2002-07-18 Hearing Examiner MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS OF HEARING EXAMINER HEARING
File Numbers P-02-61 and PRD-02-62
July 18, 2002
Mr. McConnell: Good morning. I am Ron McConnell, the Hearing Examiner for the City. This morning we have an
application for a five -lot formal plat and Planned Residential Development. The File Number is P-2002-61 and PRD-2002-
62. This morning, Meg Gruwell will be giving the staff report reviewing briefly. I see probably a couple of members in the
audience are neighbors, are you? Is that right? So I will have staff review the staff report so you are familiar with what is
going on. I think there are copies of the staff report in the back, aren't there?
Ms. Gruwell: Yes.
Mr. McConnell: Yeah. So if you want a copy, have you got one? Sir, do you have a copy of the staff report?
Member of the Audience: I do.
Ms. Gruwell: This is only our second planned residential development to go through the process.
Mr. McConnell: Through the new process.
Ms. Gruwell: Through the new process. I might point out that the process has changed yet again from what we thought it
was the first time. It is now the Hearing Examiner making a recommendation to the City Council, who will have to issue the
final decision, and that is from a memo from our City Attorney, which is now Attachment 15 of the staff report, which I
would like to enter as Exhibit A. I just handed out to you a revised elevation for Lot 1, so we can make that Exhibit B. And
then also one that has a gate on it as the proposed arbor to go in front of the existing home on Lot 2.
Mr. McConnell: Okay, that will be Exhibit C.
Ms. Gruwell: This site is almost an acre. It has a gentle slope down towards 240t1i Street. It has a rather steep slope down
on the western side of the property line. We have had the benefit of having surveys on both this property and the property to
the west and have determined that, even though in an earlier decision, a surveyor had stated that it was a steep slope, that
actually it does not qualify according to our steep slope definition in our critical areas ordinance. So there are 40 percent
slopes, but they are not at least 20 feet, so we don't count them as steep slopes according to our critical areas ordinance.
There are also some ponds on the site, but I believe those are primarily landscape ponds. Even if they were natural features
that they had tried to improve upon, they are not large enough to be considered wetlands according to what we would
regulate under the critical areas ordinance. So, as it turns out, the site has no critical areas that we would regulate.
Ms. Gruwell: There is a lovely mature growth of evergreen trees, and that's shown on the plat map in Attachment 3. As far
as surrounding neighborhood and development, I have included a photograph, which is Attachment 14, that shows the
existing house on the site and what some of the neighboring development looks like. This has gone before the Architectural
Design Board, and they had a number of concerns, mostly in just not knowing what the existing house looked like or what the
neighboring development looked like. So I have tried to show in this... I have Attachment 13 that shows the proposed
design of the garage for the existing house on proposed Lot 2. I guess you can tape together the photograph of the existing
house, the proposed design of the garage and the proposed arbor to kind of get an idea of what that lot will look like.
Ms. Gruwell: The Architectural Design Board had made a motion, one of their concerns was that there be a consistent use
of materials all the way around the building, which is one of the requirements of the PRD ordinance. The applicant has stated
and he has shown on Exhibit B how he is proposing to put window trim on all sides of the building and delete items like the
shutters. Lot 1 was one that had the shutters. His proposal was just to use the horizontal siding and the window trim all the
way around the building and to delete the extra things like the cedar shakes or the brick or the shutters.
Mr. Gruwell: They had also had some concerns about whether the existing house fit in with the new houses and if they
would all be compatible. I think the applicant will probably speak to that as far as the color and the items that he believes ties
those all together. I know that he is in the process of having some of the other sites redrawn, but I don't believe they have
been completed yet.
Ms. Gruwell: I also wanted to discuss the environmental review. We had a mitigated determination of non -significance.
We had a traffic mitigation requirement. Some of the issues that came up in letters that have been submitted were erosion
and storm water control —especially with the people down slope and people downhill in general saying that they have been
getting a lot of water on their site down below. Staff feels that we have a number of requirements, including our temporary
erosion control requirements and also our storm water requirements with detention on site, that pretty much address these
issues without needing extra requirements.
Ms. Gruwell: There is also a concern about wildlife habitat and the trees and the fact that some of them will be getting taken
down. Designing it as a PRD will preserve the open space on the steeper portion of the site, and the applicant has stated that
they intend to improve that area with adding additional bushes and shrubs and trees that would improve the wildlife habitat
and also drilling out some of the existing dead trees to try to improve habitat there. Obviously, you know, there is going to
be less habitat than if it were in its current state, but it seems like compared to a standard subdivision, this has a lot of
improvements.
Ms. Gruwell: There was also a concern about the number of lots that were being fit on the lot and whether it goes through a
planned residential development or a standard subdivision, five lots is pretty much the number of lots they could put on there.
As part of the planned residential development, they are proposing to modify some of the standards. Because they will have
a substantial area in the open space, the size of the lots will be smaller than they would be in a typical 8,000 square foot lot
minimum area. They are also proposing to modify the setbacks around the perimeter. The setbacks will be the same as if it
were one large lots, but the interior setbacks, like from the street, would be 20 instead of 25 feet and some of the setbacks
between the houses would be five feet instead 7'h feet to the property lines. Lot width would be modified also, and then the
lot coverage on Lots 2 and 3 would be 40 percent instead of 35 percent, which is still actually doesn't allow a whole lot of
building area on those lots.
Ms. Gruwell: Basically, staff went through and felt that they met the modification approval criteria and the decision criteria.
They made some changes from the initial plan. One was to include a rock wall across Lots 4 and 5 so that they could
preserve some of the existing trees in the back there. I think 12 trees would be preserved back there. The one thing about it
is that is on private property. It is not as part of the open space tract, so the future homeowners could come in and decide that
they didn't like trees and cut them down if they wanted to, just like any of the neighboring homeowners could do. So that is
one interesting part of that. But as far as through construction, it will reduce the grading required and increase the number of
trees preserved.
Ms. Gruwell: So, in general, staffs recommendation is to have the Hearing Examiner recommend to the City Council
approval of the proposed subdivision and PRD, and there is a number of conditions —some to meet the ADB requirements
and some to meet the concerns about erosion that have been recommended.
