures to Meet Criteria: Fences located within the front or side andlor rear yard along a street setback may be a maximum of seventy two inches (72'1 in height, provided the evaluation criteria are met. Acceptable measures to achieve these criteria include, but are not limited to the following: Permanent landscaping along the front of the fence; Quality fence material, such as cedar fencing; Modulation of the fence; http://www.codepub1 ishing.com/wa/rentonlhlmIlRcnton04/Renton0404IRenton0404040.h... 1111412014 Section 4-4-040 Page 60f6 Similar design and material as other fences in the surrounding neighborhood; Increased setbacks from the abutting sidewalk; Ornamental materials or construction treatment, such as wrought iron; Orientation of the finished face of the fence toward the street; and • Other comparable construction or design methods. b. Clear Vision Area: The fence proposed for speci~lpermits must have no portion In the clear vision area over forty two inches (42") in height. The'location and height of the fence must not obstruct views of oncoming traffic, or views from driveways. (Amd. Ord. 5008, 4-28-2003; Ord. ,5676,12-3-2012) H; COMPLIANCE: Fences which do not comply with these regulations must be brought into compliance within six (6) months from the date of notice of fence violation from the City. (Ord. 4056, 4-1'3-1987): ' ., The Renton Municipal Code Is current through Ordinance 5729, passed October 20, 2014. DiscJaimer:The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the Renton Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. t"1: '" . ,.' _______ -'..cc...'--j:~ hnp:llwww .codepublishing.com/waJrenton/htmIlRenton04/Renlon0404/Renton0404040.h .. , 11/14/2014 " #0-108 RETAINING WALLS General Description City staff observed that Title IV does not have standards for retaining walls. This has allowed retaining walls to be constructed with virtually no regulation except Building Code; therefore, while the structural integrity of walls is regulated, the visual effects of retaining walls are unregulated. The Planning Division requested that regulations be created. The following summarized key revisions to RMC 4-4-040, Fences and Hedges, RMC 4-11,060, Definitions F, and RMC 4-11-180, Definitions R, are proposed: • Introduce a definition for ufence" to ensure regulatIons are applied appropriateiy . • ' Introduce a definition of "retaining wall" and "rockery" to ensure regulations ire applied appropriately. • Introduce standards forretalning walls, such as: o Maximum height limitations In residential zoning districts o Allowed materials o Setbacks o Terracing design o Grading above retaining walls o. Landscaping o Fences upon or adjacent.to·retainingwalls • Specified that height limitations for fences within residential propertIes also govern retaining wall heIght limitations in residential properties • Clarified language related to height limitations for reSidential uses by makl~gthe language consistent • Revised height limitations for fences, hedges and retaining walls withIn residential properties by specifying that the limitations are applied to these obstructions for the entire setback of the subject property line -current height limitatIons apply if the fence or hedge is located on the property line; this would allow a property owner to offset the location of a fence from the property line and construct a fence that exceeds six feet in height and only have oversight via the Building Code (fences over six feet in height require a building permit). Impact Analysis Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan None Effect on the City's capacity to provide adequate public facilities Not applicable Effect on the rate of population and employment growth None Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable The following Plan objective is being met: h:\ced\planning\title iv\docket\d·l0B retaining walls\docket #l08 -staff rpt .. docx September 17, 2014 Objective CD-M: Well-designed landscaping provides aesthetic appeal and makes an important contribution to the health, safety, economy, and general welfare of the community. The City of Renton should adopt regulations that further the aesthetic goals ofthe City. Effect on general land values or housing costs Because there are currently no standards for retaining walls, the proposed amendments might Increase land value or hOUSing costs for lots that require retaining walls to achieve a desired lot grade due. However, any increase in land value or housing cost would likely be insignificant. Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected . Not applicable· Consistency with GMA. the Plan. and Countywide Planning Policies The proposed revisions are consistent with the GMA and multl-countY:plannh1gpollcies of Vlslon.2040, specifically: MPP-DP-37: Support urban design, historic preservation, and arts to enhance quality of life, improve the natural and human-made environments, promote health-and Wel1, being, contribute to a prosperous economy, and increase the region's res1l1erlC'{ln adapting to changes or adverse events. MPP-DP-43: Design communities to provide an Improved environmeht-f6~:walkingand bicycling. The proposed revisions are consistent with the Countywide Planning policies,specifical1y: DP-40. Promote a high quality of design and site planning In publicly-funded and private development throughout the Urban Growth Area. The proposed revisions are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, speCifically: Policy CD-20. Orient site and building design primarily toward pedestrians through master planning, building location, and design guidelines. Polley LU-219. Address the mix and compatibility of uses, residential density, conceptual building, site and landscape design, identification of gateway features, signs, circulation, transit opportunities, and phasing through master plan and site plan review. process. Effect on other considerations None Staff Recommendation Amend Renton Municipal Code as described to minimize adverse impacts of retaining walls within the City. #D-108 Page 2 of 3 September 17, 2014 Implementation Requirements Adopt an ordinance amending RMC 4-4-040, Fences and Hedges, RMC 4-11-060, Definitions F, and RMC 4-11-180, Definitions R. UO·10S Page 3 of 3 September 17, 2014 #D-108 RETAINING WALLS SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT SUMMARY: This Supplemental Staff Report provides responses to issues that were raised by a party of record via email after the Planning Commission m-eetlhg regarding amendments to the Renton Municipal Code Development Regulations (Title IV). It alsoindudes additional Information that staff has Identified as being necessary to include in the analysis for amendments. General Description City staff observed that Title. IV does not have standards for retaining walls.· This has allowed retaining walls tei be' constructed with virtually no regulation except Building Code; therefore, while the structural integrity of walls is regulated, the visual effects of retal~lng walls· are· . unregulated. The Planning Division requested that regulations be created. The following summarized key revisions to. RMC 4-4-040,Fences and Hedges, RMC4-1i-060, Definitions F, and RMC 4-11-180, Definitions R, are proposed: • Introduce definitions for "fence," "retaining wall," and "rockery" to ensure regulations are applied appropriately. FENCE:-Anoutdoor physlcai-and/or visual barrier. railingjor other-upright structure- erected above ground and separating an area of ground. For the purpose of administering this Title. a wall shall be considered to be a fence unless the. wall resists the lateral displacement of soil or other materials. in which case it shall qualify as a retaining wall. RETAINING WAll: A wall designed to resistlateral earth and/or fluid pressures. including any surcharge. in accordance with accepted engineering praCtice. For the purposes of this Title .. a "rockery" or "rock wall" is a type of retaining wall. Structural components of stormwater facilities shall not be interpreted to be a retaining wall. RETAINING WAll HEIGHT: The vertical distance measured from the bottom of the footing to the finish grade at the top of the walj,(i.e .. upper soil grade). RETAINING WAll HEIGHT, EXPOSED: The vertical distance measure from the finish grade at the bottom of the wall (i.e .. lower soil grade) to the finish grade at the top of the wall (Le., upper soil grade). This height does not include the depth of footing below grade. h:\ced\planning\title iv\docket\d-108 retaining walls\docket #108· supp. staff rpt..doclf November 5, 2014 ROCKERY: One or more courses of rocks stacked against an exposed soil face to protect the soil face from erosion and sloughing. The bottom course of rocks bears on the foundation soils and the upper rocks bear partially,or entirely on the rocks below. A rockery is also known as a "rock wall." • Introduce standards for retaining walls, such as: o Allowed materials o Setbacks o Terracing design o Grading above retaining walls o Landscaping o Fences upon or adjacent to retaining walls C. GENERAL FENCE,ANP-HEDGE, AND RETAINING WALL STANDARDS: R&QUIREM&NlSl 1. FeRG& Height -Method of Measurement: 00·108 ~ Fences: The height shall be measured from the top elevation of the top board rail or wire to the ground. Incases where a wall is used instead of a fence, helghtshall be measured from the top surface ofthe wall to the ground' on the high· side of the wall. I. Grade Differences: Where the finished grade is a different elevation on.either side of a fence the height may be measured from the side having the highest elevation. i1.Fenceson Berms: A berm may shall not be constructed with a fence on it unless the total height of the berm plus the fence is less than the maximum height allowable for the fence if the berm were not present. b. Hedges: The height shall be measured from the topmost portion of vegetation to the ground. £. Retaining Walls: The standards of this:Section refer to exposed retaining wall height, which is the vertical distance measure from the finish grade at the bottom of the wall (i.e., lower soil grade) to the finish grade at the top of the wallli.e" upper soil grade). i. Fences on Retaining Walls: A fence shall not be constructed on top of a retaining wall unless the total combined height of the retaining wall and the fence does not exceed the allowed height of a standalone fence. (AI Exception -Guardrail: If a guardrail is required by the Building Official the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator Page 2 of 6 November 5, 2014 that the height of the retaining wall is the lowest necessary and that terracing is infeasible; the height of the guardrail shall be the lowest necessary to satisfy the Building Official, but In no case shall the combined height of a retaining wall and required guardrail exceed nine feet(9') In residential zones, or twelve feet (12') in commercial and . industrial zones. (8) Exception -50% Transparent Fences: Fences that provide at least fifty percent /50%) transparency, as viewed perpendicularly to the face of the fence, may be allowed directly on top of a retaining wall. However, chain link fencing is excluded from allowed fence material for this application •. II. Fences and Hedges AdlacenUoRetalning Walls: Fences and hedges adlacent to retaining walls with a combined fence and retaihlng wall heh\ht thatexceed~ the allowed height of a standalone retaining wall shall be set back from one. another by a minimum of two feet (2'); this area shall be landscaped·as If it were a terrace. If a fence is placed any distance within the prop.em line, the property owner continues to be responsible for his/her property on bo~b s.ides of the fence. 