OPINION
/17/07 - Last night's citizen appeal to council of the Shaughnessy Heights, 15.1 acre 42-lot development adjacent Redmond El. will go down in the history books. It was the longest running plat review in city history - much owing to our PRD (Planned Residential Use) policy allowing for clear-cuts and greater densities.
The proposed development of approximately 42 lots (including duplexes) is serviced by one road in&out adjacent Redmond Elementary School. Deforestation and loss of habitat would occur almost in size of Perrigo Heights.
Though traffic safety and habitat issues came up, the two main legal issues were about tree buffering and adequate water service to the nearby neighborhoods. After much discourse the Council decided 7-0 to deny the permit and uphold the appeal of six citizens; and remand the appeal back to the Hearing Examiner to allow a second, open Public Hearing.
Six citizens appealed, led persuasively by S. Howard and J. Richardson. Public Notification deficiencies were again, a major source of dissent. The Hearing Examiner did not allow scores of citizens to appeal in writing owing to a technicality. Alert citizens purchased audio tapes of the Hearing Examiner's appeal hearing to have proof for their case. Councilwoman Kim Allen asked that a comprehensive letter be written to the Hearing Examiner advising changes in his Party of Record policy.
Problems with the City's Planned Residential Development (PRD) permit resurfaced. Citizens were very upset that a line of trees buffering their neighborhood from the development would be stripped. The trees would provide a valuable buffer from seven proposed towering new homes. Councilman Vache empathized since Mosaic Meadows project impacts his property in a similar fashion.
The developer claimed he was technically meeting city requirements for significant tree count and pervious soils by accounting for it though the parcel's "native growth easement". ("Native growth easements" is land that can't be developed because of steep slopes, ravines, streams, etc.) Thus, the developer claimed he should be allowed to strip out the neighboring buffer trees claiming them unsafe.
The neighborhood citizens countered saying their trees would not be safe with concerns for quality of life.Allen, Marchione, and Vache, offered impressive analysis and decision-making. But, Council President McCormick's hallmark statement warrants quotation.
After thanking Ms. Allen for articulating the case so well, Council President Ms. Nancy McCormick movingly stated:
"The public process may not have been violated but it was twisted. I can't keep from thinking about that couple who appeared at the Tent City public meeting and signed up to be Party of Record only to be denied on appeal to be heard.
The public needs accurate information and timeliness of an appeal, otherwise we make a mockery out of Public Hearings and caring about public involvement."
Ms. McCormick's motion to deny and uphold the appeal passed unanimously. The public is invited to review the project once again.
10/8/07 SUMMARY COMMENTS FROM TWO APPELLANTS NEIGHBORING THE PROJECT; The neighborhood appealants 'lost' to the landowner.
NEIGHBOR Ian -
The disappointing thing in my mind is that we had to put forth a very large amount of effort to secure the condition that adds this new buffer, when I feel that the city should have been the one putting that requirement into place from the beginning. Somehow the city didn’t even know that the right of way had no trees in it, even though there’s a sewer line running down it, which means they would have cleared it at some point of trees to put in that line.
Codes such as what Kirkland has in place are really the only good way to go about preserving mature trees. Even if we could have gotten the developer to leave the strip of trees along the border, I don’t think I would want them to do so, given that they’d be clearing out all the trees behind them, exposing that strip to new wind forces that could bring them down on my house. Kirkland’s codes on the other hand would have prevented the clearing of significant trees behind the strip as well, preserving the wind break and forcing developers to build around existing trees. Now, for all I know, Kirkland may also have similar development programs like the PLAT which allow developers to use different rules as long as they meet some criteria, but I know that at least the starting point for Kirkland development projects is more tree friendly than what we have here in Redmond.
However, given that we can’t protect the large trees along that strip, and that we can’t really stop the development outright, I think we’ve managed to secure the next best thing: a new buffer of trees to be planted along that boundary which meets our requirements for screening, in exchange for our support of the project going forward (no more appeals basically, and an email voicing that support to the city now that the new condition is in place).
-Ian. 10/8/07
From Steve Howard: We could never stop the developer from taking the big trees, since the city allows the tree numbers to be measured over the entire site. Or in other words it gives the developer a license to clear cut the land where they plan on putting the new houses. I would love to see a way to require that 35% of the trees must remain across the site. including the building area. The present codes and how they are read allows the developers to play a math game with our mature trees receiving no protection. This is wrong. 10/8/07
/17/07 - Last night's citizen appeal to council of the Shaughnessy Heights, 15.1 acre 42-lot development adjacent Redmond El. will go down in the history books. It was the longest running plat review in city history - much owing to our PRD (Planned Residential Use) policy allowing for clear-cuts and greater densities.
