2008-05-15 Hearing Examiner MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS OF HEARING EXAMINER RICE
HEARING
Hearing Examiner: Sharon Rice
File Number P-08-16
May 15, 2008
Application by Steve Smith Development LLC, represented by Jean Morgan of Morgan Design
Group, to subdivide Arbor Court, a 1.27 acre parcel developed with 35 townhomes, into 35 fee
simple townhouse parcels. The site is zoned Multiple Family Residential (RM-1.5) and is located
at 23800 — 23824 Edmonds Way
Hearing Examiner Rice: Do we have an applicant in the next matter here tonight.
Mr. Clugston: Yes.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Okay, go ahead and have a seat at the table. I'd like to call this matter to order now please.
Thank you. We're short on time, and that's my reason for rushing you. Mr. Clugston, are you ready?
Mr. Clugston: Almost.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Getting close. I will call to order the matter of File P-08-16, which is an application by Steve
Smith Development LLC for the subdivision of 1.27 acre parcel into 35 town homes lots. The property is located at 23800
Edmonds Way. Can 1 have the applicants introduce themselves for the record, please?
Ms. Morgan: Jean Morgan, Morgan Design Group.
Mr. Parsaie: John Parsaie, Morgan Design Group.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Can I get you to spell you last name please.
Mr. Parsaie: P A R S A I E.
Hearing Examiner Rice: And for the City we have ...
Mr. Clugston: My name is Mike Clugston, Planner with the City of Edmonds.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Okay, in advance of this hearing, I was provided by Mr. Clugston with a packet of information
consisting of the staff report. On Page 7 of the staff report is the list of attached exhibits that I also reviewed. Exhibit 1
would be the staff report, two is the plat map, three is the ADB-07-12 report dated May 30, 2007. Exhibit 4 is meeting
minutes from that Architectural Design Board Meeting dated June 6, 2007. Exhibit 5 is entitled the preliminary development
plan, six is the environmental adoption notice dated April 23, 2008, and seven includes affidavits of publication, posting and
mailing. I did review those exhibits before the hearing. Similar to the previous matter, I'll take the applicant's presentation
first. I think we may be short on time. I have reviewed the staff report. I'd like for you, Mr. Clugston, to bring specifics to
my attention but perhaps not go through and read it, since we are short on time.
Mr. Clugston: Okay, very quickly then, as discussed, we're at 23800 Edmonds Way at the corner of Edmonds Way and
238". Existing on the site are six single -story duplex units for a total of 12 units. Those units are going to be removed and
replaced by 35 town home units, which have already been reviewed and approved by the Architectural Design Board in File
Number ADB-07-12. Civil and structural improvements are currently under review with the associated building permit, BLD
2007-1108. We're here today to ...
Hearing Examiner Rice: Great, okay. I'm going to stop and just let you know, I have been informed we are here until six.
There's no need to rush. You can go ahead and make your presentation.
Mr. Clugston: Okay, I'll talk a little slower then. The reason we're here today is to do a formal plat for a town house
subdivision. Each of the individual lots as you can see on the overhead, each individual unit will be created into its own lot
of the subdivision. They'll be fee simple lots, just as any residential lot would be. As I've mentioned before, this project was
previously approved for its design by the Architectural Design Board, and the building permits have already been submitted
for, as well as the civil plans. The way the City of Edmonds commonly reviews these projects is they do the design work
first and some of the civil work, get started on the building permits, and then do the subdivision as sort of the end product.
Over time, I guess it has come about that this way of reviewing a town house project is better from the standpoint... If the
subdivision were done first, there could be issues with internal lot lines moving around depending on site constraints during
development. So it's felt that this process actually facilitates good review and approval of the project.
Mr. Clugston: As far as the setting, it's a 1.26 acre parcel, which could result in 35 units being developed in an RM-1.5
zone, and that is what is proposed. Topography is fairly flat. It's already a developed site and it's going to be redeveloped
into more of a more intense RM-1.5 use.
Mr. Clugston: As far as the layout of the subdivision, there's several criteria that the project has to meet for the town house
subdivision process. Those are no dwelling unit may overlap one another vertically, common sidewalls, joined units. There
may not be more than six dwelling units in one structure. Coverage shall not exceed the aggregate coverage of the individual
structures as defined in the zoning code, and lot area per unit for purposes of the subdivision may be as small as the coverage
of the individual unit so long as the overall density meets the zoning on the site.
