Greetings, OT Board Members & OT Issue Followers,
On December 20 I sent you my summary of the December 20 meeting of several
representatives of the HOAs interested in the Ruby Apartments project.
Since then, Don Macsparran has added additional materials discussed at that
meeting, and provided the attached summary.
In addition, Don and Nancy met December 26 with the City staff (Don's
summary of that meeting is also attached), and the City has revoked the Tree
Removal Permit as not complying with the mitigation requirements of the City.
An appeal of the Community Design Review decision (the subject of the
December 20 HOA meeting) by the City is also being considered. That appeal will
cost $450, and should address the issues raised in my and Don's attached meeting
notes. Members who wish to pledge or make contributions to the legal costs are
encouraged to contact me or Nancy Dilworth.
Ken Karch, PE
*****
Ruby
Apartments Community Design Review
Meeting Results (Final)
Location: Scott Drysdale's Home
Date: December 20, 2014
Time: 3:00 - 5:00 PM
Attendees: Eric Greeson, Nicole Greeson, Scott Drysdale, Stan Sherwood, Scott Shields, Don MacSparran, Nancy Dilworth, Ken Karch
This meeting was held to review the completed Ruby Drive Apartments' Community Design provided by the City of Lakewood Community Development Department. The purpose of this review was to determine if there is a basis for an appeal of the Community Design as approved by the City.
The following items were identified as possibly NOT meeting City of Lakewood code requirements, and/or NOT complying with the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) required mitigation measures, and/or having an adverse impact on the surrounding community.
1. The Tree Retention Plan (TRP) does not sufficiently address the survival of the 74 trees identified to be retained, of which 71 were identified as 'significant'. Specifically, it does not appear that either the root structure or the existing canopies of the trees were fully considered. There is not a tree canopy, critical root zone, or drip line analysis included in the Community Design. Item E(3) of the MDNS required mitigation measures requires that an arborist report include "an analysis of existing trees close to the proposed pavement and buildings, with recommendations for removal or retention based on the ability of the trees to survive the proposed construction (page 15)". Construction plans should have been provided with the TRP, allowing proper analysis for tree survival planning.
2. The Community Design cannot be analyzed for potential geotechnic hazards related to the nearby landslide hazard area as there is no evidence that a supplemental geotechnical report was completed as required by item J of the MDNS required mitigation measures (page 16). Receipt and analysis of this report by the City is critical given recent slide activity and the potential for construction activity to impact town homes along Zircon DR SW on the north side of the apartments along Chambers Creek.
3. The Community Design DOES NOT indicate if site soils have been tested for contaminants in the required open space areas. Item K of the MDNS required mitigation measures requires "a report of the tested soils shall be submitted to the City of Lakewood and DOE prior to the commencement of any building construction (page 16)". As the developer must comply with DOE requirements resulting from such testing, the Community Design should include required design measures.
4. Storm water discharge during and after construction is not addressed as required by item L of the MDNS required mitigation measures. Of particular concern to adjacent (Zircon DR SW) property owners is the slope of the property from East to West; 244 feet elevation on the East side, gradually decreasing to 240 feet elevation on the West side. This slope leads directly to the previous slide area less than 300 feet from the property on the North side of Zircon DR SW. With an increase in the impervious coverage from 39,885 SF to 75,742 SF (62.1% of the total lot), thorough analysis and design is appropriate. The required mitigation measures require the developer to apply for a construction storm water permit (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit for storm water discharges associated with construction with the Department of Ecology as more than one acre of soil surface area will be disturbed by construction activities.
5. The Design Review Site Plan shows a "solid cedar fence on the East boundary" of the property. Erecting such a fence is not consistent with the existing Oakbrook community design. Although some individual single-family homes may have some fencing, the predominant design is NO perimeter fencing. Such fencing also acts as a barrier to the free ranging of wildlife along the Chambers Creek watershed.