The proposed development of approximately 42 lots (including duplexes) is serviced by one road in&out adjacent Redmond Elementary School. Deforestation and loss of habitat would occur almost in size of Perrigo Heights.
Though traffic safety and habitat issues came up, the two main legal issues were about tree buffering and adequate water service to the nearby neighborhoods. After much discourse the Council decided 7-0 to deny the permit and uphold the appeal of six citizens; and remand the appeal back to the Hearing Examiner to allow a second, open Public Hearing.
Six citizens appealed, led persuasively by S. Howard and J. Richardson. Public Notification deficiencies were again, a major source of dissent. The Hearing Examiner did not allow scores of citizens to appeal in writing owing to a technicality. Alert citizens purchased audio tapes of the Hearing Examiner's appeal hearing to have proof for their case. Councilwoman Kim Allen asked that a comprehensive letter be written to the Hearing Examiner advising changes in his Party of Record policy.
Problems with the City's Planned Residential Development (PRD) permit resurfaced. Citizens were very upset that a line of trees buffering their neighborhood from the development would be stripped. The trees would provide a valuable buffer from seven proposed towering new homes. Councilman Vache empathized since Mosaic Meadows project impacts his property in a similar fashion.
The developer claimed he was technically meeting city requirements for significant tree count and pervious soils by accounting for it though the parcel's "native growth easement". ("Native growth easements" is land that can't be developed because of steep slopes, ravines, streams, etc.) Thus, the developer claimed he should be allowed to strip out the neighboring buffer trees claiming them unsafe.
The neighborhood citizens countered saying their trees would not be safe with concerns for quality of life.Allen, Marchione, and Vache, offered impressive analysis and decision-making. But, Council President McCormick's hallmark statement warrants quotation.
After thanking Ms. Allen for articulating the case so well, Council President Ms. Nancy McCormick movingly stated:
"The public process may not have been violated but it was twisted. I can't keep from thinking about that couple who appeared at the Tent City public meeting and signed up to be Party of Record only to be denied on appeal to be heard.
The public needs accurate information and timeliness of an appeal, otherwise we make a mockery out of Public Hearings and caring about public involvement."
Ms. McCormick's motion to deny and uphold the appeal passed unanimously. The public is invited to review the project once again.
10/8/07 SUMMARY COMMENTS FROM TWO APPELLANTS NEIGHBORING THE PROJECT; The neighborhood appealants 'lost' to the landowner.
NEIGHBOR Ian -
The disappointing thing in my mind is that we had to put forth a very large amount of effort to secure the condition that adds this new buffer, when I feel that the city should have been the one putting that requirement into place from the beginning. Somehow the city didn’t even know that the right of way had no trees in it, even though there’s a sewer line running down it, which means they would have cleared it at some point of trees to put in that line.
Codes such as what Kirkland has in place are really the only good way to go about preserving mature trees. Even if we could have gotten the developer to leave the strip of trees along the border, I don’t think I would want them to do so, given that they’d be clearing out all the trees behind them, exposing that strip to new wind forces that could bring them down on my house. Kirkland’s codes on the other hand would have prevented the clearing of significant trees behind the strip as well, preserving the wind break and forcing developers to build around existing trees. Now, for all I know, Kirkland may also have similar development programs like the PLAT which allow developers to use different rules as long as they meet some criteria, but I know that at least the starting point for Kirkland development projects is more tree friendly than what we have here in Redmond.
However, given that we can’t protect the large trees along that strip, and that we can’t really stop the development outright, I think we’ve managed to secure the next best thing: a new buffer of trees to be planted along that boundary which meets our requirements for screening, in exchange for our support of the project going forward (no more appeals basically, and an email voicing that support to the city now that the new condition is in place).
-Ian. 10/8/07
From Steve Howard: We could never stop the developer from taking the big trees, since the city allows the tree numbers to be measured over the entire site. Or in other words it gives the developer a license to clear cut the land where they plan on putting the new houses. I would love to see a way to require that 35% of the trees must remain across the site. including the building area. The present codes and how they are read allows the developers to play a math game with our mature trees receiving no protection. This is wrong. 10/8/07
No comments:
Post a Comment
COMMENT HERE - COMMENTS ARE MODERATED