Mr. Clugston: So in this case, there are 55,502 square feet to the site. For RM-1.5, 1,500 square feet per unit would result
in the possible number of units of 37 and 35 are proposed. Each lot will have a dwelling unit as well as some green space.
You can see that somewhat on the overhead.
Mr. Clugston: Setbacks. In a town house subdivision model, interior setbacks are relaxed. They can be, again, along a
minimum wall so they can essentially be zero setback interior. Setbacks for the lots, however, are taken on the exterior. In
this case, the street setback along Edmonds Way will be 15 feet. The side setbacks are 10, and the rear is 15. The project
complies with those setback limits.
Mr. Clugston: Lot coverage again. Typically in the RM-1.5 zone, the lot coverage is up to 45%. In this project, looking at
all 13 buildings and their coverage, there was approximately 34.5% of the parcel...
Mr. Clugston: An environmental assessment was done. Not with this particular permit. It was done previously with the
ADB permit and was subsequently adopted. Critical areas again, the site was previously developed and a critical areas
checklist was done in 2007 and there were no identified critical areas on the site.
Mr. Clugston: With that, I would conclude my testimony. Do you have any questions I can answer at this time.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Thank you. The town house criteria that you read, those are from the Edmonds Community
Development Code Section 21.100.040, and that's the definition section. Am I to understand that the City has adopted the
definition of town house as a development standard section for the purposes of town house subdivisions?
Mr. Clugston: At this point, that is correct. We are in the process right now of doing a code rewrite where all these sorts of
development standards that have been added to the code over time in definitions or in other places are going to be put into
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Rice Transcripts
File Number P-2008-16
May 15, 2008 Page 2
the, typically like into the subdivision section 20.75, which will make it more user friendly for both the applicants and the
staff.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Okay, but presently, the City processes these through the definition.
Mr. Clugston: Correct,
Hearing Examiner Rice: Is there a citation in the zoning code that states that the internal setbacks for town houses are
relaxed other than in the definition section?
Mr. Clugston: Not that I'm aware of, no.
Hearing Examiner Rice: I ask because the definition section, setbacks, is talking about setbacks structures. From looking
at the plat map, it looks to me like there may be zero setbacks between the structures and the internal right-of-way. Is that
correct? I mean, I can also ask the applicant that. But looking at the plat map in the record, Exhibit 5, and also on Exhibit 2,
it looks like there's little to no setback between the structures and the access easement. I'm just asking, is there a road
standards section or other place in the code that allows residential units to be placed adjacent to a right-of-way? I'll definitely
offer you an opportunity to address the question, don't concern yourself that you won't get a chance.
Mr. Clugston: Yeah, I can't comment on that right now.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Okay. What street standards do govern the internal road?
Mr. Clugston: The engineering requirements of Section 1800 of the code.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Do you know, is the internal road proposed to be public or private?
Mr. Clugston: I believe it's to be private.
Hearing Examiner Rice: And has the City reviewed the stormwater management plan for the project?
Mr. Clugston: I believe so, yes.
Hearing Examiner Rice: It's not included in the record.
Mr. Clugston: Correct. I believe that's part of the building permit, and right now that's still in process and review.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Okay, I ask because I'm required, pursuant to the subdivision criteria for decision making to find
that the project is consistent with public works requirements, which include the stormwater management. Without that
information, it would be hard for me to make that it does.
Mr. Clugston: I guess one possible way to deal with that would be to grant conditional approval of the plat subject to
approval of the building permit.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Are there any recommended conditions of approval on this project?
Mr. Clugston: No. There weren't. Just the regular conditions of approval, commonly that they must ensure compliance
with the provisions contained in the ordinances. And then as far as prior to a final approval, submit approved civil plans,
which they are in the process of doing right now. And the final plat in ??y Once that's done, then the Council would approve
it. After that, they would file it with the County. Then the City would also receive copies of recorded map.
Hearing Examiner Rice: All right. I'm looking through there and I'm trying to find a page that I had earlier. (The Hearing
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Rice Transcripts
File Number P-2008-16
May 15, 2008 Page 3
Mr. Clugston: The determination, itself, was issued by the City
Hearing Examiner Rice: There it is. It's in the record as part of the staff report, Determination of Nonsignificance dated
May 7, 2007. This project is different from the project that is currently proposed. The description of this proposal says it's
11 buildings, and the smallest lot size would be 1,473 square feet. I'm just curious because the adoption notice doesn't
reference any changes or review of changes to the proposal. That adoption, the existing environmental document ... Can
you comment on that?
