Exhibits to File PLN20120033.pdfExhibits to File No. PLN20120033 (Hillman)
1-27 — Attachments 1 through 27 of Staff Report
28 — Staff Report dated 3/7/13
29 — Letter from Snohomish County PUD, received 3/11/13
30 — Email from David Thorpe, received 3/11/13
31 — Letter from Todd Brown, received 3/12/13
32 — Email from Kevin Fagerstrom, received 3/11/13
33 — Email response by Rob Chave, Acting Dev. Serv. Director, sent 3/12/13
34 — Photo submitted by Steve Schroeder at hearing
35 — Aerial submitted by Cheri Zehner at hearing
36 — Letter submitted by Cheri Zehner at hearing
SNOHOMISH'COUNTI( ;
Providing quality water, power and service at a competitive price that our customers value
Marlch 6 2013'
Rob Chave
City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Dear Mr. Chave:
Reference Number: PLN20120033 Hillman SFR
District DR Number: 13-024
PLAMING DE- ..
The District presently has sufficient electric system capacity to serve the proposed
development. However, the existing District facilities in the local area may require upgrading.
Cost of any work, new or upgrade, to existing facilities that is required to connect this
proposed development to the District electric system shall be in accordance with the applicable
District policy. The developer will be required to supply the District with suitable
locations/easements upon its property for any electrical facilities that must be installed to serve the
proposed development. We recommend contact with the District prior to design of the proposed
project.
For information about specific electric service requirements, please call the District's
South County office at 425-670-3200 to contact a Customer Engineer.
Sincerely,
L,
lisabeth A. Tobin
Senior Manager
Planning, Engineering, & Technical Services
1802 — 75th Street S.W. ® Everett, WA ® 98203 / Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1107 ® Everett, WA ® 98206-1107
425-783-4300 ® Toll -free in Western Washington at 1-877-783-1000, ext. 4300 ® www.snopud.com
Machuga, Jen
From: David Thorpe <dethorpe@frontier.com>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:33 PM — a'
To: Machuga, Jen
Subject: PLN20120033��d'
P
Hi, I would like to be a party of record for this permit application.
I have walked the property and have spent a fair amount of time looking at the information on the website.
My main interest in becoming a party of record is self serving. We live on a similar size lot with slope issues however we
do not have a wetland issue.
I am interested to see how this application moves along and what the final decision is. We too may want to develop our
lot.
I am concerned about the wetland issue. From how I read things about $5000 will be spent by the owner to "fix" the
damage and loss of the current wetland. I understand the owner's right to build on their lot but even though the house
is "smaller" than the ones around it, the impact of that large of a foot print will have a huge effect on the existing
wetland. I remember when the emergency road down in Shell Valley was being talked about and designed, there was
great concern about what would happen to the wetland in that area where the road was to be built. Despite assurances
from the City, that wetland has been destroyed. The City has so few wetlands that extreme caution needs to be taken
when treading on this slippery slope.
Currently the wetland buffer reduction requires a 50 ft buffer for a cat 3 wetland. The owner wants a reduction of this
buffer to ZERO feet on the western boundary of the wetland and wants to encroach 11% into the wetland itself. I do not
agree with this.
Category 3 wetland replacement ratio reduction requires that category 3 wetlands which are eliminated be mitigated by
replacing them at a 2:1 ratio.
The owner wants this requirement be reduced to ZERO. I do not agree with this.
Critical Area Building Setback Reduction requires a 15 ft building setback from critical areas/buffers. The owner wants a
reduction to 5' at the wetland edge and down to 3' at the stream buffer edge.
The owner wants the Front Yard Setback reduced -from 25' to 12'.
I understand there has to be some give and take when dealing with wetland and slopes but as I read the application I
continue to come away with the feeling that the owner is asking for to much and not giving enough. This lot is a
challenge because of its natural make-up and I question if it can, or should, be developed.
As stated in the report this lot has special circumstances. Multiple critical areas including a category 3 wetland covering
roughly the middle third of the site, a type Np stream running across the rear of the parcel and a moderate to steep
slope covering about the eastern third of the lot.
I have gone on to long but will end with this. The company hired by the owner to work on the wetland, Wetland
Resources Inc, has stated, "we recommend against wetland creation in favor of wetland enhancement". That to me
sounds like double talk and I worry about such a thought process.
Thank you for your time,
David Thorpe
1
21117 Shell Valley Road
Edmonds WA. 98026
March 12, 2013 MAR 12 2013
DEVELOPMENT CERVICES
To: Jennifer Machuga, Planner COUNTER
From: Todd Brown /6
Subject: PLN20120033 — comments regarding variance application
Thank you, Jen, for the opportunity to provide some final comments prior to the hearing
examiner meeting. My name is Todd Brown and I live at 1135 Sierra Place, on the north
side of this property.
