Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-25-2021 - Mechem Response to Dismissal ResponseCivil Engineering & Development Services 1375 NW Mall St, STE 3; Issaquah, WA 98027 Phone: (425) 821-5038 Email: Info@G2CIVIL.COM MEMORANDUM Date: October 25, 2021 To: City Clerk’s Office, Office of the Hearings Examiner Cc: Angelea Weihs, Cynthia Moya, Kushal Varma From: Edward Mecum, PE Subject: Response to Appellant’s Response to City Motion to Dismiss Dear Mr. Olbrechts: The Applicant is in receipt of the response to the Appellant’s response to the City’s motion to dismiss and provides the following response for your consideration in accordance with your instructions provided last week. Her late correction regarding the Craig property to being to the east rather than west has been omitted from this response, but we are aware of the location of the Craig property and are not going to get hung up on a typo. Original Appeal items: 1. School district was mistakenly listed as Renton in one reference, while the rest were correct. a. This reference was not addressed in her rebuttal b. Listing Issaquah School District rather than Renton is a typo, has little consequence and is not grounds for denying the project as requested. We feel this section of the appeal should be dismissed. 2. Tree Retention Section a. No specific error on the part of the City was provided in the appeal. Varma Short Plat Appeal to the Hearings Examiner October 25, 2021 Page 2 of 6 b. Fears of neighbors regarding their trees was mentioned in the rebuttal, but not misapplication of Code or failure to meet the requirements. The Staff Report contains a condition of approval that the application meet tree retention requirements. We feel this section of the appeal should be dismissed. 3.Surface Water. a. Appellant accurately points out that there is a retention pond that the design team was unaware of previously. The final drainage report (TIR) and design for the project will provide infrastructure to ensure any runoff from the uphill properties will be collected and conveyed to an appropriate drainage system. This is a technical issue that is included in the conditions of approval. We feel this section of the appeal should be dismissed. 4. How City of Renton officials protect the environment. a. This is not related to the approval of the short plat We feel this section of the appeal should be dismissed. These are the sections of the original appeal letter. Ms. Donnelley seems to feel that stating “Deficiencies” in her original appeal means that all perceived “deficiencies” should be considered regardless of when they were submitted. Applicant objects to additional topics that were not contained in the original appeal documents. In the provided “Documents”, several items were added to the list, but all were examples of projects that were built as long as 30 years ago under different regulatory codes. In the event you decide to consider the additional topics, we present the following in response to the other items presented in her rebuttal. Change in Staff: The fact that the City of Renton changed planners was not part of the original appeal but was frustrating for the applicant as well. This issue is moot and can be dismissed. Ms. Donnelley suggests that the neighboring property owners left messages, but the owners have not corroborated this statement and letters and emails are part of the approval package between Alex Morganroth and the neighbors, so there was communication. We feel this section of the appeal should be dismissed. Varma Short Plat Appeal to the Hearings Examiner October 25, 2021 Page 3 of 6 Safety on 156th: Conditions on 156th were somewhat mentioned in the initial appeal, so we’ll respond. The safety of pedestrians on 156th will be greatly improved by allowing the development to proceed. The project is installing a sidewalk the full length of the frontage with an 8’ landscaping strip between the sidewalk and the road. None of the appeal comments suggest a different approach or a deficiency in this design but rather point out deficiencies in the existing condition. We feel this section of the appeal should be dismissed. Stormwater: Appellant states that her parents installed a ditch to direct drainage onto their neighbor’s property. While this approach seems quite ‘un-neighborly’ the short plat will correct the direction of runoff onto their property and direct it into the public stormwater system that has been subject to a Level 1 downstream analysis and was found to contain no capacity or erosion issues. The runoff will not be directed onto any private property. The Appellant provided several examples regarding runoff on other properties, but this has no bearing on the project at hand and I can’t tell if the appellant is in favor of assisting Mr. Craig or not. We feel this section of the appeal should be dismissed. Tree Retention: Appellant brought up the trees on the Frandsen’s property as being removed by this project, which is not true. The only discussion regarding the neighbor’s trees has been in protection of them. The arborist, Bob Layton, did not need to enter the neighboring properties to see the trees that are on the property line. Appellant’s comments that Applicant is potentially removing trees from another person’s property are inflammatory and inaccurate. There are no known trees on neighboring properties that are being targeted for removal. The submitted tree retention plan retains trees along the south property line with the intent of maintaining the tree canopy along with the retained trees. The City requires that the critical root zone of neighboring trees must be protected to protect the health of the trees which will be noted on plans. As stated in the previous response to the appeal: The City of Renton has two requirements that apply to subdivision of