Mr. Clugston: It was felt that the changes were not significant as far as what was proposed with the ADB.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Well and, Mr. Clugston, I have the same concern with regards to this town home proposal as I did
the last one I heard. And that is that several, in fact many, like 17 of the lots are smaller than the minimum lot size required
for the RM-1.5 zone. And in two places in the criteria for subdivision approval, I'm required to find that the proposal is
consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance, even specifically the dimensional requirements. So I'm just asking
for testimony on the City's reasoning behind recommending approval of lots that are smaller than the minimum lot size in the
zone.
Mr. Clugston: Again, in the definition of town house subdivision 21.100.040, it describes what is applicable to the town
house site, and lot area per unit for purposes of subdivision may be as small as the coverage of the individual unit so long as
the overall density meets the zoning of the site. So in this case, with the 55,000 plus square feet and the 1,500 square foot
minimum size per dwelling unit, it works out to be a total of a possible 37 units, where 35 are proposed.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Was any review done for requirements and dedications of open space or park land?
Mr. Clugston: To my knowledge, no.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Were any dedications required?
Mr. Clugston: No.
Hearing Examiner Rice: I have concerns about the parking issue. Is there parking allowed along Edmonds Way?
Mr. Clugston: No, there is not.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Okay, it's my understanding that there is no parking for guest vehicles on the internal driveway.
Mr. Clugston: That is correct.
Hearing Examiner Rice: So all guests would be required to either walk to the property or park in the garage?
Mr. Clugston: Yes. I mean, as far as guests or users of the site, yes.
Hearing Examiner Rice: It's not likely that 35 units would never have company.
Mr. Clugston: No, probably not, and that's been raised a number of times in a number of different groups. Fire is
particularly is concerned, as is planning. The code right now, does not provide a requirement for guest parking, and that's on
of the things I think we struggled with. As part of the code update, I think we're going to be taking a look at this because it
just doesn't make any sense on its face to not provide guest parking. However, the code right now does not require it so ...
Had the applicant provided it, we certainly would have liked it. Fire, again, is consistently ...
Hearing Examiner Rice: Do I have parking comments from the Fire Department?
Mr. Clugston: I'm sorry.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Rice Transcripts
File Number P-2008-16
May.15, 2008 Page 4
Hearing Examiner Rice: Are there comments in the record from the Fire Department relating to parking?
Mr. Clugston: There are in the technical comments.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Can you refer me to them?
Mr. Clugston: Sure, On Page 6 of Exhibit 1. Yeah.
Hearing Examiner Rice: So the staff report says the Fire Department had concern, but I don't have anything in writing
from the Fire Department?
Mr. Clugston: No. They're concerns were summarized there.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Do you know if the internal roadway was reviewed for adequacy of emergency access?
Mr. Clugston: Yes. It was.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Do I have anything about that in writing?
Mr. Clugston: No. You don't as far as anything in the staff report other than they're technical comments, fire has signed off
on the project with these comments.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Okay. And was a traffic impact study conducted for this project?
Mr. Clugston: It was as part of the ADB review.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Does the City have a traffic impact study document?
Mr. Clugston: It does.
Hearing Examiner Rice: It's not included in the record.
Mr. Clugston: 1 apologize.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Are traffic impact statement fees being assessed for this project?
Mr. Clugston: They are.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Could I get the traffic impact study for the record?
Mr. Clugston: Yes.
Hearing Examiner Rice. Okay. That would be great. Do you have that today?
Mr. Clugston: I do not.
Hearing Examiner Rice: I'm going to go ahead and make a place holder for it we'll just call it the traffic impact study. The
last issue I have for you, Mr. Clugston, is I think the last issue. Okay, maybe not. Was the school district consulted about
this project?
Mr. Clugston: It was through SEPA.
Hearing Examiner Rice: And do I have any School District comments in the record?
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Rice Transcripts
File Number P-2008-16
May 15, 2008 Page 5
Mr. Clugston: No, they did not submit any comments.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Has it been satisfied that safe walking for school children is provided by the proposed design?
Mr. Clugston: Yes. Sidewalks are adequate on the site.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Do you know what schools would serve the project?
