2001-12-06 Hearing Examiner MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
TRANSCRIPTS OF HEARING EXAMINER HEARING
File Numbers P-01-78/PRD-01-79 and AP-01-165
December 6, 2001
Mr. McConnell, the Hearing Examiner for the City, noted that this is a quasi-judicial hearing. Those wishing to speak must
do so in the microphone so that a complete recording of the hearing can be produced. He also advised that anyone wishing to
speak on the issue must provide their name and address and must be sworn in. He advised that his written decision would be
issued within two weeks after the close of the public hearing. He advised that this item would be a combined hearing for the
plat and PRD applications and the SEPA appeal. However, he will be issuing two separate reports: one for the plat and PRD
issues and one for the SEPA issue.
Mr. Steele inquired if it is acceptable to the Hearing Examiner if they have a single record for the hearing. Mr. McConnell
said that only one record would be kept of the two issues combined. He said he would have to sort through the hearing
himself and decide which comments relate to the SEPA appeal issue and which relate to the Planned Residential
Development (PRD) and plat application. However, Mr. Bullock advised that some things cannot be the same record
because SEPA appeal issues are not appealable to the City Council, only to the court. The PRD and plat issues are
appealable to the City Council. Therefore, a separate record will have to be created for each one. Mr. McConnell agreed,
and explained that while there is only one recorded record of the hearing, he will write two reports. Mr. McConnell clarified
that only the issues raised in the SEPA appeal, itself, will be part of the SEPA report. More issues can be addressed as part of
the PRD and plat applications.
Mr. Bullock clarified that today's hearing on the plat and PRD applications will lead to a recommendation by the Hearing
Examiner to the City Council. No decision has been made on the plat/PRD at this point in time, and any information that has
been submitted regarding the plat and PRD applications is considered testimony regarding this issue. There is no ability to
appeal what has happened to date on this issue because no decision has been made.
Mr. McConnell requested that staff start the hearing by making a brief presentation. He said he would like to give everyone
an opportunity to be heard before they leave the meeting today.
Steve Bullock, City of Edmonds Planning Department, swore to tell the truth. He asked that the following be entered into the
record as exhibits.
• Staff Report for AP-2001-165 as Exhibit A
• Staff report for P-2001-78 and PRD-2001-79 as Exhibit B
• Letter from Anita Lee as Exhibit C
• Letter from David and Joyce Dearden as Exhibit D
• Letter from Jean Drake as Exhibit E
• Letter from Jeff and Sharon Remington as Exhibit F
• Packet of information from the Talbot Group as Exhibit G (includes verbatim excerpt from November 5, 2001 City
Council Minutes, a declaration from Craig Mitchell, and a declaration from Jeffery Dunches)
Mr. Steele asked that staff provide him with copies of all of the exhibits that have been submitted to the record to date. He
indicated that he has already received Exhibits A and B.
First, Mr. Bullock reviewed the staff report related to SEPA (Exhibit A). He advised that the application for a formal plat
and a PRD are large enough projects that they require review by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). He noted that
only developments of four or fewer lots are exempt from this requirement. He explained that when the City staff reviews a
project under SEPA, they have a mandate to issue one of three determinations: a determination of non -significance (DNS), a
determination of significance (DS) or a mitigated decision of non -significance (MDS). When making any of these three
determinations, staff has to identify whether or not there are any probable significant impacts. If there are, staff is obligated
to issue a DS. If there is no probable significant impact, they are obligated to issue a DNS. If they feel that mitigation
measures can be applied to the project to resolve or address the potential impacts, they can issue a MDNS. In the State EPA
rules, Section 158 specifically addresses how cities are supposed to review projects under SEPA. This is in consideration of
the fact that cities and counties also have their own comprehensive plans. The EPA rules are specific in stating that if a city
already has development regulations in place that consider the potential negative impacts of the project and have ways of
minimizing or eliminating the impacts, they can rely on the code and comprehensive plan to take care of these issues. If
cities do not have comprehensive plan policies and codes in place to deal with these issues, they have the opportunity to use
SEPA to apply additional conditions through an MDNS condition or through requiring the applicant to go through a more
extensive environmental impact statement process.
Mr. Bullock advised that the City reviewed the subject application and found that for a project of this size the City has the
necessary codes in place to deal with issues such as critical areas, roadways, land use, drainage, aesthetics, etc. However,
staff has determined that the City does not have adequate codes in place to deal with the potential adverse impacts from the
additional traffic in the area. Therefore, staff has used the MDNS process to work with the applicant to come to an
agreement as to the traffic impact associated with this project. The proposed mitigating solution would require the applicant
to contribute their proportionate share of the impact to the City's traffic funds. Secondly, because of the new regulations
coming from the State and Federal Governments in regards to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and because upstream
development that has occurred throughout the years has significantly impacted the Perrinville Stream corridor, staff feels
there is a need to do some restoration of the stream. Staff felt that a project of this size would be a great opportunity for the
City to reserve this right to do whatever stream restoration projects are required to comply with federal mandates of the ESA
and to reestablish some of the endangered species fish ruby by requiring the applicant to grant an easement.
Mr. Bullock advised that tied to the stream issue is a master plan that was developed between the Snohomish County and
City of Edmonds Parks Departments for Southwest County Park. He advised that the master plan identifies how the park
should be developed in the future and includes the installation or removal of certain trails. The master plan identifies a
connection in the Perrinville Stream Ravine by way of a very low -impact walking trail from the north side of Southwest
County Park out to the Talbot neighborhood. He noted that the subject property controls a significant chunk of the
Perrinville Stream Ravine that goes between Southwest County Park and Talbot Road. He noted that the City does not have
any specific plans for creating the walkway or trail now. However, they are proposing, as a SEPA mitigation measure, that
the City reserve their right to do this at some point in the future. Since the subject property owner controls a significant
portion of that ravine, staff felt this would be an appropriate time to establish the easements or dedications so that at some
time in the future the City would have the ability to design and construct a project. He emphasized, however, that there are
no design plans in place for this project at this time. Any future plans would require the City to go through a public review
process.
Mr. Bullock noted that the appeal letter from the appellants (Attachment 11 of the staff report) provides some detail about the
things that they feel the environmental determination did not adequately address such as inconsistency with existing land
uses, inconsistency with the PRD criteria, significant light and glare problems, inconsistency with the critical areas on the
site, significant parking problems, drainage and water quality problems, noise problems, park access issues and visual
character and quality problems. He noted that additional letters reiterating these problems were included in the staff report.
He said the Planning Department feels the City code addresses all of the issues raised, and that the issues are related to the
code and not to SEPA appeal issues. Staff feels that the impacts associated with each one of the issues will be resolved by
the application of the code. Therefore, they do not feel that the issues are appropriate items to uphold an appeal on the SEPA
determination at this point in time.
Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-01 -78/PRD-01 -79 and AP-01-165
December 6, 2001 Page 2
Mr. Bullock said it is staff s conclusion that the traffic mitigation is an appropriate mitigation for the MDNS. Also, a
mitigation to require an easement to preserve the City's right and ability to do stream restoration is appropriate and prudent.
A mitigation measure that requires an easement or a dedication that preserves the City's ability to create and maintain a trail
in this area is appropriate and prudent. Staff feels that mitigation measures dealing with all of the other issues raised by the
appellant are more appropriately addressed by the City code and not through the SEPA appeal. Therefore, staff recommends
that the SEPA appeal be denied.
Mr. Bullock requested that the City's Parks and Recreation Director, Arvilla Ohlde, provide her comments regarding the
mitigation issues related to the park access and stream.
Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director, swore to tell the truth. She explained that as her role as Parks and Recreation
Director for the City of Edmonds she is responsible to look for opportunities to work with property owners or developers to
provide a benefit for the greater public good for habitat and stream restoration, protection and preservation. They look for
every opportunity that that they can find to protect the environment, provide education programs to the community and try to
work with the property owners and developers to come up with ways to provide access to streams and wetlands by using
access agreements, habitat corridors, conservation easements, etc. She noted that Perrinville Creek, a Class II Stream, is a
crucial part of the stormwater drainage that is associated with the Southwest County Park Master Plan. The master plan
identifies future social trails throughout the park that are designed to protect the environment, one of which would provide
access to Perrinville Creek from the northern portion of Southwest County Park. She advised that the proposed development
presents the City with an opportunity to create a social trail to provide a neighborhood benefit, as well as provide access to
Perrinville Creek for educational programs, recreation, restoration and repair. `
Ms. Ohlde summarized that her goals and responsibilities are clearly called out in the Comprehensive Park and Open Space
Plan. One of the goals and objectives of this plan is that she look for ways to preserve areas with critical and natural features
such as stream corridors, wildlife habitats and wetlands opportunities. That is why she has responded the opportunity that the
proposed development can provide. She noted that the proposal would have no adverse impact on any of the adjoining parks
or Perrinville Creek. She looks forward to working with the private partner to provide this opportunity to the community.
Ms. Bullock advised that Attachment 6 of the staff report has some excerpts from the Southwest County Mater Plan. There
are a few pages of text, and the fourth page provides a copy of the master plan map. He placed a note on that map showing
the connection with an arrow. Mr. Bullock said that there is a fairly heavy dashed line extending past the north property line
of the park. The legend identifies this as a proposed trail, first priority. The trail is further noted on the plan as saying "a trail
connection to proposed building development." Mr. Bullock suggested that this reference is one of the driving factors for the
City proposing the mitigation measure related to the stream.
Next, Mr. Bullock moved into his presentation regarding the plat and PRD applications (Exhibit B). He advised that the
subject property is a large lot that fronts on Cyrus Place. For reference, Mr. Bullock provided the entire site plan on an
overhead. He pointed out that the subject property identified within the perimeter boundaries is approximately 184,000
square feet. In looking at the picture shown on Page 3 of the staff report, the property is basically the large field area shown
in the center of the picture encroaching into the treed ravine area to the right of the picture. The most identifiable portion of
the property is the large colonial home, which is actually not part of the subject property being considered as part of the plat
and PRD applications. He explained that there is an easement across the subject property, subject to approval of the permit,
that would access this house. However, the land where the existing house is situated is not included as part of the
application. There are no dwelling units located on the subject property at this time.
Mr. Bullock advised that the subject property is located in an RS-20 zone. The PRD ordinance would allow a developer to
take the net developable area and divide it by the underlying zoning to determine the density allowed on the site. Mr.
Bullock called the Hearing Examiner's attention to the site plan submitted by the applicant (First Page of Attachment 4). He
noted the box in the lower center part of the plan, which shows the calculations used by the applicant to determine the density
of the subject property. He explained that the applicant has identified a gross area of a little more than 184,000 square feet
and a net total for developable area (the gross square footage minus the area that is set aside for vehicular access) of a little
more than 172,000 square feet. When the net developable area is divided by the minimum lot size required by the underlying
zone (20,000 square feet), the end result is 8.62 lots or units. Mr. Bullock noted that the PRD ordinance specifically allows
Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-01 -78/PRD-01 -79 and AP-01-165
December 6, 2001 Page 3
for the density to be rounded to the nearest whole number, which in this case is nine. The applicant is proposing a nine -lot
PRD.
Mr. Bullock referred to the site plan, which has eight of the lots clustered in the northwest corner of the site off a separate
access road. The ninth lot is located in the northeast corner. The applicant went into detail at the Architectural Design Board
(ADB) hearing to articulate some of the concepts behind the proposed site arrangement. The minutes from the ADB meeting
were included in the packet. The applicant pointed out that if the homes were to be moved east to the higher portion of the
site, they would be able to create some view properties. However, this would likely block the view of some of the
surrounding property owners. The applicant noted that the significant existing home has a fairly large and massive
dominating presence, and any home that is located close to the existing home should be somewhat compatible. The
applicant's solution was to cluster a majority of the homes in the northwest corner on the lowest part of the site to eliminate
the potential of blocking views for existing neighbors. The one lot located in the west corner is closer to the larger home and
that is why the applicant proposed a larger lot size. They envision the home on this lot to be more similar to the larger house,
whereas the other homes that are built will be a community unto themselves.
Mr. Bullock noted that the site plan takes the entire southwestern portion of the site out of consideration for development
because of the stream ravine. That is something that staff is very supportive of. Mr. Bullock explained that the stream
located in the ravine is a Class II stream and requires a buffer of 25 feet. The rest of the ravine has slopes of a significant
enough pitch that it meets the City's classification of a steep slope hazard area. This precludes development unless an
applicant goes through the exemption process and demonstrates that the correct types of soil are present and that there has
been no history of slides in the area, etc. The buffer for the steep slope hazard area starts out at 50 feet. However, with the
recommendation of a geotech, the buffer can be reduced to ten feet. The applicant has submitted the correct geotechnical
studies to support the reduction of the buffer to 10 feet.
Mr. Bullock advised that because the ravine is such a significant feature on the site in both size and depth, it protects the
stream even more than the buffer required by the stream classification. Staff supports the fact that when there are critical
areas that overlap, the one that can provide the most protection is what they want to use. At the same time, steep slope areas
do have the ability to be built on if they demonstrate the correct things. However, staff would rather consider a proposal that
stays away from the slope instead of getting to issues that are more argumentative and gray or fuzzy as to their impact. Mr.
Bullock concluded that the applicant has done an admirable job of staying away from the steep slope hazard area and the
stream. They would have had the opportunity to propose a site design that would have included development that encroached
into the steep slope area.