2. Retaining Wan Standards: #0·108 i!" Materials: Retaining walls shall be composed of brick, rock, textured or patterned contrete. or other masonry product that complements the proposed building and site development. Other materials may be used with the approval.of the Administrator. b. Setback from Public Rights-of-Way: There shall bea minimum three-foot landscaped setback at the base of retaining walls abutting public rights-of-way. Landscaping shall inciude a mixture of shrubs and groundcover (trees are optional) in conformance with the standards of RMC 4·4·070H.4. f.: Terracing: Terracing is the act of forming hillside into a number of level flat areas (terraces) between retaining walls, which is often used when the maximum heightof a single retaining wall is insufficient. The following standards shall apply to terraced slopes: i. Terrace Width: The width of any terrace shall be equal to the height of the tallest of the two retaining walls; however, the minimum terrace width shall be two feet (2') and the maximum required width shall be five feet (5'), Terrace Page 3 of 6 November 5, 2014 width shall be measured from the back edge of a lower retaining wall to the foremost edge of the immediately succeeding and higher retaining waiL ii. Terrace Landscaping: TerraceS created between retaining walls shall be permanently landscaped with a mixture of shrubs and groundcover (trees are optionall in conformance with the standards of RMC 4-4-070F. Landscaping provided in front of retaining walls and within terraces shall contribute to any landscaping required by RMC 4-4-070F: the Administrator may grant exceptions for required trees based on land constraints. d. Grading: The.grade of ground Immediately above a retaining wall shall be level with the top'of the retaining wall for a horizontal distance (measured perpendicularly to· the waillequaling one foot Ii') for every one foot (1') in height of theretahiing walt; !l.. Modifications: Per RMC 4-9-2500. the Administrator may grant modlflcatlonsto the . . standards of this Section pertaining to retaining walls. Approvalofa modifications permit. may indude conditions such as. but not limited tOincreased'setbacks; addltionallanCiscaping. a requirement to terrace or specific materials to be used ... • Establish a maximulT) fence, hedge, and retaining wall height In residential zones: D. STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES: 1. Maximum·Helght: In any residential district, the maximum height of any fence. hedge or retaining wall shall be seventy-two inches (72"). subject to further height limitations as. specified in this Section. • 'Speclfy that height limitations for fences/hedges within residential properties (e.g.; limited height of 48" within the front yard setback) also govern retaining wall height limitations in residential properties. • Clarify language related to height limitations for reSidential uses by using consistent terminology (e.g., some height limitations apply only to the property line, whereas other limitations apply to the entire setback). Staff recommends that heightlimitations.be applicable for the entire depth of any given setback. #0-108 For example: Current Language: Front Yard Setbacks: Fences, walls or hedges a maximum of forty-eight inches (48") in height may be allowed within the required front yard subject to these provisions. Proposed Language: Front Yard Setbacks: Fences, retaining walls or hedges shall not exceed forty-eight inches (48") in height within the front yard setback. Page 4 of 6 November 5, 2014 Party of Record Issue: "If the fence and wall height exceed 6' then the wall and fence must be separated be 5' and landscaped as if it is a terrace ... Terracing walls will eat up a bunch more room." Staff Response: Staff recommendsniducing the offset from five feet to two feet and allowing an exception for fences to be erected on top of retaining walls if the fence is at least 5.0% transparent. Permitting a fence that is at least 50% transparency will provide the abutting landowner that has a lower lot elevation with adequate light and air, as opposed to a six feet tall retaining wall with an additional six feet of solid fence that could result in a 12' tall monolithic structure. Impact Analysis Effect on rate of growth. development. and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan None Effect on the Cltv's capacitv to 'provide adequate public facilities Not applicable Effect on the rate of population and employment growth None Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable The following Plan objective is being met: Objective CD·M: Well·designed landscaping provides aesthetic appeal and makes'an important contribution to the health, safety, economy, and general welfare of the community. The City of Renton should adopt regulations that further the aesthetic goals of the City. Effect on general land values or housing costs' Because there are currently no standards for retaining walls, the proposed amendments might increase housing costs for lots that require retaining walls to achieve a desired lot grade; for example, the requirement to terrace and provide landscaping is a cost that could be avoided by a homeowner under current standards. However, any increase in housing costwould likely be insignificant. Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected Not applicable Consistency with GMA. the Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies The proposed revisions are consistent with the GMA and multi·county planning policies of Vision 2.040, specifically: #0·108 MPP·Dp·37: Support urban design, historic preservation, and arts to enhance quality of life, improve the natural and human-made enVironments, promote health and well· PageSof6 November 5, 2014 being, contribute to a prosperous economy, and increase the region's resiliency in adapting to changes or adverse events. MPP-DP-43: Design communities to provide an'improved environment for walking and bicycling. The proposed revisions are consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies, specifically: DP-40. Promote a high quality of design and site planning In publicly-funded and private development throughout the Urban Growth Area. The proposed revisions are con'slsterit with the Comprehensive Plan, specifically: Policy CD-20; Orient site and building design primarily toward pedestrians through master planning, building location, and design guidelines. " Policy LU-219. Address the mix and compatibility of uses, residential density, con~eptual building, site and landscape deSign, identification of gateway features,signs, circulation; transit opportunities, and phasing through master plan and site plan review process. Effect on other considerations None , Staff Recommendation Amend Renton Municipal Code as described to minimize adverse impacts of retaining walls within the City. Implementation Requirements Adopt an ordinance amending RMC 4-4-040, Fences and Hedges, RMC 4-11-060, Definitions F, and RMC 4-11-180, Definitions R. nD-lOB Page6of6 November 5, 2014 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL FENCES, WALLS, & HEDGES Cijy of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425~430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 This handout has been prepared by the Renton Planning Division to Inform you of the City regulations that control the height'o(fences, walls, and hedges in residential lots_ These provisions have been developed In order to promote public safety and aesthetically pleasing nelghborhoods_ This handout Is Intended to . graphicilily illustrate these provisions. Fences may be constructed anywhere on your property within the height limits shown in this handout. They cannot be constructed on any City right-of-way. If you araunsure as to where your property line Is, you should contact a surveylng!englnaering company for surveying information. . The City does not require homeowners to apply for building permits for residential fences, hedges,dr"1ost walls .. Retaining walls do require a building permit if they are over four feel (4') In height. PropertY owners are responsible for removing or brlning·into compliance hedges, walls, and fences not complylngwlththese regulations. A special review process Is required only if you desire to construct a fence greater than forty' eight lriches (4S")within the front yard setback (and side yard setback for corner· lots). Please·seeSpeclal Fence Submittal Requirements for more information about this process. MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF FENCES FOR CORNER AND INTERIOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS: Figure 1. REQUIREMENTS FOR CORNER LOTS: Corner lots require a clear vision area for visibility and safety reasons. This is defines as the area bounded by the street property lines of corner lots and a line adjoining points along said street lines twenty feet (20') from their point of intersection. Within this area, the maximum height allowed for a·fence, wall, or hedge is forty two inches (42") (See Figure 1). H :\Fom1~\Plannj ng\fcncl!fCg5.doc -I· 08/07 .. : '. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M 0 RAN DUM DATE: September 24, 2013 TO: Pre-ApplicatiDn File No.. 13-000088 . FROM: RDcale TimmDns, SeniDr Planner SUBJECT: Tiffany Park Plat (RentDn Schoo.l District PrDperty) General: We have cDmpleted a preliminary review Df the pre-applicatiDn fDr the abDve- referenced develDpment prDpDsal. The fDIIDwing comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review •. The applicant is cautiDned that infDrmatiDn cDntained in this summary may be subject to. mDdificatiDn and/Dr CDncurrence by Dfficial decisiDn-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, CDmmunity & ECDnDmic DevelDpment AdministratDr, Public WDrks AdministratDr, Planning DirectDr, DevelDpment Services DirectDr,' and City CDuncil). Review comments may also. need to. be revised based Dn site planning and Dther design changes required by City staff Dr made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to. review all applicable sectiDns Df the RentDn Municipal CDde. The DevelDpment Regulations are available fDr purchase for $50.00 plus tax, from the Finance DivisiDn Dn the first flDDr of City Hall or online at www.rentonwa.gov PrDject Proposal: The subject property is IDcated at the dead end Df SE lS'h St bDrdered by the Seattle Water line Dn the east and sDuth sides Df the site. Division 4 of the Tiffany Park subdivisiDn is IDcated to. the nDrth and west Df the site. The applicant is propDsing a 99-IDt subdivisiDn Df a 22.41-acre site, which is primarily IDcated within the R-S zDning classificatiDn, with a small pDrtiDn Df the site IDcated within the R-4 zoning classificatiDn. All propDsed IDts wDuld be IDcated within the R-8 zoning classificatiDn. The propDse.d IDtS are intended fDr the eventual develDpment Df detached single-family hDmes. Access to. the site wDuld be gained from SE 18th St with secDndary access alDng the nDrtheastern bDrder Df the site. Internal residential access streets are propDsed to. provide access to. each lot. The site cDntains two. CategDry Z Vt(etlands and is IDcated within ZDne 2 Df the Aquifer Protection Area. Current Use: The site is currently vacant and is Dwned by the RentDn SChDDI District. Zoning/Density Requirements: The subject property is IDcated within the R-8 zoning designatiDn. The density range aliDwed in the R'S zone is a minimum Df 4.0 to. a maximum Df S.O dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The area Df public and private streets and critical areas . would be deducted frDm the gross site area to. determine the "net" site area priDr to calculating density. It is unclear hDW much area wDuld be dedicated to. critical areas, access easements, and right-Df-way therefDre the net density Df site cDuld nDt be calculated. The applicant wauld be required to. demanstrate campliance with the density requirements af the zane at the time af farmal applicatian. h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\13-000088.rocale\13-000088 {r-B tiffany park, rsd, wetlands, access} v.1.doc ----------------------- Revised Tiffany Park, PRE13~000088 Page2of4 September 24, 2013 ~------------------------- Development Standards: The project would be subject to RMC 4-2-110A, "Development Standards for Single Family Zoning Designations" effective at the time of complete application (noted as "R-8 standards" herein). Minimum Lot Size. Width and Depth -The minimum lot size permitted in the R-8 is 4,500 square feet for parcels greater than 1 acre in size and 5,000 square feet for lots 1 acre or less.in size. The total lot area of the subject site is more than 1 acre; therefore a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet is applicable to the proposed project. A ~minimum lot width of 50 feet for interior lots and 60 feet for corner lots, as well as a minimum lot depth of 65 feet, is also required. The proposal appears to comply with the lot size, width and depth requirements of the zone. Detailed information regarding lots size would be required at Preliminary Plot submittal to show compliance with lot width and depth requirements. Lot Configuration -One of the following is required: 1. Lot width variation of 10 feet (10') minimum of one per four (4) abutting street-fronting lots, or 2. Minimum of four (4) lot sizes (minimum of four hundred (400) gross square feet size difference), or ~3. A front yard setback variation of at least five feet (5') minimum for at least every four (4) abutting street fronting lots. Building Standards -R-8 zone allows a maximum building coverage of 35% of the lot area or ~2,500 square feet, whichever is greater and a maximum impeiviou~s surtace of 75%. Building height is restricted to 30 feet from existing grade. Detached accessory'structures must remain below a height of 15 f~et, The gross floor area must be less than that of the primary structure, Accessory structures are also included in building lot coverage calculations. The proposal's compliance with the building standards would be verified at the time of building permit review for the new residences. Building Design Standards -All single family residences would be subject to the Residential Design Standards outlined in RMC 4-2-115. The proposal's compliance with the residential design standards would be verified at the time of building permit review for the new residences to be located on all lots. Setbacks -Setbacks are the minimum required distance between the building footprint and the property line and any private access easement. The required setbacks in the R-8 zone are 15 feet in front for the primary structure and 20 feet in front for the attached garage, 20 feet in the rear, 5 feet on interior side yards, and 15 feet on side yards along streets (including access easements but not shared driveways) for the primary structure and 20 feet on side yards along streets (including access easements but not shared driveways) for the attached garage, The setbacks for the new residences would be reviewed at the time of building permit_ Access/Parking: Access to site is proposed via an extension of SE 18'h 5t which proposes a potential connection to Pierce Ave SE. An internal grid system is proposed which includes a 50- foot wide public street terminating in two cul-de-sacs. The applicant would be required to 'provide a 53-foot right of way, for the internal street, or request and have approved a street modification in order to reduce the right-of-way width to 50 feet. h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\13-0000B8.rocale\13-000088 (r-8 tIffany park, rsd, wetlands, access) v.l-doc Revised Tiffany Park, PRE13-000088 Page 3 of 4 September 24, 2013 Additionally, a grid street pattern shall be used ta connect existing and new develapment and shall be the predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted. The praposal would be required to be revised in order to create a highly connective grid system. Alley: Alley access is the preferred access pattern. However, a recent Administrative Code Interpretatian (CI-41) requires the decision maker to evaluate the practicality of alleys within a development when the development has a density of less the six dwelling unit per acre. The applicant is proposing a density of less than six dwelling units per acre therefore alley access would not be required. The applicant Should be made aware that the Administrative Interpretation would be required to be reviewed as part of an upcoming docket and the language/thresholds could possibly change in the future. The applicant would be vested to the code existing at the time of the formal land use application. Each lot is required to accommodate off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles. Driveways: The maximum driveway slopes cannot exceed 15%, provided that driveways exceeding 8% are to provide slotted drains at the lower end of the driveway. If the grade exceeds 15%, a variance is required. Landscaping -Except for critical areas, all portions of the development area not covered by structures, required parking, access, circulation or service areas, must be landscaped with native, drought-resistant vegetative cover. The development standards require that all pervious areas within the property boundaries be landscaped. The minimum on-site landscape width required along street frontages is 10 feet. Please refer to landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-070) for further general and specific landscape requirements (enclosed). A conceptual landscape plan shall be submitted at the time of Short Plat application. Retaining Walls -The proposed retaining walls are not subject to the fence regulations of the code. The applicant would be required to provide the City with a geotechnical report demonstrating the need for retaining walls at the heights propased. Significant Tree Retention: If significant trees (greater than 6-inch caliper) are proposed to be removed a tree inventory and a tree retention plan along with a tree retention worksheet shall be provided with the formal land use application. The tree retention plan must show preservation of at least 30% of Significant trees, and indicate how proposed building footprints would be sited to accommodate preservation of significant trees that would be retained. If the trees cannot be retained, they may be replaced with minimum 2 inch caliper trees at a ratio of six to one. You would not be able to obtain credit for those trees that are retained in the wetland/buffer. If street trees are increased to 2-inch caliper, they can be credited towards the tree replacement requirements. Critical Areas: The project site appears to contain wetlands. The applicant will be required to provide an updated wetland reconnaissance and delineation. In addition, if impacts are proposed to the wetlands or their buffers the applicant would be required