Mr. Clugston: Off hand, I do not.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Okay. Are there school impact mitigation fees owed by this project?
Mr. Clugston: No. The City has not commonly collected those.
Hearing Examiner Rice: So your testimony is that the project has been reviewed for adequacy of emergency vehicle
access. I know, I'm trying to ask a coherent question about this, and it's for some reason being difficult. Are there no
standards that require buildings to be set back from rights -of -way?
Mr. Clugston: As far as ... That would, I guess, be a building code issue, and I'm not aware if that's the case or not. I
can't really comment on that. Staff went by the definition of a town house subdivision, as we have had in the past. And
while there is no indication in that definition that a building could be adjacent to access, there's no indication that it couldn't
either, I guess.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Okay, so it's time for the applicant to speak. Either way, you can speak into this microphone, if
you prefer, if it's more comfortable, so you can keep your materials. I can't see you. Is it possible to turn up the lights
because that's less useful than making eye contact. That would be great if you could turn up the lights.
Ms. Morgan: Jean Morgan, Morgan Design Group. The internal road is a private driveway. It's not a right-of-way. It's
been reviewed by the Fire Department. The comments that they came back with were we needed to provide no parking signs
around the curb and specifications for the signage, the type of paint on the curb, where it had to go, and all of that. And that
is on the plan.
Hearing Examiner Rice: It's on the plan?
Ms. Morgan: Well, it's in the permit set of plans that are currently being reviewed. We're in the process of the second
review. But the first review comment was where we had to add those, and we did not get any comments back on the second
round from the Fire Department.
Hearing Examiner Rice: So the road is, however, classified as a private drive.
Ms. Morgan: It's a private driveway.
Hearing Examiner Rice: It's not a right-of-way?
Ms. Morgan: Right.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Could you address the issue of guest parking?
Ms. Morgan: Right. By code, we're not required to provide it. There were some areas where guest parking could have
been. The Fire Department came back and said we have to provide no parking signs there. There were areas outside of the
fire lane where overflow cars could have been, but the Fire Department won't allow it, and we're not really sure why because
it's not part of where they would drive.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Rice Transcripts
File Number P-2008-16
May 15, 2008 Page 6
Hearing Examiner Rice: Let me ask you this. On the map, the access to the property is obviously from Edmonds Way.
Ms. Morgan: Yes.
Hearing Examiner Rice: The internal road stubs out at two property lines. Is that not correct?
Ms. Morgan: To provide access to the end units, yes. We were only allowed access in one spot because it's a State
highway, and the State highway determined that we had to have it as far away from the intersection as physically possible.
Hearing Examiner Rice: And that intersection, the north stub is too close to the intersection ...
Ms. Morgan: Right. There currently is an access point there, but we were not allowed to continue using it. And we can't
move it any further south because there's a huge overpass sign that prevents us from moving it any further.
Hearing Examiner Rice: So you're answer on parking is that you had intended to provide some, but it didn't meet the
requirements of the Fire Department.
Ms. Morgan: Right.
Hearing Examiner Rice: So none will be provided.
Ms. Morgan: Right.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Do you have any idea how that's going to play out in real life?
Ms. Morgan: It's going to be difficult. I mean ...
Hearing Examiner Rice: I mean, really, how close is the nearest public parking opportunity?
Ms. Morgan: 238`" Street. There's on -street parking.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Is there on -street parking on 238"7
Ms. Morgan: Yeah.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Do you have an idea about how many spaces there are?
Ms. Morgan: No.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Okay. Mr. Clugston said there was a stormwater management that the City had reviewed.
Ms. Morgan: Uh huh.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Is that something that you have?
Ms. Morgan: We can get you a copy, yes. We don't currently have it with us right now.
Mr. Parsaie: Actually, if you look at Exhibit 5, Exhibit 5 is the grading, drainage and street improvements plans. It is
towards the end of the ... Okay.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Is it going to connect with the City's storm drain?
Ms. Morgan: Yes.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Rice Transcripts
File Number P-2008-16
May 15, 2008 Page 7
Mr. Parsaie: Yes, it will.
Hearing Examiner Rice: And will there be curb and gutter throughout on the entire drive?
Ms. Morgan: Yes. Curb and gutter and sidewalk where physically you could have a sidewalk.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Yeah, talk to me about that. Where will there be sidewalks?