Next Mr. Bullock referred to the PRD criteria and noted that the project went before the ADB for review. They did not hold
a public review, but forwarded their recommendation to the Hearing Examiner (Page 6 and 7 of Exhibit B). The ADB's
recommendation includes the fact that they would like the chain link fence on the west boundary of the property to be
replaced by a six-foot tall solid wood fence. They also recommended that the Examiner include in his decision the same fit
and finish to the building on all sides. He noted that the elevations submitted by the applicant address the fronts of the
buildings, and they meet the ADB's criteria. The ADB wants to make sure that this same kind of treatment is carried
throughout the entire surround of the building. The ADB made some recommendations regarding the landscape plan, and
these recommendations have already been incorporated into the plan that was submitted. The ADB indicated that if the
engineering department would allow it, they would like the street that accesses the lower eight lots to be a "lane style road."
However, the Engineering Department has indicated that they would require the type of access that is identified on the
proposed plan. The ADB wanted the applicant to submit an elevation or section view that illustrates the impact of this
development from Cyrus Place. This document was also provided as Attachment 5 of Exhibit B and does a good job of
demonstrating how the proposed homes will be tucked into the landscape fairly tight. They will not block views or present a
massive presence to the neighborhood. They will be tastefully done and compatible with the neighborhood. The size and
bulk will not dominate, but will also not be out of character from a value or quality perspective.
Mr. Bullock reviewed the criteria called out in the current PRD code. He started with the guidelines that are identified as
specific guidelines and review criteria (Page 8 of Exhibit B). The first is that PRD's, in any zone, need to be consistent with
the neighborhood characteristics in maintaining the building heights of the underlying zone. Mr. Bullock advised that the
applicant has indicated that they are not asking for any variances to the height limit. They will comply with the height limits
of the underlying zoning. They are only proposing single-family development, as is allowed by the underlying zoning, and
Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-01 -78/PRD-01 -79 and AP-01-165
December 6, 2001 Page 4
the density is consistent with the underlying zoning as allowed by the PRD ordinance. Mr. Bullock noted that there are a
number of development standards that the applicant can change if the variance criteria can be met.
Mr. Bullock noted that the code currently requires two parking stalls per single-family lot. The homes proposed by the
applicant will have two -car garages, and the site plans indicate that they will all have an apron in front of the garage to
support an additional two parking stalls. It is staff s position that the applicant has provided more parking than is even
required by the underlying zoning. While the appellant has expressed concern about the availability of on -street parking, the
code makes no mention of this being a code requirement. It is staffs position that the applicant is compensating for this og
their own free will by providing additional parking on site.
Mr. Bullock advised that the open space requirement is 20 percent of the net developable land. Upon staff calculation, the
proposal does provide more than 20 percent of open space. The applicant has indicated that they will not be creating more
than the 35 percent lot coverage allowed in the underlying zone for the entire PRD as a whole. Mr. Bullock pointed out,
however, that because this is a PRD, the lot coverage would not be applied on a lot -by -lot basis, but on the development as a
whole. Staff will work with the applicant to create a spreadsheet to track the lot coverage as building permits are being
issued.
Mr. Bullock said the minimum distance between the buildings and exterior boundary lines needs to be maintained unless the
variance criteria is met. While the staff report indicates that the applicant did not request any change, that is only true for the
west, east and south property lines. However, Lots 8 and 9 (the two most northeastern lots) show a 15-foot setback where a
25-foot setback is required. After further conversation with the applicant, staff has recommended that this issue be addressed
in more detail. Therefore, staff has included as a condition of approval that these property lines be moved or that the variance
criteria be met. The applicants have indicated that Lot 9 would maintain a 25-foot setback. They will be submitting a
declaration for variance criteria to reduce this setback from 25 to 15 feet. He referred to a four -page document, which
outlines the applicant's arguments for compliance with the variance criteria in regards to the setback. Mr. McConnell entered
the document into the record as Exhibit H. Mr. Steele requested that a copy of the document be provided to the appellant, as
well.
Mr. Bullock referred to the four design concepts that are designated as acceptable for a PRD development. He said it appears
to staff that the proposed PRD makes use of design concepts B and C. Concept B has dwelling units clustered around a
common court, playground or recreational area. Concept C calls for common ownership of exterior spaces and community
facilities. In regard to parkland dedication, Mr. Bullock advised that the City does not have any ordinances in place to allow
them to make this requirement. However, they are using the SEPA process to require some easements or dedications that
would ultimately be for park and recreation type purposes.
Mr. Bullock advised that another criteria is that the uses be consistent with designs in the area in which it is located. He
pointed out that the proposed uses would be residential uses that are consistent in the residential zone. He noted that the PRD
ordinance only applies to projects of five or more lots. Since this project would have nine lots, it qualifies for the PRD
ordinance.
Mr. Bullock referred to PRD Criteria 040, which provides criteria to address the compatibility of the proposed project with
the neighborhood. He entered Exhibits I and J into the record and displayed each on the overhead. Mr. Bullock advised that,
using the assessor records, staff tried to identify all of the properties within the bounds of the map that had homes on them of
3,000 square feet or smaller (Exhibit I). The document also identifies the homes that are 2,500 feet or smaller. Using this
map, Mr. Bullock concluded that a fairly high percentage of the properties have homes that are 3,000 square feet or smaller.
The applicant has indicated that the homes that would be developed as part of the PRD would range from 2,200 to 2,500
square feet in size.
Next, Mr. Bullock advised that Exhibit J shows the assessed value of the structures on the property, and not the property as a
whole. The applicant plans to place homes that are plus or minus $300,000. The map identifies those properties that have
houses with an assessed structure value of $300,000 or less. He concluded that a number of properties on the map fit this
criteria. He advised that both of these exhibits lead staff to believe that the development, both from a land use, quality and
size standpoint, will be compatible with the existing neighborhood.
Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-01 -78/PRD-01 -79 and AP-01-165
December 6, 2001 Page 5
Mr. Bullock referred to PRD Criteria 050, which allows for onerous properties where unusual circumstances exist making it
difficult to develop on a lot -by -lot basis, to be considered for a PRD. It lists the items that would qualify for special
circumstances including groves of trees, streams, animal habitats, etc. Staff feels that due to the significant amount of the
property that is encumbered by the stream and stream ravine, it qualifies for a PRD. Mr. Bullock continued by stating that
this section requires that each project must demonstrate a clear benefit to the public by the adoption of the PRD. It talks
about the creation of beneficial open space, the preservation of natural features, additional public facilities, reduced density,
etc. He clarified that the way staff reviews Criteria C is that there must be clear demonstration of a benefit to the public.
However, an applicant is not required to meet all four of the public benefits listed. These were provided as examples of a
public benefit. An application could meet one of these benefits or something else that is not part of the list. Just using the
list, staff finds that at least two, and perhaps three, of the listed public benefits are being met by the proposed application.
The application would preserve the stream ravine and eliminate any potential for someone coming in and trying to get a steep
slope exemption to develop on a portion of the slope. This results in the preservation of a significant natural feature. Also,
the mitigation measure requiring the easement or dedication for the City to put in a trail through the ravine would increase the
opportunities for public access to the park from Talbot neighborhood. He noted that Attachment 3 provides significant
details regarding each of these public benefits.
Mr. Bullock referred to Page 10 of the staff report, which addresses the subdivision criteria. He explained that the first
criteria is related to environmental resources. He recalled that staff considers the stream and stream corridor/ravine to be a
significant environmental resource. The City relies on their critical areas ordinance to protect these areas and minimize
impacts. Staff feels that the current code adequately addresses this issue, and that is why they do not feel the need to rely on
SEPA to make any mitigation measures regarding these areas. He noted that the steep slope critical area requirements would
protect the stream even more than the stream buffer requirements would. Therefore, the only study the applicant needed to
do in regards to critical areas is locate the top of the steep slope and establish what the buffer needs to be. A geotechnical
report was submitted, and staff concurs with the report as presented. The top of the slope is very obvious and makes a very
substantial and sharp break. It is easy to apply the buffers from that line.
When considering the lot and street layout, Mr. Bullock advised that the engineering department and fire department have
found that the street layout is acceptable and will provide adequate access. The ADB and staff have both determined that the
lots would be large enough to build homes. Lot size and dimension requirements do not actually apply because these will be
resolved through the PRD process. The setbacks have already been addressed. With the exception of the one identified on
Lot 8, the applicant is generally proposing more setback than is required. The engineers report (Attachment 10) provides
further detail about the dedications that will be required of the applicant and the adequacy of the road design and utilities.
Mr. Bullock concluded his remarks by addressing the Comprehensive Plan issues (Pages 4 and 5 of the staff report). He
noted that the portions of the Comprehensive Plan that apply most to this project are those dealing with residential
development and topography. He referred to the goals and policies that were taken straight from the text of the
Comprehensive Plan that deal with the desire of residents in a development to protect views of existing homes, support stable
property values that will not be threatened by view, address traffic or land use encroachments, design and construct homes
with architectural designs that enable them to harmonize with their surroundings and add to community identity and
desirability. The ADB considered these issues and found that the project meets these goals and policies.
Mr. Bullock advised that the Comprehensive Plan specifically encourages the use of PRD's on properties where significant
benefits to the owner and the area can be demonstrated. In regards to soils and topography, the Comprehensive Plan
encourages development that respects topography and does not attempt to do massive amounts of grading to create building
pads. It encourages the use of techniques to minimize erosion and instability. With the majority of the homes being located
on the low side of the property and designed to step up the topography (as demonstrated in Attachment 5), staff feels that the
proposal will work with the existing topography of the land and respect the slopes on the remainder of the site. This also
protects the views for existing adjacent homes.
John Bissell, John Bissell and Associates, 19239 Aurora Avenue North, Shoreline, WA 98133, swore to tell the truth. He
complimented staff on their thorough presentation of the staff report. He said he has no comments that would contradict
what the staff has already presented. Most of the arguments are clearly in the record already through the statements made at
the ADB meeting (see attached minutes) and the submittals made and included in the staff report regarding the project's
compliance with the criteria for a PRD and the maps that were submitted.
Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-01 -78/PRD-01 -79 and AP-01-165
December 6, 2001 Page 6
First, Mr. Bissell referred to the issues regarding the project's compatibility with surrounding areas. The comments in the
record from the neighborhood groups express a lot of concern with compatibility, and Mr. Bullock expressed those issues
well. However, one issue that is spoken to frequently is the relatively small lots that are being proposed. He agreed that the
site areas are relatively small. He explained that the subject property is zoned RS-20, and the citizens have expressed
concern that the lots, themselves, will not be 20,000. However, the density proposed is the same as if the lots were 20,000
each, but the building sites are in a different arrangement. He suggested that it is difficult to determine the exact size of an
adjacent property owner's lot. By the arrangement of the house, the gardens, the geometry of the lot, etc. the lot could either
appear larger or smaller than it really is. What you perceive in a neighborhood is the density. The proposed project is in
compliance with the density of an RS-20 zone. They propose to put the houses at the bottom of the hillside to try and reduce
the impact to view, slope, stream, etc. Because the houses will be at a lower elevation, as demonstrated by Attachment 5 of
the staff report, the houses will be less visible. What will be more visible from the surrounding area is the open space hillside
area. He concluded that what the neighborhood is really concerned about is the impact of the density and the visual
appearance. The proposed site plan will appear as more open space than if they were to develop in actual 20,000 square foot
lots. Therefore, the applicant believes that they have complied with the compatibility issue in that regard.
Mr. Bissell said the neighborhood groups have also expressed concern that the houses will be small. The houses will be
between 2,200 and 2,500 square feet, and as illustrated on Exhibit I, there are many houses in the neighborhood that are
equivalent in size. It is likely that the houses will be marketed somewhere between $400,000 and $600,000 without any
views. He suggested that considering that houses in the neighborhood are valued from $300,000 to several million dollars,
the valuation of the higher priced properties includes the extraordinary views. The proposed houses will be placed at the
bottom of the hillside rather than taking advantage of the potential views to allow the neighborhood to preserve their existing
views. He concluded that the houses proposed on the site would be well-built homes that are compatible in valuation with
the houses in the surrounding area.
Mr. Bissell said that from a density standpoint, the proposed density is appropriate for the surrounding area. They are
proposing houses that are valued appropriate with the surrounding area, as well. He referred to Exhibit I which clearly shows
the lighter yellow areas being RS-20 zone and the darker yellow as RS-12. It is clear that the subject property is bounded on
the east side by an RS-12 zone. The proposed density is appropriate for the RS-20 zone, which is lower than what is found
on the east side. In addition, many of the properties developed to the south of the proposed project on Frederick Place, were
developed as RS-12 lots prior to the adoption of the RS-20 zone in that area. The reality is that the density will be less than a
lot of development in the surrounding area.
Mr. Bissell referred to Page 4 of Exhibit A, in which the appellants have argued that the proposed project is inconsistent with
the existing land use. However, the existing land use is single-family residential with a density of 20,000 and 12,000 square
feet. He pointed out that the proposed project is in compliance with both of those zones. Also, Mr. Bissell suggested that
this is a plat issue rather than a SEPA issue as argued by the appellant.
Mr. Bissell recalled that the appellant has argued, in the SEPA appeal, that the proposal is inconsistent with the PRD criteria.
