Loading...
Exhibit 7 - Michael ONeal Emails recd 10-13 and 10-16.pdfMachuga, Jen From: marcel o <marcelwa@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 8:25 PM To: Machuga, Jen Subject: Re: Trees at 720 13th Way Thank you Jen for the additional information. Based on your statement in detail I am even more concerned - My recommended condition of approval related to tree retention/removal limits any tree cutting at the time of the civil improvements (i.e. installation of utilities, access road, etc.) to be limited to hazardous trees and those trees that would be directly impacted by those improvements. - as this seems to provide a great deal of discretion to the developer. In fact, as I now look more closely at drawing C 3.0 TESC plan I see the limits of clearing are actually shown beyond the fence and to the property line I presume [even though I don't see any specific callout to remove the fence but I see the silt fence delineated INSIDE the fence]. However, on subsequent drawings C4.0 and C5.0 I do not see the fence represented so apparently the developer sees this as some minor detail not worth mentioning or assumes that it simply disappears with no consequence. In any case, this is too important a detail to simply let everyone assume something about it because at some point someone is going to be very unhappy and that leads to legal problems and lawyers. Given the fence is a significant detail, and could become an issue to derail the project, I presume it is of interest to the developer and to the city. Since it is the City reviewing and approving the project plans it should be the city to take the lead in understanding even these small details. But, I don't feel I can wait until tree climbers are cutting down trees and bulldozers are blazing down the fence before I should be doing something. Back to the trees; as I look at C 3.0 1 can see how the plan delineates the boundary of the "Ex Structure To Be Removed" and both fence and the 3 trees in question fall outside this boundary so I would presume your recommended condition would preclude those trees from being removed. Yet, the silt fence alignment is warped to the outside of the 3 trees marked for removal - those trees will not impede ex structure removal effort so there is no clear reason that fits within your criteria for removing them. There is also another undesignated symbol line outside a portion of the silt fence - what's that about? I understand that a drawing of this scale becomes fairly generalized but there is a lot of devil in the "small details" along the south project line. By law I am joint owner of the fence along the south line (my north Prop Line) and jointly responsible for it and it can be only with my approval that the fence can be removed. I've done a lot a research on this topic since it came up. Over the time I've lived at my address there has been a fence on this location, it was erected many years before that judging from the condition it was in when I first occupied the property and in 2004 1 split the cost of replacement along my entire back property line with Mr. Lefevre. And, since that time I've painted it, tended it, kept the property on my side in order. This fence has, in effect, become a boundary fence - it is not just some existing structure on the subject property. I regret that I have not had the time to develop my understanding of this project and recognized too late of its possible impact on me and my property. The city has had months to examine, question and develop the general criteria for approving it. I have had a week and half with the notice but actually only the few days of EXHIBIT 7 our correspondence before the Hearing to gather information and digest it - you have been extremely helpful in my getting to a point of being able to reach some level of understanding and I thank you for that. I regret I did not reach my understanding sooner so as to develop my whole view of the project and present a more persuasive appeal to the Hearings Examiner. I cannot expect the HE to come to appreciate my view based on the scattered questions and comments contained within my emails and one letter so I suspect that within the limits of process I will probably end up needing to appeal a decision. It will be helpful if you can point me in the direction to find out the details and requirements for making an appeal. I'm sure you have some working perception of Todd Echelbarger, whether he is reasonable or not, but I do not. I know his company has been doing real estate projects in and around Edmonds for many, many years (interestingly my son went to high school with a Matt Echelbarger, another relative in this business family). Frankly, at this very moment I'm struggling with either attempting to come to an understanding directly with Todd Echelbarger or begin working with an attorney. So while I feel like I'm left to resolve this it may be too soon to start up an attorney, thus I should know better how the city review and approval process proceeds forward from the point of the Hearing Examiners Report. I'm hoping you can help me with that. Regards