This beautiful shy acre should remain in its natural state. I grew up in Edmonds then
moved back in part because of the conservative way the city manages its trees and
outdoor spaces. This is the last undeveloped wetland on Olympic Avenue and it seems
a shame to remove 29 or 30 of its stately alders, maples and cedars, some 30 to 40
inches in diameter. This is a better, higher use of this property. This land is a rare gift
and it seems a shame to develop it. While the mitigation plan may make some
improvements, like removing and replacing some non-native species, the trees can
never be replaced. And developed land never has the same natural beauty and function
as the original.
There is much inertia in this project. Much time, effort and cost have gone into the
planning for this house, both by the owners and city staff. One planner said that in her 7
years with the city this is the first critical areas variance she's worked on. I think that
gives you some idea how rare this property is and I would hate to have the variances
approved simply because so much time and effort have gone into it. The land's
purchase price of $75,000 should be some indication of the problems inherent to this
site. A similar site without the erosion and wetland issues would cost 10 times that in
Edmonds.
This variance should be denied for many reasons. There are some factual inaccuracies
in the planning documents, failure to obtain necessary written permission from adjacent
landowners as required by the city, insufficient mitigation measures and
misinterpretations of city code. I summarize them at the end but will provide support
here.
The first, and most important, is the site drainage. The original plan involved routing the
storm water from the 130 or so feet of retaining wall footing drains and the 3500 square
feet of new impervious surface into the north stream through a private culvert. Prior to
getting on the city's culvert maintenance watch list the north stream culvert was prone to
blockage and backing up. When it did, the water ran down the west end of the property
in a ditch which day -lights into a 12 inch culvert at the SW. I suggested a change to the
original plan; that is, to route all of the storm water to the SW culvert. This would do
several things - minimize the risk of the north stream culvert plugging up due to
increased water flow; reduce the downstream flooding potential for the Hachlers at 1111
Sierra and other residents west of Olympic Avenue like Cheri Zehner (see her
Attachment #27 regarding her flooding property); and better mimics the natural flow of
water on that site.
Attachment 6 is a topographical survey of the site. The land of the southern two-
thirds of the site, where the house and retaining walls are planned, slopes downhill from
the northeast down towards the culvert at the SW. This was recognized by many
people. The Hillman's senior wetland ecologist, Andrea Bachman, (Attachment 12,
October 1, 2012) describes, after reviewing our letters and a previous variance case
report for the 1111 property, that using this SW culvert is a better approach. She says
"As a result, the Hillman storm drainage plan has been improved to incorporate this
information and more closely mimic the existing hydrology of the area. This design does
not direct more water to the existing stream to the north, cause additional erosion on the
site, nor adversely affect the private access drive. Mr. Hachler has expressed support of
the Hillmans' proposal to convey storm water to the southern culvert rather than the
northern one, and has offered to provide any drainage easement that might be required
(although none is anticipated at this time)." I believe Mr. Hachler supports this SW plan
because it would minimize his risk of flooding from more water from the north culvert.
Ms. Bachman continues (Attachment 13, October 10, 2012): "Much of the
surface and subsurface drainage from your property currently flows west to supply
hydrology within the neighboring wetland. The modified drainage plan is intended to
match these existing drainage conditions to the greatest extent possible. The modified
plan also minimizes potential flooding and/or erosion issues in the area resultant from
directly discharging storm water into the on -site stream. Overall, the modified drainage
design appears be the least impactful to the hydrologic conditions of the surrounding
critical areas."
Finally, the city engineering department gives credence to this plan (Attachment
21, March 7, 2013): "... the existing man made trench located along the west property
line shall remain in place as a potential overflow channel for any stream high water
event. In addition, the subject proposal shall not inhibit the usage of the existing
southwestern storm drainage culvert."
Attachment 10, dated January 14, 2013, though, indicates a drainage plan
change back to the original one, dumping storm water directly into the stream. Point
number 6 says "The revised storm water plan from October 2, 2012 is no longer going
to be used as the SW storm water pipe was determined to be a non -viable channel".
6F states "The existing ditch along the western property line adjacent to the
private access drive will remain in place as an overflow option in the event of high water
events, although we have no evidence of the ditch ever actually being used for that
purpose. The southwest culvert which would have received water if the overflow
condition occurred is dry, with its outlet buried."