Mr. Bissell said it is obvious that this is a PRD and plat issue rather than a SEPA issue, and the information that has been
submitted has proven that the proposed project is consistent with the PRD criteria.
Mr. Bissell advised that the appellant has argued that there will be significant light and glare problems, which mystifies him.
He noted that the proposal is for single-family residential development at a density that would be equal to or less than the
surrounding properties, and they are not proposing any commercial uses or light standards that will shine into other houses.
They are proposing just houses. The lighting glare from the houses will be equivalent to any other house. Typically, porch
and room lights are not found to cast shadows onto other properties.
THERE IS A SHORT SPACE OF TIME WHEN THE TAPE APPARENTLY WAS NOT RECORDING BECAUSE MEG
IS TESTING AT THE BEGINNING OF TAPE TWO AND THEN MR. BISSELL IS ALL OF A SUDDEN TALKING
ABOUT CRITICAL AREAS. I JUST PICKED UP WHERE THE TAPE STARTED, BUT I KNOW THAT SOME
INFORMATION IS PROBABLY MISSING.
Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-01 -78/PRD-01 -79 and AP-01-165
December 6, 2001 Page 7
Mr. Bissell advised that there are two critical areas on the site: the stream and the ravine, and the proposal would not
encroach into the ravine in any way. A geotechnical report has been submitted stating that the slope is stable, and that the
buffer from the critical area can be reduced. Staff has concurred with that report. Furthermore, the site is bisected by the
slope. The western and eastern portions are somewhat flat, but in between these two portions is a slope. The slope is not
steep enough to be considered a critical area. However, the subdivision guidelines strongly encourage developers to work
with the topography. Therefore, the site has been designed to stay away from the slope as much as possible. Not only are
they protecting critical areas to a greater extent than required by the code, they are trying to preserve other natural features on
the site that are not protected by the critical areas ordinance.
Mr. Bissell recalled that the appellants have stated their belief that there will be significant parking problems, but the staff has
adequately addressed that issue. The code requires two parking stalls per dwelling unit and the proposal provides two
parking stalls in the garage and at least two additional parking spaces in the driveway. This is greater than what the code
requires and it is unlikely that there would be any parking issues.
Mr. Bissell said the appellant has expressed concern that there will be significant drainage and water quality problems.
However, the applicant feels that drainage and water quality issues are not going to be increased or modified by moving the
houses closer or further apart. The houses are set closer together than the appellants would like, which is their argument
regarding density, but what matters in drainage and water quality is the percentage of impervious surface and how much of it
is being impacted by vehicles where water quality can be affected by oil, sediment or erosion problems. If the applicant were
to do a standard plat that separates the houses further apart, the impacts to water quality would be same if not greater. If the
houses were further apart, greater driveway lengths would be required resulting in more impervious surface. If they were to
propose larger houses, there would also be greater impervious surface. Because the houses are clustered together and moved
closer to Cyrus Place, the impact to water quality and drainage would be reduced. Furthermore, Mr. Bissell advised that the
applicant has proposed water quality and retention facilities in compliance with the City and State Department of Ecology
requirements to mitigate the impacts to both volume and water quality.
Mr. Bissell said the appellants have stated their belief that there will be significant park access problems. Mr. Bissell said his
understanding is that they are concerned about the City's suggestion that the applicant should place a trail in the critical area
near the creek to try and access Talbot Park. He said they don't have an issue with this option either way. He noted that the
trail in the critical area is not part of the applicant's proposal. If the City and neighborhood group feel that it is a good idea to
place the trail in the critical area, the applicant would support the effort and write the easement in such a way as to allow the
City to do that. However, it is important to note that the trail was proposed by the City, and not by the applicant. He
concluded that because the City believes this is an important issue, the applicant does not recommend that the SEPA
determination be amended. However, doing so would not adversely impact the project.
Mr. Bissell advised that the ADB made several recommendations for the applicant to follow, as noted on Pages 6 and 7 of
Exhibit B. The applicant concurs with these recommendations. He explained that while the applicant philosophically
concurs with the ADB's recommendation of reducing the road width to make it look more like a lane, the fire department
does not agree. They would be strongly opposed to reducing the width of the road, and the applicant supports the safety
issues that have been identified.
Lastly, Mr. Bissell referred to the issue of the setback variance. He pointed out that the applicant interpreted the setback
requirements differently than the City staff. He advised that they intend to provide a 25-foot setback on Lot 9 even though
the site plan indicates a 15-foot setback off of Cyrus Place. However, they intend to seek a variance for the setback
requirements on Lot 8. He referred to his arguments explaining how the proposal complies with the criteria for modification
of the setback for Lot 8. He said it is clear that special circumstances such as steep slope, views, etc, exist on the site. He
further explained that it may be possible to provide a minimum 25-foot setback on Lot 8, but not with the site arrangement as
proposed. If they were to try and provide the required setback, Lots 7 and 8 would have to move south and Lots 5 and 6
would have to move east. Moving Lots 5 and 6 further up the slope would cause the peaks of the homes to be greater than
the top of the hill and this would impact the view of neighboring properties. It would also require that the development
encroach into the hillside. He concluded that if they were to take a 25-foot setback in Lot 8 in its current configuration they
would be unable to construct a building that was compatible in size, dimension and quality with the surrounding area.
Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-01 -78/PRD-01 -79 and AP-01-165
December 6, 2001 Page 8
Mr. Bissell concluded by stating that all of the application materials have shown that the project complies with all of the
criteria of a PRD and plat, and that the SEPA determination, as issued by staff, is in compliance with the City and State
SEPA requirements. They believe that the staff s recommendation for approval of the project is correct.
Gerald Steele, 2545 Northeast 95' Street, Seattle 98115, noted that the Hearing Examiner is getting lenient in asking people
to swear to tell the truth. He suggested that for the convenience of avoiding the problem in the future he should have
everyone who is going to speak swear at one time. Mr. McConnell asked that everyone who was going to speak agree in
unison to tell the truth in their testimony. All present agreed.
Mr. Steele requested that staff clarify some of their previous comments. He said Mr. Bullock referred to Attachment 6 of
Exhibit A, which is the Southwest County Park Plan pages. He testified that on Page 65 of that document, which is also a
map labeled Southwest County Park Master Plan, staff had handwritten the word "connection" with an arrow. Mr. Bullock
advised that these words referred to the "trail connection to proposed building development." Mr. Steele said he has a larger
copy from the Southwest County Park Master Plan, and he wanted to get the exact wording correct. After looking at the
larger map, Mr. Bullock agreed that the words should read, "trail connection to proposed housing development." Mr.
McConnell identified the maps from the Southwest County Park Master Plan as Exhibit K.
Mr. Steele advised that since the note on the map was related to a proposed housing development, that would mean it was not
specific to the Talbot Park neighborhood. He noted that the map was done in 1992, and the Talbot Park neighborhood was
well in existence in 1992. Mr. Steele referred to Mr. Bullock's previous statement that the trail identified on the map was
intended to be a connection to the Talbot Park neighborhood. However, Mr. Steele suggested that this is a connection to a
proposed housing development, and not the Talbot Park neighborhood. Mr. Steele inquired if Mr. Bullock did any research
to find out what proposed housing development the trail was intended to connect to. Mr. Bullock answered that the Master
Plan does not specifically state which housing development the trail was intended to connect to. Mr. Steele agreed, but
suggested that a review of the record would provide this information.
Mr. Steele asked Ms. Ohlde if she knew what proposed housing development the park plan refers to. Ms. Ohlde said she
does not know a specific development, but in the narrative of the Master Plan (Page 57), the exact words are "connection to a
proposed housing development." She said that this is a basic reference. She said she has no recollection of a development
that was proposed or planned. This is a generic word for a connector. Mr. Steele pointed out that Ms. Ohlde was on the
committee that proposed the Southwest County Park Master Plan. He noted that there were three proposed schemes being
considered. He inquired what scheme the master plan was based on. Ms. Ohlde answered that the master plan was based on
a combination of all three schemes, however the Committee liked the theme of Scheme B the best.
Mr. Steele inquired if any environmental review was done as part of the master plan process. Ms. Ohlde said the master plan
process included environmental review (soils, vegetation, habitat). Mr. Steele inquired if a public review and hearing was
held regarding the proposed alternatives. Ms. Ohlde said that a public hearing for the recommended master plan was held
before the Planning Board, but a public hearing was not held regarding each of the various schemes that were considered.
Mr. Steele noted that Exhibit K includes all three schemes and the final Master Plan, as well as other maps. He noted that the
proposed connection is not on any of the schemes. Somehow, it came up in the public comment period that there should be a
connection to a proposed housing development, but the advisory Board did not propose this. He noted, for the record, that
staff does not have any idea as to what housing development the trail was being connected to.
Mr. Steele recalled that he spoke with Mr. Bullock last week at which time he asked if it was one of the purposes of the PRD
ordinance to increase development density over a standard subdivision. Mr. Bullock said that he advised, at that time, that
PRD's do not increase density in a zone, and increased density is not a purpose of the PRD ordinance.
Mr. Steele said that he has a few pages of additional questions and comments about the testimony heard this morning thus
far, but it might serve best to move into the appellant's more organized testimony to get their position out in the open. He
said he would do the cross examination at the end of his testimony.
Mr. Steele provided a copy of the outline that he intends to follow for his presentation. Mr. McConnell identified the outline
as Exhibit L. Mr. Steele summarized that the Talbot Group is a large group of people who live in the Talbot Park
Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-01 -78/PRD-01 -79 and AP-01-165
December 6, 2001 Page 9
neighborhood and the surrounding areas. Many members of this group live adjacent to the proposed project and are present
to testify. They request that the Hearing Examiner deny the project without prejudice because they will show that it does not
meet the zoning code requirements to be compatible and consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and because it offers
no clear public benefit beyond that offered by a standard subdivision. The proposal should also be denied because it does not
offer a design concept that is consistent with the City code. Mr. Steele said they believe that a project with four or five units
could be designed for this site that would be compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Steele said they have also appealed the
MDNS, and are asking that the two MDNS conditions be modified if the project is not denied. In addition, they are going to
demonstrate that there are additional probable significant impacts that need to be mitigated, and they are going to suggest
mitigation for each.
Mr. Steele said that one of the appellant's major PRD issues is the lack of compatibility and consistency of the PRD with the
neighborhood. He provided clean copies of the PRD code sections. Mr. McConnell identified the PRD code sections as
Exhibit M. Mr. Steele said that one of the sections they are specifically going to speak to is 20.3 5.04O.C. 1. This section
gives the Hearing Examiner the review criteria for a PRD. Mr. Steele clarified that the Hearing Examiner is taking the
recommendation from the ADB, the staff's recommendation and the public hearing input to make a recommendation on the
ADB review, the PRD application and the plat application to the City Council. The Hearing Examiner will also make a
decision regarding the SEPA appeal.
Mr. Steele advised that the subdivision criteria is very straight forward, but the PRD criteria is discretionary and provides a
lot of latitude to decide whether the PRD should be allowed or not. The review criteria under Section 20.35.040.0 states that
the Hearing Examiner and City Council shall review the criteria of this chapter and the following additional factors. The first
of the factors to be reviewed is compatibility with the existing and planned use in the nearby area. He noted that the PRD is
being applied to a residential development, but the existing and planned land use also includes the density and arrangement of
development, the setbacks, and all other features of the development.
Mr. Steele said the second section speaks very similarly (Section 20.35.060.A.1) and outlines the specific design
requirements and criteria for the single-family residential zone. It states that this area of the City is identified as single-
family residential and every PRD in this zone shall be consistent with the neighborhood characteristics. He concluded that a
PRD development proposal must be consistent with the neighborhood characteristics and compatible with the existing land
use patterns. He said these are the key elements that the appellant believes the proposed project does not satisfy. Mr. Steele
said if this were a project in a neighborhood that had a number of PRD's with pockets of high density development or a
relatively undeveloped neighborhood, the proposed project would perhaps be more compatible. But this is a highly
developed neighborhood without any housing clusters in the RS-20 zone.
Mr. Steele presented a plat map for the original Talbot Park Subdivision and Mr. McConnell identified the document as
Exhibit N. Mr. Steele noted that in June of 2001 there was a lot boundary adjustment. Prior to that time the lots were as they
are shown on the original subdivision. Mr. McConnell identified the boundary line adjustment for the subject site as Exhibit
O. Mr. Steele referred to a picture that the applicant provided in the County's file showing lots that are less than 12,000
square feet. Mr. Bullock clarified that this document was a study project that he completed. It is in the City's file. Mr.
McConnell entered the map showing lots fewer than 12,000 square feet in size as Exhibit P.
Mr. Steele said that based on these new exhibits as well as other documents that have been submitted, the appellant has
drawn some maps of the immediate nearby area that show the issues they want to bring forward more clearly. Mr.
McConnell identified the six maps of the Talbot Park Neighborhood as Exhibit Q. Mr. Steele pointed out that the base map
was taken off of the City's GIS system. The City prepared the map for them, but they added labeling to make it clearer. He
noted that according to a resident of the area, the City's base map is wrong. Perrinville Creek takes a different route than
shown on the map. While this is not important to the issue at hand, it would be nice for the City's GIS map to be corrected as
shown on the map the appellants provided. Mr. McConnell identified the corrected stream path map as Exhibit R.