Mr. McConnell: Okay, thank you very much. Mr. Smith, I assume you are speaking for the applicant.
Mr. Smith: Yes.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-02-61 and PRD-02-62
July 18, 2002 Page 2
Mr. McConnell: Just get your name and address please
Mr. Smith: Steven Michael Smith. I am representative for the applicant at the offices of LSA. Our street address is 19400
— 33' Avenue West, Suite 200, Lynnwood. The zip code is 98036. 1 have a couple of things I would like to add to the
record. One is a letter that is written as a response to Exhibit 15 and as we have stated off the record, we don't intend for the
Examiner to address this issue directly, but this is more for the Council's information when the application goes to them for
review. Second is a neighborhood meeting report, which the Planning Director requested as part of this project to further the
inclusion of the neighborhood in the development of the project. So Mr. Sundquist conducted that meeting and has written
up a short summary of the results of that meeting.
Mr. McConnell: Okay, I will enter the letter regarding the process as Exhibit D and the letter regarding the neighborhood
meeting as Exhibit E. I can imagine what your letter regarding the process says, and I think that, you know, it is interesting, I
think there is a case, I think it was referred to by the City Attorney, the Lutz Case. What is interesting here is most
jurisdictions allow some density increase and even some mixed uses in a planned development. That is where I think the
court has come down and said that is similar to a rezone. In Edmonds, you don't get any increased density. You don't get
any additional uses, but it is called a PRD. That case is not clear on that issue. Consequently, I suppose if Edmonds wanted
to take this through court and spend thousands of dollars they might say that we are different from the rest of the jurisdictions
and this is a kind of a unique situation. However, in the meantime, we will go along with what the court says and take the
narrow view. It is going to get referred to Council and the Council looks like they are going to be changing the ordinance
back.
Mr. Smith: I don't doubt that.
Mr. McConnell: I think, without reading your letter, there is no change in density or anything else allowed in Edmonds
versus other towns that I am familiar with.
Mr. Smith: Right. I am sure there will be further discussion on this issue.
Mr. McConnell: Oh, this will be one for the Council, yeah.
Mr. Smith: And I am sure that they will talk about it quite a bit.
Mr. McConnell: Yeah, this is one for the Council.
Mr. Smith: Right. And that was the intent of the memorandum was that they could review that and see if it provides any
further information. If not, then that is their decision. I would like to thank Meg and the staff. Meg is the one who is here,
so she is the one that I can thank most easily, for helping us through this process. This is only the second application that has
come through, although we also represented the first application to the new PRD ordinance.
Mr. McConnell: And that one, for your information, is going in the mail today. I finally got the information from the City
Attorney, although it was dated the lst of July. I didn't receive it until the 12' of July.
Mr. Smith: I only received it on the 121 or 131, as well.
Mr. McConnell: So it is going out in the mail today.
Mr. Smith: Thank you. Because we are dealing with a new ordinance here, we are feeling our way through it a little bit.
Meg was definitely helpful in trying to assist us with how she believes and how the City staff believes the provisions should
be interpreted and what form these applications should take. That was definitely helpful. You know, the staff report is very
thorough and the conditions are acceptable to the applicant, except for two of the conditions, which are under B—Decision,
Item 3, Sub A, Sections 3 and 4, I guess. Mr. Sundquist has submitted a memorandum, and I didn't catch what the exhibit
was, but it has been turned it this morning regarding what we believe are ambiguous conditions.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-02-61 and PRD-02-62
July 18, 2002 Page 3
Mr. McConnell: Now, is there another memorandum that I haven't received, Meg? It's not a memorandum, it is a drawing
Mr. Smith: He has a memorandum that starts referencing 1, introduction, B, decision...
Mr. McConnell: No, I don't have that one. Okay. All right, the memorandum from Mr. Sundquist is Exhibit F.
Mr. Smith: Viking Properties' concern with Items 3 and 4 is that there is no defined level of changes to the building or
additions to the building that will be adequate to satisfy 3 and 4. The two combined make it sound like whatever the City
staff decides is enough will be enough, but that won't be determined until we get to construction. There is no way for Mr.
Sundquist to know whether that means that is going be $2,000 improvements, $20,000 improvements or $100,000 in
improvements. His contention is that most of the architectural details which will tie the new houses together are already in
place on the existing house. There are photographs in the record showing the existing house, and it does look rather run
down. I'll admit it. But that is more a condition of the paint and the roofing than it is with the structure, itself. In Exhibit F,
Mr. Sundquist offers that there are a few things that will be added, which are a new arbor gable, which will be at the gate
along a fence that will be along the entire frontage. And that he will paint the existing house in a common color scheme with
the rest of the development. As far as the existing architectural details, the house does have window trim. It does have
horizontal lap siding. It does have prominent gables. Viking Properties' contention is that these elements are sufficient to tie
the existing home in with the proposed new homes. We would propose to strike conditions 3 and 4 and replace 3 and 4 with
a condition that would read something like "the applicant will be responsible for construction of a new fence along the access
road, an arbor gable along the access road, as well and to paint the existing house in a common color scheme with the new
homes.
Mr. McConnell: Now did you write that down or is that...
Mr. Smith: I don't have that written down. I had discussed the item with Eric before this and we just had a
miscommunication. I thought he was going to write the condition and I ended up writing it just now. It doesn't have to read
exactly like that, but ...
Mr. McConnell: If you have written it, I will take it as an exhibit and ...
Mr. Smith: I can write it and get it to you by the close of the hearing here. I just got it as a note here on the side of my staff
report.
Mr. McConnell: Why don't you do that the way you want it written, and I may agree or may not. But anyway, you will
have it in the record.
Mr. Smith: Certainly. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. We believe that that will bring some definition to that condition.
We don't have a problem with insuring that the house is consistent with the theme of the other new homes, but we would like
to try to secure that somehow as far as what exactly does that mean. That was all I had for my direct testimony, unless there
are other questions from the Examiner.
Mr. McConnell: No questions at this time, but I am sure there may be some after the neighbors speak. From the
neighborhood, who would like to speak first?