I dispute these statements. I saw this overflow occur at least twice, as did the 2
city workers when they came to unplug the northern culvert. I saw the SW culvert outlet
discharging storm water. I also saw where someone (I presume the wetland ecologist)
had done some shovel work looking for the outlet and they were looking in the wrong
place. The outlet is about 20 feet to the west of the lane, overgrown by blackberries but
certainly not buried. Also, that SW culvert has running water whenever there's a
rainstorm, consistent with the topography of the site. The city requires the owners to
have a backup overflow plan in the event of high water in order to approve this variance.
They must believe there is viability to the SW culvert as it represents their backup plan.
If that culvert is non -viable then they have no overflow plan, which is required as part of
the city granting the variance. Using the SW culvert, per the owners' own expert
recommendation with city support, also helps save a gorgeous 18 inch diameter cedar
which would have to be removed if the storm water drains to the north.
I question the ability of a trash rack to prevent obstructions in this case. One
public works employee described removing 6 yards of material from the stream bed 3
times in the past 5 years. He said it had obstructed from rocks and gravel washed down
the stream during heavier rain periods. A trash rack is designed to prevent large
objects, such as branches and sticks, from blocking a culvert. The gravel and rocks
inherent to the soil of this hillside can still cause obstructions. I am happy with the
current state of the north stream — since it's been on the city's culvert maintenance
watch list it has weathered some very severe rainstorms without obstructing. The
expense and disruption of installing a trash rack is unnecessary to keep the stream safe
from flooding.
Finally, in a request for additional information from the city (Attachment 20, page
3, point 6d) "Since you are proposing to discharge some of the storm water from your
site into a private culvert, which outfalls into the neighbor's wetland to the west, written
permission from the owner of the adjacent property at 1111 Sierra Place is required." I
have not seen that this written permission has been obtained. See Attachment 6
showing the northern culvert intake placed outside the existing drainage easement,
making it a private culvert.
Another issue regards habitat mitigation. The variance requests to decrease the
allowed buffer by a full 62%. The mitigation plan states "Minor improvements could be
made through enhancement by planting additional herbaceous species within the bare
ground areas of the wetland." This property is already described as "mature natural
forest" — major, rather than minor, improvements are needed given the extent of this
variance and the risk of flooding.
A final issue concerns the size of the home and the economic use of the property. The
original variance request (Attachment 3 July 9, 2012) says that (point 6, page 5)
"Without this variance, the applicants would be denied construction of any reasonable
home on this property." And 6c, page 6, says "The total footprint and living space are
the smallest of all the adjoining properties." While this is technically correct it is
misleading. Their review of the neighborhood homes fails to include the closest one,
across the culdesac. Ralph Mallot's home at 1130 Sierra Place is listed in county
records as being 2,063 square feet, which includes his basement. Ralph's house
footprint is approximately 1,400 square feet, demonstrating that the Hillman plan is not
the smallest necessary to achieve a reasonable economic use of the property. The city
even recommended a smaller house footprint.
Section 6b, page 6, says "There is no reasonable use for the site other than single
family residential that would result in less impact to the critical areas." I would have
loved the opportunity to purchase the property and build a small 500 square foot
workshop. The lot's purchase price of $75,000 should have hinted at the problems
inherent to this site. Even one of the city's managers, Rich Lindsay, (attachment 19,
page 3) says "It seems this would be a very difficult area to build unless all variances
are met."
To summarize, I believe these variances should be denied for these reasons:
1. Written permission has not been obtained from the Hachlers at 1111 Sierra
Place allowing the discharge of storm water into their private culverts.
2. Building on this site endangers downstream homeowners of flooding.
3. Potential flooding risks access to the private lane.
4. Trash rack mitigation is insufficient to prevent culvert obstructions.
5. The current plan does not represent the minimum needed for a reasonable
home.
6. There are other possible uses for the land besides a single family residence.
7. This site may not be buildable, as discovered by the previous owner.
8. The loss of 30 stately trees is not in keeping with Edmonds' personality.
I hope you'll decide that, given discrepancies in the plan, the failure to meet certain
requirements set forth by the city and the Herculean effort required to conform this
bargain -basement land, it's a better choice to leave it be.
To quote city council member Joan Bloom (Edmonds Beacon, March 7, 2013)
"Edmonds is a gift, let's show our appreciation."
Machuga, Jen
From:
Chave, Rob
Sent:
Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:40 AM
To:
Machuga, Jen
Subject:
FW:
Please forward the comment (below) to the Hearing Examiner.
Rob Chave I Planning Manager
Acting Development Services Director
From: Earling, Dave
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 6:05 PM
To: Kevin Fagerstrom
Cc: Chave, Rob
Subject: Re:
Kevin....