Mr. Steele referred to the maps identified as Exhibit Q. He said the first map shows the RS-20 zone that is near the project as
it appeared up to June of this year. The project is on a portion of Lots 83, 84 and 85, and these are original Talbot Park lots.
To the right of the project is the RS-12 zone, but the appellant does not consider this part of the neighborhood because it is a
different zoning category. The upper zoning boundary is Puget Sound. Mr. Steele said the second map is a printout from the
Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-01 -78/PRD-01 -79 and AP-01-165
December 6, 2001 Page 10
City's GIS system and shows the square footage of the lots that are identified on the previous map. He noted that there is one
missing, but it is about the same size as the one next to it. Mr. Bullock inquired if the staff person providing the map to Mr.
Steele actually told him that the numbers on the map are the lot areas. Mr. Steele answered that he got the maps from Jeff
Hall, who communicated with the staff to obtain the information. Mr. Bullock advised that when staff gives out this type of
information, they do not make the indication that the numbers are absolute or correct. None of the area has been surveyed,
etc. Mr. Steele said he understands that the information in the GIS system may be somewhat wrong, but in the context he is
using the information (to show the characteristics of the neighborhood) the information is very useful. It is easy to look at the
size of the lots with your eye and estimate the square footage.
Mr. Steele advised that the third map is the same as the first map except it shows the boundary adjustment that occurred in
June of 2001, which created Lots A and B out of Talbot Park Lots 83 and 84. He noted that it was the owner of this property
who built the house on Lot B and who chose this very strange lot split. By choosing this strange lot split, they put themselves
into their own mess. If a variance is needed, one of the reasons to oppose the variance is that they created the strange lot
themselves making it difficult for them to develop their property. He noted that Section 20.85.010 speaks about how special
circumstances should not be predicated on any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same
property. The owner should have to deal with what they have.
Mr. Steele said the fourth map shows the nine lots that are being created by the subdivision. He said he looked at the staff
submittal and the applicant's submittal for quite a while before he could see the nine lots. The map on the overhead shows
building areas and does not show lots. When you look at the map that shows the lots, the boundaries gerrymander. If you
compare the lot configuration that is being proposed for this project to the lot configuration shown on Page 4 of Exhibit Q,
you won't see any lots in the neighborhood that are similar to these lots. Just about all eight lots in the cluster get a piece of
the critical area or its buffer. They all stretch down to this area in very strange ways, and the appellants consider that to be an
obvious example of incompatibility of this project with the surrounding neighborhood. There is nothing like this in the
existing neighborhood.
Mr. Steele referred to the fifth map, which cross hatches the lots that are the existing and proposed lots that are less than
14,285 square feet. He suggested that staff Exhibit P has an error because where the appellant's map shows an existing lot of
less than 14,285 square feet the staff is showing the whole triangle as small. If you look at the print out of areas from Map 2
of Exhibit Q you can see the actual square foot areas and the shape of the lots, as well. The triangle shows lots of 11,000 and
17,000 square feet. Therefore, there is only one lot in the neighborhood that is less than 14,285 and the proposed project
would create six of their nine lots smaller than this area. They consider not only the lot shape to be incompatible, but the lot
size, as well.
Mr. Steele recalled that he asked staff if it was the purpose of the PRD ordinance to increase the density on a parcel. The
answer was no. Mr. Steele said he is a civil engineer with experience in laying out subdivisions. He provided an illustration
of a subdivision concept that created the most lots that could be created using the three criteria in the standard subdivision
ordinance (ECDC 16.20.030—Table of Site Development Standards). The first criteria is that the lots have to be at least
20,000 square feet. Second, the lots have to be a minimum of 100 feet wide. Third, there has to be a building site on a new
subdivision lot. He said the map notes the edge of the native growth protection easement and the stream path and identifies
the buffer and setback requirements. He said that where lots 4a and 5a are located, there is insufficient building area to get
more than two lots. Lots la, 2a and 3a were drawn as close to 20,000 as possible. He concluded that when meeting all of the
criteria, only five lots could be created on the site. He noted that if the owners had not configured Lot B the way they did,
they could have gotten more lots on the site. He did not feel they should be able to obtain a variance to make up for their
previous choice for a lot line. Mr. Steele concluded that if an engineer could review this site and recommend that five lots are
possible while still meeting all of the subdivision criteria, the appellant would support five lots whether it is done as a PRD or
a standard subdivision. He said it is impossible to put more than five lots on the site and meet the criteria.
Mr. Steele referred to Mr. Bissell's statement that people notice density when they drive through a neighborhood. Mr. Steele
agreed and said that people are certainly going to notice the cluster of density created by placing eight houses on
approximately one acre of property in a zone that requires nearly a half an acre per lot. Mr. Steele advised that neighbors
from the area will be present to testify that from their homes they will be able to see all of the proposed new houses. Mr.
Steele said that as you drive down Cyrus Place, you first see the big house upon the hill and then the ravine area with a layer
of trees. Next, is the meadow where the proposed development would be placed. He suggested that putting eight houses on
Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-01 -78/PRD-01 -79 and AP-01-165
December 6, 2001 Page 11
this one -acre meadow would appear as a multi -family development. He advised that while he is not opposed to the
development of eight homes on an acre in more dense zones within the City, it is not appropriate in an RS-20 zone.
Mr. Steele suggested that when the houses are clustered, the impacts (noise, night light, etc.) are also concentrated in a small
area. When the development is spread out over the entire site, it is compatible with the larger lots in the rest of the
neighborhood. If a standard subdivision process were used, the applicant would be required to follow the rules because they
would be unable to get a variance since they were involved in creating the lot lines. It is the way the two lots were split, and
not the native growth protection area, that is causing the problem. Mr. Steele emphasized that if the developer could only get
five lots with a standard subdivision, they should not be allowed more than five lots with a PRD either. The PRD should not
be allowed to increase the density. Mr. Steele said that issues related to noise, glare, etc. will be brought up later on as a
SEPA issue, but these issues are referenced now because they create some of the problems associated with density. The
proposed project would create a bright and noisy area that is inconsistent with the neighborhood characteristics.
Mr. Steele advised that parking is another issue of concern. Because there are 20,000 square foot lots characterizing the
neighborhood, people have plenty of room for parking on those lots and in the street. He explained that Dale Chin, who lives
on Cyrus Place, was asked to complete a survey of the street and identify the number of parking spaces a typical house on
Cyrus Place has (including the garage, driveway and street in front of the house).
Dale Chin, 7929 Cyrus Place, said that there are nine properties on Cyrus Place that have current housing located on site.
They counted the potential amount of parking available in the garage, driveway and some on -street parking. The typical
house on Cyrus Place house has about 11 parking spaces. He explained that the driveways are fairly wide and long and can
accommodate a lot of vehicles.
Mr. Steele said he reviewed the staff report that indicates that each of the proposed houses would have four parking spaces —
two in the garage and two in the driveway —and there is no parking in the interior street tract. After allowing space for each
of the road accesses and for fire hydrants, etc. there would only be about 12 on -street parking spaces available along Cyrus
Place in front of the proposed development. These parking spaces would be shared by ten homes, including the one existing
home that is located on the site. Therefore, he concluded that a typical house in the proposed project would have access to
five parking spaces. When people have events at their homes, all of the surrounding neighborhood will be filled with street
parking as well. Because the proposed project would have significantly less parking, it is incompatible with the
neighborhood characteristics.
Mr. Steele introduced Diane Azar, 8202 Talbot Road, who did some research where she asked the current owners how old
their homes were. Ms. Azar said that the neighborhood is characterized by custom homes that were built at different times
and have residents of a variety of ages. The neighborhood is not characterized by tracts of homes that were all built at the
same time. She provided a map showing the dates that most of the homes were built. Mr. McConnell identified the map
showing the age of homes as Exhibit S.
Mr. Steele summarized that the neighborhood is characterized by custom homes built one at a time and not tracts where all of
the houses were built at the same time. He suggested that this is a significant feature that makes this neighborhood special.
Again, he stated that a PRD is probably a less satisfactory solution because it is not consistent with neighborhood
characteristics. However, they would likely not oppose a PRD if it were for five units instead of nine.
Mr. Steele referred to Mr. Bissell's comment that impact to drainage would be the same as with a standard subdivision.
However, Mr. Steele said he does not find this to be true because a standard subdivision would only have four or five lots and
the proposed PRD would have nine lots. Therefore, the impact to drainage would be significantly more than would a
standard subdivision. Mr. Steele noted that Mr. Bissell has identified that the applicant is not proposing a trail through the
ravine. Mr. Steele advised that this afternoon he would explain why the appellants are very much opposed to a trail through
the ravine.
Mr. Steele responded to the exhibits that were submitted by staff in an attempt to show that the project was compatible. They
presented Exhibits I and J to support their statements. Mr. Steele agreed that the project is compatible on the two issues
presented in the exhibits. But according to the PRD ordinance, the proposal needs to be compatible on all issues. Mr. Steele
questioned why staff shows homes of less than 3,000 square feet on Exhibit I when all of the proposed homes will be less
Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-01 -78/PRD-01 -79 and AP-01-165
December 6, 2001 Page 12
than 2,500 square feet. He said he suspects the reason this was included is that if you look at the houses less than 2,500
square feet in the light yellow zoning (the RS-20 zone) there are only nine. That is the number of homes that are being
proposed in the project. Mr. Steele suggested that if the number had been lowered to 2,200 square feet a number of the
homes would have been eliminated. Mr. Steele concluded that the proposed homes are at a size that is not really
characteristic with the rest of the neighborhood.
Mr. Steele said he read in the project data that there were two floor plans proposed with houses of 1,800 square feet. He
questioned if there is any condition in the PRD that the houses will be at least 2,200 square feet. Mr. Bullock advised that
this information was based on testimony from the applicant. He said he does not remember any previous testimony
indicating that some of the houses would only be 1,800 square feet. Mr. Bissell responded that at no time has the applicant
proposed units of less than 2,000 square feet, and their target is 2,200 to 2,500 square feet.
Mr. Steele referred to Exhibit J which identifies houses with an assessed structure value of less than $300,000. Mr. Steele
said he is unclear as to the purpose of this document. They have received testimony that the houses being built will sell for
between $400,000 to $600,000. and he has a hard time believing that the value would make up this significant difference. He
said he suspects that these houses will end up with an accessed value above $300,000.
MR. McCONNELL ADJOURNED THE MEETING FOR A LUNCH BREAK AT 12:25 P.M. THE MEETING WAS
RECONVENED AT 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Steele referred to Page 2 of his outline (Exhibit L). He said the second major issue of why the PRD should be denied
without prejudice is that the appellants believe they can show that the PRD does not provide a clear benefit to the public as is
required. He noted ECDC Section 20.35.050.C, which states, "Each project must demonstrate there is a clear benefit to the
public by adoption of the proposed PRD site such as ..." Then four different conditions are listed. He explained that this
section could be interpreted in two different ways. Either the applicant must come up with one of the four or they must come
up with something else that is as substantial as one of the four. Upon review of the proposal, Mr. Steele said the appellants
do not feel the PRD would provide any clear benefit to the public. The benefit would be to the developer because he would
be allowed to construct nine homes instead of the five allowed with a standard subdivision.
Mr. Steele said the appellants interpret this language as requiring a PRD to provide more benefit to the public than would a
standard subdivision. He recalled that State law also requires that there be a benefit to the public in order for a standard
subdivision to be approved. Usually, that benefit to the public is producing houses. He said he does not think the PRD
benefit to the public is as simple as building a lot of houses. It needs to be something that is truly beneficial to the
neighborhood. Mr. Steele said the appellants believe that not only does the project have no public benefit; it would
substantially harm the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Steele said it has been argued that the preservation of the ravine is the creation of beneficial open space. However, this is
supposed to be something the PRD provides, not something that is already required by code. The section of the code related
to critical areas and geologically hazardous areas requires this protection. He referenced ECDC 20.15.B.I IO.C.2 which states,
"Any landslide hazard area and its buffer, which combined are greater than one acre in size, shall be placed in a critical areas
tract for any proposed master plan development, subdivision, short subdivision, planned residential development, etc." He
concluded that this provision actually requires that the landslide hazard area and its buffer be placed in a tract, and the
proposed project merely places an easement on this property. Mr. Steele suggested, therefore, that the proposal is
inconsistent with the code requirements. Furthermore, Mr. Steele pointed out that Subsection D states, "No development or
alteration shall be allowed in steep slope hazard areas unless the City grants an exemption or exception pursuant to a section
of variance ..." Mr. Steele said none of the items listed as reasons for a variance are applicable to the proposed project. He
said that when a subdivision is created, a buildable site is required on each lot. There is no opportunity to build in the critical
areas when creating a subdivision.
Mr. Steele summarized that the steep slope buffer is required to be a tract. However, the applicant is proposing that each of
the eight lots will have a piece of the critical area with an easement to protect the trees. Mr. Steele emphasized that no
development would be allowed in this area with a standard subdivision, either. Therefore, there is no creation of beneficial
open space. He noted the only other possible beneficial open space is the little triangle of land. However, the second to the
last page of the staff report (Exhibit B) shows the landscaping plan for the dense cluster and useable open space. He noted
Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-01 -78/PRD-01 -79 and AP-01-165
December 6, 2001 Page 13
that the usable open space is almost the size of a buffer and is not a really large area (about 50 to 60 feet across). He said he
suspects that if the project were developed into standard lots, it would have more open space than the proposed PRD. The
open space that is proposed does not provide a benefit to the public —only to the people who own those lots. Therefore, he
concluded that the triangle open space is of no benefit to the public and the native growth protection easement area is
something that would be required with or without a PRD.