Ms. Morgan: In between units and in the center area.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Is the sidewalk represented by the dashy sort of dotty mark? It's not hashed, but it's spotted?
Ms. Morgan: Yes.
Hearing Examiner Rice: And what are the ...
Ms. Morgan: The hatched ones are where pedestrians would cross. They will be designated.
Hearing Examiner Rice: As crosswalks?
Ms. Morgan: Yes.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Do you know what school district will serve your property?
Ms. Morgan: No, I don't. I'm sorry.
Hearing Examiner Rice: So each unit is going to have a garage?
Ms. Morgan: Yes, each unit has a two -car garage, with extra room for recycling and garbage.
Hearing Examiner Rice: So recycling and garbage containers would be stored inside?
Ms. Morgan: Yes, for individual pick up.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Is a garbage truck going to drive down the private driveway?
Ms. Morgan: Yes.
Hearing Examiner Rice: So it's designed to accommodate a garbage truck?
Ms. Morgan: Yes. It is designed to accommodate a garbage truck and a fire truck, yes. We have all the proper turning
radiuses. That was all discussed prior to going in for ADB.
Hearing Examiner Rice: And will the storm drainage system on site be privately maintained? Will there be a homeowners'
association for this property?
Ms. Morgan: To maintain that, yes.
Hearing Examiner Rice: And what else would the homeowners' association be in charge op.
Ms. Morgan: There are no common areas because they're all subdivided. It would be the maintenance of the stormwater or
storm drainage and also lighting and irrigation.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Lighting and irrigation, you said.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Rice Transcripts
- File Number P-2008-16
May 15, 2008 Page 8
Ms. Morgan: Yeah. There's lighting, common lighting, and then also common irrigation outside the property.
Hearing Examiner Rice: And also probably the road, itself.
Ms. Morgan: Yes.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Anything else you'd like to bring to my attention?
Mr. Parsaie: Yes, I would like to talk about the Determination of Nonsignificance
Hearing Examiner Rice: Yes
Mr. Parsaie: That is correct. The original application had 35 units, I 1 buildings. But after talking with the City staff before
the ADB meeting, it was determined that it would be better to break up the buildings. As opposed to having four or more
units per building, we decided to go with duplexes and triplexes. As a result of it, we have now 13 buildings as opposed to
11, So that's the reason there is a change or a discrepancy there.
Hearing Examiner Rice: And the change occurred during the design review process.
Mr. Parsaie: That's right. Prior to application for design review.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Anything else?
Mr. Parsaie: I think that's it
Hearing Examiner Rice: I'd like to open this up for public comment. Are there members of the public who'd like to offer
testimony or ask questions about this? Show of hands. Mr. Rutledge.
Mr. Rutledge: Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds. I have two concerns. The area of the community is the
Westgate area. Basically, you have surrounding areas from there also. There has been hearings here in the City regarding the
flood damages, stormwater. This applicant, apparently, has put an application in to the building department through his
application. Since this is a new area of concern in the Westgate area, I want to know why he did not attend the meetings, the
flood plans, and why he did not have the City put this in, which he could have done. He could have stood up here and he
could have got that area into the long-term plan, which is four to eight years to get a stormwater system in there. He's selling
these places, but it would be good for the people to know that maybe if there is flood problems there that the City will come
and handle it. And Westgate area is business, residence. People are moving out of the area there. Businesses ain't very good
right now. This project will bring a cash flow into the City. And so this is good to have a cash flow into the City. But at the
same time, I don't know why he didn't go to these hearings and try to get the actual stormwater plan on top of the permit.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Thank you. Any other public testimony?
Mr. Hertrich: Good afternoon. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive. I came in just to see how the system operates, and then I
got very interested in some of your questions. And I find that your questions are very professional, and I appreciate the
things that you do ask. That you do find a number of things that have not been brought forth for your information. I'm sure
they will, but it indicates somewhat of an incompleteness in this document for the public and for yourself. Normally in a ...
I listened to a couple of them, and I begin to get a little concerned when ...
Mr. Hertrich: My first question on town houses is, is there really a section in the code that defines all the elements of town
houses. We have ... You referenced a definition section of the code, and we have the 1.5 subdivision section of the code,
but I don't know if we really have specific related definitely to town houses. One of the concerns I've had in the past was
that some of them are built too close together, and they call it open space. A little tiny lawn in between, and there isn't even
enough room to put a ladder up. And their using that little space to meet their open space requirement. One of the things
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Rice Transcripts
File Number P-2008-16
May 15, 2008 Page 9
with this many units, and I would imagine there'd be children, and there is no real place for the children to go and play, or
open space. 1 think that should be part of this.