6. The three-story design of the Ruby Apartments is inconsistent with the community design for the Oakbrook 4th Addition. The Ruby Apartments' property falls entirely within the Oakbrook 4th Addition, which was designed and built starting in the mid-1960's as single-family homes with a maximum height of two stories. No residential structures within the Oakbrook 4th Addition exceed two stories. Sixty-five townhomes adjacent to the Ruby Apartments' property are two story homes. Also adjacent (but outside the Oakbrook 4th Addition) to the East side of the Ruby Apartments are the Oakbrook Country Club Condominiums. Several of the buildings within this condominium complex are three stories, yet the Eastward downward slope of the property is used to mask the added height. The revised Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Heath and Associates, Inc., received by the City of Lakewood on August 26, 2014, does not address the impact of the additional traffic on the surrounding roadway system which will result from the project design emptying all traffic onto Ruby DR SW.
7. The two parking lot exits empty directly on to Ruby DR SW, with one exit just several car lengths from one of two exits from the RMG Golf Course and Oakhouse Restaurant. Directing all traffic onto Ruby DR SW overlooks the impact of the additional traffic onto a secondary residential street. Zircon DR SW is a primary residential road in Oakbrook with a 25 mph speed limit, double yellow center-line striping, and traffic calming islands at Turquoise DR SW and Phillips Road SW. Ruby DR SW and the two feeder roads (Turquoise DR SW and Citrine Lane SW) have sharp turns that make through traffic problematic and dangerous. Both Ruby DR SW and Turquoise DR SW have posted 15 mph speed limits. Turquoise DR SW has two golf course player crossings.
8. The proposed parking of 105 stalls does exceed the City of Lakewood minimum parking of 1.5 stalls per unit (62 units X 1.5 = 93), but that is less than the established standard for the entire Oakbrook community of over 2,000 homes. Every home in Oakbrook has parking for at least two vehicles. Even with a standard of two or more spaces per residential unit, illegal on-street parking or on public right-away is a problem in the immediate vicinity of this project BEFORE construction. Up to 50 vehicles each day are parked on the public right-away on both sides of Zircon DR SW just 300 to 500 feet from the proposed apartments. Up to ten cars are parked daily along the North side of Ruby DR SW just East of the proposed apartments, creating not only hazardous driving (and parking) but at times making large emergency vehicle through access challenging. The proposed apartments includes a club house, which will naturally attract events (parties, etc.) without any additional on-site parking.
Don volunteered to follow-up with the City of Lakewood on Monday, December 22nd, to clarify the appeal process and gather any additional available information on the eight items above. A decision on filing an appeal will be made once the City's notification letter is received and additional information reviewed.
/s/ Don Macsparran
*****
Ruby Apartments Community Design Review Meeting with Lakewood City Staff
December 26, 2014
Nancy Dilworth and I met with Lakewood staff (Beth Jorgenson/Economic Development and Kent/Public Works) Friday morning to review/research those areas of the Ruby Apartments' Design Review which may support a formal appeal to change. We discussed each of the items identified during the joint meeting held at Scott Drysdale's home on December 20. Our findings follow in the same sequence as the report from the December 20 meeting.
1. The Tree Retention Plan (TRP) does not sufficiently address the survival of the 74 trees identified to be retained: We confirmed our earlier concerns that the project design does not adequately plan for the survival of the 74 trees to be retained. The City agrees and is revoking the developer's tree removal permit until he complies with item E of the MDNS (page 15). This should be the first item appealed, with both tree survival and the potential for trees on the site to become hazardous to surrounding structures on and off the site.
2. The Community Design cannot be analyzed for potential geotechnic hazards related to the nearby landslide hazard area as there is no evidence that a supplemental geotechnical report was completed as required by item J of the MDNS required mitigation measures (page 16): A supplemental geotechnical report was completed, received by the City, and reviewed. Recommend this item not be appealed. To do so would require an independent engineering analysis which would be costly and time consuming; while there is no available evidence that a hazardous condition exists.