Thanks for your note. I am including my answer to you to Rob Chave, who is Director of Planning. I'm sure he
will get back to you regarding your request.
Dave Earling
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 11, 2013, at 5:13 PM, "Kevin Fagerstrom" < wrote:
Sir,
I have lived in Edmonds for 15 years. I live at 1027 Carol Way. I am directly below the property
at 1139 Sierra Place. There is a proposed variance that is set to be heard by the Planning
Commission on March 14, 2013 at 3pm. The Planning Department file number is PLN20120033.
This property is within a designated Critical Area and the owner is applying for a variance to be
allowed to construct a single family residence on the site. If you read the file, you will find that
this is the 4T" time that an application has been filed for such an action. We have been involved
in this matter before and when we saw the land use action notice posted on the site last Fall,
we immediately contacted the Planning Department and asked to be placed on the mailing list
so that we could provide input into this matter. We received a packet in the mail on Monday
afternoon and were dismayed and quite frankly very angry when we find that the matter will be
heard in front of the Planning Commission on Thursday, March 14th at 3pm. This does not even
equate to 72 hours of advance notice of this hearing.
This proposed action is fraught with potential flaws and if it approved, we believe that it will
have very severe adverse effects to our property as well as others. We wish to be heard on this
matter and to receive a less than timely notice of such an important potential action, is not
what I have come to expect from my city government. If the matter proceeds on the 14th,
neither my wife nor I will be able to attend the hearing because of a lack of timely notice and if
the matter is approved, we will likely have no other course of action, but to initiate legal action
to appeal the decision in order to protect our home.
I would ask that this matter be scheduled to a later date and that we receive sufficient notice to
allow us time to adjust our schedules in order to attend.
Thank you in advance for your assistance with this matter.
Sincerely,
Kevin Fagerstrom
kif300@vahoo.com
Machuga, Jen
From: Chave, Rob
Sent. Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:40 AM
To: Kevin Fagerstrom
Cc: Earling, Dave; Machuga, Jen
Subject: RE:
Hello, Mr. Fagerstrom:
I appreciate your concerns regarding the project and that you've been actively tracking its progress for some time. After
checking our files on the project and talking with the project planner (Jen Machuga), it does appear that a notice of
hearing specifying the date and time of the hearing was mailed to your home address on February 26th of this year. It
was included in the same mailing with the SEPA notice on the project, and you should have received both approximately
two weeks ahead of the hearing date. We then followed up with a more recent mailing of the full hearing packet, which
is what you just received.
Given the timing of the mailings, it may be difficult for you to argue that you didn't know about the hearing day/time,
but you are free to make that case to the Hearing Examiner if you would like. In any case, we will go ahead and forward
your comment (your email) to the Hearing Examiner. You don't say so, but perhaps you are arguing that you would like
more time to study and respond to the material contained in the staff report. I can't say whether the Examiner will grant
more time, but he has occasionally done so when good cause is shown; it is completely his decision as to whether to
continue a hearing or allow additional comments within a specified timeframe of the actual hearing date. This is not
something that is done lightly, since hearings frequently involve multiple parties and time commitments.
Please contact the project planner, Jen Machuga, if you have any questions or wish to provide any additional comments.
I believe you and your wife have been in contact with Ms. Machuga on this project previously, and I'm sure she is willing
to assist as best she can.
Rob Chave I Planning Manager
Acting Development Services Director
From: Earling, Dave
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 6:05 PM
To: Kevin Fagerstrom
Cc: Chave, Rob
Subject: Re:
Kevin....
Thanks for your note. I am including my answer to you to Rob Chave, who is Director of Planning. I'm sure he
will get back to you regarding your request.
Dave Earling
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 11, 2013, at 5:13 PM, "Kevin Fagerstrom" < wrote:
Sir,
I have lived in Edmonds for 15 years . I live at 1027 Carol Way. I am directly below the property
at 1139 Sierra Place. There is a proposed variance that is set to be heard by the Planning
Commission on March 14, 2013 at 3pm. The Planning Department file number is PLN20120033.
This property is within a designated Critical Area and the owner is applying for a variance to be
allowed to construct a single family residence on the site. If you read the file, you will find that
this is the 4T" time that an application has been filed for such an action. We have been involved
in this matter before and when we saw the land use action notice posted on the site last Fall,
we immediately contacted the Planning Department and asked to be placed on the mailing list
so that we could provide input into this matter. We received a packet in the mail on Monday
afternoon and were dismayed and quite frankly very angry when we find that the matter will be
heard in front of the Planning Commission on Thursday, March 14th at 3pm. This does not even
equate to 72 hours of advance notice of this hearing.