Mr. Hertrich: Naturally, when you take an area that's in a 1.5 and normally you think that's going to be a single building, it
leaves you a lot of room around that are to put in some of these amenities. But when you decide to break it up into individual
units to make condos out of them and to sell them individually, you do impact the amount of space that's available for those
other amenities. Sometimes, when you elect to do that, I would think that maybe you can't put quite as much on as you want
in order to put some of those things that should be part of it. Thirty-five units is a lot families, and it's a lot of cars out of one
exit, especially onto Edmonds Way. It's unfortunate that something couldn't have been worked to get out on the side street.
Mr. Hertrich: My question on parking would be, I see that the parking is underneath the building, but is there an apron
entrance to those garages where a person could park their car on a temporary basis. Or is that part of that no parking area,
which is considered the street. Twenty-four feet of width in that street, and if it's all paved, signs or no signs, there will be
people parking there. You come to visit, you come to deliver, you come to do something. You're going to park in that street
area. There is no place. And the property's nearly 300 feet long, and if you try to park someplace on a street and walk in to
the other end, you have got literally 300 feet to walk, and I don't think you'll make very many deliveries that way. Actually,
visitor parking on any project is always a problem, and I think that something should be done to provide some sort of
overflow parking or visitor parking or recreational vehicle parking possibly, I don't know.
Mr. Hertrich: So I think your questions are very applicable, and I'm going to leave it to you at this point. But I am
disappointed that a number of these things haven't been considered before this was brought forward. Thank you very much.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Other public testimony on this application? I don't see any other hands. During the public
comments, I thought of another question for the applicant. I don't know if I have ... I didn't see in the record a landscaping
plan. Can you describe to me what the pervious surface areas are and what you plan to do with them?
Mr. Parsaie: There are actually landscape plans, yes.
Ms. Morgan: I'm looking to see if it's in here. I know it was part of... Yes, it is Attachment 7. It's after the architectural
plans, it's a landscape plan. It's about 2/3 of the way through the packet.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Elevations really aren't relevant to the subdivision. They're obviously relevant to the design
review.
Ms. Morgan: Right.
Hearing Examiner Rice: And less relevant to the land use decision.
Ms. Morgan: We didn't put together the packet.
Hearing Examiner Rice: That's why I didn't look through all the elevations.
Ms. Morgan: Okay, yeah.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Okay, so I'm looking at Attachment 7, the landscape plan.
Ms. Morgan: Right, there are street trees along Edmonds Way. Behind each unit there will be grass and plantings up along
the fence and in between the units.
Hearing Examiner Rice: How wide is the driveway?
Ms. Morgan: The driveway is 24 feet wide. The main access driveway is 24 feet wide. There's a minimum of 10 feet
between buildings, and it's somewhere between a 10 and 15-foot setback from the back of the unit to a fence, a property line.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Rice Transcripts
File Number P-2008-16
May 15, 2008 Page 10
Hearing Examiner Rice: So behind ... Not along Edmonds Way, what's that setback? Is that 20 or 25?
Ms. Morgan: 15 feet from the property line, and then from the property line to the back of the sidewalk there's an additional
about 10 feet.
Hearing Examiner Rice: And that's on Edmonds Way?
Ms. Morgan: That's on Edmonds Way, yes.
Hearing Examiner Rice: And the rest of it is between 10 and 15 feet behind the units.
Ms. Morgan: Right.
Hearing Examiner Rice: And there will be a fence and landscaping inside the fence?
Ms. Morgan: Yes. There's currently fence pretty much around the project, as it is. Some of the fence is on our property;
some of it is not. Where the fence needs to be replaced, it will be. But there will be fence around .. .
Hearing Examiner Rice: On your property, yeah.
Ms. Morgan: Or on ... Or if there's fence on the adjacent property, we will not also put a double fence, you know.
Hearing Examiner Rice: What is the intention of this space between the buildings in the center?
Ms. Morgan: It will be grass.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Is that going to open common area?
Ms. Morgan: Yes. There's not going to be any fences between units.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Okay. However, that is privately owned, right, by the unit. You said there's no common areas.