Mr. Burns: My name is Paul Burns. Street address is 8928 — 2401 Street Southwest, Edmonds, WA. I think it was just a
couple of concerns. I have lived in this particular area here for probably about 15 years or so. Within that period of time, I
have seen a tremendous amount of unstructured growth up there as far as residential homes. The problem I think that is
pretty consistent throughout the neighborhood up in there is that, I am not really sure. I don't have the history on it of how
far it goes back, but a lot of those lots up in that particular area up in there were quite large —somewhere in the area of maybe
'/2 to 3/4 maybe 1 acre lots. What we have seen over the period of probably the last five to ten years is a substantial growth in
there where they would come in and be able to map out and figure out exactly how many homes you can get in there.
Mr. Burns: One of the reasons that I moved from the City out to the City of Edmonds out here was that it was simple. It
was quiet. I enjoyed the natural wildlife and the trees and everything else out there. Bit by bit, I am seeing that through the
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-02-61 and PRD-02-62
July 18, 2002 Page 4
development there that this whole what once kind of looked like natural forest up there is just going away bit by bit by bit.
The one particular parcel that is, I believe to the west heading down 240', that was a pretty slick move. That one came in
there and they got the property in there and went in there and virtually skinned that entire lot. I have got a real problem with
that because, I mean, some of these trees ( these are not obviously old growth) but you come in and slam four or five homes
in there, you have completely skinned off all of the trees and nature and that sort of thing, and you come in and plant your
five -gallon little shrubs. The little basic appointments to kind of make it look good. Well, I think it would be a completely
different approach if the developers of some of the project were actually physically going to live there. These trees... A
perfect example was directly behind me. There was a situation where they went in a sold off the entire property there. The
guy that was on the front side up there, they built a house directly behind in there. A lot of these trees were nestled in pretty
dense in there. After the developer fmished the property and everything was all done and all the big trees were done, the first
big ice and wind storm we got crushed one of the homes. It is a perfect example because some of these trees are quite small
and the sway factor... Anyhow, I think that is just one of the concerns that I have as a resident up in there is that bit by bit.
Mr. Burns: And I am concerned, you know, how the homes actually fit in the neighborhood on there. It is just one of those
things that I am sure that it would be a comfortable fit. There is an existing home on this particular site now and then kind of
like a garage or apartment type thing behind. Two homes could fit in there real comfortable, but I guess I just kind of fail to
see when you take a parcel like this and subdivide the thing out from single-family to a multiple, it doesn't really... Too
many homes, you know, in such a dense area. I am sure, you know, if the structures, the homes are priced affordable, there is
people who don't really care about ... I don't want neighbors around. I moved to Edmonds because I was on a dead end
street, totally secluded. I don't want to look across and say good morning neighbor, you know. And that is basically where it
is getting to. So, I was looking at some of the drawings this morning, and there was a little note out to one side that basically
said something the effect that there would be no trees within 15 feet of the house. Well, you are only talking. .. I mean the
square footage of these parcels are small. You take 15 feet out, that's... Anyhow. I guess its all really ... You know, I
came here today. .. It was unfortunate, I was out of town when they had the meeting over at the house over there. I would
have liked to have been there to just see some of the response from some of the other neighbors and that sort of thing. We
just kind of all said, as a collective group in the neighborhood up there, after that last subdivision went in down there, which
if you drive by and look at the thing, you just go...
Mr. McConnell: I always drive by and look, so I have been.
Mr. Burns: It doesn't fit, you know. Anyhow. I just hope that when Mr. Sundquist decides to, you know, proceed with this
project that it is really addressed with the situation that everybody has talked about of how this whole thing fits. I was
unaware of this... This is the second one of these that has? Of the PD.. .
Mr. McConnell: Well, the planned residential development concept has been around Edmonds for some years. The City
Council modified the ordinance a year ago, and this is the second PRD to come through the new process. But it is not a new
idea. As a matter of fact, it is an idea that is used throughout the region —throughout the country. Each jurisdiction handles
it a little differently. As I was mentioning at the very beginning of the hearing, there are some procedural things that have
been going on in the last one that, basically, what happened is the City Council passed an ordinance when the new process
was developed saying that I would be the last decision. Well, I would make the decision, and it could be appealed to the City
Council. Then there was another section of the municipal code that said that I only had the authority to make
recommendations to the Council on PRD's.
Mr. McConnell: A long story short, we sent it to the City Attorney saying, okay, which is it. There was a court case that,
basically, said a PRD is like a rezone and, therefore, has to go to the Council. In most jurisdictions, it is true because in most
jurisdictions you get additional density. If you go through the planned residential route, you can qualify for additional
density. You can qualify for possibly some different uses to be put in there, and so in many ways it is like a rezone. In the
City of Edmonds, however, they don't allow any other uses. If it says single-family, it is single-family. If the density is
8,000 square feet per lot, that is all you get. You don't get any density bonus whatsoever. In other words, in this particular
case, if they want to come in with a straight subdivision, like the one next door, and just do a straight subdivision, they could
do that, and the City would basically have to allow five lots.
Mr. McConnell: In this particular case, what they are proposing is five lots. They are small lots, but they are trying to save
all the trees in that swale. In return for having the smaller lots, they are saving the greenbelt, if you will. So, in this case,
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-02-61 and PRD-02-62
July 18, 2002 Page 5
maybe they are speaking to your concerns because they are saving a lot of the trees, and that is what the proposal is. Right
now, the City Comprehensive Plan allows... At my level I don't set any policy. I just see whether or not the proposal meets
the City's plan and codes. And in this case, the codes are pretty clear that 8,000 square foot lots are permissible. Now your
argument, really, I guess should have been possibly before the Planning Commission and City Council when the plan and
zoning ordinance was adopted for this area saying... Because there are parts of town that have 12,000 and 20,000 square
foot lot, but his is an 8,000 square foot lot area.
Mr. Burns: How does that work for me?
Mr. McConnell: Well, you know.
Mr. Burns: How did it work?