Next, Mr. Steele referred to the proposed trail in the ravine, which is opposed by the neighborhood. Because it is being
opposed, it certainly cannot be considered a public benefit as the applicant suggests. Further, Mr. Steele advised that the
project would not result in any public trail because the easement would not connect to anything outside of the site where the
public has access. The proposal is for a potential easement right for a public trail through the site, but the public does not
have access to the trail. Therefore, it cannot be identified as a public benefit.
Mr. Steele said the applicant has identified another benefit of the PRD as being the preservation of significant natural
features. However, the critical area is already preserved by the critical areas ordinance. The proposed PRD does not preserve
significant natural features beyond what would be required with a standard subdivision.
Mr. Steele said that the last possible public benefit listed in the code is the reduction of density. This subsection states, "The
proposed PRD density will be compared with the City of Edmonds Planning Department staff position as to the actual
maximum number of dwelling units reasonably likely using the underlying zoning." This can be interpreted to mean the
number of lots that would be allowed using a standard subdivision. He concluded that the density is not being reduced, and
cannot be considered as a public benefit.
Mr. Steele concluded that there is no clear benefit to the public by adoption of the PRD. He said the suggestions otherwise
by the staff and the applicant are public relations. He said that if the PRD were reduced to five homes and usable open space
on the site had public access, then the project likely could be found to have a clear benefit to the public.
Mr. Steele said the appellants will be asking that conditions related to the PRD application be added to the MDNS at a later
time. They would like the PRD to have an explicit condition requiring that the conditions of the MDNS will be met. He
said he does not know of any code language in the City that would constrain the developer to meeting the MDNS conditions,
and he would like this to be a clear condition in the PRD approval.
Mr. Steele said the appellant's last issue for why the project should be denied comes from ECDC 20.35.060.D.5 which was
provided as part of Exhibit M. This section states, "The following items may be changed if the applicant meets the
requirements for a variance as to each item." It also states, "All projects may propose concepts such as..." While this
section is not clearly understood, the concept involved is that the there has to be a design concept to the PRD that makes it
something compatible and special and consistent with the neighborhood. Various options were offered as ideas. The staff
has suggested that Items B and C are the items that the proposed project complies with. Mr. Steele said he does not find
anything in the plan that could be called greenbelts, community buildings or recreational facilities a identified in Item A.
Item B would involve dwellings units clustered around a common court, playground or recreational area. Mr. Steele noted
that the units are clustered around a street turn around and a landscape area that is very tiny. He did not think that this area
would meet the definition of a common court or recreation area. Therefore, the proposed project has no common court or
recreation area.
Further, Mr. Steele noted that Item C refers to common ownership of exterior spaces and community facilities. He pointed
out that the only area of common ownership is out in the street, which does not meet the definition and intent of a community
facility. He concluded that there is no common ownership of the triangular open space or ravine area because it is all
identified as individual easements. Mr. Steele said the proposed project does not meet the requirements of Item D either
because there is no significant portion of the subject property that would be held in common ownership.
Mr. Steele summarized by stating that the appellants do not believe the applicant has met the concepts they have identified.
Nor have they offered anything else that would meet the design concept requirements identifying the proposal as a superior
project. He concluded that since the proposed project does not use any of the listed design concepts, does not qualify for a
variance, does not add any valuable design concept to the neighborhood, provides no clear benefit to the public and the
Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-01 -78/PRD-01 -79 and AP-01-165
December 6, 2001 Page 14
project is inconstant with the character of the neighborhood, the appellants are asking that the project be denied without
prejudice and that only five homes be allowed on the site.
Mr. Steele moved on to the appellants' issues related to the MDNS, which is Attachment 9 of the staff report. He explained
that two mitigation issues are addressed in the document. The first mitigation measure states, "The (I COULDN'T
UNDERSTAND WHAT WORD HE USED HERE." shall also provide for the construction and/or maintenance or a trail
along the old logging trail to provide a future connection between the Southwest County Park and the Talbot Neighborhood.
Mr. Steele said the problem is that nothing in the materials related to SEPA describe the significant adverse impact that is
being mitigated. He suggested that this trail could be considered "a taking" that the developer is buying into because he is
getting favorable treatment from the staff in recommending his project. However, SEPA requires that the City identify the
probable significant impacts and then apply mitigating conditions to address the problem. While the staff has not identified
any probable significant adverse impact that is being solved by this condition, the neighborhood is strongly against the
condition.
Mr. Steele provided a copy of the Dolan Decision by the United States Supreme Court, which was a similar kind of taking as
what is being proposed with this project. Mr. McConnell identified the Dolan Decision as Exhibit T. Mr. Steele said that this
case involved a person in Oregon who had a business located along a stream. He wanted to expand his hardware store, but
the City required that he dedicate land for a greenway to allow space for the public to walk through and for the City to
maintain the drainage facility. The Court identified this as a taking because there must be a nexus between the development
and the item that is being taken. In other words, what is being taken must be roughly proportional to the impact of the
project. Mr. Steele suggested that the same issue could be applied to the trail identified in the proposed project. If the City
wants a trail, they should have to buy the property.
Mr. Steele said the staff has suggested that the Southwest County Park Plan justifies the trail. However, there was some
testimony from staff earlier where they read the real language from the master plan, which states that this was supposed to be
a trail to a proposed housing development. Staff could not identify the proposed housing development that the trail was
supposed to lead to. He suggested that it was not related to this proposed housing development because it has only been on
the table for the past six months and the park master plan was done in 1992. He said this note on the plan is not justification
for placing a public trail in the proposed location. He recalled the staff s previous comments that Southwest County Park is
covered with secondary trails that need to be revegetated because they are destroying the environment of the park. While he
does not have the record to support his conclusion, Mr. Steele suggested that the applicant asked for a trail coming from the
Park to his proposed development. He noted that this trail is not included in any of the alternative schemes that were
considered by the master plan committee. In fact, he noted that Schemes A and B do not identify any trails going up
Perrinville Creek, and Scheme C identifies a trail that is within the park boundaries, only. However, the master plan
identifies a trail to a proposed housing development. He suggested that the wording used on the map indicates that this trail
would be for the benefit of those living in the proposed housing development and not the general public or even all those
living in the Talbot Park Neighborhood.
Mr. Steele provided copies of text from the Southwest County Master Plan. At the suggestion of Mr. Bullock, Mr.
McConnell identified the entire Southwest County Master Plan as Exhibit K, replacing the partial portions of the plan that
were submitted earlier. Mr. Steele asked that his highlighted portion of the plan also be entered into the record as an exhibit.
Mr. McConnell identified the highlighted portion of the Southwest County Master plan as Exhibit U of the official City file.
Mr. Steele said he would review each of the pages he provided and explain why he highlighted certain sections.
Mr. Steele first referred to the highlights on the top of Page 5, and noted that the things that are identified as secondary trails
and social paths are unsanctioned trails established by people using the park. Next, he referred to Page 12, which is the
section of the plan that identifies the vision and key objectives for the plan. One of the key objectives was to "preserve the
natural character of the site, allow for appropriate passive use on the site within the existing trail system, develop new trails if
they enhance the preservation of the park's character, protect sensitive areas and not adversely impact wildlife habitat." Mr.
Steele said the public trail that is being proposed for the first time does not meet that criteria. Mr. Steel said another criteria
is "to establish recognition for the park as a significant and ecologically sensitive open space and foster community
appreciation."
Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-01 -78/PRD-01 -79 and AP-01-165
December 6, 2001 Page 15
Mr. Steele explained that he highlighted the bottom of Page 17, which talks about the existing park. It says, "Trails typically
avoid steep slope areas except in the region of Perrinville Creek. In this area, stream bank erosion and erodable soils on
adjacent steep slopes has caused trail erosion and slope damage." Mr. Steele noted that throughout the park, the trails tend to
stay out of the steep areas.
Next, Mr. Steele referred to the highlighted portion of Page 21, which states "Invasive, non-native plant species have
established themselves on the site within both the wetland and upland areas." It further states, "Non-native species have been
introduced at the top the site through yard waste dumping along Olympic View Drive." He suggested that something must be
done to prevent people from dumping into the ravine and causing a significant adverse impact. They also need to have a
wide buffer of native plants next to the ravine to prevent the evasive plants from growing there instead.
Mr. Steele referred to the third paragraph on Page 22, which states, "The secondary trails or social paths (i.e. unsanctioned
trails established by visitors traveling off trail) are found extensively throughout the park and are not limited to those shown
on the drawing." Mr. Steele said the appellants believe that if a public trail is placed through the ravine and there is no place
for kids in the housing project to play, they will play on the slope and create situations of erosion and damage to the stream.
He concluded that if the trail is developed, it will result in many new unsanctioned trails, as well. Mr. Steele also referred to
the highlighted item on Page 39, which states that "if too much access is allowed then the character and ecology of landscape
is compromised."
Next, Mr. Steele referred to Page 47, which provides an analysis of both Schemes A and B. He noted that Scheme A states,
"A trail is also proposed to connect the Talbot Road Neighborhood with a trail system. Secondary trails, which are not
properly sited causing soil erosion will be closed and revegetated." Mr. Steele said that all three schemes considered an
access to the Talbot Road Neighborhood, but they were considering this at the northwest portion of the park, and not in the
location that is now being proposed. Therefore, the Southwest County Park Master Plan cannot be used as justification. On
Page 49, the advisory committee, with direction and support from the public at large, chose to pursue the basic elements of
Scheme B. Scheme B did not identify any trail along Perrinville Creek.
Mr. Steele noted that on Page 59, the words on the map are repeated indicating that "the first priority trails include a
connection to a proposed housing development and revegetating social paths." From this statement, Mr. Steele concluded
that the staff and applicant's use of the park plan to justify a connection for a housing development's private access to the
park was never considered. The present plan does not call for this use. He suggested that the use is just the imagination of a
parks director who hasn't studied the law as well as she maybe should have.
Mr. Steele advised that his next comments would illustrate the problems that putting a public trail in the proposed location
would create. The first is a public safety problem, and he requested that John Nelson provide expert testimony regarding this
issue. He explained that Mr. Nelson's expertise comes from his work on the police force for a number of years. He asked
Mr. Nelson to tell of the public safety problems that would likely be created if the public trail in this location is developed.
Mr. McConnell entered Mr. Nelson's work experience resume into the record as Exhibit V.
John Nelson, 8215 Talbot Road, said he has been approached by several of the neighbors in the area who expressed their
concerns related to public safety. In talking with other Edmonds Police Officers, they have expressed concern about the trail
coming through the park into the neighborhood. They consider this to be more of a nuisance problem. A trail that is
secluded as proposed would invite a lot of kids. This would also increase the traffic. Mr. McConnell noted that if Mr.
Nelson would like to testify regarding his thoughts on the matter that would be helpful, but he should not testify about what
someone from the police department told him because that is considered hearsay evidence. Mr. Steele noted that, as an
expert, Mr. Nelson is allowed to use sources which you would normally rely on in your expertise. He felt that Mr. Nelson
should be allowed to express his conclusions based on the discussions with Edmonds Police Officers.
Mr. Nelson continued by stating that kids can have parties in this park and do stuff that the police cannot see. Unless there is
a specific call to the park, the police do not patrol on a regular basis. Mr. Steele noted that when speaking regarding the park,
Mr. Nelson is really referring to the proposed trail. Mr. Nelson agreed. Mr. Steele inquired what type of public safety
problems might occur on the proposed trail. Mr. Nelson said most of it would be related to parties, drinking, littering, etc.
The houses near the trailhead would probably be more susceptible to burglaries.
Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-01 -78/PRD-01 -79 and AP-01-165
December 6, 2001 Page 16
Mr. McConnell noted that there is access to the park through trails in other locations now. He inquired if Mr. Nelson is
aware of any problems in the park as a result of the access that is now available. Mr. Nelson answered negatively. Mr.
McConnell inquired why Mr. Nelson would think that just because a new access is provided there would be more problems.
Mr. Nelson answered that the trail would open up the park more than it is now by providing a better access. Mr. Steele said
they are not really talking about the impacts to the park, but the public safety issue associated with the trail. Since there are
no known problems associated with the trails leading into the park now, Mr. McConnell questioned what problems would
occur because another access would be provided. Mr. Steele said there is a discussion in the Southwest County Park Plan
indicating that people climb private fences and trespass on neighboring properties coming from the park. Mr. McConnell
inquired if that was because there is insufficient access to the park. Mr. Steele suggested that the reason is that when people
are allowed into an area, there will be negative impacts. The problem is not with people playing in the park. But if the trail
is open to the public, the City should expect to find activities such as littering, partying, etc.
Mr. Steele called expert witness, Lynne Deramus, and asked that her resume be included in the record as an exhibit. Mr.
McConnell entered the written testimony and resume provided by Ms. Deramus as Exhibit W. Mr. Steele asked that Ms.
Deramus address the issue of whether the subject property is suitable for a trail or if there would be problems from a
hydraulics point of view.