to provide a conceptual mitigation plan. The City's approved consultant list is enclosed in the information packet. If so, the proposal would need to be revised accordingly. The standard Category 2 wetland buffer is 50-feet. All critical areas and buffers are required to be placed in a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE). h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\13~000088.rocale\13·000088 (r-8 tiffany park, rsd, wetlands, access) v.1.doc Revised nffany Park, PRE13·0000S8 Page4of4 September 2.4, 2013 City of Renton's Critical Areas maps also indicate the subject site is located within the Aquifer Protection Zone. The overall purpose of the aquifer protection regulations is to protect aquifers used as potable water supply sources by the City from contamination by hazardous materials. Some uses are restricted that store, handle, treat, use, or produce substances that pose a hazard to groundwater quality. [Ifill is used, then a fill source statement is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to ascertain whether additional critical areas are present on the site. If so, the proposal would need to be revised accordingly. Environmental Review: Environmental (SEPAl Review is required for projects nine lots or greater, or on sites that contain critical areas. Therefore SEPA would be required for the proposed subdivision. Permit Requirements: The proposed subdivision would. require Preliminary Plat Approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review. All land use permits would be processed within an estimated time frame of 12 weeks. The Preliminary Plat Review application fee is $4,000. The application fee for SEPA Review (Environmental Checklist) is $1,000. A 3% technology fee would also be assessed at the time of land use application. Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal is provided in the attached handouts. Fees: In addition to the applicable building and construction fees, the following impact fees would be required prior to the recording of the plat. The following are current fees and are likely to be increased in 2014: • A Fire Impact fee of $488.00 per new single family residence. • A Transportation Impact Fee based on $75.00 per each ~ average daily trip attributable to the project; and • A Parks Impact Fee based on $530.76 per new single family residence. • A School District Impact Fee based on $6,395 per new single family residence. A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees in attached for your review. Expiration: The preliminary plat approval is valid for nine years with a possible one-year extension. h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\13·000088.rocale\13-0000B8 {r·8 tiffany park, rsd, wetlands, access} v.l.doc 4·11-060 DEFINITIONS F: ~CE: An outdoor physical andlor visual byrrler; railing', orolhllr,updghllilrucl\Jrq;emctel! aboveground and separnlinq an areaofgroytld, ,F:Qrth!\'puWose oi admlbis!80ng this DUe, a Willi .halloo cansldered~ Jl1J)\:~W!le,wall re81Stsihe tatomldisplacament 6tsoiror 6thermale~als; In whiCh CaSe IISMII gualiN'as'a relainlng wall, 4-11-180 DEFINITIONS R: RETAININ!l.wAll;!A:slni(;~!l§i~O"dI0lr'eslst(hWla@ll(9isrj!ape.riJet\tofs60 o~oIh~C!$.'fe9~1ii:'f#('ltle, ' pU'ffiiises C" or Ihr,\1T!!lc, ' i> 'ms~!!N~ "i; ',@;k Wall!' I~M@!f6f'ijj!~lDlri9 W~IP ~tij.tCtu!!!r C!ffi!ijSiijilntswSIIlj'riiYiiiIiir. !ticilin~s sli~;H,orb¢Jriterprele-sft<frie-1i leWi!mi'g wii;. , '" , -.' . -"-, .. -'.' .~ ~ .. ,., .-". ROCKERY; One§r mot'ecouises6t ijx:ks!$jiick~d ag'iil~l aneXtjOs9e1 foil faCeio pil)teC1lti$'s6n'rac~;' prosi6naOd slougl)lMi Ilie bottom course:6ficfC!s's'Oears'CD'llleIQutljl3tlon soDs aMth6 uPoe;:!!lC!ss,@r7 partially or enll!'!liY O!!' tHe rocJ<. "aliiw; TP!tfac'!ofiriclinnqon of.1i:roclie"ri varies'!rom;nilar yeitfcah;;aliijut, ,1 HAil, Also known as a 'rock :-vall' 4-4-040 FENCES. ANlJ-HEDGES, AND RETAINING WALLS: A, PURPOSE: These regulations are intended to regulate the malerial and heighl 01 lences, aR<I-hedges, and retaining walls, partlcularty in Ironl yards and In yards abutting public righls-of-way, in order to promote traffic and public safety - and to maintain aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods, The following regulations are intended to provide and maintain adequate sight distance alorig public rlghts~of.way at intersections and to encourage safe Ingress and egress from individual properties. These regulations also encourage the feeling of spaciousness along neighborhood slreets and minimize the closed city atmosphere, which tall lences, hedges or retaining walls, , along public rights-aI-way can create, B. APPLICABILITY: 1. Exceptions: The provisions and conditions of this Section regulating height are not applicable to fences or barriers required by State ~Iaw ~y-tAe-ulR.R9-provi-&i()R-6-Of-this-Code to surround and enclose public safety installations, school grounds, public playgrounds, storm drainage facilities, privale or public swimming pools and, similar inslallations and Improvements, 2. Urban Separator Overlay: Fences, anG-hedges, and relainlng walls within the urban separator overlay are also subject to requirements of the Urban Separator Overlay regulations (see RMC ~ lW. (Ord. 5132, 4-4-2005) 3, City May Require Modification: Where a traffic vision hazard is created, the City may require a modification to the height limitations and location 01 fences, hedges or relalnlh,awallsto the degree necessary to eliminate the. hazard. C. GENERAL FENCE, AND-HEDGE, ANDRETAINING·WALL STANDARDS: REQIJIRliMEN+S; . . 1. I'eM& Helght-Method of Measurement: l!. Fences: The height shall be measured from the top elevation of the top board rail or wire to the ground. In cases where a wallis used Instead of a fence, height shall be measuned from the iop surface of the wan to the ground on the high side of the wall, L Grade Differences: Where the finiShed grade is a different elevation on either side of a . fence the height maybe measured from the side having the highest elevation. 11_ fences on Berms: A berm may rutllLnot be constructed with a' fence on It unless the total height of the berm plus the fence'is less than the maximum height aUowable for the fence if the berm were not present !!. Hodge!!: :The'hAi9l!Lshall'be measured !rom.Pm·topmost portion of veg~lat!on !(!oIl'IegtOtlnd; !;"Retalnlng Walls:·[1la halant srial(.be'm9~§y[eqj[liro':lhal6wesHmlsheil aiade3t:[!je!liaSaaf:ihii, . --. " ': wall 10 Ihe top of the we II, I. Fanceson RorainlOn"il(ailS: A fence shall nofbeconsiru¢t"donlgpOr~'.elnliijiJgY(a!~ uoless the Iolal combined haighfof,therelainlng waif;~!)dlhe (eO~ll'not eicce~ allQWlld heightoti!.itandalon,e leitr..e. (i") Execution -Guardrail: If a'ql!ardrallis roouirgd by the Building Officj~! the BPlliicgO! . sha!LllJ!mon~e tQ, the satisfaction of the Administ@torlh""he n!!lalil2t1b.!! mtainlng wpll is ih. IQwest necessary aria.!!'at terrncinD.ts in[Qaslblo; tM height· of the gl!llliir!!l~QgJbe lOwest n"cessm'LlQ_}nlili!Ylb~ BuildiOg Official.Jlllt In no ~ ~hell the com blood height o(arel~.!Ui1!lIand l·om!lmli·gu.rdraJi 9!ffi!!!ld ninflfee.! (llJJ:Lresidential zS'll~Q[Jwelv.fe.!!1 rf2') in commercial 'lO(Hndust~. (B) Exception -50% TrulI"parent Feilco$: Fence. lila! erov!de a\fu~~LfifiV percent (50%) IrallsJl.arency, as vi!l.wed .11!llilltllSli£l!!<ll!.'il9_\tlJtll.@ . .ru.!11lU!!!1C9, mny bo ;llIowed dil'er;UY.9.!liQP of tl retaining wall. HQ.wev(f!.L.~tl~iaJln!s_l~ncir}ql~Hl..~~ludeJ! f[Q[!HJlowed fence material for this application. I I I , II. fencos ~nd Hedges Ad/acenl tg Rqtalnlng Walls; Fence. pod hedges adjacenl tQ telllil:1iD9. willis wiltr II combined fence aQd rctnin~~11 hQight that exceeds Ihe ali"",gd ~Q!ll..Q!.i! standalone retaining iiall shali'b§ sotback..f!.Qill:llne:another bye minimum of twq real(~l.;JllI1Ul£!li!..m1!!Lll!llanaSi:aRi!!! psilit WClO II larraco .. iI·a filOceisplaSedurix . gls!anco.\vi!bln the oroperty IIna the l!roperty owner continU"sto be res~ible (othlSiher propp'!. 00 bolh .Idot of I"" fence • . ' .-' 2. Retaining Wall Standards; !\, 'MotorlalS; Retairing wanSSh~ll!ieCilni'10 •. ~ of!1r!M, !p£kteX41rodotgattetiJtid CO~l?;.gl: . elbor:mpwry Rflxiucllha"ooniplemeniSilh'& Rropilljeij.li!,!il~in<ipn<l!sll\!'c!eyelilQOJ.ijnf. 6th'et moti1rfplirmay ile UsedY~Ih.ih'e~apgroyari5fibe Adminls~tor, ~ §gJ!l[ck1(om Plililie' Blgh\s:of-yYay: Ttlere.llisJJJbe anriQlrliu~~aqdi;'43,*~selbi;cl<~i .~~taihing.wa!ls abuliiOgil,ybIjC,jghts:o!.\yaY-' tnndscalllnasha!1 l"elUd! a mlXtum Of. . . .',. ."( , . " -"," : '." -.. ~vW'f!'1'@S:er&opUrin,;lHn confonpance with the slandards of HMC.1± 070H,4,. ,!;,. Terracing: Terrac.nglstheacioftoimlngchllts!!tGJIlIg a numbetor leY,Jl/OaI aWl!, (lblCFlGiiS), ~en relalnlog,V#!ns.·Whlcl}!.:ofujri:iJilediWtieij.iha"inaXi;nU'ritliiiiPtirofa'Slnglit.riii;Jln!ijij\@I![l .' -,. -P h,", .. , •.. ,., '-. IOru!!Ocjanc,The foJlowio9'stitndard~ shBli,Bpnly.ioejeWced;Slogoo; 'I. . Tqri:acgWldUi: The'\\:idlh"ora1:iY fefrnce sliail baeqUaHQ Iba heiglJ! of Ih~ • ,'" -'~.'~.'" ~-'. -, "V' t. , :.,',;.,,', .t'«ore.!Wning waiJS~\IllL·lheiriinlmu"l·ieIT<!ce Widlh shanli!!l\yO teet(2') "~ muimUm'raguJ(!!d wlillhshalJ:befivefeQt'C5J, 'Terrace Wldth.tis·Jlbe mea'suredfro~.tHg back odS!!: of a, lower relalning wall'!o Ihe foremost edge ~f Iho Immed1alelys~ceeeging:pnd higher re~ajning wall. II. Tor@ea undo.aplng: Terroces crpaladibetweon·ietainlngwnlls'SlmJl be pennaoonlly· landscaOOd ;viif! a mlxl"'" ofshi}!bs ~nd.:alrumdcover (t,eils areOpiigDan jrfcOnf<ifD18!l!:Q " --.' '. . with the standards of,RMC 4-4·070F, ~~rov;dOOin fiont'Qfr§tsiqing:waIlS and :,vltOI" lowells shall contd~~to 10 11.!l.'Llruli!s..l<.QJl.l!J.9;mlWlm.<!.!lYJlM£.±.4070F: the L\dmlnlstrator m~y g(Qnl {?xc~pUons for required trees' based 00 land constraints. d. lW!dlny, The qradeql ground Imm!ldla!!!!y..!l.9=.!!.L.Olai!.:!iDg wall s!mll be lovel wllh Iho topol 11m !!'laining.Y{i!!U9!J1 hQri?.QDJ~t dislaoce imcp.~g.EQ[Jl!!ndi9!!~t!l'..l9. the-'!lJIJlj,.!'g~no loo! {D.Jor eV!lliCl2!Jr,Joot 0.1111 hel"l\! of 1118 retalnl~, £., Modifications: p~! Rry1C 4'9-250D, Ihe Admjni!'lt9lor. m!C'Y..!lranl f)loiliiiGJIQ[LU2..ll.llUl.an<:!aids 01 J Ilis S.~£ti on .!le. l!l i n i "tl.i!ll!ill!!nilliL waH., Ap'illQ.