Exhibit 6 - Email to Michael ONeal 10-12-17.pdfMachuga, Jen
From: Machuga, Jen
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 10:10 AM
To: marcel o'
Subject: RE: Land use revisions proposed under Permit PLN20170028
Hi Michael,
Under current conditions with the subject site being one single parcel, it would have the following setbacks:
Street = 20' from the northern property line
Sides = 5' from the eastern and western property lines
Rear = 15' from the southern property line (the property line shared with you) Note: the rear setback may be
reduced to 5' for detached accessory structures covering less than 600 square feet.
However, with the proposed subdivision, Lots 3 and 4 (the two southern lots that would share a property line with you)
would be considered flag lots since they do not front on a street or access easement serving five or more lots. For flag
lots, the setback requirements are 5' side setbacks from all property lines. The northern two lots (Lots 1 and 5) are not
considered flag lots and would have 20' street setbacks from the property lines adjacent to 13th Way SW and 15' rear
setbacks from their southern property lines (adjacent to proposed Lots 2 and 4).
Regarding your question about the staff report, in some cases such as a short subdivision (subdividing into 4 or less lots),
the staff report is the final decision (assuming it isn't appealed) and does set the conditions of approval for a
project. However, in the case of the subject proposal, the staff report contains staff's analysis and recommendation to
the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner is the one who will make the decision and establish the conditions for the
project. Following today's hearing, the Hearing Examiner will write a similar report, and assuming the Hearing Examiner
approves the proposal, his report will contain conditions of approval. Depending on the Hearing Examiner's findings, the
conditions in his report may be the same as those in the staff report, or they may be different. Setbacks do not vest with
preliminary plat approval; however, the setbacks indicated within the staff report are correct based on current code
requirements.
The survey of the subject site does show that the fence between your properties is located on the subject site and does
not run perfectly in line with the platted property line. Any disputes related to ownership of the fence would be a
private civil matter between yourself and the property owner.
I hope this helps answer your questions. I will be adding your emails to the record at today's hearing, so the Hearing
Examiner will be made aware of your concerns. The Hearing Examiner's decision is typically made approximately two
weeks following the hearing, and as a party of record, you will be sent a copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision.
Sincerely,
Jen
Jennifer Machuga, Associate Planner
City of Edmonds, Planning Division
121 - 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
(425) 771-0220 ext. 1224
Jen.Machuga@edmondswa.gov
Development Services Hours:
Monday & Tuesday 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM
Wednesday 8:30 AM - Noon
EXHIBIT 6
Thursday & Friday 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM
From: marcel o [mailto:marcelwa@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 8:55 AM
To: Machuga, Jen <Jen.Mach uga@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Re: Land use revisions proposed under Permit PLN20170028
Hello Jen;
I do have a couple questions to confirm my understanding and expectations.
1 - Is my understanding correct that a 15 foot setback applies along the entire length of the original lot
southern boundary? (It was described that way in one of the early documents) That would then apply to Lot
3 (the south easterly most new lot). However, it appears the developer is not applying the 15 foot setback to
the original south boundary of the original parcel but, for some reason, to Lots 1 and 5 as described in the
Staff Report. I don't understand the purpose of such a setback being applied in that way.
A 5 foot setback applied to Lot 3 south boundary would create a conflict that might compromise the Condition
for retaining the trees along this portion of the south boundary.
2 -1 assume a Staff Report is more an internal agency dialog and does not in itself create conditions that would
later apply to a land use decision for the proponent. Is this correct? If this is not correct (i.e. the Report
applies to the decision) then I think the description of setbacks and lots within the Report will need to be
clarified or the protection of the trees made very specific and superior to the setback language.
I also notice that the proposed project drawings are showing the south boundary fence to be about 1 foot
north of the property line. This fence has been the commonly accepted property boundary since before 1987
when I purchased the property at 753 14th Way. Then, in 2004 1 shared the cost of replacing the fence along
our common boundary with Mr Lefevre. There should be no illusions that this fence is somehow the domain
of the "new" properties.
Regards,
Michael ONeal
From: Machuga, Jen <Jen.Machuga@edmondswa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 11:31 AM
To:'marcel o'
Cc: Lien, Kernen
Subject: RE: Land use revisions proposed under Permit PLN20170028
Hi Michael,
I'm sorry that I missed your call yesterday, but I'm glad you were able to talk to Kernen while I was out of the office. I
received both of your emails and will add them to the record at the public hearing for this project on Thursday. Since
you have provided written comments, you will be a party of record to the decision. As a party of record, a copy of the
Hearing Examiner's decision on the proposal will be sent to you.
Feel free to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Jen
Jennifer Machuga, Associate Planner
City of Edmonds, Planning Division
121 - 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
(425) 771-0220 ext. 1224
Jen. Machuga@edmondswa.gov
Development Services Hours:
Monday & Tuesday 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM
Wednesday 8:30 AM - Noon
Thursday & Friday 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM
From: marcel o [mailto:marcelwa@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2017 4:20 PM
To: Machuga, Jen <Jen.Mach uga@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien @edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Re: Land use revisions proposed under Permit PLN20170028
Hello Jen;
The attached file contains my comments and concerns about this project. I summarize these for the long
term as being removal of trees along the project south boundary and for the short term as being a lack of any
control of excessive noise related to construction activity. My perception is that construction noise may be
exempted by code for construction activity within specified hours as early 7am. IF this perception is correct I
assume the only way to establish reasonable control over such projects in resident sensitive areas would be
from a higher policy level such City Council. IF this is the case I would appreciate your telling me that.
I will be out of town after today through end of week and cannot attend the public hearing. I was advised by
Kernen Lien that you are able to include my written comments with project record and hearing for
consideration. I have copied Kernen to be certain this can happen in the event you do not access your email
before Thursday.
Thankyou
Michael ONeal