Full Text
1 Cameron A. Zapata From: Hamid Korasani <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 5:07 PM To: Cameron A. Zapata Cc: Steve Fischer Subject: Re: BPLN-2015-02128 Hello Cameron, Following the email sent to the project owner by Steve fisher (Copy attached), would you please confirm that you have signed off the planning review for this permit/project; we are working with other departments to conclude the review process and obtain the building permit. Thanking you in advance for your swift attention to this matter. Hamid Korasani, P.E.; LEED Pricipal SAZEI Design Group, LLC (425) 214-2280 From: [EMAIL REDACTED] To: [EMAIL REDACTED] CC: [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: RE: 13404 NE 100th, Kirkland, Wa Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 20:06:29 +0000 Andrea Short: Following our meeting earlier this week I met again with the Rob Odle, Planning Director to discuss your project. I believe that I have some good news for you. The Redmond Zoning Code, RZC 21.76.070D, addresses Administrative Interpretations and states that the code “shall be interpreted whenever any of its provisions, or the application of such provisions to any specific set of circumstances, is ambiguous; i.e., where the Code is subject to two or more reasonable interpretations.” Further, the code goes on to state under RZC 21.76.070D.3 that “the Code Administratorshall be responsible for interpreting the provisions of this code, except where expressly provided otherwise.” The term “Code Administrator” is identified in the zoning code as the Planning Director. Mr. Odle agrees that RZC 21.08.260C.1 which addresses requirement that duplexes be subject to a percentage of the average lot size is ambiguous. The code does not identify the RIN zone but only EXHIBIT 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 states that “the minimum lot size for attached dwelling units in R-4, R-5 and R-6 zones shall be based on a percentage of the average lot size of the underlying zone.” At the end of this section the code implies that this is applicable to all residential zones by identifying all residential zones as follows, “(See RZC 21.08.020through 21.08.140.)” Mr. Odle’s position is that due to this code ambiguity the statute applies and that the percentage of the average lot size does not apply to projects within the RIN zone. With this interpretation, you are now able to move forward with your duplex project. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Steven Fischer Manager, Development Review City of Redmond – Development Services Center 15670 NE 85th St, Redmond, WA 98052 MS:2SPL P: [PHONE REDACTED] F: [PHONE REDACTED] On Friday, January 15, 2016 10:09 AM, Cameron A. Zapata <[EMAIL REDACTED]> wrote: Hello Hamid, I have reread the Zoning Code referencing attached dwelling units and have discussed this with the long range planner. Per RZC 21.08.260 “The minimum lot size for a two-unit attached dwelling unit is equal to 150 percent of the average lot size for the underlying zone.” Is still a requirement for the lot, if this requirement has not been met, then the building permit cannot be approved. Based on my calculations, the average lot size for the underlying zone (RIN for a lot size less than 30,500 sf) is 7,000sf. 150% of the 7,000 sf is 10,500sf. The current lot size is only 9,375 sf, which does not meet the lot size requirement for a 2-unit attached dwelling unit, and unfortunately an 2-unit attached dwelling unit is not allowed. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you, Cameron Zapata Assistant Planner City of Redmond Planning and Community Development From: Hamid Korasani [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 1:29 AM To: Colin A. Sherrill Cc: John D. Rientjes; Cameron A. Zapata; Paulette M. Norman Subject: Re: BPLN-2015-02128 Dear Colin, Thank you for your response to our concerns; as you may recall we had two meetings at the permit & development center (your office) where we discussed this project in details; we reviewed the drainage design requirements, sewer connections, street frontage improvements, and driveways into the site that facilitate point of entry into the garage of the units. I have saved all of discussions and copies of the documents with your handwriting indicating what was discussed and what we agreed about. The efforts we put together to come to the City and meet with every department was simply to compile the EXHIBIT 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 necessary information in order to complete the design that meets the requirements; it seems like we have wasted our time and our efforts remain inconclusive. When I met with you and Cameron Zapata on Monday January 4th, 2016; I was under the impression that you were going to discuss the related matter (Review comments) with your manager(s) so we can set up a meeting and reconfirm the directions we received from all parties prior to submitting the permit. The need for having the two driveways has been clarity shown on the site plan and the architectural design of the buildings from the conceptual planning and were discussed during our two meetings and prior to submitting for permit . There was never any concerns about number of driveways when we met with everyone including Lawrence from your planning department. I understand you are still waiting for a response from Cameron Zapata with regards to zoning; in the interim, I would appreciate if you would please arrange a meeting with "ALL" parties involved as John Rientjes had suggested initially so we can formulate a comprehensive response to all comments. Your swift response to this matter is greatly appreciated, particularly by the property owner. Best Regards, Hamid Korasani, P.E. Principal SAZEI Design Group, LLC (425) 214-2280 On Thursday, January 14, 2016 3:04 PM, Colin A. Sherrill <[EMAIL REDACTED]> wrote: Hamid, Please see below. From: Colin A. Sherrill Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 11:22 AM To: '[EMAIL REDACTED]' Cc: Paulette M. Norman; John D. Rientjes Subject: BPLN-2015-02128 Good morning Hamid, I have been trying to recall our past conversations. I do remember talking with you about the infiltration system. Honesty though I don’t remember you proposing two driveways or our conversation about frontage. When you came in before your intake did you ever bring concept plans with you? I guess I did look it over at the intake but I don’t remember. I feel like I would have had several red flags and would have informed you of them at that time. As we talked about the other day, my comments about the storm water and sewer stuff were addressed in the plans and so those specific comments no longer apply. The City is going to require you to have only one driveway and have frontage along both sides of the lot. You are welcome to submit a deviation to my manager. There is a link below for more information on that process. I also understand that there is a zoning issue and I am waiting to hear out that plays out as it will have major impacts on the project. I wish I had better news for you and I apologize for any miscommunication during this process. Let me know if you have any questions. EXHIBIT 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 http://www.redmond.gov/cms/One.aspx?portalId=169&pageId=136904 Colin Sherrill, EIT Engineering Technician Development Engineering & Construction [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party. This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com Click here to report this email as spam. EXHIBIT 15