~;tI..QL1...mOd;ncalio Q!U1!'JJnil.!!!'§YJni;llIQIL~9.iJ2iliPjJ§ liVch as, bUI nolllmiled...l!!.!!lereased satbacks,. asj\ljIi2!l!l!..kl~~i'emeat to·te,mea or specific materials 10 be used. 2rBermst ~be[m,may-nol.j)e,conBtruste<J, with-a. fence·on-~unles8.th~'lot81: height of.lha.bam>p!us·the·feRGe . ': ' ' ." is,las •. tha".th<HI""J<lmum,heigllt.allowo9Ie.fo,-lhe·fenoo.if-the·barm.wer<rnol.presen\, 3"GradO:DllierenG __ lMoere-the.ffnlslled:grl!de-llHl.dtff9ran~etevatiOA-OA,eiiher-Gj~e.ol-!l-i;'nGe.ltie-heighl· A18y,ba.measurOO:from,\hS'BldS'havlns-the-hlghest·elevaliohr 4,·CJtY-MayoRoquJre-Modlnoatlolll~lMoer&:a-trafllp,vISJGfl.haza"j.Je-_tecii:Ih&'c\lY,:maY'fe.qtlife1HT1odl~ociatioA' ·.!iJ;Ui6-hel9hl-limil!ltlon ... and4Q1)1l\1iln.ot(en~Jl",~hed9etHlo4YaIJII'to,t~e-$lgre&-AeGeSll<lf\l'oto'elif!1'i1{Ile-the haza.a, D. STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES:. 1. f/taxlmym HOll!ht: In ~d·tresi~enii"i dj§\richthema"imtl~lb!l!g.hIOf·any(ftnc& ·he·g'g@.orremiiJirirwaiJlihall, be' severity-(W(ilncnes' (72'1:' 911bl!jcll<'lNi\flec !leigh! IifUitations.llf $9'N ifie<!iln 'mls Section. r; ~Helght L1rnitations for.lnierlor Lots: a.Fron! Yard Setbacks: Fences; rnfBlOlrig wails 0' hedges shall not exceed a rIi.~I"'lJ'" al forty·elght Inches (48~') In helghl may-lle-allowad within the ''''lH'ireG front yard setback, &~bjeGl-lo-tlle6&-jlfGYi.1oA&, b. Sido yard .I;ot·t.lnes. Sotllgcls!: Ferices~it!a.walls or h~dge~ w!tliiifbpih on Inlertor side ~.lbacks , iGI-llnes and the <il ''''luire<l fronl yards setback shall nOI exceed for1y-elghllnches (481 in height.-Fences, . retaining. walls or hedges.withinon interior side~f!lJleibacks to~IIAes and nol within required Jl!!Lfronl'yards selback shall not exceed may-be-a-maximlmHll seventy·two inches (72") in height c. Rear Vard bet-bine Setbacks: A fence...retaining ~or hedge shalt not exceed a-maximum-ol seventy·two inches (72") may-be-loGated-oo within the rear yard set~lot·line. ;L.2, Height Umitations for Comer Lois: a; FroritYard Setbacks: Fences,:mfu!nlrigwalts or he~ges shall pil! exceed'lI'maxirifutiHllforty-!Wo'lncrui:i (42") In height may-li>e-altowed-oo i!!.any part altha clear vision area l!!MI!ned by RMC 4-11-030. Fences, .ml.\lillI.!!!l.walt~; 0." hedaesshill! notexcgAd .. Il:!l'aXif!1uiiHlffor!y'elghllnches (48") in neight maY-be·allowed within any part of the front yard setback when located outside of. any clear visl.on area on said lot. b. Interior Side Vard bOWn .... Setbacks: Fences,cjllaloiiOif.Walts or hedges shall not exceed a ",,,,,I,,,"RHlI' seventy-two Inches (72") in height ",ay-ba-looated on within any part of the interior side yard setnack ,*",,00 to the point where they intersect the _ired front yard setback, In which case they shalt be governed by subsection D.2.a of this Section. c. SldeVard lot4.lM-Abultlng..Along a Street Setbacks: Fences. retaining walls or hedges shall not exceed be-a-maximum-elJorty-two inches (42") in height within any clear vision area, as delin.lld by RMC 4-11-030, and forty-eight inches (48") in height elsewhere in the front yard setback. The remainder of the lence or hedge shall not exceed oo.a-maxilmlm seventy-two Inches (72") in height Within the side yard along a street,settiock. d. Rear Yilli! lot-blno SotlJacks: Fences. mli!ining.walls, or hedges sh~1I no~exceed a-maximurIKlf seventy- two Inches (72") in height may·be totated-aloflg·wi\\lirJ:the rear Yl!r.9M!!2.~<;.!i.lotll"a excep\.the (ence, retninJng wall or he.gg~shall not exceed oo~imiteQ.tE> forty-eight inches (48") in height where they intersect the width of the requifW side yard along a street setback, sf U,a"slo8-8tf8et-arld-'NIlare IRe feRse-abYts IRa "OR\-yaf<Hlf-aR SIOir ll<:iJ'I.'IGU (Ord. 5518, 12-14-2009) Jl!l -4;1" IMlCMI .. M I·£I(;I-:f .t.:t ~er WlXMJM I r:J(iA If .1i·~lWlr 1,-3. Gate Required: Residential fences, retaining walls or hedges along rear lot lines of interior lots abutting alleys shall have an access gate to the ailey. ~-4. Electric and Barbed Wtre Fences: Electric andlor barbed wire fences may be permitted by speclat administrative fence permit In all residential zones in cases where large domestic animals are being kept; provided, that additional fencing or an Administrator approved barrier Is erected along Ihe property lines. (Ord. 5578,11-15-2010; Ord. 5702, 12-9-2013) E. STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND OTHER USES: 1. Location and Maximum Height: A maximum of eight feet (8') anywhere on the lot provided. the fence, relainlng wall or hedge does not stand in orin front of any required landscaping or pose a traffic vision hazard. 2. Electric Fences: All electric fence. shall be postad with permanent sign. a minimum of thirty·six (36) square Inches in area at intervals of fifteen feet (15') stating that the fence Is electrlfled. Electric fences and any related equipment and appliances must be Installed In accordance with the manufacture~s specifications and In compliance witlh the National Electrical Code. · ' 3. Barbed Wire Fences: Barbed wire may only be used on top of fences at least six feet (6') high for commercial, industrial, utility and public uses. I (!II , -;1 7Q "1 "1 \ .CJ 00' MAXM ,t.Hflrn1' _ ~.(; ':l'1a C,{P RnI'iOlii'LL ~t , • ..u,~~fl) f;I-~'.trN iiiI' Ht.£-l1f r:;. TIi<t~ ;\N) 11'1> 'tt r 4. Bulk Storage Fences: See RMC ~, 5. Special Provisions: Fences for mobile home parks, subdivisions or planned urban development and for sites which are mined, graded or excavated may vary from these regulations as provided in the respective code sections: (Ord, 5153, 9·26·2005) F, ADMINISTRATtVE REVIEW OF VARIATION FROM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS: A property owner wishing to vary the height restrlcUons or placement of a fence or hedge on a lot may make written application to the Planning Division for an admlnistraUve review of the situation. The Department's staff shall review the application and prapare a written determination based upon criteria listed in Subsection 4·4- 040G. tMse-regtIIatioo&,.(Ord. 5450, 3-2-2009) G. SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE FENCE PERMITS: 1. Fences Eligible for Administrative Review Process: Persons wishing to have one of the following types of fences may submit a letter of justificaUon, site plan and typical elevation together with the permit fee to the Department of Community and Economic Development: -------- !L Fences or hedges exceeding forty-eight inches (4S") within front yard or side yards along a street setback but not within a clear vision area; Q. FencBs 2th~~J:!lj!Qj!l!l..lll!Y.flD!Y;:lWo inchru~.d located outside of required yard sBtba!;!!§; ~ I:lectrlc fences: and Q. Barbed wire fences (Ord. 5450, 3-2-2009; Ord. 557S, 11-15-2010) 2. Evatuatlon Crtterla:'The DevelopmeA~SarviGea·OlvisloA Administrator may approve the Issuance 01 speclBI fence permits provided that the following objectives can be met: '. The prop~sed fence ,Improves the prtv~cy and security of the adjoining yard space; • The proposed fence does not detract from the quailly of thB residentlat environment by being out of scale or creating vast blank walls alorig public roadways; • The proposed fenca compliments the envlronrrient It serves in an aesthetically pleasing manner, and • ThB proposed fence does riot presenta hazard to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. a. Acceptable Measures to Meet Crllerla: Fences located within the front or side andior rBar yard along a street setback may be a maximum oisevenly-two Inches (72") In height, ~rovlded the evaluation criteria are mel. Acceptable measures to achieve these criteria Include; but are not limited to the following: • Permanent landscaping along the front of the fence; • Quality fence material, such as cedar fencing; • Modulation of the fence; • Similar design and material as other fences in the surrounding neighborhood; • Increased setbacks from the abutting sidewalk; • Ornamental materials or construction treatment, such as wrought Iron; • Orientation of the finished face of the fence toward the street; and • Other comparable construction or design methods. b. Clear Vision Area: The fence proposed for special permits must-shall have no portion in the clear vision area OVer forty-two inches (42") In height. The location and height of the fence must not obstruct views of oncoming traffic, or views from driveways. (Amd. Ord. 500S, 4-28-2003; Oed. 5676, 12·3-2012) H. COMPLIANCE: Fences whish that.do not comply with these regulations must be brought into COmpliance within six (6) months from the date of notice ofl! fence violation from the Cily. (Ord. 4056, 4-13·1987) __ De:~~~o::.\aw...-__ vr¢iL_. -. -'1~,.;.r".~;..,;,1 ..... ~ e Department of Commu~ltY and Economic Development' . C.E.'Chlp'Vlncent, Mmlnlstrator . November 2?, 2013 Wayne Potter. . . NovastarDcv Inc 18215 nndAve S . Kent, WA 98032 ' ... ,. Subject: , 'Notice'of Complete Application., ' ' Reserve.at'Tiffany park; LUA13·001572;EG~;" pp. . --;. -. ~. .. . Dear Mr. Potter: i.' > . .' , The Pla-nning Division of. the City of Renton has,determined,that ,the subject application' is~ompiete accordil1gto suomlttai requifemeh.ts and, tQ~r~fpre,'js ac~ept~d .forr~vl~w.,: ., .' . . "'. .: ' • r'" -'. • It Is terit~t1velyscheduled for consid~ratl~nby the Eri;iro~ri'l(lnt~1 Revi~'w com~itteeon' . December 23, 20:13.", Pi-lor to 'that'revlew; you. wi Ii lie~ nqtlfie'ij' if~nY' aciiiiti,onal, inforinat!orlis required to ,contInue processihg;yOiJf. applicatidn,· ':.'.., " . " , . . -, ~ .' ' In addition: this ~att~r Ist~n;atl~eiy'schedt.iledfor a ~~l:ilicJ~~ari~g on Jariuar:y 2~,"2014 at 10\00 AM, Coundl Chambers;-S,eventh Floor, R~nton CitY' Hail/lOSS South Grady Way,:, Renton, The applicant or representatlv'e(~) ofthe applicant,are' ~equired,to be present"at- the public hearing: A copy oqhest~ff reportwlll,pe mailed. to you'pdor to t~e,schedul.ed hearing" Please{:~nta,t me at,(425) 430~7i19 if y~u hav,e any ,questions, Sincerely, Rocale Timmons Senior Planner cc: Renton School District / Owner(s) Henley USA llC / Applicant Robert Schauss, Robert Garlough, Greg & Jenny Swanson I Party(ics) of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonw3.gov " .. .' , " r j.' I, " I' I I I I .1 • . I I '! : J " --" ·-i , I ,. I I I " J I ~ i 1 "I ,I i " I ) -f REVISED CONDITIONS I. The applicant shall comply with the H mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of NonSignificance Mitigated, dated September 22, 2014, as modified by the Hearing Examiner's SEPA appeal decisions described above. 2. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate compliance with the minimum 50-foot lot width requirement for all lots with less than 50 feet in width at the foremost points (where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) pursuant to RMC 4-11-120. The average distance between the side lines connecting front and rear lot lines shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 3. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised landscape plan, depicting the following: a 10-foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots" ami a 15 feet w-iae vegetatea sHffer sHHeHHaiHg the sHBjeet site ... ;-ith spaeiHg eeHsiaeratieH gi'feH te these trees seiHg retaiHea te meet the 30% tree reteHtieH rettHiremeHt. The final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Such landscaping shall include a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover as approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development. The landscape plan ~~ --snallreflect proposed curb cuts and pedestrian connections. 4. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised plat plan and landscaping plan, which are elements ofthe City's required construction plan set, depicting curb bulbouts at street intersections where on-street parking is located or calling for no curb bulbouts and installation of "no parking" designations where street parking is prohibited at street intersections. The revised plat and landscaping plans-shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 5. The Ilj3pliellHt shall ae reElHirea Ie limit all reta-iHiHg walls Ie a height ef ae mere 6 feel HHless leeateel withla a reElHireel freat yarel setllaelE thea the wallEs) weHleI ae limiteel te a height ef 4 feet. Wall eleyatieas shall ae reElwreel te ae sHamittea te, aHa Ilj3pFe'feel ay, the CHHeat PIllHHiag Prejeet MaHager Ma De'felepmeHt Eagiaeeriag Plaa Re'/ie' .... eF prier te eeastruetieH peHllit aIlpreyal. AltefHativel)" stafh/eHleI ae sHppeTtiYe efthe EIjlplieam Htiliziag termeiHg Etl!e feHlliag ef hlilsiae iHte a HHffiaer ef le'/el flat areas EteHaees) aet'.veea retaiHiHg walls) ia eraer te iHerease the height ef a wall system wheH the mllldmHm height ef a siagle retaiaiag wall is iHsliffieieat. The felle ... ,'iag stMearas shallllj3ply te teHaeea slej'les: . a. TeHaee Wieth: ~Ie peTtiea ef a retaiaiHg '.vall shall ae eeastruee te eeatriaHte te the '.vieth ef a leHaee. The wieth ef ffilj' teHaee shall ae eElHal te the height ef the tallest aBHttiHg retaiHiag wall; he,.'1ever, the miHimHm terraee '.viath shall ae twe feet E2') Ma the maldmHffi reElHirea ,.viath shall se fiye feet (5'). Terraee wiath shall ae measHFea frem the aaek eage ef a le ..... er retaiaiag wall te the feremest eage ef the . immeeliately sHeeeeaiag aaa higher retaiHiHg wall. b. TeHaee Laaasellj3iHg: TeHaees ereateel aetweea retaiaiag walls shall ae permaaeHtly IMelseEljlea with a miJEtHre ef slL.'1las aael greHHelee'/er (trees are eptieaal) ia eeHfeHllMee v;-ith the staHelaras ef RoMC 4 4 070.F, LMelseEljliag. Laaaseapiag pfe'liaea iH freat ef retaiaiag walls aHa withiH teHaees shall eeatriaHle Ie aay laaesellj3iHg reElHiree ay RMC 4 4 070.F. A re'fiseel laHasellj3e plM shall ae sHsmittee {02689876.DOCX;4 } .--------------------------- te fIflEi Ilpflre'ieElay tile Glmellt PlfIflHiHg Pwjeet MaHager flrier te eeHstflletieH fleffHit Ilpflreval. . 6. The aflfllieallt silall elimioote iHEliyiEiloial aeeess Elireetly [rem iHtemal fllolalie streets fer tHese lets almttiHg flriyate streets fIflEller silereEi Elriyeway aeeess easemeHts. SaiEilets silallae reEjlolireEi te tekoe aeeess [rem tHe aBloittiHg flrivate street fIflEiler aeeess easemeHt aHEI sRall Het el(eeeEl aeeess tfiresRelds A shared private driveway may be permitted for access up to a maximum offour (4) lots. Up to three (3) of the lots may use the driveway as primary access. One lot utilizing the shared private driveway pursuant to RMC 4-6-060.1 and K shall have physical frontage along a street. Any lot without physical frontage shall be required to take access from the abutting private street and/or access easement. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Furthermore, the access restriction for such lots is required to be noted on the face ofthe Final Plat prior to recording. 7. The applicant shall revise the proposed mitigation plan to depict all retaining walls on site, including lock & load walls on the north and east sides of Wetlands B and C. The applicant shall also identify if proposed walls are anticipated to impact critical area buffers and provide appropriate mitigation for such impacts. A Final Mitigation Plan, pursuant to RMC 4-8- 120.W, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 8. The temporary buffer impacts consisting of minor intrusions or disturbance from construction activities shall be restored with appropriate grading, soil amendments, and the planting of native species to the satisfaction of the Cutrent Planning Project Manager. The revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 9. The existing wetland mitigation plan already assures that 1,331 square feet of additional wetland buffer area is being provided to mitigate for both existing buffer impacts to Wetland E that are not assoCiated with the Plat. as well as the loss of 14 square feet of the Wetland E buffer which loss is associated with the extension of SE 18 th Street. Tile Ilpfllieflflt silall JlFeyide ereetieH ef aElElitieHal wetlflflEialol[fer, asseeieteEi witH Wetlflfld 'E', iR Breier tIo provide an additional offset for the impacts resulting from the requested exemption associated with the fill of 14 square feet of buffer to extend SE 18th Street.. EaHfIfleemeat iH . eeHjlolHetieR , .... itH ereetieR may ae allewed iH erEler te effset tile iffiJlaets. Sfleeifieally, the applicant is eReelolfaged te has agreed to provide and shall provide enhancement to the Wetland 'E' buffer immediately abutting SE 18th St. as well as enhanced plantings adjoining· that buffer area within Tract M. A revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 10. The applicant shall be required to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over those parts of the site encompassing wetlands and their associated buffers and place fencing and signage along the outer buffer edge prior to Final Plat approval. II. The applicant shall be required to submit a fill source statement, if fill materials are brought. to the site, in order to the City to ensure only clean fill is imported prior to construction. 12. The applicant shall provide a final Tree Retention Plan, complying with the 30% tree retention mitigation measure while demonstrating proposed retaining walls would not impact {02689876.DOCX;4 } trees proposed for retention. The Final Tree Retention Plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 13. The applicant shall submit a revised plat plan. which is an element of the City's required construction plan set. depicting a safe pedestrian crossing, across the 124 th Place SE extension, for the Seattle Waterline Pedestrian Trail. The revised plat plan, as part of the construction plan set. shall be submitted to, and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager, Community Services Department, and the Transportation Department prior to construction permit approval. 14. The applicant shall be required to obtain right-of-way or a public access easement through the Cedar River Pipeline, for the extension of I 24th Place SE, to the satisfaction of the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 15. Pedestrian lighting shall be depicted on the lighting plan at the entrances of Tracts C and E (from the proposed right-of-way). The lighting plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager and the .Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 16. The Preliminary Plat plan shall be revised so that no more than 4 lots may gainffig access via a shared driveway and that flave at least one such lot shall meetffig minimum lot width requirements along a street frontage pursuant to RMC 4-7-170.D (a minimum of80% of the required lot widthl40 feet or 35 feet along a street curve). The lot(s) which provides physical frontage along the street shall only be allowed vehicular access from the shared private driveway. In order to comply with the recommended condition the following would be required: proposed Lot 17 would be required to be widened from 32 to 35 feet along the 'cul- de-sac and take primary access from the shared driveway; Lot 14 would be required to be Widened from 30 to 35 feet along the cul-de-sac and take primary access from the shared driveway; proposed Lot 38 would be required to be widened from 20 to 35 feet along the cul- de-sac and take primary access from the shared driveway; and proposed Lots 78 !lHd or 81 would be required to take primary access from the shared driveway. The revised plat plan shaH be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 17. The plat plan shall be revised so that all lots have no less than a 40-foot lot width where side lot lines intersect with the street right of way or for radial lots be a minimum of35 feet in width. Specifically, proposed Lots 14, 17~, and 38 would be required to be widened to 35 feet in order to comply with the condition. The revised plat plan shaH be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 18. The applicant submit a revised plat plan depicting the elimination of aH pipestem lots (lots which are less than 40 feet in width where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of- way or for radial lots are less than 35 feet) within the subdivision. SpecificaIly, proposed Lots 12, 14, 15, 17,38,40, and 79 would be required to be eliminated or revised to meet minimum frontage width requirements. The applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan which includes a combination of aHlots fronting onto a public street meeting minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access easements could be placed in Shared Driveway Tracts with easements placed over them pursuant to RMC 4-6-060, Street Standards (see Access discussion above). The revised plat plan shall be (02689876.DOCX;4 ) submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 19. Any proposal to convert the Stormwater vault within Tract A to a Stormwater detention pond be considered a Major Plat Amendment subject to the requirements outlined under RMC 4-7- 080M.2. 20. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowners' association and maintenance agreement(s) for the shared utilities, landscape areas and maintenance and responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted to Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. (02689876,DOCX;4 ) 11/1812014 Gmail-Response for: Permssion to bring an independent ""Uand specialist on to the orooertv""n';i;!i!l. Renate Beedon ~~ Response for: Permission to bring an independent wetland specialist on to the property owned by the Renton school district, LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR 13 messages (Me-rrLR~egei:]<Merri.Rieger@rentonschooIS.US> rFrC~i1g:8,:20J4]at 1 :48 PM To: I ren tonwa1@gmail.com" <rentonwa1@gmail.com> Cc: Randy Matheson <randy.matheson@rentonschools.us>, John Knutson <john.knutson@rentonschools.us>, AI Talley <aLtalley@rentonschools.us>, Denise Eider <denise.eider@rentonschools.us>, Lynn Desmarais <Iynn.desmarais@rentonschools.us>, Pam Teal <Pam.Teal@rentonschools.us>, Sandy Dolph <sandy.dolph@rentonschools.us>, Todd Franceschina <todd.franceschina@rentonschools.us> Dear Ms. Beedon, I received your request of August 6, 2014 for access to the District's undeveloped land near the Tiffany Park neighborhood for the purpose of conducting an independent wetlands review. After determining that the property was no longer necessary for school purposes, Renton Schools Board of Directors decided in 2012 to offer it for sale and dedicate the proceeds toward school construction. To that end, the Board approved a purchase and sale agreement on May 22,2013 putting into motion the sales process. The agreement authorized the purchaser to assess the property's suitability for the intended development, and to take steps to obtain the necessary approvals in compliance with City of Renton ordinances and regulations. The purchaser has submitted environmental and wetlands surveys as required by the City, and is currently working with the City to obtain the approval necessary to . finalize the sale. Unless required by the City of Renton, additional surveys will not serve to advance the district's interest to finalize the sale on the terms contained in the purchase and sale agreement. For this reason I am denying your request as it is not in the best interest of the district, its students, taxpayers and its educational mission. https1Imail.google.com'mail/uJOl?ui=2&i1<?3114fff5c5&"ew=pt&q=rieger&qs=true&search=quer~th=147b761937429d66&sini=147b761937429d66&sini=147b... 1fT 11/11>'2014 Gmail-Response for: Permssion to bring an indepeo ~ lMlIIand specialist on to the propertyOYoOOd by the Renton school district, LUA1:H)()1572, ECF." Sincerely, Merri Rieger Superintendent -----Original Message----- From: rentonwa 1 @gmaiLcom [mailto:rentonwa 1 @gmaiLcomj Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 201412:40 PM To: Merri Rieger Cc: Randy Matheson; John Knutson; Lynn Desmarais Subject: Permission to bring an independent wetland specialist on to the property owned by the Renton school district, LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR Dear Dr. Rieger, We hereby request permission from the Renton school district to bring an independent wetland specialist onto the subject property to review the wetlands therein, Thank you, Renate Beedon, President Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Sent from my iPad ' .. " rentonwa1@gmail.com <rentonwa1@gmaiLcom> Sat, Aug 9,2014 at 12:27 AM To: David <davebeedon@comcast.net>, Roenicke <risingr@integrity,com>, Cynthia Garlough <cynthia.garlough@comcast.net>, Bob G <bob@garlough.org> Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: https:l/mail.google.com'mail/ulOl?ui=2&1k=3114f1f5c5&"ew=pl&q=rieger&qs=true&search=q llOI)6th= 147b761937429d65&sini= 147b761937429d65&sim= 147b... 217 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [~~RfemberI6,2014] Renate Beedon, President Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Dear Ms. Beedon, RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 403 Board of Directors This is in reply to your request presented to the Renton School Board at its September 10th meeting seeking permission to bring an independent wetland specialist onto the district's Tiffany Park undeveloped property for additional wetlands review. Superintendent Rieger denied a similar request on August 8, 2014, citing the wetlands studies previously . submitted by the purchaser and the fact that those studies and additional information requested by the City of Renton meet the requirements of the City as they work through the review and approval process. Dr. Rieger's reply referred to the purchase and sale agreement that was approved by the School Board on May 22, 2013, noting that the agreement authorizes the purchaser to assess the property's suitability for the intended development, and to take steps to obtain the necessary approvals in compliance with City of Renton ordinances and regulations. The purchaser has proceeded to do so, at considerable expense for the planning and studies required by the City. The studies submitted are subject to review and approval by City staff and by the hearing examiner, who will evaluate them in light of state and local environmental and development standards. The decisions resulting from this process are also subject to appeal, as explained hy City staff at the community meeting held on September 9~, so that any perceived deficiencies in the existing studies can be appealed as part ofthe City's review process. In addition to granting certain rights to the purchaser, the purchase and sale agreement formalized the School Board's intent to sell the property, consistent with the School Board's duty to act in the best interest of the entire district. In doing so, the agreement created an obligation for the Board to cooperate with the purchaser as it seeks to obtain the required permits. To do otherwise could put the purchaser's investment at risk, and could conceivably create a financial liability to the Renton School District. For the above reasons, after due consideration of your request, the School Board denies your request to access the property for additional independent wetlands study. Sincerely, ~~~ Lynn Desmarais, President Renton School Board Launching Learning to Last a Lifetime 300 Southwest 7th Street, Renton. Washington 98057-23071 p.425.204.2340 1 f.425.204.2456 www.rentonschoots.us .... Renate Beedon From: Sent: To: Cc: John Knutson <john.knutson@rentonschools.us> Tuesday, rOcto~e~2§:-=2014)2:42 PM renton-opposites@comcast.net Subject: Merri Rieger; Lynn Desmarais; AI Talley; Todd Franceschina; Pam Teal; Denise Eider Response to comments at the October 22nd School Board meeting To: Renate Beedon Ms. Beedon, Thank you for attending the Renton School Board meeting on October 22"d. The district's procedure when comments are made at a board meeting is for staff to prepare a reply, which is then reviewed by school board members. I've been asked to respond on behalf of the School Board to your questions and comments provided at that meeting. Comment: Request for permission for an independent wetlands or other environmental specialist to access the property (previously denied by the School Board). Response: The School Board again denies your request for the reasons stated in a letter to you dated September 16, 2014. Stated briefly, the purchase and sale agreement between the district and the developer granted legal rights to the developer to pursue approval for the development from the City of Renton. Any district action which might impede this process could create a financial liability for the district. In addition, the purchase and sale agreement is consistent with the School Board's original determination and intent, arrived at after due consideration, to sell the property. Comment: A question regarding the district's responsiveness to two separate public records requests one made on August 14,2014 requesting documentation pertaining to the District's decision to not build on the Tiffany Park property, and a second made on September 4, 2014 requesting documentation pertaining to the district's decision to surplus the Tiffany Park property. Response: The district responded to the first request by email dated September 3, 2014. Stated briefly, the district has no records that directly answer this request, because there was no meeting, either public or internal to the district at which this decision was discussed or made. The property appears to have been purchased in the early 1960's as a potential school site to be developed at an undetermined future date. Over the ensuing SO years, for various reasons, including enrollment growth patterns, proximity of other schools, and access issues created by the eventual surrounding development, the site was never the subject of a specific proposal for a new school. Accordingly, there was never a need for a specific decision to not build a school on the site, and thus no meeting was held, and no records were created. The district responded to the second request by email on October 3, 2014. Stated briefly, the response consisted of materials dated from June 2012 through May 2013, provided by district staff to the school board informing the board of the history and background of the district's ownership of the property, and the legal and procedural steps necessary for the board to move forward with the sale. The response also included a timeline summary. The School Board has reviewed this matter and confirms that that the materials described above and provided to you by district staff are responsive to your public records requests. 