Michael ONeal From: Machuga, Jen <Jen.Machuga@edmondswa.gov> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 5:39 PM To:'marcel o' Subject: RE: Trees at 720 13th Way Hi Michael, Sorry I didn't have a chance to respond to your last couple of emails yesterday, but preparations for the hearing took up the bulk of my afternoon. I am not sure on the developer's reason for wanting to remove the three trees you have referred to. My recommended condition of approval related to tree retention/removal limits any tree cutting at the time of the civil improvements (i.e. installation of utilities, access road, etc.) to be limited to hazardous trees and those trees that would be directly impacted by those improvements. If the trees along the southern side of the site would not be impacted by the civil improvements or by the required demolition of the existing structures, then the developer would need to wait until the building permit application phase in order to propose removal of those trees. If you'd like to contact the developer, they would likely be able to provide you with additional information regarding their plans, and you could also discuss your question related to the fence. Their contact information is public record since it is part of their subdivision application, so I can provide it to you. Todd Echelbarger's phone number is (425) 673-1100 and his email address is Todd@Echelbarger.com. Also, regarding the question in one of your previous emails about whether this property was recently rezoned, I would have to do some research on when exactly it was made part of the RS-6 zone, but I can say that it has been within that zone for quite some time. The developer did not recently rezone this property. Public notice very similar to what was done for the proposed subdivision would also be done for a site -specific rezone. I hope you have a good weekend. 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: Friday, October 13, 2017 3:24 PM To: Machuga, Jen <Jen.Machuga@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Trees at 720 13th Way I'm wondering if you know the answer to one of my questions - Was there a reason the 3 trees along the south boundary, right in the middle of the two groups being saved, are proposed for removal? These tall trees (being removed) will have the greatest effect to creating wind damage to our trees. Physically they are immediately within the strip of the trees being saved. I'm sure in the time squeeze before the hearing some questions got lost but this one is of some interest to me. Also, I'm now not sure this would have got to the Hearings Examiner to be aware of. Thanks and regards, Michael ONeal Machuga, Jen From: marcel o <marcelwa@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 8:07 PM To: Machuga, Jen Subject: Re: Trees at 720 13th Way Thank you Jen for letting me know. I think my Friday email should be helpful as it finally identifies some of the sources of my concern due to unclear intention within the developer Preliminary Development Plan Drawings. That email (and this one) does not introduce anything new but may help better clarify the concern. In regard to those issues I've introduced, some additional details and clarification may also help: Fence - Responding to a proposal from Mr. Bill Lefevre in 2004, 1 paid half the cost to replace the fence on the exact alignment of the fence standing in 1987 when I purchased and occupied the property at 753 14t" Way. The fence was quite aged even at that time and eventually was deteriorating to the point that both Bill and I were propping it up to keep it standing. And since that time I have applied stain and wood preservatives to my side of the fence several times and generally kept my side and landscaping in good order while Bill had stained/painted and maintained his side. It is part of the secure perimeter that contains our dog. It has standing in law as a boundary fence. Trees - I've pointed out the inconsistency with the City Condition and developers selection of 3 large fir trees for removal along the south boundary. The tree issue lends itself to 2 of my concerns - subsequent property damage and impact of setbacks. I have observed over the years how removal of large fir trees in the immediate vicinity of our property, especially along a south to north alignment, seemed to disturb or alter storm wind currents to such a degree that the fir trees on our property would have subsequent limb damage and destruction. You only have to hear large, heavy tree limbs falling on your roof to understand that concern and the potential for serious damage to life and structures. Setbacks - My concern about the setbacks in several emails is that I recognize that this project has the potential to diminish the sense of space we have enjoyed for 30 years by changing the density and proximity of housing across the fence. I understand your explanation that government codes apply constraints in how project is to be defined as zoned (or rezoned in this case). But, I am still baffled at how applying a 15-foot back setback onto Lot 1 (and greatly limiting the building space