Richmond Beach area neighbors filed an appeal last week with the city of Shoreline to stop a home from being built in a designated land slide zone, and within a stream and wetlands buffer.
The lot is a steep slope that overlooks the Sound in the 20300 block of Richmond Beach Drive. Portland resident Dennis Casper wants to build a home there and purchased the property two years ago. He has proposed a 3,195 square foot home within the landslide hazard area and stream and wetland buffer. Casper hired geotechnical and ecological consultants to help him design the home to stabilize the slope from landslides and protect the stream and wetland. According to his application to the city, he wants to relocate a storm water pipe that feeds the stream, 30 feet to the north.
Shoreline officials say the city cannot legally deny a landowner’s right to develop land because it would constitute inverse condemnation or a taking of the private property. Instead, city officials are requiring Casper adhere to several strict conditions. Casper must produce an erosion and sedimentation control plan to prevent soil from entering the nearby stream, he must gain permits before moving the storm water drainage pipe, install siltation fencing around the wetlands area, prohibit construction traffic through the wetlands area, plant native trees and shrubs on the property.
To minimize landslides, the home must be constructed using a deep foundation system with solid pile walls. He must also build a sidewalk, planter strip and curb to the street. With Casper’s agreement to these conditions, the city issued what’s called a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) on the project, which allows Casper to apply for a special permit for the project, issued by the Hearing Examiner.
The Salsby Shores Homeowners Association, along with 10 individual home owners filed the appeal of the MDNS to the city’s Hearing Examiner in which they question whether the land is a legal lot, and whether the city can allow development on the land that is designated a high land slide area. The appeal also questions whether the city has the authority to permit the developer to manipulate a water channel on the property that feeds a stream that is a potential salmon habitat. A public hearing on the appeal is set for Jan. 21.
“We say there is no evidence on the record that this is even a legally created lot,” said Starla Hohbach, one of the neighbors filing the appeal.
According to King County assessors records Casper bought the lot two years ago for $127,000 when it appraised for $5,000.
Rachel Markle, city planning manager, said the lot was deemed legal, created in 1943 with the deeding and construction of Point Wells Road, which is now Richmond Beach Drive.
If the Hearing Examiner determines it is not a legal lot, the project would be null and void, Markle said. The Hearing Examiner’s decision on that preliminary issue is expected later this week.
The appeal also argues that what the city calls a drainage pipe is really part of the stream and city code prohibits moving a stream that could be salmon habitat 30 feet north.
“The city calls it a pipe, but it’s really the stream that daylights on the property from a culvert that goes under Richmond Beach Road. They can’t move the stream,” Hohbach said.
Markle said the stream is not on the property, but runs parallel to the railroad tracks, about 20 feet west of the property.
“It’s actually a failing storm pipe that daylights on the property and we have said that storm pipe has to be replaced if development is to occur there,” Markle said. “They could replace the stormwater system where it is, or they could create a parallel system while doing the repair, move the pipe and close up the existing pipe.”
The appeal also argues that city is going against its own development code by allowing this project. The development code states that residential development in high landslide areas, where the slope is greater than 40 percent, be prohibited. The Casper project is proposed on a 71 percent slope.
“We think it is clear the code states it shall be prohibited,” Hohbach said.
Planning Director Tim Stewart said when code prohibits development, the owner can apply for a Critical Areas Reasonable Use Permit (CARUP) to develop the land. The process allows development only if specific restrictions are met. If the city did not allow the CARUP process, it’s a taking of private property and thus, a liability for the city, he said.
Salsby Shores Homeowner Association President Lawrence Yaffe questions the ethics behind recent changes recommended to the city’s development code. The city’s Planning Commission is recommending City Council remove the 40 percent limit, among other changes, Yaffe said. Casper’s architectural consultant for the Richmond Beach Drive project, Marlon Gabbert, is also a Planning Commission member.
Markle said changes being recommended to the code, if approved by City Council, would not apply to this project. Code that applies to this project is that which was in place when the application was filed, in June, 2002.
Markle points out that Gabbert is only one of nine commissioners.
Attorneys with the Municipal Research Services Center say a planning commissioner working as a consultant for a developer with a permit before a Hearing Examiner is not a violation of appearance of fairness or state ethics laws. A conflict would occur if the Planning Commission were the ruling body on the permit, in a quasi-judicial hearing. This permit, however, does not go before the Planning Commission. It is before the city’s Hearing Examiner.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