Mr. McConnell: Well, it went through a number of hearings. What happened is with the Growth Management Act that was
passed 11, 12 years ago, now. I have forgotten. Sometime ago. Cities all had to come up with new plans, and the State
Office of... Which is the State office that determines what each county is going to get in terms of population. They say,
okay, here's the population projection. County X you get this, and this case, King County, then, had to presume so many
additional people. King County went with the jurisdictions in the County and came up with what they call an urban/rural
line. So, basically, what happens, virtually all that development, or 90 percent of that development, had to take place in the
urban. Edmonds, obviously, is an urban area. Then the County said, okay, Edmonds, you get so many people. Lynnwood,
you get so many people. You guys figure out where you are going to put them. That's, I guess, the long and short of it. So
they sat down and started going through the plans and said, okay, we have got to accept so many people. So I guess you go
back to the legislature and say, the Growth Management Act is really the genesis of this because it is really encouraging
infill—infill meaning putting development in large lots like you are talking about in cities. That's really at the heart of it all.
And as a result of that, they are trying to keep sprawl from sprawling out into the rural areas as had been happening for 20
years. The number of people that had been accommodated 20 years prior to the Growth Management Act, what had
happened is the amount of space per person was just growing exponentially because people were getting bigger and bigger
and bigger and bigger lots. We couldn't sustain that pattern. Unfortunately, I guess, you are in an area that has been
designated for ...
Mr. Burns: Well, I think it just seems that the concern for most of the folks up there, I think, is pretty consistent. It is just
like what once used to be kind of like a national forest is just getting slammed with these homes.
Mr. McConnell: I am just mentioning, that's a discussion. .. You know... I know that the jurisdictions fight hard to try
and get people to public hearings when they are doing the plans and the zoning codes, and nobody shows up.
Mr. Burns: Well, it has brought something to my attention, that if I continue to be a resident up here in Edmonds, you have
to be actively involved in the community types things.
Mr. McConnell: That's right. And when see these opportunities... The cities all have public hearings for when they do
plan changes, when they do any of this. It goes through a big public hearing process. Believe me, the Planning Commission
and the City Council do listen to the citizens. They really do. Not everybody is happy when they come away, but they go
through a very, very extensive public process when they are changing these plans. I don't know how long that has been
designated for 8,000 square foot lots, but it has been some time now. I don't know how many years. And I don't know if
that was done as a result of the last change, or not. But that is what the zoning is now.
Mr. Burns: 8,000?
Mr. McConnell: 8,000 square foot lots.
Mr. Burns: Is that the minimum?
Mr. McConnell: Minimum, yeah. You can have more than that, but you can't have less than that
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-02-61 and PRD-02-62
July 18, 2002 Page 6
Mr. Burns: Okay. That's basically what I came here to say, was to just share some information or my thoughts and hope
that this thing can proceed along and that it fits with the neighborhood.
Mr. McConnell: Okay. Thank you. Yes ma'am.
Ms. Noe: My name is Janice Noe, and I am at 9105 — 242nd Street Southwest.
Mr. McConnell: How do you spell you last name?
Ms. Noe: N — O — E.
Mr. McConnell: Easy enough.
Ms. Noe: I am the neighbor on that kind of shares the boundary on the south end of this proposed PRD.
Mr. McConnell: Okay. Yeah. You have written a letter.
Ms. Noe: Yeah, I wrote a letter.
Mr. McConnell: I have got it.
Ms. Noe: I don't usually get involved in things like this, and I don't come to the planning processes and so on. I am
interested in what you were stating with Mr. Burns there about the lot size and that area being designated for smaller lots than
perhaps are in some of the other areas in Edmonds, which is interesting to know.
Mr. McConnell: Some of the lots are smaller than 8,000, too.
Ms. Noe: Are they? Oh, okay. All right. I was at the neighborhood meeting with my husband, and I was happy that that
meeting occurred and that there was information that was put out. I wanted to thank the Planning Department and Meg for
having gotten in touch with the neighbors so that they could come and see what was going on. The neighborhood, as it
exists, Mr. Burns described it really well in stating that it is a pretty rural area and it has a kind of a little bit of an old growth
feel to it. I don't know that it qualifies as national forest. I do know that it is kind of park like on a lot of those old lots, and
we have a pretty large lot ourselves. I agree a lot with what Mr. Burns was saying, just in terms of what his concerns are
about development in the neighborhood there. But I also, being at that meeting, I also that Mr. Sundquist did a good job with
the presentation and was talking with the neighbors there and answering what some of their concerns were about the way that
things would proceed with the development of that lot that he has purchased and is planning.
Ms. Noe: The fact that the PRD process, this is only the second one that has gone through in Edmonds since it has been
revised?
Mr. McConnell: That's right.
Ms. Noe: I have a question regarding that, and I am curious about in terms of the neighborhood and how that impacts the
neighborhood. Will that open the door for there to be more PRD's that will go in that region or will it change the overall
zoning approach in that area?
Mr. McConnell: The zoning will stay the same. It is the option of the individual person that comes in with an application to
either go with a straight subdivision, if they choose to subdivide. Depending on the size of the property and the size of the
lot, the only option that may be... If it is a fairly small lot and they can get one extra lot on there, then it goes through the
short subdivision process which is a pretty straight and pretty low key process. If it goes through what they call the formal
plat process, it goes through a public hearing. The short subdivision doesn't even go through a public hearing unless there is
an appeal. The formal plat would go through a public hearing like this, as does a planned residential development. You see
this is a PRD/plat. In other words, there will be a subdivision within this planned residential development, and each family
will own their own lot and there will be some common space in there. That green belt would be a tract to be owned
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-02-61 and PRD-02-62
July 18, 2002 Page 7
commonly by a homeowners association. So, it is up to the individual developer, when that developer comes in, to use that
process or one of the other processes. But the underlying zoning isn't changing and the density doesn't change. In other
words, no matter how you cut it, you still can't have more density. In other words, if you had 40,000 square feet and you
could get eight lots out of it, now matter how you cut that up... Or five lots, you still can only get five lots. Five times eight
is forty.
Ms. Noe: But it is a matter of the process for which you go through?