land and the required retention of trees. Varma Short Plat Appeal to the Hearings Examiner October 25, 2021 Page 4 of 6 RMC 4-4-130.C.9.d Minimum Tree Density requires residential developments to provide 2 significant trees for every 5,000 square feet (or the gross equivalent of caliper trees). Lots 1-3 do not currently have trees growing on them, so they will be relying on replacement trees once construction of the residences is complete. Lots 4-9 have adequate trees that can be retained to satisfy this requirement, however, per landscaping, one tree (or caliper equivalent) must be in the front yard, so the proposal will save 3 trees on each parcel to meet this requirement. RMC 4-4-130.H.1.a.i Tree retention required for the R-4 Zone is 30% of the significant trees on the site that are: 1. Of satisfactory health for survival 2. Not located within critical areas or buffers, public right of way, private PUD streets, shared driveways, or public trails After a thorough review of the site, Bob Layton, Certified Arborist, identified 109 significant trees, resulting in retention requirement of 32.7 trees, which rounds up to 33 significant trees to be retained, per RMC 4-4-130.H.1.c. We are currently working in conjunction with the project arborist with the City of Renton to develop the most appropriate plan for tree retention. The current proposal under consideration retains all 33 required significant trees and places a tree tract to further protect those not associated with the density requirement, including a landmark tree and a large canopy. To further protect those trees, the trees required for density are being retained along the tree tract boundary as much as possible. Appellant has failed to identify any deficiency in the approved plans or in the City’s assessment of the tree retention plan. While the original plan needed modification to completely adhere to all of the City’s requirements, the City placed the approval of the short plat conditional upon meeting the tree retention and density requirements. Not one of the appellant’s comments regarding tree retention, neighboring trees, past groves of trees and fears by other people have any relationship to the project at hand. We feel this section of the appeal should be dismissed. Miscellaneous: Golden Eagle: An eagle was seen 20 years ago and bald eagles seen in the area, but there was no nesting of either. Golden and bald eagles fly over our entire region from time to time, but that does not prevent the entire region from responsible development. It is the nest of the protected bird that creates a determent to development and none has been documented or suggested. We feel this section of the appeal should be dismissed. Varma Short Plat Appeal to the Hearings Examiner October 25, 2021 Page 5 of 6 NPDES: Appellant sited the lack of mention in the staff report about needing an NPDES. This was not contained in the original appeal and should be dismissed. NPDES coverage is required by the State of Washington whether mentioned in the staff report or not. We feel this section of the appeal should be dismissed. Performance of the City of Renton officials and inspectors: This is not under the purview of the HE’s office, but also is not accurately described by the appellant. I have personally had to re- design a sewer connection because the field inspector decided that a tree warranted extra protection than what was suggested by the survey information. I’m currently re-designing a 75% constructed commercial building in Renton because the contractor didn’t follow the original design and the City inspector discovered that the completed project wouldn’t meet ADA requirements. The fact that the appellant’s mother was allowed to wander the streets of Renton while obviously suffering from some mental impairment is certainly saddening but does not have any bearing on the future development of this property. Ms. Donnelley has actually omitted some of the record. Mr. Varma purchased the property from her brother following the passing of their mother. This appears to have been averse to the desires of Ms. Donnelley, who has contacted Mr. Varma multiple times directly to purchase the property, which was not his interest. We do not know why the property was not purchased by Ms. Donnelley at the time of her mother’s passing, but it was not. Whether it is Ms. Donnelley’s remorse over not purchasing the property or some family dynamic that prevented her from purchasing the property that is motivating her to file this appeal is not important but should be known by the Hearings Examiner that her attention to the property is not that of a legal, environmental or concerned citizen with legitimate claims of deficiency. The personal nature of the statements cannot be permitted to usurp the current regulations of the City of Renton, King County and the State of Washington at the expense of another citizen of the city over her own personal desire to prevent the property from being developed in any way. None of us should be involved in the family drama that is obviously on display. Varma Short Plat Appeal to the Hearings Examiner October 25, 2021 Page 6 of 6 Conclusion: Applicant moves to dismiss the appeal based on the fact that it is motivated by personal feelings and not on any actual or material deficiency in the City’s decision to approve the short plat. Thank you for your time reviewing this submittal and we look forward to resolving all of the remaining issues associated with development of the subject property, pursuant to the rights and privileges conveyed with the purchase of the land by Mr. Varma, as allowed by the City of Renton Municipal Code, WAC, RCW, the Department of Ecology and all other pertinent jurisdictions. Sincerely, Edward D. Mecum, PE Partner, G2 Civil EdM@G2Civil.com (425) 821-5038 (main) (425) 364-5285 (direct)