This proposed action is fraught with potential flaws and if it approved, we believe that it will
have very severe adverse effects to our property as well as others. We wish to be heard on this
matter and to receive a less than timely notice of such an important potential action, is not
what I have come to expect from my city government. If the matter proceeds on the 14tn,
neither my wife nor I will be able to attend the hearing because of a lack of timely notice and if
the matter is approved, we will likely have no other course of action, but to initiate legal action
to appeal the decision in order to protect our home.
would ask that this matter be scheduled to a later date and that we receive sufficient notice to
allow us time to adjust our schedules in order to attend.
Thank you in advance for your assistance with this matter.
Sincerely,
Kevin Fagerstrom
klf300@vahoo.com
OL
wv_ = :,, ;`
1
�4
VIA
,b L
id
7
8-638
A. -- 11
-- 8-64
8
C1
ri.1
Mi.
�'4
�'4
4 APT"
k.,
j
I I ?J-Z57 d&&` 411. awl.
13 — --- r
8-3.
01 S,
st 0?
29
Ar.
4v
I.W
J-, .26
2A ''All
10
263-
8.6.31
Vb,
C11
4 r
w, & I Y u
rl 7jjj-j��u� a
�� kk
L
iv
8-644 1'4
8-:02
8
CO' 86 0 C,
-6
It
B-649
8-650 B-618
�:, �F '1 1 'I 11 ,� 1 .:..I i '�` 1 'y. • 4 i.1/rr- 77 ,:,y�.,;f7
,#7
A.
�2
J, •
-4 7
8-617•rr-
J�- d
04
13 M5
4 4:
(38413
(35,11 U7
2
8654
It " I . , -- 1: 1 -
59 08 8-661
271�
#
AY wVre. ;7j
. , I
-CM V7 0
t r1l a VA -4
Iry 1241
8.656%v, 1AM . .
V�
5— 273 0 0, , AVI
Wit 0
Legend a 40 80 160 240 320 400
IN —
Contour 2ft smoothed Flo -- Feet o Storm Manholes
n Storm Catch Basins 1 in 150 ft
Edmonds—Parcels-2010-03 I
1 3,Wlw'
0 1
.fit
-, - rl�l
— Storm Pipes No warranty of any sort, including accuracy, fitness, or merchant ability
— DITCH —CREEK accompany this product.
16d Of-,
EXHIBIT 35
- -- r%L 4 Zehnerh MPH
Industrial Hygienist
_ _ t��¢¢a�i� F�cc�.t�by� �lta�a�¢►m¢�n�
March 12, 2013
Hearing Examiner
City of Edmonds Development Services Department
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Reference File # PLN20120033
1027 Carol Way
Edmonds, W4 98020
(206) 799-6382
www. cherizehner. com
We do not support the issuance of a building permit for the parcel of land at 1139 Sierra Place
based on the drainage risks to the properties west of the site.
Attachment 9 addresses stormwater management on the proposed property. The plan states that
run-off from impervious surfaces will be collected in a tight -line drain system to a stormwater
detention pipe at the westernmost edge of the lot and will discharge at a dispersion outfall at the
stream edge. I am concerned that though a dispersion outfall, in theory, is a responsible means of
stormwater management, alterations of the site soils and redirecting stormwater is unpredictable,
despite good engineering assessments. We are concerned that water detention focused on new
areas of the site will create groundwater movement in new and unpredictable paths. We are not
willing to be the empirical experiment to determine how much surface and groundwater impacts our
property from this proposed development.
Currently, the stream on this site is managed by the City of Edmonds. During heavy rains I have
seen this stream at capacity. We are not willing to put the protection of our property into the hands
of private property owners and think that the City of Edmonds is better equipped and a more
responsible entity.
Our property at 1027 Carol Way has received a drastic increase in stormwater run-off since 2007.
This drastic increase coincides with the development of two land parcels on Daly Place. Both of
these properties supposedly have responsible stormwater management systems. One of the
properties was a critical wetland and one had a water -well that was decommissioned. Last
December we estimated that we were receiving about 7,200 gallons of water per day during the
heavy rains. During these rains, I have witnessed groundwater surfacing on the property at 703
Olympic Avenue, which is at the intersection with Sierra Place, directly west of the subject property.
This letter is in addition to my comments in Attachment 27 and the video footage (December 21st
2012) of the stream/ditch (at capacity) at the south end of the property.
Sincerely,
Cheri Zehner, MPH
EXHIBIT 36