Mr. McConnell: Yeah. There are just three different processes. The developer picks the process, basically. The City
doesn't change anything. There is no precedence set, and the underlying stays and the underlying density stays the same.
Ms. Noe: Well, that clarifies that somewhat for me. I appreciate your addressing it. I know that at the neighborhood
meeting on some of the concerns that the neighbors had came out. I know that you have a letter that's addressing that —the
neighborhood expressed its concerns. I also submitted a letter and so you could see what some of the concerns are that I
have. Mainly, it is that when lots do become developed like that, there are things that result as an outcome down the road
after the process has begun that people are recipients of —neighbors are recipients, the neighborhood is a recipient. I don't
overall oppose the development, so much as I am concerned about how it goes about. In this PRD here, the area that is a
sloped side, I know that it has been stated that that is not a steep enough slope to be considered a critical area. For the
neighbors that are down below, in the new development down below, it is very critical for them. I think the preservation of
that as a greenbelt comes about mainly because of the difficulty in doing anything else with that slope because it would
present a problem. I do appreciate that it is going to be preserved as a greenbelt. I know that on the backside of the property,
so that's on the west, the greenbelt is proposed. And then on the backside, there, they are not going to remove those trees,
which is something else that I am pleased to know about initially. I am concerned that after those lots (Lots 4 and 5) would
be purchased that the homeowners, then, would be free to remove those trees, which would pose quite a hazard in terms of
the actual removal process, taking the trees down, and also just what it would actually do. It would really denude the
property there —that hill. You have seen the property, so you know what I am talking about. But, in any case, I know it can
happen.
Mr. McConnell: I know. I just had a new house built in my neighborhood and the developer left this beautiful tree. The
guy came in an bought it. The first thing he did was he took the beautiful tree down and planted a little tree out in front. You
know, what do you say. I think I was as frustrated as you probably would be. And the developer protected that tree.
Ms. Noe: He did. And I appreciate that in this plot layout and design that there is consideration given to what is existing. I
appreciate the fact that that existing house will remain and that it will be worked into the development of all of this. All of
this, though, is five houses where there used to be one. I note that somewhere in the material that was sent out to me that
they considered this an underdeveloped lot, which is something that I think the whole neighborhood has valued and
appreciated up until now. I know that the impact in the neighborhood is going to be felt in terms of just the capacity for the
neighborhood to absorb that many more homes, people, cars. The hard surfaces that are going to deflect water, whether or
not they are contained in that system that Eric had spelled, which again, it sounds like a wonderful system that he is devising
to take the waters and direct them to one specific spot and have them perk through. But when those systems...
Mr. McConnell: That is a City requirement, that is not ... He doesn't have a choice on that one.
Ms. Noe: I am very happy to see that and to hear about that. The reality still is that we, as a neighborhood, would have to
see that in action and whether or not that is effective.
Mr. McConnell: One thing I might mention. Most of the region was developed before those kinds of requirements were in
place. I know when my house was built in 1955, none of that was in place. My whole neighborhood was built with none of
that in place, so water from my neighbor runs down onto mine, and mine runs down to my neighbors. In the last, well I hate
to tell you how long I have been in this business, but I have seen that all change from no requirements to very tight
requirements for storm water in all the cities in the region. They have really come down on that one because it has created
enormous problems. So all the cities have come down and tried to address that now. That's one that the cities are adamant
about trying to address because it has caused just enormous problems in this region.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-02-61 and PRD-02-62
July 18, 2002 Page 8
Ms. Noe: Well, this neighborhood would be severely impacted by a project like this going in and what would actually
happen without a system like this. Also, it is going to be really important that the system be effective because we don't have
sidewalks. I know there is going to be a sidewalk planned in front of that. It is going to be the only sidewalk in the
neighborhood, which will be kind of an interesting thing. But I know the neighbors are all concerned about the water runoff
and erosion that would develop from this plan. I guess I just wanted to make sure and state that.
Ms. Noe: One of the other things, aside from many of the other things that have been stated and that you have written down,
is the concern about the traffic —the exist from 240r' to SR-104, which in times of snow is the only option. Although that
area may not be considered critical due to slope, it is critical enough that on 242nd they don't allow trucks to go down and up
over onto 2051. It is not an option for people to drive that when it snows. And on 2401, you know, I don't know how it is
for you where your house is located, but I know for the people on the west of where this proposed development is, it is pretty
tricky getting in and out of there. But 240', then, would be impacted even more when the weather conditions are severe.
Right now, it is a very tricky area to negotiate, whether you are making a right or a left turn on to SR-104 from 2401, it is
very challenging. There are visibility issues, both right and left turn lanes, and there is just the traffic flow from 104. There
are a lot of neighbors that were wondering if this development would be enough to put us into that area in which a traffic
light would be considered there.
Mr. McConnell: That is one, the City Engineer. They have what they call traffic warrants, and they review this and, I
guess, that maybe might... I don't know how far away from a traffic light this particular intersection is.
Ms. Noe: That intersection?
Mr. McConnell: Because this PRD is not going to create that many peak hour trips, you know, with four additional houses.
Because you have got one there, so you are looking at four more. When you do that, you are looking at, I don't know, four
per hour. That is one every 15 minutes.
Ms. Noe: But that is four more this coming year.
Mr. McConnell: That's right.
Ms. Noe: And last year there were three to five more.
Mr. McConnell: What you do, is you start looking at the... And that's where the engineering department has to look at
that. Who should she call at the engineering department, because they are the ones that determine that?
Ms. Gruwell: Darrell Smith is our Traffic Engineer.
Mr. McConnell: Okay.
Ms. Noe: But I know that was a big concern.
Mr. McConnell: But if you call Darrell Smith and ask that question, the engineering department is the one that then puts
that into the transportation improvement program and then it works its way up to the point where it gets funded.
Ms. Noe: Okay, I'll direct my question in that manner.
Mr. McConnell: Okay, because I have no authority over that.
Ms. Noe: Okay. I just wondered if that was going to be a consideration or a recommendation because the neighborhood was
concerned about it.