3. The Community Design DOES NOT indicate if site soils have been tested for contaminants in the required open space areas: Recommend this item not be appealed at this time, but we should be prepared to appeal the Site Development Permit when it is issued. No testing has been completed/reported to the City. The law requires the contractor to protect his workers, prevent storm water runoff, dispose properly of contaminated soils (including the asphalt from the tennis courts), and control dust and soils from leaving the site.
4. Storm water discharge during and after construction is not addressed as required by item L of the MDNS required mitigation measures: Recommend this item not be appealed at this time, but we should be prepared to appeal the Site Development Permit when it is issued. Although included in initial site planning documents, the City does not require the State issued construction storm water permit (NPDES) until the Site Development application process. At that time we should review this closely. To appeal this successfully may require an independent engineering review.
5. The Design Review Site Plan shows a "solid cedar fence on the East boundary" of the property: Recommend this item not be appealed. Nothing within the current City code
will prevent the cedar fence from installation on the East side of the development. Suggest this item be appealed directly to the developer by the Oakbrook Country Club Condominiums if appropriate.
6. The three-story design of the Ruby Apartments is inconsistent with the community design for the Oakbrook 4th Addition: Given the complexity of this issue, and the current three-story buildings in the adjacent Oakbrook Country Club Condominiums and the Bluffs, recommend this item not be appealed.
7. The two parking lot exits empty directly on to Ruby DR SW: Recommend this item not be appealed. The current design/plan is consistent with best practices and City recommendations for traffic flow and development access to street systems.
8. The proposed parking of 105 stalls does exceed the City of Lakewood minimum parking of 1.5 stalls per unit (62 units X 1.5 = 93), but that is less than the established standard for the entire Oakbrook community of over 2,000 homes: Recommend this item not be appealed. Although less than the community standard for parking, the planned parking is greater than the City requirement.
Additional items discussed:
1. On-site collection capacity for recycles may be insufficient. Recommend this item be appealed. The City will discuss this with Lemay Refuse and provide more information to us within the next few days. The trash and recycle designated collection area on the West side of the property does not appear to be sufficiently accessible to the disposal trucks.
2. Erosion of the 45 degree sloped berm does not appear to be addressed in the landscaping plan. Recommend this item not be appealed. The City will require appropriate materials to control/prevent erosion.
We are waiting for additional information and follow-up from the City on:
1. Trash/recycle capacity and disposal vehicle accessibility.
2. Compliance with requirements for storm water runoff design, planning, and permits.
3. A complete arborist report with planning for retained tree survival.
/s/ Don Macsparran
Location: Scott Drysdale's Home
Date: December 20, 2014
Time: 3:00 - 5:00 PM
Attendees: Eric Greeson, Nicole Greeson, Scott Drysdale, Stan Sherwood, Scott Shields, Don MacSparran, Nancy Dilworth, Ken Karch
This meeting was held to review the completed Ruby Drive Apartments' Community Design provided by the City of Lakewood Community Development Department. The purpose of this review was to determine if there is a basis for an appeal of the Community Design as approved by the City.
The following items were identified as possibly NOT meeting City of Lakewood code requirements, and/or NOT complying with the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) required mitigation measures, and/or having an adverse impact on the surrounding community.
1. The Tree Retention Plan (TRP) does not sufficiently address the survival of the 74 trees identified to be retained, of which 71 were identified as 'significant'. Specifically, it does not appear that either the root structure or the existing canopies of the trees were fully considered. There is not a tree canopy, critical root zone, or drip line analysis included in the Community Design. Item E(3) of the MDNS required mitigation measures requires that an arborist report include "an analysis of existing trees close to the proposed pavement and buildings, with recommendations for removal or retention based on the ability of the trees to survive the proposed construction (page 15)". Construction plans should have been provided with the TRP, allowing proper analysis for tree survival planning.
2. The Community Design cannot be analyzed for potential geotechnic hazards related to the nearby landslide hazard area as there is no evidence that a supplemental geotechnical report was completed as required by item J of the MDNS required mitigation measures (page 16). Receipt and analysis of this report by the City is critical given recent slide activity and the potential for construction activity to impact town homes along Zircon DR SW on the north side of the apartments along Chambers Creek.
