Full Text
GEORGE A. BELMORE dba Per-spek-tiv, (253) -278-9098, [EMAIL REDACTED], PO BOX 5060, SPANAWAY, WA 98387 PER-SPEK-TIV Friday, March 1st, 2018 To: City of Redmond Technical Committee 15670 NE 85th Street, Redmond, WA 98073-9710 Subject: Engineering Deviation Request Scope # Request to construct a second driveway access to site. Parcel # [PHONE REDACTED] Owner: John Devore Site Address # 11235 – 165th CT. N. Redmond, WA 98052 Authority of Jurisdiction: City of Redmond Current Zoning: (R-1) (single family Constrained Residential) Building Setbacks: Front 30 ft. Primary Road (Diamond) Interior 20 ft. Rear 30 ft. Height 35 ft. Lot Size: 41,550 sq. ft. ( 0.95 Acres) Agent: George A. Belmore dba Perspektiv (253) 278-9098, [EMAIL REDACTED] PO Box 5060, Spanaway, WA 98387 This office was provided with architectural plans, engineering which required relocation of the septic tanks and drain field. The Health Department has approved the design and installation of this new system. We were hired to assist in permit submittal acquisition, we conducted a number of visits in the feasibility stage which resulted in our current proposal which is to construct a 1080 sq. ft. 30 ft. X 36 ft. detached private-use unheated garage. The next-door neighbor directly to the south has two driveways as do nearly half of the home sites in this 36-lot small single access dead-end subdivision. The subdivision has speed bumps on every street to help control the 25-mph requirement. The dead-end street we enter from has only 6 lots on it. This major change was selected to not retroactively install a fire sprinkler system in the entire existing residence. That decision by the owner required new Architectural and Engineering plans be developed and a new site plan be provided. Additional requirements requested by counter staff, involved a Drainage plan by a civil engineer and a Tree Preservation Plan by a licensed Arborist locating the trees in the front yard. Our goal from day one was to minimize any impact to the lot and the trees on site. The original site as is sits has an existing access on the northeast corner which know trees required to removed and just grass for a direct access into the new garage. Planning staff also agreed that that was a natural location and mitigated any tree removal. Engineering however wanted us to use the existing driveway in the southeast corner of lot and cut across the entire front yard and then use the driveway in front of the garage basically eliminating the road approach. At a minimum this increases the size of the impervious area and reduces the parking in the original driveway. This proposal would require a convoluted three point turn every time to gain access and egress to the garage. ---PAGE BREAK--- GEORGE A. BELMORE dba Per-spek-tiv, (253) -278-9098, [EMAIL REDACTED], PO BOX 5060, SPANAWAY, WA 98387 In fact it appears to be Arbitrary and Capricious as the following examples referenced in Appendix 2 page 16 titled Location and Number of Driveways. He the engineer at our meetings stated we could not have two driveways per this section and consequentially this same section stated “The separation requirement shall typically not be applied between single-family driveways on local streets. We brought it to his attention that we understood that requirement to mean a single-family lot on an arterial or a single-family subdivision entrance not as described in the quotes above. We had previously underlined that section and brought it to his attention at the next meeting along with the planner after which she stated he wants his way and his interpretation. Stands unless you apply for a variance or deviation. It appeared to us he felt challenged and then would not discuss options. So here we are, we are applying for a deviation that I don’t think even applies as reflected by your own code and justified by the number of others within the same subdivision enjoying the same benefits. We also don’t ever want to create a dangerous situation for anyone, but this location is perfect for the client and provides great un-obstructed visibility down either street to the sides and straight down the road we would access from. This is a secondary garage and not the primary, as such it will not have a great number of traffic trips a day. As the entrance to a typical subdivision and the normally much higher speeds involved on the higher rated arterials. We would entertain the arch through the center of the property as narrow as possible along with the driveway straight from the road out front into the new proposed garage but would like to revisit with arborist if it could be done without removing the large legacy trees, which would be required to be removed if we go along with the proposal from the city. RESPECTIVELY GEORGE A. BELMORE