Mr. McConnell: Yeah. That one is one that is run off of a basically when it gets to a certain point, then the engineers say
we need to have a light here, and that's clearly off site from this project for me. I don't have authority to go that far. But the
engineering department certainly does.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-02-61 and PRD-02-62
July 18, 2002 Page 9
Ms. Noe: Okay. So, it is specifically on the lot, itself.
Mr. McConnell: I am only looking at the lot, yeah.
Ms. Noe: Okay, that's fine. The erosion is probably one of the most important features aside from the density, which I think
the neighbors are all somewhat concerned about. Many of the neighbors are new. I have been in the neighborhood for 17
years now, and it has been developed a good deal since then. I am not resentful, particularly, about that. But I do think it is
important the way that the development occurs and some of the development has been, to use Mr. Bum's term, slammed in
there, literally. In particular, the one that was developed west of this property on 2401 just the last few years ago. It was a
very, very low spot and quite undesirable for development, and it has been developed now. This lot, now, that is just above it
is going to be developed and I don't think there is anything that anybody can do to stop that. And I don't know that everyone
wants to stop it completely, but we certainly want to know that the concerns in the neighborhood and the quality of the
neighborhood would be somewhat preserved in the process. Knowing that there is going to be so much removed —I think
there is something like 1,700 cubic of top soil and soils that are going to be removed from that site. It is going to change
things quite a bit. It is going to change things quite a bit in the neighborhood area there, and it is going to have its effect. I
think that, as a homeowner there and a property owner, what I am concerned about is when it does or if it does impact my
property, is there any way of addressing it. If trees are removed and the existing fringe of trees present a problem in the
storms that come up because I know that they do come up and I know what that tree fringe looks like now. It is one of the
few left. When that becomes even less, it is going to be much more of a problem. And other neighbors have stated there
have been large limbs coming down in windstorms there, too. I am concerned because we have a building on our property
that could be the recipient of, you know, a hazardous tree coming down.
Ms. Noe: I guess I would just like to state what my concerns are, and I know that the neighborhood has many similar
concerns that we just want to let the developer know that we would like for him to really think about what it would be like for
us living there with this development, and for him to consider it as a place that he might like to live after it is developed.
Mr. McConnell: Okay. Thank you;
Ms. Noe: Thank you.
Mr. McConnell: Mr. Burns.
Mr. Burns: (I couldn't hear what he was saying as he is coming to the microphone.) ... on that west side that she was
referring to. The grade of that, I just don't even, I mean... I can't imagine where on the west side, the development down
here where they took and put all those home in, if you look at the grade from up here to here, that's a serious drop. Okay.
When the houses... When the homes... The property directly behind me.... When they went in there and clear cut that, I
had just ... I mean, the grade is only, yeah, it was not much. The back yard, I'll get maybe three inches of standing water on
a good heavy rain just because there is nothing for the absorption. I mean, there is nothing to attach the water to. I just don't
... I mean, on a pitch that deep on that thing, I don't know how the heck you could control runoff on that thing because
those people down there, they have a stamp sized back yard. We will give them the benefit of the doubt. We will put a little
deck out so you can sit on your deck. Now you are going to look up into the homes. The people that are even farther down
on the other side of that last development, they put a retaining wall in. That was quite an argument that went in down there
because it is almost like a wetland down there in the front section there. So I don't know. I mean, this is something that I
would really hope that when Mr. Sundquist does this that he lives up to it and that the City will...
Mr. McConnell: Mr. Sundquist will... Let me go back. The City engineering department is going to be looking at this
very carefully, and what will be required is that the water from all the roof downspouts, they will be collecting all that water.
They will be collecting water from the patios, from the street and funneling it into, then, the retention system. I think Mr.
Smith will be talking more about that. Now, he has got his plans out here. But it has got to go into a storm water collection
system. So in the past, it would have run right into those people's... Thirty years ago, it would have gone down there and
absolutely flooded them. Today, the cities are not going to give Mr. Sundquist a lot of slack on that.
Mr. Burns: Am I correct? I mean, that grade is ...
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-02-61 and PRD-02-62
July 18, 2002 Page 10
Mr. McConnell: Yeah. So the City engineers are going to be pretty tough on that. They'll look at that very carefully. Mr.
Smith is going to be able to... I think he's got probably some plans out now that can respond in a little bit more detail than
that. I am just talking about what the City codes require, and he can talk in more detail about that.
Mr. Burns: I was kind of wondering. I know I am not trying to be funny here. But where do the animals go?
Mr. McConnell: Well, you know that is good question.
Mr. Burns: I know where after the last batch. I know where all the rats came, and they came my direction to my house
because they didn't have a place.
Mr. McConnell: Well, you know, I guess this is one of those things that.... There were a lot more animals in all of
Edmonds when Edmonds wasn't you know... This, again, gets back to that issue of the Growth Management Act. There
are rural areas and there are urban areas. And the urban areas.... Although in my backyard, we feed the birds and we have
a lot of bird life and we have squirrels. I guess that goes with they find whatever is on the ground. But, occasionally, we
have a raccoon that comes through and an opossum that comes through. But you are right, we don't have the same kind of
wildlife that I had when I first moved to this region and was living in Redmond. I remember my first winter seeing deer
walking down the street. Well, you don't see that in Redmond anymore.
Mr. Burns: No. That's all.
Mr. McConnell: It certainly is a change, and hopefully, on the fringe, on the rural areas, we are preserving habitat for
wildlife and all. What's amazing is just down the street from me, right next to the freeway, is an eagle's nest. I can't believe
it. And there are eagles soaring in the neighborhood. I saw one over the house yesterday. So go figure. The eagle's nest is
not more than 150 feet away from the freeway.
Mr. Burns: It also, too. Since I am sure everybody who has every lived up ... When you have a tremendous amount of,
over there by Lake Ballinger, that apartment development over there. I don't if you people have lived up on the north end
long enough to remember when that was just a heavy wooded forest in there. I, over the last 15 years of living up there, bit
by bit... I am very sensitive to sound. I work in the City, and I come home to my little niche of a forest, and I am good to
go. (I can't hear a few words here.) You know what that is. It is not the roar of the ocean.