on Lot 1) provides any community value while pushing building further south by allowing a 5-foot setback on the south (Lots 3 and 4) will push the effect of the higher density right into the backyards of the lower density neighborhood across the fence. Buyers in the new development can see what they are getting; however since I am already here I am at the mercy of and depend on government to mitigate the impact of densification upon my sense of neighborhood. Noise - I see no reason why the developer could not be "encouraged" to schedule the work of breaking up concrete, loading and unloading of trucks with heavy materials, smashing the existing house; earth moving equipment or other especially loud activity to be limited to after 9 or 10am as a special condition. This level of noise at 7am will be intolerable (and barely tolerable for 6 months at anytime!). Keeping the trees along the south boundary will help mitigate noise. Dust - In the years before Bill's death, they frequently would barbecue on the pool patio. It seems that summer afternoon breezes frequently move south and we would have fire starter fumes and barbecue smoke coming in our back door within minutes of their startup. I would expect that dust will behave in the same way. Regards Michael ONeal From: Machuga, Jen <Jen.Machuga@edmondswa.gov> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 5:07 PM To:'marcel o' Subject: RE: Trees at 720 13th Way Hi Michael, During the hearing on Thursday, the Hearing Examiner left the record open until 5pm tomorrow (October 17th) for comments on Exhibits 2 through 6 and until 5pm on Thursday (October 19th) for responses by staff and by the applicant. Exhibits 2 through 6 were materials that were entered into the record at the hearing, including three of the emails and the letter that you sent to me (Exhibits 3, 4, and 5). See attached for reference. The Hearing Examiner left the record open because a member of the audience did not yet have a chance to review them and wanted the opportunity to address the matters raised in these exhibits. The record was left open only for comments specifically related to those matters brought up in Exhibits 2 through 6 and no new matters. If you would like, I can forward your email from Friday evening to the Hearing Examiner to see if he feels that this qualifies as being able to enter it into the record. Once the Hearing Examiner issues his written decision on the application, there will be a 14-day appeal period. 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: Friday, October 13, 2017 8:25 PM To: Machuga, Jen <Jen.Machuga@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re: Trees at 720 13th Way Thank you Jen for the additional information. Based on your statement in detail I am even more concerned - My recommended condition of approval related to tree retention/removal limits any tree cutting at the time of the civil improvements (i.e. installation of utilities, access road, etc.) to be limited to hazardous trees and those trees that would be directly impacted by those improvements. - as this seems to provide a great deal of discretion to the developer. In fact, as I now look more closely at drawing C 3.0 TESC plan I see the limits of clearing are actually shown beyond the fence and to the property line I presume [even though I don't see any specific callout to remove the fence but I see the silt fence delineated INSIDE the fence]. However, on subsequent drawings C4.0 and C5.0 I do not see the fence represented so apparently the developer sees this as some minor detail not worth mentioning or assumes that it simply disappears with no consequence. In any case, this is too important a detail to simply let everyone assume something about it because at some point someone is going to be very unhappy and that leads to legal problems and lawyers. Given the fence is a significant detail, and could become an issue to derail the project, I presume it is of interest to the developer and to the city. Since it is the City reviewing and approving the project plans it should be the city to take the lead in understanding even these small details. But, I don't feel I can wait until tree climbers are cutting down trees and bulldozers are blazing down the fence before I should be doing something. Back to the trees; as I look at C 3.0 1 can see how the plan delineates the boundary of the "Ex Structure To Be Removed" and both fence and the 3 trees in question fall outside this boundary so I would presume your recommended condition would preclude those trees from being removed. Yet, the silt fence alignment is warped to the outside of the 3 trees marked for removal - those trees will not impede ex structure removal effort so there is no clear reason that fits within your criteria for removing them. There is also another undesignated symbol line outside a portion of the silt fence - what's that about? I understand that a drawing of this scale becomes fairly generalized but there is a lot of devil in the "small details" along the south project line. By law I am joint owner of the fence along the south line (my north