Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTiffany Park - Reconsideration (rogers) CITY OF RENTON JAN 2 2 201 RECEIVED CITY CLE 'S OFFICE 524 2nd Ave Suite 500 ofti.-e 2016 587 01,)0 Seattle.WA 98io4 ax'06 58H& 1 2➢.OP www Cairncross.�rrn January 22, 2015 VIA EMAIL Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts City of Renton 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat City File No. LUA13-001572—Request for Reconsideration Dear Examiner Olbrechts: This firm represents Henley USA, LLC ("Henley"), the contract purchaser for the property and applicant for the above-referenced preliminary plat. Henley submits this written request pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(G)(9) and RMC 4-8-110(E)(13), which provide for reconsideration of a Hearing Examiner's Decision if a party of record believes the Decision is based on"an erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, errors in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing." We originally sought review of these issues as a request for review of technical errors under RMC 4-8-100(G)(7). We are filing this request for reconsideration to ensure that these issues are reviewed as we have not yet received a ruling on our earlier request; however, we believe they should be more appropriately considered in our previously filed request for clarification and correction of technical errors. 1. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 28, line 9. Here,there is a typographical error referencing a"15 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement." That should be revised to reference a "10 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement." 2. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 40, lines 7— 10. Here, the first portion of Examiner's Condition Lb, which revises MDNS Condition 6, reads: "The applicant shall revise its landscaping plan to provide for a 10 foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots." As revised, this Condition also goes on to address the 10 foot perimeter landscaping for certain lots with retaining walls facing neighboring property owners, that resulted from the SEPA Appeal. The linkage of those two issues raises a possibility for misinterpretation. We ask the Examiner to separate the issues or otherwise clarify that there is a difference between the 10 foot front yard landscaping issue called for by code, and the 10 foot buffer for retaining walls along the edge of the property that resulted from the SEPA Appeal. nro erse.cairncross.com direct:(206)254-4417 102743372.DOCX;2} • Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts January 22, 2015 Page 2 The record reflects that these are two separate issues. Specifically, the City Staff Report to the Examiner(Exhibit K.La), at p. 13, described how 10-feet of street frontage landscaping was required by RMC 4-4-070(F)(1), which provides: "Ten feet (10') of on-site landscaping is required along all public street frontages, with the exception of areas for required walkways and driveways and those zones with building setbacks less than ten feet(10'). In those cases, ten feet (10') of landscaping shall be required where buildings are not located." The Staff Report continued by noting that the code-required 10-foot front yard landscape strip was not shown on the landscape plan in the record. The Staff Report also then described the ERC determination to impose a 15 foot perimeter buffer, and then stated that City Staff was recommending a condition that would require submittal of a new landscape plan to depict two things: (1) "a 10-foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots," and (2) a"15-foot wide vegetated buffer surround the subject site..." We ask that the two issues be plainly separated in the plat conditions. 3. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 26, lines 4 —5, that is also repeated on p. 40, line 11, which text lists Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93, and 94. Here, the Examiner's Decision text, and Examiner's Condition Lb, which revises MDNS Condition 6, calls for a 10 foot wide area of perimeter landscaping where retaining walls are greater than 4 feet in height above the ground surface, so as to buffer the visual impact of those walls on the existing neighborhood. To reflect the evidence in the record, we request that the list of specified lots either be revised or eliminated. As noted on Exhibit K.6.a, and in the testimony of Barry Talkington, Lots 80 and 82 have a"cut" wall, meaning that the wall is not visible outside the property line of the plat, meaning there can be no visual impact of the wall to buffer. Lots 83 - 90, and 93 - 94 are buffered behind Tract A, which tract is already wider than 10 feet and which tract is already planned for landscaping. Thus, if revised, the list of lots should include only Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, plus a note that as to Lots 83 - 90, and 93 - 94, the revised landscaping plan for Tract A should confirm that site obscuring landscaping will be planted in Tract A. Also, the revision should note that only walls that are on the perimeter property line, over 4 feet as measured from above-ground, and visible from neighboring properties should be subject to the buffering requirement. Alternatively, because as described in the testimony of Barry Talkington, the plat design continues to evolve in the engineering process, there is the very real possibility that some walls on the perimeter may drop below four feet in height above the lower level of the ground surface, meaning that an alternative approach for the Condition language on p. 40 would be to omit the list of lots entirely and instead state that: "A 10 foot wide, site obscuring landscaping buffer shall be provided adjacent to areas where retaining walls are four feet or more in height above the ground surface on the low side of the wall, and where those walls are located on the perimeter of the property and are visible to neighboring property owners." {02743372.DOCX;2} •• Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts January 22, 2015 Page 3 4. There may be errors of fact or law on pp. 28 - 29, discussion of Retaining Wall Height. The retaining wall height issue was raised as part of the preliminary plat proceeding, not the SEPA Appeals. Accordingly, it should fall under the preliminary plat discussion that begins on p. 30 of the Examiner's Decision. 5. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 40, Examiner's Condition 3. Condition 3 should be deleted because it was replaced and superseded by Condition 4. Thank you for your time and attention to this request. Very truly yours, C� Nancy Bainbridge Rogers NBR/kgb cc: Rocale Timmons {02743372.DOCX;2}