1 ~{Plea~e.let me know if you have additional questions regarding this matter. I'm available to talk either in person, or by phone. John Knutson, CPA Assistant Superintendent, Finance and Operations Renton School District iohn.knutson@rentonschools.us Office: (425) 204-2387 Fax: (425) 204-2383 Cell: (206) 375-0204 Pi\~~ . • ~~ntQn Launching Learning To Last A Lifetime 300 Southwest i h Street Renton, WA 98057-230 2 · " .-& November 18 th 2014 Hello Mr. Hearing Examiner My name is Cynthia Garlough I live at 3203 SE 18th St Renton Tiffany Park Discussion of Tiffany Park Reserve-Development Here are some points about quality of life. 20 years ago my fiance and I searched for a home with old mature growth trees in a quiet neighborhood. We found the perfect place when we discovered a green belt close to our home with a peaceful cui de sac. The mature forested woods were ideal for walking and exercising our dogs through a loop of well used and well established trails running throughout the area. Over the 20 years we continue to do these loop walks all year around a few times a week in all kinds of weather in the Woods. We encounter often other neighbors walking their dogs or simply going for a run themselves using the many wood's trails and paths. The side view from our back deck actually looks out on the woods, we can see the tops of the trees and we can hear the woodpeckers as well as see other birds which fly to and from the area. ,----------------------------------------------------------- The woods can be a magical place. During the heavy rains, the "ponds" fill up and mallards swim with their mates looking for food. It is a quiet breath of nature. When life is chaotic, hectic, and stressful, walking through the woods allows one to breathe and to appreciate these majestic trees as well as the chirping birds. There is a family of deer that live in the woods. We have seen a buck, a doe, and a spotted fawn. They were foraging at the edge of the woods and we were delighted to have the opportunity to watch them. During my journeys through the woods, I have encountered a group of women in the neighborhood who go there almost every day with their dogs and they sit on logs in their favorite place and let their dogs play together. There are paths leading in and out of this area and these women chat, laugh, and share together. After a debilitating car accident, my doctors advised me to walk in the woods every day, watch the birds, and just be quiet with nature to help me heal. This is our quality of life that we sought out, invested in and have enjoyed these 20 years. I personally participated in a traffic study with many of my neighbors in April 2014 when we read that the applicant's traffic study was done in June when the school was out for the summer. This seemed a very ingenuous pursuit by the applicant. We wondered if having school in session would make a difference. For hours during a school day, I helped to count cars at my particular intersection. Afterwards our study showed that there I J .- were approx 30% more cars than what the applicant's resource had estimated. Many neighbors and I feel that our street and surrounding neighborhood will be heavily impacted by 90 plus homes in the Woods area. I respect the rights of the applicant, but I firmly believe that the long time tax paying home owner's rights should be considered more equitably. I fear very much that our peaceful community will be degraded. Once these forested areas are removed, they will be gone forever. I urge you Mr. Examiner to reconsider the extensive scope of this development and save and protect the quality of life for many species, including the humans. Thank you for your time. Bill Roenicke -Living at 3112 SE 18 th Street 1. Our family moved into our newly purchased home during August 1987. 2. The general location and street layout suggested that our street would not become a heavily traveled thoroughfare. 3. I was advised that the crime in the area was generally, low -probably in part of the street not being heavily traveled. How many people in this room chose to live on a street which is heavily traveled? 4. We were pleased to be able to find a home in the city relatively close to work with a Green Belt just a block away. 5. A place where our children could and did explore, experience nature at their convenience. In the past we have lived in neighborhoods which were solidly populated. Relatively untouched nature was not within reach of our children. 6. We were very surprised about 2 years ago when we learned that the woods property was owned by the school and not green belt property. 7. To my knowledge there never has been any signs denying the public the freedom to enjoy the woods property, a consideration appreciated by the whole neighborhood and others. 8. Since the woods development really surfaced about a year ago, I believe I have talked to at least 100 home owners in the Tiffany Park area. Most were not aware of the intent to sell the property a year ago today, and to my surprise not a single one, not a single one was in agreement with losing the woods. 9. We have some negative thoughts about the original traffic study, done mid-June when school was out, and some people are on vacation, poor timing ... providing questionable results. The second study relied heavily, the first, was not really are-do. We, the neighbors, did two studies of our own, heavy morning and late afternoon traffic, in half- hour increments. These studies, which have been submitted to the city, show the formal studies low. Leaving us with some questions. I) Since both exits from the proposed development end up in a ''T' at the school, does this present a safety problem at the school for school pedestrian traffic? 2) Will hired traffic control people be required by the school? The local school management and the district management was asked about the impact of the added traffic at the school. Their response, "It has not been studied." 3) Residents whose children walk to school expressed concern about the safety of their children walking to school in a heavier traffic environment. There is also a concern by residents about added traffic on the slope of 16 th SE due to limited visibility and ice on the street. This has been an accident prone area. J JIIXII4 03:52:36 AM Residents of Ponderosa Estates have noted significant delays attempting to get into the N-S trallic on SE 116 1h during busy hours. Traffic around the hairpin turn at the water tower is very heavy during rush hour periods. Exhaust fumes from the heavy and accelerating traffic around the hairpin turn during rush hours was actually nauseating. Will this become a problem with heavy traffic on SE 18 1h Street? 10 Several neighbors have expressed a concern about the capacity of the Tiffany Park School. The school is understood to now be over-capacity. What will the added student load from this development due to the school? Will the heritage students, or the new students be bussed out of the area? People have purchased homes in the area because of the local school environment. In asking the school system how this added student issue will be addressed, the answer was that it has not been determined. II One neighbor has researched home prices on quiet and cul-de-sac streets vs. busy streets. Those findings showed that the 16 homeowners on SE 18 Street can probably each expect a $30,000 loss in property value as a result of the increased traffic on this street should the development go forward. The city has noted to that they take no responsibility for any loss sustained. More ingress and egress points to the development would certainly help to disperse the traffic. 12 We enjoy having company visit occasionally. If parking on our street is banned, as has been discussed, we either could not have friends in who came by car, or they would have to park in the Tiffany Park parking lot a block away. This type of a parking situation is not conducive to building friendships. 13 City employees have stated to individuals and in two well attended public meetings at the Tifany Park School that citizen concerns, questions should be written down and submitted to the city during the open periods, that, "All questions will be answered." This promise has not been addressed and the public feeling expressed to me is that the promise was just so much "window dressing." And seems we have passed the point where any answers would be meaningful for mitigation, should there be a remaining problem. 14 In the long term we believe it would be more beneficial to the city to allow the woods site to be preserved in its natural state, which now has been allowed since it was clear cut in 1936. The woods could become an educational site for local schools, a place where untouched nature is allowed to develop, be studied, and enjoyed. 15 We were asked to come by and look at construction created problems in other areas, i.e. Mill Creek. • The drawings show a required sequence of progress events (photograph available) to be followed. • The sequence has not been followed. • The city has not established enforcement of the agreement up front, • Meaningful damage has been sustained by heritage homeowners and the general ecological environment when rains came onto the stripped area, and the meager or no storm water control systems failed. llllX/14 113:52:36 AM 2 Bill Rocnicke, resident • Additionally, trees to be preserved were reported cut before daylight on a Sunday morning and immediately removed from the site. Some replaced by meaningless 2.5 inch saplings at someones doorstep. • Quiet hours were not observed. • Once in control, the builder significantly changed the development plan he had agreed to with the heritage residents. Will the same lack of oversight by the city result in meaningful damage to our homes, tranquility, and environment? 16 While we the average citizens labor to provide a home and food for our families, and pay our taxes. which become the salaries of our government employees, it is distressing to see what appears to be their lack of true representation of our interests - a government of the people, by the people and for the people. 11/18/14 03:52:36AM 3 Bill Rocnickc. resident