3. The Community Design DOES NOT indicate if site soils have been tested for contaminants in the required open space areas. Item K of the MDNS required mitigation measures requires "a report of the tested soils shall be submitted to the City of Lakewood and DOE prior to the commencement of any building construction (page 16)". As the developer must comply with DOE requirements resulting from such testing, the Community Design should include required design measures.
4. Storm water discharge during and after construction is not addressed as required by item L of the MDNS required mitigation measures. Of particular concern to adjacent (Zircon DR SW) property owners is the slope of the property from East to West; 244 feet elevation on the East side, gradually decreasing to 240 feet elevation on the West side. This slope leads directly to the previous slide area less than 300 feet from the property on the North side of Zircon DR SW. With an increase in the impervious coverage from 39,885 SF to 75,742 SF (62.1% of the total lot), thorough analysis and design is appropriate. The required mitigation measures require the developer to apply for a construction storm water permit (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit for storm water discharges associated with construction with the Department of Ecology as more than one acre of soil surface area will be disturbed by construction activities.
5. The Design Review Site Plan shows a "solid cedar fence on the East boundary" of the property. Erecting such a fence is not consistent with the existing Oakbrook community design. Although some individual single-family homes may have some fencing, the predominant design is NO perimeter fencing. Such fencing also acts as a barrier to the free ranging of wildlife along the Chambers Creek watershed.
6. The three-story design of the Ruby Apartments is inconsistent with the community design for the Oakbrook 4th Addition. The Ruby Apartments' property falls entirely within the Oakbrook 4th Addition, which was designed and built starting in the mid-1960's as single-family homes with a maximum height of two stories. No residential structures within the Oakbrook 4th Addition exceed two stories. Sixty-five townhomes adjacent to the Ruby Apartments' property are two story homes. Also adjacent (but outside the Oakbrook 4th Addition) to the East side of the Ruby Apartments are the Oakbrook Country Club Condominiums. Several of the buildings within this condominium complex are three stories, yet the Eastward downward slope of the property is used to mask the added height. The revised Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Heath and Associates, Inc., received by the City of Lakewood on August 26, 2014, does not address the impact of the additional traffic on the surrounding roadway system which will result from the project design emptying all traffic onto Ruby DR SW.
7. The two parking lot exits empty directly on to Ruby DR SW, with one exit just several car lengths from one of two exits from the RMG Golf Course and Oakhouse Restaurant. Directing all traffic onto Ruby DR SW overlooks the impact of the additional traffic onto a secondary residential street. Zircon DR SW is a primary residential road in Oakbrook with a 25 mph speed limit, double yellow center-line striping, and traffic calming islands at Turquoise DR SW and Phillips Road SW. Ruby DR SW and the two feeder roads (Turquoise DR SW and Citrine Lane SW) have sharp turns that make through traffic problematic and dangerous. Both Ruby DR SW and Turquoise DR SW have posted 15 mph speed limits. Turquoise DR SW has two golf course player crossings.
8. The proposed parking of 105 stalls does exceed the City of Lakewood minimum parking of 1.5 stalls per unit (62 units X 1.5 = 93), but that is less than the established standard for the entire Oakbrook community of over 2,000 homes. Every home in Oakbrook has parking for at least two vehicles. Even with a standard of two or more spaces per residential unit, illegal on-street parking or on public right-away is a problem in the immediate vicinity of this project BEFORE construction. Up to 50 vehicles each day are parked on the public right-away on both sides of Zircon DR SW just 300 to 500 feet from the proposed apartments. Up to ten cars are parked daily along the North side of Ruby DR SW just East of the proposed apartments, creating not only hazardous driving (and parking) but at times making large emergency vehicle through access challenging. The proposed apartments includes a club house, which will naturally attract events (parties, etc.) without any additional on-site parking.
Don volunteered to follow-up with the City of Lakewood on Monday, December 22nd, to clarify the appeal process and gather any additional available information on the eight items above. A decision on filing an appeal will be made once the City's notification letter is received and additional information reviewed.