Ms. Deramus, 4017 Willowbrook Lane, Bellingham, Washington 98226, said the location of the existing remains of the
logging road is also a site that is within the landslide hazard area classified by the critical areas ordinance. She said that she
has observed that there are active landslide and erosion features present directly surrounding the logging road. In addition,
there are quite steep slopes that are further steepened by the undercutting of Perrinville Creek, which also has a history of
high flows associated with flooding and stormwater runoff problems. This is a situation where the area directly beneath the
proposed trail location is being undercut. There are steep slopes below and above the trail and active soil movement with
accumulated sedimentation at the bottom of the slope.
Mr. Steele said that if a public trail were located in this area with kids using dirt bikes and playing like they do in the park,
would Ms. Deramus expect there to be increased erosion. Ms. Deramus said that she was in the midst of identifying that
there is ongoing movement, which is happening with very little apparent human interaction. Increased weight, moisture and
movement on the slope will increase the movement of soils on the slope. She assumed that the movement of people on the
trail would add additional weight. Also, loading and unloading is a decreasing stability factor, as well.
Mr. Steele inquired what the impact would be of having a public trail through this area. Ms. Deramus said that increased
human weight on the slope is likely to increase the rate of erosion and downward sliding of the slope. Mr. Steele inquired if
there would be additional impacts caused by people using social paths to leave the main trail and climb around from the top
of the slope down to the stream. Ms. Deramus answered that increased rate and area of use will also increase the impacts by
scraping the soil and landscaping off the slope. The rate of erosion will be increased and the stability of the slope that the
house will be constructed on will be impacted, as well.
Mr. Steele summarized Ms. Deramus' comments by stating that the development of a trail that will have normal use will
create substantial erosion. Next, he called upon a biologist to tell what happens when this erosion occurs. He first introduced
John VanNiel, a biology expert. He entered Mr. VanNiel's resume and written statement as Exhibit X.
John VanNiel, 4404 — 222nd Street, Mountlake Terrace, advised that he is a witness for the Pilchuck Audubon Society
Countywide Conservation Organization, who is concerned about land use and conservation of bird and wildlife habitat. He
said his comments regarding erosion associated with the proposed trail are that any erosion will increase the amount of
sediment in the creek. The creek bottom currently appears to be nice, clear gravel most of the time through the area in
question. This is ideal habitat for salmonoids, which are a species of concern in the area. He noted that during periods of
heavy rain and upwater mismanagement sedimentation flow problems could occur. These problems are additive, and
anytime you add more, you increase the destruction.
Mr. Steele concluded that having a trail in a high erosion area will definitely harm the stability of the slope and the water in
the bottom of the creek. Mr. VanNiel agreed and noted that this would impact the habitat of the fish. He added that people
going through this area, even on a trail, would impact the bird habitat. He noted that some of the bird species are susceptible
to leaving an area if there is a lot of noise and intrusion.
Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-01 -78/PRD-01 -79 and AP-01-165
December 6, 2001 Page 17
Mr. Steel called Don Norman, another biology expert, to provide comments. His statement and resume was identified as
Exhibit Y.
Donald Norman, 2112 Northwest 199t1i, Shoreline, 98177, echoed the comments from Mr. VanNiel. He said he has spent the
last eight years working in the Puget Sound lowlands on migratory and breeding bird issues. He has had the privilege of
studying some nice riparian and coniferous forest areas in Fort Lewis which he feels best represent what the area used to look
like. He said he was amazed to see the quality of the habitat along Perrinville Creek. In just the few views he had from
properties along Perrinville Creek as it left Southwest County Park, he found evidence of a high diversity of trees which is
typical of a riparian area. There were also a lot of snags and evidence of Pilliated Woodpeckers, which are a priority species
that were not mentioned on the SEPA Checklist along with Bandtail Pigeons. These either nest nearby or in the riparian
zone. There are numerous other migratory species which preferentially use these riparian zones, and this was also left out of
the SEPA Checklist. He said he has done a lot of breeding bird surveys and routes in both urban and non -urban lowlands in
the Puget Sound region. This type of habitat is very unique and worth designating as a natural area in the City. He said he
was very astounded to see an idea for a trail to go through this area. There would be a lot of disturbance to the birds. He said
he has worked on the disturbance issues with Great Blue Herons and other species. In his experience there would be a lot of
disturbance, especially in the summer when there is more trail traffic and partying as identified previously by the police
officer.
Mr. Norman said that from surveys of Bandtail Pigeons it is apparent that their population is declining and hunting of this
species was discontinued in the early 1990's. They forget how important the urban natural areas are. There are only a few
species that they are concerned about. Because the adjacent Southwest County Park provides over 100 acres of relatively
good coniferous forest habitat, it is very likely that a park of this size could have populations of a lot of other species that
could provide a pretty incredible opportunity for people to see. He suggested that there are adequate trails already existing in
the park and some areas need to be off limits. Because of the steep slopes, it would be difficult to put a trail in as proposed,
anyway. He felt this area should be protected.
In summary, Mr. Steele said the appellants have offered several reasons why there should not be an MDNS condition for a
public trial through the steep ravine area of the Perrinville Creek. No adverse impact from the proposed PRD has been
identified to warrant the condition. The condition is inappropriate because it does not mitigate an adverse impact. It is a
taking under Dolan. It is not justified by the Southwest County Master Plan. The trail will create public safety problems and
have adverse impacts regarding erosion. Also, the erosion and public will hurt the critical area. Mr. Steele recalled that the
Southwest County Park Plan states that they will not have any new trails unless they are consistent with fish and wildlife
habitat preservation.
Moving to the second SEPA issue, Mr. Steele said a native growth protection easement for the ravine is being proposed. He
recalled previous testimony about how the ravine should be preserved for fish and wildlife habitat. The critical areas
ordinance in the geological hazardous area says there cannot be any development in the ravine or in its buffer. What the City
does beyond that in the critical areas ordinance is call for a native growth protection easement. When a critical area gets up
to one acre, they are supposed to put this area in a separate tract. However, the proposed project does not do this. They are
proposing a native growth protection easement, but it comes after the project has been approved. The City staff will work
with the developer to construct a native growth protection easement and then record it. There will be no public review of the
conditions of the native growth protection easement. Therefore, Mr. Steele requested that if the project is not denied and a
native growth protection easement is accepted instead of a tract, the appellants would like to see some additional language in
the easement that will actually protect the fish and wildlife habitat and critical area. Mr. McConnell identified the native
growth protection easement format as Exhibit Z.
I1.1aaZ/:1171►Eel *:IIL11►111714ice W&4 :3BID Iva aUT111:811e[efice] 71OLIVA:a LVAIIZ[Usis1.17ol1:I:1li►• ARNaLVAl
Mr. Steele recalled the written testimony he submitted regarding the first mitigating condition. The first part of that condition
indicates that the City shall receive an access right to access the creek ravine area of the property for the purpose of
rehabilitating and maintaining the stream. Mr. Steele noted that some of the testimony from their experts has addressed this
issue. The appellants don't think that the mitigation focuses sufficiently on the protection of fish and wildlife habitat, which
is part of the vision statement identified in the Southwest County Park Master Plan. The appellant would like to see more
Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-01 -78/PRD-01 -79 and AP-01-165
December 6, 2001 Page 18
information as to the purpose of rehabilitating and maintaining the stream. He said that later in his testimony, he will propose
some conditions the appellant would like to add to the native growth protection easement boilerplate that was just made
Exhibit Z. The conditions will suggest that the access be allowed as long as it is consistent with the protection of fish and
wildlife habitat.
Mr. Steele said that the critical areas ordinance for the geological hazardous areas calls for a 50-foot buffer adjacent to the
edge of the ravine. It says that a geological report can be provided to justify a reduction to ten feet. He said he got the
impression from staff s testimony, that they feel that the necessary report has been provided to support this reduction. He
said this leads him to believe that all that is required is that an applicant buy a report to support the reduction. He suggested
that the report provided by the applicant is too weak to be given enough credibility to support the reduction. Therefore, he
asked Ms. Deramus to analyze the geotechnical report that was submitted by the applicant (Exhibit B, Attachment 6). He
asked that Ms. Deramus first tell whether she thinks that a ten -foot buffer is justified by the report, and if so, why.
Ms. Deramus said the report does a good job of presenting all of the information with which to make an evaluation as to the
adequacy of the buffer. However, it does not follow through with the support of the 50-foot buffer that is required. The
report identifies many features that contribute to recent or past landsliding. They show on Figure 2, the location of the
landslide scarves they have identified on the site. They talk about the presence of bench trees and the fact that those
contribute to an interpretation of moving soils on the slope. The report also talks about the fact that Whidbey Formation is
observed in the slope of the ravine. She referred to the Edmonds Drainage Basin Study that was done for the City in 1989 by
the consultant URS. This study identifies the geology in the region. Both Whidbey Formation and Vashon Till are present
at this site. It states that "the beds of the Whidbey Formation are firm appearing and outcrop. But because of high water and
jointing, they can become unstable and steep slopes. They are involved in numerous landslides." Ms. Deramus concluded
that it has been well documented that this area is landslide prone. Mr. McConnell asked that Ms. Deramus provide a copy of
this study to be identified as Exhibit AA.
Ms. Deramus further stated that the Edmonds Drainage Study mentions that Vashon Glacial Till is present on the site, which
is described as an over -consolidated mixture of sand, silt and gravel. This is known to be very hard and is quite stable for
construction purposes, and thus the geotechnical report provided by the applicant concludes that a ten -foot buffer would be
sufficient protection against erosion to soils with existing homes at the top of the slope. This recommendation was based on
the fact that Vashon Glacial Till is present at the site. However, it is not identified in the slope below the actual construction
site. Only Whidbey Formation is identified in this area.
Mr. Steele inquired if the eroding soil is what is found on the slope of the ravine and the Vashon Glacial Till soil is not in the
ravine area. Ms. Deramus said there is a layer of Whidbey Formation with an overlying layer of Vashon Till. They would
expecting to see the Vashon Till present at the ground surface to some extent to stabilize where the construction will take
place. However, there is no documentation that the Vashon Till lies above the Whidbey Foundation at the ground surface
that would create the stable condition upon which the report bases the conclusion that a ten -foot buffer is appropriate. She
concluded that on one side of the site Vashon Glacial Till has been observed, but there is no documentation support the claim
that it is also present on the site that is identified as the ravine. She said her observation is that it is not present on the slope,
either. She suggested that the erodable soil goes probably 50 feet from the ravine, and the developer should be very
protective of the homes that will be built to provide the full buffer because of the erodable nature of the slope. Ms. Deramus
concluded that the reports provided by the applicant do not demonstrate that erodable soil cannot be found where the
buildings will be located. A 50-foot buffer would be the most protective. If the City wants to compromise, a 25-foot buffer
that was maintained completely undisturbed, would aid in the protection of future landslide hazards at the project site.
Mr. Steele called Mr. Norman to provide further testimony. He recalled that in the testimony Mr. Norman submitted, he
addressed a number of additional conditions that should go into the native growth protection easement. He asked that Mr.
Norman characterize what the native growth protection easement is intended to protect, and then offer the additional
conditions the appellants would like to have included in the MDNS.
Mr. Norman referred to the native growth protection easement boilerplate, which is a standard format and usually made more
specific with certain site -specific characteristics of the native growth protection easement site. There is a lot of language to
protect the character of the easement. Because of the lawns that will be located near the easement, dumping should be
addressed specifically. He said most importantly, there needs to be a cohesive plan, not just for the one site in question, but
Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-01 -78/PRD-01 -79 and AP-01-165
December 6, 2001 Page 19
for the numerous land owners who own the creek from where it exits the park to where it enters the Sound. Mr. Norman said
that information he has gathered about specific easements on developed sites along Perrinville Creek that adjoin the
properties in question indicate a variety of situations. He noted that some easements have been granted to the City, but others
have not or are pending at this time. He suggested that a community meeting should be convened to pull together the issues
of concerns. Mr. Norman said that in addition to dumping, there are also concerns about various types of grading and
construction that could occur in these areas. The property owners need to be told what is not allowed in the easement. He
said signage needs to be put up, particularly on the old logging road. Educational material should be provided to give
information to the property owners about the details of snags and snag use, removing diseased trees, use of herbicides, etc.
He said there is also a tendency to use certain landscaping plants like English Ivy, which can escape from the property owner
and into the natural area.
Mr. Steele inquired if Mr. Norman is proposing that a SEPA mitigation measure be that the developer be required to provide
educational material to the people he sells the properties to. Mr. Steele said he is seeking mitigating conditions that would be
practical to address the problems that Mr. Norman perceives. Mr. Norman explained that he is speaking more to a
comprehensive easement that addresses multiple problems. Mr. McConnell advised that while he is not disputing that there
is a problems with all of the properties in the area, he only has authority to address the issues associated the subject property.
Mr. Steele asked that Mr. Norman identify the mitigating conditions on the subject property that should be added to the
native growth protection easement in order to deal with the problems. Mr. Norman said some additional conditions should
include limited access and certain types of access that could be arranged for emergency purposes only, permanent signs and
no trail. He noted that it is typical for property owners to have their lawn go right up to the ravine edge, with automatic
watering systems included. He said all of this water assists further erosion on the slope. One recommendation would be the
planting of native vegetation that does not requiring watering along the buffers. The other would be that no water flow be
allowed to go through the buffers and down into the ravines.