I'm just correcting myself because you said that earlier.
Ms. Morgan: Right, there is no common area. There's commonly used area, but no common open space.
Hearing Examiner Rice: No commonly owned.
Ms. Morgan: Right.
Hearing Examiner Rice: So actually, there won't be boundaries. Although those units attached to that open space, in fact,
legally own that property.
Ms. Morgan: Right.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Who would maintain the landscaping?
Ms. Morgan: There will be ... The homeowners' association will have landscape service to maintain ...
Hearing Examiner Rice: All of the landscaping on site?
Ms. Morgan: Yeah. Most likely, yes.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Did you want to say anything else in response to a couple of comments?
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Rice Transcripts
File Number P-2008-16
May 15, 2008 Page 11
Mr. Parsaie: Yes, I do actually. A couple of things. One is that there are no open space requirements from the City for this
type of project. Based on the zoning, we were allowed 37 units, but based on our layout and providing open space, you
know, we have decided to go with 35 units instead and not maximize it. The purpose of the subdivision is to create fee -
simple zero lot lines. Otherwise, you know, this lot, as it is designed, has been approved by the design review board. So
there haven't been any issues in terms of open space, space between the units, or in fact, between the buildings, as such. I
just want to throw that out there, that that has been reviewed, and the lot has not been, you know, fully maxed out as it is
intended by the zoning code.
Hearing Examiner Rice: I do want to point out that the Architectural Design Board is reviewing your project against
different criteria. They aren't looking at land use criteria when they approve your design. The land use criteria are separate.
I'm the one saddled with that job so I have a different set of rules against which I have to decide whether or not your project
satisfies the criteria. That was bad grammar, but I think you get what I'm trying to say.
Mr. Parsaie: Yes, in terms of the subdivision.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Yeah, it has to meet the land use criteria in the code, in addition to satisfying the design criteria,
which is decided by the other board.
Mr. Parsaie: That's right. That's what I was trying to get at. If it was, in fact, for the subdivision, you know, we wouldn't
be here then.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Okay. What I'm trying to say is that approval of the design for design review purposes does not
mean that the project satisfies the land use zoning code requirements. Those are separate review processes with different
criteria and legal requirements. That was the point 1 was just trying to make.
Mr. Parsaie: Right.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Mr. Clugston, do you know where the nearest park or open public recreation facilities are located
to this projected. Again, sorry with the grammar, it must be late in the day or something.
Mr. Clugston: I do not exactly. The Madronna School is fairly nearby, and that's a large open space.
Hearing Examiner Rice: That's a public school?
Mr. Clugston: Yeah. Other than that, I'm not entirely sure.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Okay. Anything further from the applicant?
Mr. Parsaie: No, that's it.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Okay, I am going to get the traffic impact study; I do want to include that into the record. I've
already identified it as Exhibit Number 8.
Ms. Morgan: And also the storm drainage?
Hearing Examiner Rice: Yeah, I would also be happy to review because any information at this point would be more than I
have. I have the plans here, but if you have a storm drainage plan, like a report written by a storm drain engineer, that would
be something I'd like to see.
Ms. Morgan: We do have one
Hearing Examiner Rice: So let's go ahead and also make that an Exhibit. We'll make that Exhibit Number 9
Ms. Morgan: Who do we turn that into?
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Rice Transcripts
File Number P-2008-16
May 15, 2008 Page 12
Hearing Examiner Rice: To Mr. Clugston, and Mr. Clugston will get it to me. What I want to say is that you have that
document readily available.
Ms. Morgan: Well, and they do too, also.
Hearing Examiner Rice: So it can be provided to me in a relatively short period of time, so I don't feel like I need to hold
the record open for that.
Ms. Morgan: Okay.
Hearing Examiner Rice: I'm just going to close the record, noting that those two documents will be provided to me in a
timely fashion. So that's all from the applicant. Does the City have anything further.
Mr. Clugston: No.
Hearing Examiner Rice: Okay, then I think we're done and the record will close. We are adjourned. I will receive those
two documents from the City and they will be included. So again, ten business days from the close of the record. Thank you
very much.
I TESTIFY THAT THESE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS ARE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY
ABILITY TO TRANSCRIBE T14E PROCEEDINGS.
W % -�3- DS
Kazin 1466yes, Transcriber Date
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Rice Transcripts
File Number P-2008-16
May 15, 2008 Page ,r3