/s/ Don Macsparran
*****
Ruby Apartments Community Design Review Meeting with Lakewood City Staff
December 26, 2014
Nancy Dilworth and I met with Lakewood staff (Beth Jorgenson/Economic Development and Kent/Public Works) Friday morning to review/research those areas of the Ruby Apartments' Design Review which may support a formal appeal to change. We discussed each of the items identified during the joint meeting held at Scott Drysdale's home on December 20. Our findings follow in the same sequence as the report from the December 20 meeting.
1. The Tree Retention Plan (TRP) does not sufficiently address the survival of the 74 trees identified to be retained: We confirmed our earlier concerns that the project design does not adequately plan for the survival of the 74 trees to be retained. The City agrees and is revoking the developer's tree removal permit until he complies with item E of the MDNS (page 15). This should be the first item appealed, with both tree survival and the potential for trees on the site to become hazardous to surrounding structures on and off the site.
2. The Community Design cannot be analyzed for potential geotechnic hazards related to the nearby landslide hazard area as there is no evidence that a supplemental geotechnical report was completed as required by item J of the MDNS required mitigation measures (page 16): A supplemental geotechnical report was completed, received by the City, and reviewed. Recommend this item not be appealed. To do so would require an independent engineering analysis which would be costly and time consuming; while there is no available evidence that a hazardous condition exists.
3. The Community Design DOES NOT indicate if site soils have been tested for contaminants in the required open space areas: Recommend this item not be appealed at this time, but we should be prepared to appeal the Site Development Permit when it is issued. No testing has been completed/reported to the City. The law requires the contractor to protect his workers, prevent storm water runoff, dispose properly of contaminated soils (including the asphalt from the tennis courts), and control dust and soils from leaving the site.
4. Storm water discharge during and after construction is not addressed as required by item L of the MDNS required mitigation measures: Recommend this item not be appealed at this time, but we should be prepared to appeal the Site Development Permit when it is issued. Although included in initial site planning documents, the City does not require the State issued construction storm water permit (NPDES) until the Site Development application process. At that time we should review this closely. To appeal this successfully may require an independent engineering review.
5. The Design Review Site Plan shows a "solid cedar fence on the East boundary" of the property: Recommend this item not be appealed. Nothing within the current City code
will prevent the cedar fence from installation on the East side of the development. Suggest this item be appealed directly to the developer by the Oakbrook Country Club Condominiums if appropriate.
6. The three-story design of the Ruby Apartments is inconsistent with the community design for the Oakbrook 4th Addition: Given the complexity of this issue, and the current three-story buildings in the adjacent Oakbrook Country Club Condominiums and the Bluffs, recommend this item not be appealed.
7. The two parking lot exits empty directly on to Ruby DR SW: Recommend this item not be appealed. The current design/plan is consistent with best practices and City recommendations for traffic flow and development access to street systems.
8. The proposed parking of 105 stalls does exceed the City of Lakewood minimum parking of 1.5 stalls per unit (62 units X 1.5 = 93), but that is less than the established standard for the entire Oakbrook community of over 2,000 homes: Recommend this item not be appealed. Although less than the community standard for parking, the planned parking is greater than the City requirement.
Additional items discussed:
1. On-site collection capacity for recycles may be insufficient. Recommend this item be appealed. The City will discuss this with Lemay Refuse and provide more information to us within the next few days. The trash and recycle designated collection area on the West side of the property does not appear to be sufficiently accessible to the disposal trucks.
2. Erosion of the 45 degree sloped berm does not appear to be addressed in the landscaping plan. Recommend this item not be appealed. The City will require appropriate materials to control/prevent erosion.
We are waiting for additional information and follow-up from the City on:
1. Trash/recycle capacity and disposal vehicle accessibility.
2. Compliance with requirements for storm water runoff design, planning, and permits.
3. A complete arborist report with planning for retained tree survival.
/s/ Don Macsparran