Mr. Steele referred to Item 3 on Page 3 of Exhibit L. He inquired if Mr. Norman would be supportive of the seven items
listed as being mitigating conditions. Mr. Norman noted that Number one, which states, "Protection should apply equally to
buffer and ravine" is probably the most difficult to transfer into a language that homeowners will obey. Clear language that
explains the reason why the buffer areas need to be protected is important. He said the remainder of the seven items are
appropriate as written.
Next. Mr. Steele called John VanNiel forward to provide his input as to whether or not Mr. Norman has addressed all
necessary conditions for the native growth protection easement or if he would like to add more.
Mr. VanNiel entered a letter from Pilchuck Audubon into the record. Mr. McConnell identified this letter as Exhibit BB.
Mr. VanNiel agreed that the buffer should be increased for both soil stability and for protection of the critical area. If there is
only a 10-foot buffer, people will throw yard waste over the edge of the ravine. Because the property lines of so many of the
lots extend to and include parts of the ravine, the temptation to dump waste will be even greater. Mr. VanNiel said there
could also be a problem with people dumping motor oil and other substances that are illegal. He suggested that one way to
resolve this situation is to put up a fence or barrier to keep the majority of the people out. He agreed with Mr. Norman that
another reason for extending the buffer is to prevent the landscaping plants from spreading into the native growth areas.
Regarding the issue of protecting the riparian habitat for wildlife, Mr. VanNiel pointed out that when the neo-tropical birds
are in the area, they need nesting areas that are safe and secure. If the birds do not have a secure place to stop, they will not
be able to return to the area. He concluded that the buffer should exclude both people and dumping.
Mr. Steele called Lynne Deramus forward and inquired if she had anything to add about additional conditions that have been
suggested for inclusion in the native growth protection area. Ms. Deramus said that the issues raised by Mr. VanNiel and Mr.
Norman are different than the geological issues she identified. While they are all important, she said she cannot speak
expertly about the other issues raised. Ms. Deramus said it is important to realize that uncontrolled water flow contributes to
erosion. She said she would hope that property owners would have a desire to protect their own properties from further
erosion. She said the design of the stormwater retention system should be such that it captures all of the drainage from the
impervious surface and rooftops and pipes it to a discharge system that is controlled.
Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-01 -78/PRD-01 -79 and AP-01-165
December 6, 2001 Page 20
Mr. Steele summarized that the appellants are asking that some additional native growth protection easement conditions be
put in as a SEPA requirement to provide adequate protection to the native growth protection area. Also, he noted that the
ordinance requires that this area be identified as a tract and not an easement. However it is approved, the buffer should be
50-feet because the 10-foot buffer has not been adequately justified. He suggested that a compromise might be a 25-foot
buffer with full protection and native plants only. In addition, the appellants ask that the conditions identified in Exhibit L be
a requirement of the native growth protection easement under SEPA.
Mr. Steele referred to Page 4 of Exhibit L that identifies the additional SEPA issues. He recalled that Mr. Chin, who did the
parking study for Cyprus Place, concluded that the typical number of parking spaces for each of the existing houses on
Cyprus Place is 11. The proposed project would only have five parking spaces per unit. Guest parking will be located out on
the street. Mr. McConnell inquired what justification the appellants can provide for requiring more parking than the code
requires. Mr. Steele answered that the Hearing Examiner has to find that the project is compatible. He noted that WAC 197-
11-444 lists all of the elements of the environment that are supposed to be protected in the SEPA process --one of which is
parking. He noted that staff commented earlier that SEPA allows the City to use their codes to address the mitigating issues.
He asked that staff provide the section of code that allows this to happen.
Mr. Steele said the proposed PRD is in a RS-20 neighborhood where there is adequate parking on site, and the new
development would not provide the same. Mr. McConnell inquired by whose definition the parking is not adequate. He
emphasized that the code specifies what is adequate. Mr. Steele said the code specifies what is required, but does so for the
proposed neighborhood based on 20,000 square foot lots. The proposed PRD has to be compatible with the neighborhood.
More parking needs to be provided to address compatibility in order for a PRD to be approved. Mr. Steele said he believes it
would be possible to prepare the road to provide 12 spaces off -site. He suggested that a reasonable number of off -site
parking spaces would be 20 for this development. That would require that the project provide an additional eight spaces of
community or guest parking. He said that given that the proposal is for 5,000 square foot building lots in an RS-20 zone,
additional parking is not an unreasonable request.
Mr. Steele invited Chris Schuetz, 8124 Talbot Road, to speak regarding the issue of sidewalks. He advised that the appellants
are requesting that a sidewalk be required in front of the project on Cyrus Place as part of SEPA to provide a place for
students to walk to school. He noted that Ms. Schuetz lives at the corner of Talbot Road and Cyrus Place, and he asked her to
speak to this issue. Ms. Schuetz said the bus stop is in front of her house. Mr. Steele noted that the students walk down
Cyrus Place, past the subject property, to get to the bus stop.
Mr. Steele referred the Hearing Examiner to RCW-5817-150, and the document was entered into the record as Exhibit CC.
Item 2 of this document states that "appropriate provisions are made for ... including sidewalks and other planning features
that insure safe walking conditions for students..." Mr. Steele pointed out that there are students walking past the subject
property, and the property, itself, may create more students. Mr. McConnell noted that only the impact associated with the
additional students generated from the project can be considered and not those associated with the existing problem. The
new developer cannot be required to fix the preexisting problems. Mr. Steele noted that, obviously, some of the nine homes
will have children who will have to walk on Cyrus Place.
Mr. Steele said the reason light and glare is considered to be such a problem is that when a lot of houses are developed close
together, the aggregate of the exterior lighting will have a greater impact. He referenced ECDC 17.60.010.13, which are the
performance standards that are applicable to this case. It states that "lighting shall not be used in such a manner that produces
glare on public streets, highways and neighboring properties." He suggested that this is a weak standard, and he requested
that there be a SEPA mitigating conditions created stating, "No exterior light bulb on a new light shall be visible from any
adjacent lot." He invited Ms. Schuetz to come forward and provide additional testimony regarding this issue. He inquired
how many of the proposed new homes Ms. Schuetz would be able to see from her house. Ms. Schuetz answered that she
would be able to see all of them. If they all had normal exterior and security lights in this cluster, there would be a huge
increase of light on her property.
Mr. Steele said there is also a noise standard in ECDC 17.60.010.A, which states, "Noise emanating from any use shall be
muffled so as not to become objectionable due to intermittent beat frequency or shrillness." Again, Mr. Steele noted that the
proposal is for a dense cluster of houses in a neighborhood that usually allows one house per half acre. He referred to the
PRD Ordinance (Exhibit M) and said that ECDC 20.35.050.13 states, "All projects shall give special treatment to perimeter
Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-01 -78/PRD-01 -79 and AP-01-165
December 6, 2001 Page 21
transition so as to minimize neighborhood impact through buffering, screening and landscaping." He concluded that the PRD
ordinance requires that a project minimize neighborhood impact. This PRD has eight houses close together producing eight
times the light and noise as one home.
Mr. Steele inquired if Ms. Scheutz feels she would be impacted by this cluster of homes with respect to noise. Ms. Scheutz
answered affirmatively. Mr. Steele invited Rosemary McKenny, 8025 Cyrus Place, to provide testimony. Mr. Steele noted
that Ms. McKenny lives next door to Ms. Scheutz and exactly across the street from the proposed cluster of houses. He
inquired about the impacts Ms. McKenny would face from the light and glare associated with the new houses. Ms. McKenny
answered that her bedroom, living room and kitchen all face Cyrus Place, so she expects that she would find the impact from
the outside lights of the new development to be more than it is now. Mr. Steele noted that there would be much more glare
than with a standard subdivision and normal density. Mr. Steele inquired if Ms. McKenny would expect that the eight houses
would have a much greater impact noise wise, as well. Ms. McKenny answered affirmatively and noted that the hillside
would funnel the noise towards her property. Mr. Steele noted that Ms. McKenny would be able to see all of the cluster of
eight houses from her property, as well.
Mr. Steele summarized that the proposed PRD would create a lot more light and glare than a normal subdivision would.
Therefore, there should be a SEPA mitigation placed on it requiring that exterior bulbs not be visible from adjacent lots,
which is not a hard condition. Mr. Steele asked Ms. McKenny to come forward and provide further testimony.
Mr. McConnell brought up his concern that Mr. Steele has been leading his witnesses throughout his testimony. He
suggested that if he is going to call further witnesses, he should allow them to speak for themselves.
Mr. Steele inquired if Ms. McKenny knows where the driveways are proposed for access to the project. Ms. McKenny
answered affirmatively. Mr. Steele inquired if it is possible that vehicles using those driveways at night would be shining
their lights on her house. Ms. McKenny answered that according to the plan, the developer plans to move the driveway up.
She suggested that this would aim the driveway lights directly into their bedroom.
Mr. Steele referred to Attachment 5 of Exhibit B, which is the site elevation sketch. Mr. Steele noted that the existing
driveway has been labeled, but it is difficult to understand. However, having seen the site, there will be a cluster of houses
down in a hole relative to Cyrus Place. Therefore, when the cars come out of their driveways, they will be pointing up. Both
Ms. Schuetz and Ms. McKenny's houses are elevated, and he suggested that the headlights coming from the new
development would be aligned with these two existing houses. He requested that a mitigation be added to require that the
grades and methodology that is used to design the access keep the vehicle lights from shining directly on the houses across
the street.
Mr. Steele referred to ECDC 20.35.050.B, which states that neighborhood impacts must be minimized through buffering,
screening and landscaping. The applicant is proposing to put some plants along Cyrus Place. However because this project
will be particularly noticeable and because of the intense cluster of houses, a strong landscaping buffer should be required for
visual purposes and a berm for noise purposes on both Cyrus Place and on the northwest boundary. He asked that the buffer
be redesigned to be an opaque landscaped buffer within the next three years and that the height of the buffer from the existing
grade be limited to a mature height of 15 to 20 feet to protect the views. If necessary, he said he could provide public
testimony to support his statement that if the height of the landscaping is greater than 20 feet, the view from some of the
existing developments would be blocked. The appellants feel this would isolate the proposed cluster of housing from the
surrounding neighborhood.
Next, Mr. Steele said that the eight houses would each generate about 90 trips per day. He suggested that with the currently
proposed landscaping or the landscaping proposed by the appellants, the people living in the new development would not
have adequate visual access to Cyrus Place when exiting. Therefore, the appellants would like to place a stop sign at the
intersection where the driveway meets Cyrus Place.
Mr. Steele said he does not understand the traffic mitigation fee. It calls for $200 per house for traffic mitigation. He noted
that most cities have traffic mitigation fees of $200 to $1,000 per car, not per peak hour car. He inquired what led the staff to
such a low traffic mitigation fee. Mr. Bullock answered that most cities have a traffic impact fee ordinance, but the City of
Edmonds does not. For more details, the appellants would have to talk with the City's Traffic Engineer who is responsible to
Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-01 -78/PRD-01 -79 and AP-01-165
December 6, 2001 Page 22
work with the applicants in determining the appropriate amount of traffic mitigation. Mr. Steele advised that since the
appellants do not have a traffic engineer, they probably cannot fight the mitigation fee. However, he felt it is absolutely
ridiculous.
Mr. Steele again referred to the noise ordinance (ECDC 17.60.010.A) and said that what has been observed in the
neighborhood in the past and would be a particular problem with so many houses being built is that the construction people
play their radios while they are working and everyone in the neighborhood has to listen to the music and the tools. Therefore,
they are asking for three conditions during construction. One is that no music or radio be heard off site during construction.
Second, that there be a limitation on construction hours and they suggest 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.. The third is that whatever the
finished critical areas buffer is, that no construction activity be allowed. He noted that the buffer is there to protect the slope
and plants. Construction activity and storage, etc. would damage this area.
Regarding stormwater issues, Mr. Steele called Ms. Deramus forward to explain what is required by SEPA. Mr. McConnell
inquired if Ms. Deramus has had an opportunity to look at the City's requirements for stormwater. Ms. Deramus indicated
that she has a copy of these requirements. Mr. Bullock noted that Attachment 10 of the staff report provides the engineering
requirements for stormwater. Ms. Deramus said that she has reviewed this document and noted that some of the stormwater
issues are intended to be addressed in the next stage. Mr. Bullock noted that a number of issues brought up by Mr. Steele
have already been addressed in the engineering requirements for the project. Ms. Deramus said that while she recognizes that
the stormwater requirements will be forthcoming, she wanted to make sure that the other regulatory controls are included, as
well.
Ms. Deramus explained that impervious surface is created when land is developed. About 1.1 acres of the 1.9 area will result
in impervious surface. The water that would have originally infiltrated and then eventually discharged to ground water is
immediately directed to ground water. With storm events there is a very rapid concentration of flow that is high in
contaminants and does not have an opportunity to infiltrate through the ground. This creates very high rates of flow that have
big erosional capacity in very short periods of time. She said there have been a number of regulatory updates over the past
several years to address this. The Edmonds code relies on the King County Stormwater Manual that was adopted in 1992,
and the Edmonds stormwater code that was adopted in 1995. Since that time, the runoff process has become both more of a
problem and better understood. There have been upgrades to what is now considered the appropriate method of evaluating
how stormwater runs off.