Mr. McConnell: It's the noise. It's traffic.
Mr. Burns: It is the freeway. I never used to hear that before. So with each one of these knuckleheads coming in there and
scabbing off all the trees, it just becomes more and more. So, I don't know. It's ...
Mr. McConnell: Well, I live a block and a half from the freeway, so I understand what you are talking about. Yes, Ms.
Noe.
Ms. Noe: I guess I just wondered. I need an answer to my question as far as...
Mr. McConnell: Okay, we will try and get it.
Ms. Noe: The existing trees that will be left. As I am concerned about this with the development process and everything. If
there is damage during the process, while the builder is still constructing, is there any kind of shared responsibility there or is
it considered an act of God? How is that addressed?
Mr. McConnell: I will leave that one for you, Mr. Smith. Our official record is the tape recording, so whoever speaks has
go to ... We'll get him up here and have him answer. If you have any questions after he is done, just keep asking. We will
make sure that you get any question you have....
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-02-61 and PRD-02-62
July 18, 2002 Page 11
Ms. Noe: It is mainly that one because it is something that may or may not come up. It could come up during construction
or after, and I would just like to know how that is addressed. Thank you.
Mr. McConnell: Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith: Steven Michael Smith again. I have got a written comment of that proposed change to Conditions 3 and 4.
Mr. McConnell: All right. We'll enter your proposed change as Exhibit G.
Mr. Smith: Okay. I will try and cover as many of the neighbors' concerns as I can. If I miss anything, hopefully, you can
remind me where I missed. There was a concern, kind of a shared concern, about small parcels and loss of trees. The
Examiner talked a little bit about that, and I agree with that analysis that a certain number of lots are allowed, be they 4,000
square foot lots or 8,000 square foot lots. The benefit of having small lots is that the trees that are proposed to remain are left
in a separate tract that would be owned in common by the homeowners association and along with the covenants of the final
recorded subdivision, the City will require those trees to be left in place unless they are determined hazardous. In order to be
determined hazardous, an arborist would have to come out and certify a certain individual tree as diseased or dangerous from
wind throw to the proposed development. Now, if there are trees within the proposed protected area that are taken out during
construction, certainly that is not our intent. But we find that a lot of times that the weakest point in this whole process is at
the shovels. When you get the loggers out there clearing trees, they are excited and they like to clear trees and sometimes
that does happen. The most direct feedback, I suppose, in a situation like that would be the City levying an enforcement
action against the developer. So there is... And I don't know exactly what that enforcement action would include, but the
City then has the option to come to the developer with some proposed remedy. The City has the authority to enforce that.
So, that's the most direct motivation on a developer not to cut down trees in a proposed protected area.
Mr. Smith: Now, if one of the neighbors believes that they have been personally injured by the removal of such a tree, there
is always remedy through the courts. Certainly, you know, we hope that we are not causing any direct damage to the
neighborhood, but there is always that avenue.
Mr. McConnell: Now, saying that, it is a civil matter. That means it is a civil matter if they damage your property during the
construction. It is a civil matter. Hopefully, it can be resolved short of the courts, and the insurance and negotiations will
take care of it long ahead of the courts. But if you can't resolve it, then of course, that is the final stop. But, I hate to have
you think that the first step is court because I would see that as a last step.
Mr. Smith: That's true. I agree. I agree. Mr. Sundquist does quite a bit of business in this area. He does a lot of work in
Shoreline, and he does quite a bit of work in Edmonds. He has a great deal of personal interest in not causing any more
damage to the neighborhoods than the minimum possible. He is certainly very sensitive to the neighborhood concerns and
that is one of the reasons why he had the idea of proposing a planned residential development on this property. Setting those
trees aside in a separate tract will prevent the very scenario that the Examiner referred to on the lot near his house, where the
home builder decided to cut down the tree that was left.
Mr. McConnell: Now, next to her house, she has got my situation, though, because she is not next to the tract. She's... As
I understand it, you're at the tail end of the development, back where you are saving the trees, but they won't be in a tract.
Mr. Smith: Well, the tract is going to include, and that's the south end, the triangle of trees that's remaining on the (and I'll
look at the drawing here).
Mr. McConnell: Let's take a look here.
Mr. Smith: There's a triangle of trees that's being retained at the southwest corner. That's part of the tract.
Mr. McConnell: Okay, I see that. Yeah.
Mr. Smith: So actually, that triangle, as well as the western grouping of trees is all proposed to be retained in a single,
private tract which will be owned by the homeowners association.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-02-61 and PRD-02-62
July 18, 2002 Page 12
Mr. McConnell: Do you have the larger sheets that you might show her?
Mr. Smith: Yeah. Absolutely.
Mr. McConnell: It is awfully hard to see that on these little sheets.
Ms. Noe: Well, I can see it, but my understanding is that that in particular, and I know this is being recorded, but that
particular area of that south portion is not to be part of the protected group.
Mr. Smith: Well, let me see. Maybe I am lying. Hang on a second here.
Mr. McConnell: Yeah, you have got a separate tract. Your tract shows.... The way I read your tract, it reads as stopping. .
Mr. Smith: Oh, that's true. That's my mistake. I apologize. I thought we had changed that, but generally speaking,
groupings...
Mr. McConnell: I see. So you have got a is that a rockery there?
Mr. Smith: That's right. That's exactly. That's a retaining wall. The original plan called for actually excavating that area
to create a fairly level yard.
Mr. McConnell: What if you included that area south of the retaining wall as part of the tract?
Mr. Smith: I personally would not have any difficulty with that. Unfortunately, Mr. Sundquist thought that things were well
in hand and saw fit to leave the hearing proceedings.
Mr. McConnell: That's what he gets for leaving.
Mr. Smith: That's right.
Ms. Gruwell: Mr. Hearing Examiner, he did address that at the neighborhood meeting. He pointed out that these lots were
already pretty small to begin with, and that he would prefer to let them have some sort of private property to do whatever
they wanted to with.
Mr. McConnell: But he has got some 22-inch fir, 10-inch fir, 18-inch fir, 10-inch fir, 22-inch fir, I mean those are
significant trees.