Prop Line) and jointly responsible for it and it can be only with my approval that the fence can be removed. I've done a lot a research on this topic since it came up. Over the time I've lived at my address there has been a fence on this location, it was erected many years before that judging from the condition it was in when I first occupied the property and in 2004 1 split the cost of replacement along my entire back property line with Mr. Lefevre. And, since that time I've painted it, tended it, kept the property on my side in order. This fence has, in effect, become a boundary fence - it is not just some existing structure on the subject property. I regret that I have not had the time to develop my understanding of this project and recognized too late of its possible impact on me and my property. The city has had months to examine, question and develop the general criteria for approving it. I have had a week and half with the notice but actually only the few days of our correspondence before the Hearing to gather information and digest it - you have been extremely helpful in my getting to a point of being able to reach some level of understanding and I thank you for that. I regret I did not reach my understanding sooner so as to develop my whole view of the project and present a more persuasive appeal to the Hearings Examiner. I cannot expect the HE to come to appreciate my view based on the scattered questions and comments contained within my emails and one letter so I suspect that within the limits of process I will probably end up needing to appeal a decision. It will be helpful if you can point me in the direction to find out the details and requirements for making an appeal. I'm sure you have some working perception of Todd Echelbarger, whether he is reasonable or not, but I do not. I know his company has been doing real estate projects in and around Edmonds for many, many years (interestingly my son went to high school with a Matt Echelbarger, another relative in this business family). Frankly, at this very moment I'm struggling with either attempting to come to an understanding directly with Todd Echelbarger or begin working with an attorney. So while I feel like I'm left to resolve this it may be too soon to start up an attorney, thus I should know better how the city review and approval process proceeds forward from the point of the Hearing Examiners Report. I'm hoping you can help me with that. Regards Michael ONeal From: Machuga, Jen <Jen.Machuga@edmondswa.gov> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 5:39 PM To:'marcel o' Subject: RE: Trees at 720 13th Way Hi Michael, Sorry I didn't have a chance to respond to your last couple of emails yesterday, but preparations for the hearing took up the bulk of my afternoon. I am not sure on the developer's reason for wanting to remove the three trees you have referred to. My recommended condition of approval related to tree retention/removal limits any tree cutting at the time of the civil improvements (i.e. installation of utilities, access road, etc.) to be limited to hazardous trees and those trees that would be directly impacted by those improvements. If the trees along the southern side of the site would not be impacted by the civil improvements or by the required demolition of the existing structures, then the developer would need to wait until the building permit application phase in order to propose removal of those trees. If you'd like to contact the developer, they would likely be able to provide you with additional information regarding their plans, and you could also discuss your question related to the fence. Their contact information is public record since it is part of their subdivision application, so I can provide it to you. Todd Echelbarger's phone number is (425) 673-1100 and his email address is Todd@ Echelbarger.com. Also, regarding the question in one of your previous emails about whether this property was recently rezoned, I would have to do some research on when exactly it was made part of the RS-6 zone, but I can say that it has been within that zone for quite some time. The developer did not recently rezone this property. Public notice very similar to what was done for the proposed subdivision would also be done for a site -specific rezone. I hope you have a good weekend. 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: Friday, October 13, 2017 3:24 PM To: Machuga, Jen <Jen.Mach uga@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Trees at 720 13th Way I'm wondering if you know the answer to one of my questions - Was there a reason the 3 trees along the south boundary, right in the middle of the two groups being saved, are proposed for removal? These tall trees (being removed) will have the greatest effect to creating wind damage to our trees. Physically they are immediately within the strip of the trees being saved. I'm sure in the time squeeze before the hearing some questions got lost but this one is of some interest to me. Also, I'm now not sure this would have got to the Hearings Examiner to be aware of. Thanks and regards, Michael ONeal