Ms. Deramus said that in the method used in the 1992 King County Manual the average precipitation number is chosen for a
particular storm event. That number is used to calculate how much water would be expected to run off the site and the
increase caused by the additional impervious area. She noted that this method was used in the design of the detention system
for the proposed project. Subsequently, King County adopted a surface water manual in 1998 that uses what is called the
continuous event hydrologic model, which relies on a series of hydrological storms that accumulate so that you have a system
that has somewhat saturated conditions and is not open and available to receive stormwater runoff from one unique event and
then drain that off to create open conditions for the next storm arises. She advised that the Washington State Department of
Ecology (DOE) recognized that this method is more adequate in addressing stormwater runoff issues in the State, and they
have adopted this manual for Western Washington along with the guidelines from the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority.
This document was published in August of 2000 and was required for adoption by Snohomish County municipalities in April
of 2001. She concluded that at this point, it is the basis for the regulations in Edmonds.
Mr. McConnell clarified whether or not the new stormwater document was adopted in 2001. Mr. Bullock advised that he
would have to ask the Engineering Department, but he believes that the document was adopted.
Ms. Deramus explained that the way the regulations are defined is that there are a series of performance measures that they
expect to be used in implementing the manual. Along with this is a requirement that municipalities either adopt the
document or an equivalent level of protection. Mr. McConnell advised that it appears that City staff will use the new manual
when reviewing the subdivision requirements. Ms. Deramus said she is requesting that the SEPA mitigations include a
requirement that the stormwater mitigation be done according to the level identified in the new document. Mr. McConnell
inquired if the specific model is specified in Ms. Deramus' written testimony. Ms. Deramus answered affirmatively. Mr.
McConnell identified Ms. Deramus recommended mitigation as Exhibit DD.
Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-01 -78/PRD-01 -79 and AP-01-165
December 6, 2001 Page 23
Mr. Steele said that in reviewing Attachment 10, it appears that the Engineering Department is asking for a stop sign at the
access point of the proposed new development. A sidewalk is also required, but the exact location is not clear. He asked that
the sidewalk be provided from the upper entrance. Mr. Bullock said the Engineering Department has identified that there
needs to be a sidewalk from the entrance to the eight -lot development down to Talbot Road. Mr. Steele suggested that the
sidewalk should be extended down to the entrance to the ninth lot. He concluded that the entire project should be required to
provide adequate sidewalks.
Mr. Steele commented regarding the staff and applicant's earlier testimony. In regard to the SEPA access condition, Mr.
Bullock said that staff wanted a condition allowing the City access to the stream. He said this is to comply with ESA. Mr.
Steele said the appellants argue that access to the stream should be limited to protect fish and wildlife habitat. Their proposed
native growth protection easement conditions address this issue further. The way the mitigation reads, the City would be able
to do whatever they want with their access and the stream. The appellants do not feel this is reasonable.
Mr. Steele said Mr. Bullock indicated that the public access would connect with the Talbot Park Neighborhood. However,
there is no justification in the Southwest County Park Master Plan for connecting to this neighborhood.
Mr. Steele referred to Mr. Bullock's comment that SEPA issues covered by the code do not need to be covered by SEPA
conditions. He inquired if Mr. Bullock has located the code section that spells this out. Mr. Bullock requested clarification
of Mr. Steele's request. Mr. Steele recalled that Mr. Bullock advised that if there are City codes that address a SEPA issue,
there does not need to be a SEPA condition placed upon the issue. Mr. Bullock advised that everything the appellants
brought up in the SEPA appeal was covered by a code. Mr. Steele asked what code section staff was citing. Mr. Bullock
said that provision can be found in RCW 197-11-158, which has to do with environmental determinations. It talks about how
cities and counties are supposed to use the SEPA process. Mr. Steele provided a copy of the RCW referenced by staff and
asked that Mr. Bullock identify the particular statements. Mr. McConnell noted that since the question has been raised, he
can review this particular RCW as part of his consideration. Mr. Steele said he believes that this section actually states that
an issue does not need to be addressed as part of SEPA if the City's code adequately covers the issue. The appellants argue
that the code does not adequately cover their issues. Mr. McConnell advised that he would read this section before making a
decision.
Mr. Steele said that he heard Ms. Ohlde speak that she was basically looking for ways to preserve corridors. He said he has
difficulty with that statement because if she is trying to preserve a fish and wildlife corridor, then the proposed trail does not
make sense. If she is trying to preserve trail corridors, they need to be put in places where they are practical.
Mr. Steele recalled a statement by Mr. Bullock that the stream does not likely support migrating fish so it only has to have a
25-foot buffer. Mr. Steele said that his understanding of the City's code is that if the stream does support migrating fish, a
50-foot buffer would be required. He pointed out that the stream does support migrating fish, but this is not really an issue
because the buffer is 50 feet if the ravine area is included, as well. Mr. Steele noted that no critical areas studies were done
regarding fish presence on the site. Mr. Bullock said that is true for this particular project. However, the Engineering
Department has done a number of studies on this stream and has projects planned in the future to enhance the ability for fish
to access it in the future.
Mr. Steele said the staff suggested that the PRD proposal provides a benefit to the public because the project could propose
development within the steep slope area. However, Mr. Steele said that when he reads the steep slope rules, there is no
provision that would allow development to occur in steep slope areas. When a subdivision is created, building sites must be
created. Mr. Bullock replied that development can potentially occur within the slope area. He explained that the steep slope
hazard area regulations (ECDC 20.15.110.1)) would apply to this slope because it is greater than 40 percent. As a general
rule, no development can occur on the slope or within the buffer once it has been reduced down to ten feet. However, there is
an exemption (ECDC 20.15.110.D.2) stating that "development or alteration may be exempted if it meets the following
criteria." A list of criteria is then provided. If the developer can meet the criteria he could potentially build in a steep slope
hazard area. However, Mr. Bullock said his feeling is that this steep slope hazard area would not qualify, but that does not
preclude somebody from making the application and attempting to make the case that it does. The fact that this applicant is
willing to propose a PRD and not even get into these issues is something that staff is supportive of.
Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-01 -78/PRD-01 -79 and AP-01-165
December 6, 2001 Page 24
Mr. Steele said that if the applicant were to put in a standard subdivision, he would have to create separate building sites.
Therefore, he would have to identify building areas that are outside of the steep slope area. Mr. McConnell said that if the
application could meet the criteria, the site design could include development on the steep slope. Mr. Steele said this would
require the applicant to show that the slope is stable. Mr. McConnell cautioned against presuming a number of things for
which there is no factual data available. He suggested that this conversation is speculation, only.
Mr. Steele referenced the variance request and said the appellants support the staff position that there should be at least a
standard setback of 25 feet along Cyrus Place. He noted that Exhibit H provides the applicant's arguments regarding that
subject. Mr. Steele recalled that the applicant raised the issue of whether or not a variance would actually be required and
whether the 25-foot setback requirement along Cyrus Place would apply to the proposal. Mr. Bissell suggested that since
staff said the 25-foot setback would apply, they should be given deference in interpreting the codes.
Next, Mr. Steele referred to the applicant's written comments supporting a variance to allow a 15-foot setback. He noted that
the appellants are opposed to the 15-foot setback. He pointed out that ECDC 20.35.050 states that "all projects shall give
special treatment to perimeter transition so as to minimize neighborhood impact through buffering, screening and
landscaping." He suggested that the implication of this section is that if there is a greater impact for a project than a standard
subdivision, there should be greater perimeter buffering. However, the applicant is proposing a lesser buffer area. While
lesser buffers would be more appropriate inside the project, the outside buffers are the ones that will impact the existing
developments.
Mr. Steele advised that the appellants support the 25-foot buffer requirement and do not believe that the applicant has met the
four variance criteria as required. He said the first criteria is consistency with the zoning ordinance. The appellants feel that
having a 15-foot setback is not consistent with ECDC 20.35.050.B. The appellants also feel that a 15-foot setback would be
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He particularly sited Page 4 of 11 of the Staff Report, Item B.5.d. This states that
"private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic,
slides, etc." The appellants believe the people who own property in this neighborhood should be protected from
unreasonably small setbacks.
Mr. Steele recalled that the applicant indicated that if he had to cut ten feet from Lot 8, it would impact Lot 8 too much.
However, the applicant has the ability to redesign the project to adjust the lot positions. In order to get the full setback on the
street, the applicant would have to move four lots a little bit. The appellants do not feel this is too much to ask and would
probably not impact the interior of the project significantly. Therefore, there is no real need for a 15-foot setback except for
the convenience of the existing drawings. Being that this is a 20,000 square foot zone, there is no justification to reduce the
setback. The only thing that can support the variance is the ravine, which is really too far away to have a significant impact.
The special circumstances of the ravine do not really apply to a reduced setback on Lot 8.
Mr. Steele said the applicant indicated that impacts to drainage would be the same as for a standard subdivision. However,
that is not true. A standard subdivision would have fewer lots.
Mr. Steele summarized his entire presentation by stating that the appellants believe that the project should be denied because
of the following three issues:
• The project is not compatible and consistent with the RS-20 neighborhood characteristics.
• The project is required to show clear public benefit to the neighborhood and it does not.
• The PRD does not use any of the listed design concepts nor does it have a design that warrants the approval of a
variance.
Mr. Steele concluded that the project should be denied without prejudice so that it can be reduced in density and resubmitted.
Mr. Steele requested the following SEPA conditions:
• That there be no reservation for a public trail in the ravine.
• That there be additional conditions on the native growth protection easement if it is allowed as opposed to a tract
which is required by the ordinance. Mr. Steele noted that the applicant has not asked for a variance to have an
easement instead of a tract.
Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-01 -78/PRD-01 -79 and AP-01-165
December 6, 2001 Page 25
• That there be a requirement for space for on -street parking.
• That there be on -site guest parking of 8 spaces to provide for overflow parking considering the density of houses
clustered in a small area.
• That there be conditions on light and glare. He noted that the Engineering Department is proposing streetlights on
the street, and he is concerned that this will provide additional light and glare.
• That the opacity of the perimeter buffering be increased, adding a landscape berm and mature landscaping that goes
a maximum of 15 to 20 feet in height so as to not block views.
• That the driveways be designed in such a manner that lights do not shine directly on the houses across the street.
• That conditions be placed on construction prohibiting radios or music that can be heard off site and limiting the
hours of construction from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Also, no construction activity would be allowed in the 25 to 50-foot
critical area buffer.
• That additional conditions be placed on the stormwater.
Lortell Biermanski, 8129 Frederick Place, said he felt there was some real inconsistency on the part of the staff where they
affirmed the builders desire to preserve the ravine and the creek, and on the other hand proposed a public trail with
construction equipment moving in. He said that approximately two years ago he gave an easement to the City along the old
logging road for the purpose of rehabilitating the creek. However, judging by the site development plan, the City would not
have access to the old logging road. He inquired the temporary easement he granted would become mute. Mr. Bullock
advised that the Engineering Department is dealing with issue. The reason nothing has happened on this site to date is that
staff is still trying to negotiate temporary easements with some of the other property owners along Perrinville Creek. He
noted that this is a temporary easement for stream restoration. Mr. Bullock advised that there are a number of ways that
access to the logging road can happen, but that will be addressed by the Engineering Department.
Diane Azar said she appreciates the Hearing Examiner's willingness to listen to the appellants. She said that if they appeared
to be coached, it is because they are intimidated and uncomfortable about donating their volunteer time without having
experience with standing in public. She provided some photographs she took of the site showing the sand coming down and
the dangerous situations that exist on the site. She said it shows the site's attraction to children. She said she has been unable
to feel comfortable about her children staying away from the sliding sand hills. It has always been her concern that her
children would be buried alive in those sandpits. She said that despite the signs indicating no trespassing, it is difficult to
keep people out. She said that if there is an access, whether it is public or not, people will come to the site. The pictures she
has provided are of Meadowdale Park, showing how people are trespassing into areas where they should not be. Mr.
McConnell entered the eight site photographs submitted by Ms. Azar as Exhibit EE. The photographs and articles regarding
Meadowdale Park were identified as Exhibit FF.
Finally, Ms. Azar referenced issue that was touched on when the City Attorney presented the annual report to the City
Council. Working with the Council and the preservation group, Mr. Snyder stated, "In Edmonds we have some unique
neighborhoods." He referred to the Sunset Drive Neighborhood. He continued by stating, "We have more and we don't
want to, over time, be Mercer Islandized." Mr. Bullock said this is already in the record as Exhibit G. However, at Ms.
Azar's request, her highlighted copy of the comments were identified as Exhibit GG. Ms. Azar said their interest is in
preserving the neighborhood that they love. She asked that the Hearing Examiner consider the remarks and the spirit in
which they were presented.
Mr. Bissell pointed that his remarks are likely to take more than a half hour. He said he certainly did not anticipate being at
the meeting until 4:30 p.m. and he has to take his daughter to ballet in 15 minutes. Mr. McConnell continued the hearing to
1:00 p.m. on December 20, 2001 so that both the staff, the applicant and the appellant would all have an opportunity to
provide rebuttal statements.
I TESTIFY THAT THESE MINUTES ARE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY UNDERSTANDING
OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
Karin Noyes, Transcriber
Date
Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-01 -78/PRD-01 -79 and AP-01-165
December 6, 2001 Page 26