Mr. Smith: They are significant trees. That area is pretty well separated because of the retaining wall separated from the
yard. I would be... I mean, I am purely speculating, I'll admit that, but I would be really surprised if the future homeowners
wanted to turn that into a yard area that would require significant maintenance.
Mr. McConnell: You know, in my time, I have seen lots of strange things happen. I guess I am going to just... I don't
normally telegraph what I am going to do, but I think what I am going to do is include that area in the tract. Of course, since
I am only making a recommendation to the City Council, if Mr. Sundquist doesn't like it, you can always go the City Council
and say I really don't want that and let him argue there. But to me, it makes sense to keep that in the tract.
Mr. Smith: And that is certainly your prerogative. And we will opportunity to discuss that at Council. It very well may be
that Mr. Sundquist doesn't feel that strongly about it. Because it is being separated by probably a four -foot retaining wall, it
won't have any real practical connection with the small rear yard for Lot 4 anyhow. That may be acceptable to him, so I
can't even say what Eric's opinion of that will be.
Mr. McConnell: To me, it looks like it just makes sense.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-02-61 and PRD-02-62
July 18, 2002 Page 13
Mr. Smith: There was a question about erosion protection, and I think that the erosion protection ties in directly with the
tree retention issue because allowing for all the existing trees to remain there will help keep the absorption properties of that
slope that you don't have surface water runoff on that. That area will be fenced off during the construction period so that that
area is retained. The western area is also proposed to be a native transplant area. The property was maintained until about
ten years ago as a large garden and there are a lot of native plants and shrubs on the property that Mr. Sundquist thought
would be a very nice addition to that sloping area. So he is proposing actually to increase the vegetative density there, which
will assist in any erosion protection efforts.
Mr. Smith: The drainage system will also protect that. There is... It is not clear from the topography, but there are two
separate drainage basins on the property. There is a western drainage basin which slopes toward the sloping area and an
eastern basin, which certainly isn't as steep, but directs storm water runoff to the east. The proposal will actually direct some
of the water which is currently running to the west into a centralized drainage system, which will infiltrate the storm water as
opposed a surface system, which would outlet to, say, a street system to percolate that water back into the ground. We have
had a geotechnical engineer look at the soils there and determine whether the soils are adequate for that infiltration given the
development and the geotechnical engineer says that the soils are adequate. Our civil engineer believes that the system that
we have designed can be designed with the final engineering plans to accomplish that goal. I might add the City Engineer
has also reviewed our drawings and reports and agrees. So we have had a fair amount of expertise that all agree that the
system can operate as designed. Obviously, it has to be built correction, and the City will be inspecting that system as it is
constructed to ensure that it does meet the specifications.
Mr. Smith: I believe that covers all the concerns from the neighbors, but I will set down and let them ...
Mr. McConnell: One thing I noticed in making the statement about preserving or keeping that section in a native growth
protection easement, that means that the lot coverage for those homes is going to go up significantly, which I will
acknowledge. The fact of the matter is, even though the technical lot coverage is going up, you are surrounded on two sides
by open space for Lot 4 and to some degree on Lot 5. It is a little bit larger lot, but you have still got open space on that
lower corner. So it is not as if the lot coverage is really going up. It is a technical thing. I am not suggesting that the house
get smaller at all.
Mr. Smith: That's a good point.
Mr. McConnell: I just want you to know that I recognize that that is going to be an issue, and I will address that also in the
report.
Mr. Smith: Okay. As long as it is covered in your report and Ms. Gruwell's report to the Council, then I think that will
cover that part of it, certainly.
Mr. McConnell: Okay. Anything else we haven't heard? Anything from you, Meg.
Ms. Gruwell: I just wanted to give you the address map.
Mr. McConnell: Oh, okay. The address map is Exhibit H.
Ms. Gruwell: I was just realizing that there were a couple of people who had submitted comments, and I had to check the
new address map to see where they live. So I thought might want to know that.
Mr. McConnell: Okay.
Ms. Gruwell: And thank you for bringing up the lot coverage and the setbacks. We have been known to forget that in past
PRD's and I appreciate you catching it.
Mr. McConnell: Well, you know, the older I get I start picking up on some of these things.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-02-61 and PRD-02-62
July 18, 2002 Page 14
Ms. Gruwell: One other thing. I was just thinking, you know, it is easy to think of great conditions once you have already
written the report and it is too late. Mr. Smith was mentioning that the City will require the trees to be preserved in the open
space, and I was just realizing, I am not sure there is any condition currently that requires that. I am not sure that they have
stated anything on their plat map other than it is an open space tract. But that might be a good thing to confirm that we really
do need some sort of process before they can take any trees down in that area.
Mr. McConnell: Okay. I presume you have no problem with that.
Mr. Smith: Steven Michael Smith. No. That is absolutely acceptable. It has been part of our plan the entire time, and we
expect that to be a condition as long as there is the provision for hazardous tree removal, just because that can create
significant problems if that provision is not included in the retention conditions.
Mr. McConnell: Okay.
Ms. Gruwell: And one other thing. Mr. Burns had mentioned the lot to the west was skinned of trees. I was surprised at the
neighborhood meeting when one of the new neighbors on that lot to the west, well, we have our greenbelt. I was thinking,
no, I just heard it was skinned of trees. But Attachment 4 does show where they had a required critical area tract. Actually,
here it is just considered the 40 percent slope. It would be nice if the greenbelt on this lot matched up with their greenbelt, so
that it would sort of help protect...
Mr. McConnell: They do have a very small greenbelt, don't they.
Ms. Gruwell: Yes, well larger on the corner. I am sure the developer thought it was huge.
Mr. McConnell: Well, thank you very much for coming and participating. I will close a hearing. I will have a written
recommendation out within two weeks, and it goes to the Council for final decision.
I TESTIFY THAT THESE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS ARE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY
ABILITY TO TRANSCRIBE THE PROCEEDINGS.
Karin Noyes, Transcriber
Date
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers P-02-61 and PRD-02-62
July 18, 2002 Page 15