Loading...
2003-02-06 Hearing Examiner MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS OF HEARING EXAMINER HEARING Hearing Examiner: Ron McConnell Applicant: Merle Steinman Appellant: Ellen Bruya File Numbers PRD-2002-40/P-2002-93/AP-2003-3 February 6, 2003 Mr. McConnell: This next item is a request for a planned residential development, and it has a SEPA appeal. Under the regulatory reform act that the State Legislature passed a number of years ago, basically, what happened, each application or case goes through one open record hearing. This is the open record hearing. What I will do is open the hearing, and I am not going to try and separate out for everybody what is a ... And I won't expect you to separate out for me what is the SEPA appeal issue and what is the PRD issue. I know there is an attorney involved in this and the attorney may want to separate a little bit, but for the citizens, if you want to talk about the issues, I'll separate it out. I will issue two reports. But we will just conduct one hearing and not try and do this thing and then have you try and separate those issues out. I will do that myself. So what I will do is turn it over to staff, have staff run through both the PRD and the SEPA appeal issues. Then I will turn it over to the applicant to make a presentation, and then the appellant to make a presentation. Then any neighbor that wants to speak on the issue, any questions they want to ask, whatever. We will stay here until we make sure all the questions are either answered to the best of our ability or you get a chance to say what you want to say and have it in the record. With those preliminary remarks, I will turn it over to staff. Ms. Taylor: Kathleen Taylor again. First of all, I would like to explain how I have done the reports. I would like to enter into the record as Exhibit 1 the appeal on the staff s recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, and as Exhibit 2 the staff s recommendation in regards to the planned residential development and the plat. Exhibit 3 will be my attachment packet. So if there are any members of the audience that don't have all three of those, you can step back there at the table and we do have everything right there. I know it is a little bit confusing having one attachment packet, but because we are referring to multiple things, it makes it a little bit easier. The attachment packet is very thick, rubberbanded together. Ms. Taylor: Okay. I would like to touch on the appeal issues first so that we can get right into it. For those members of the audience that are not familiar with SEPA, that is the State Environmental Policy Act. The State law requires that the City review applications that are greater than four dwelling units, and in this case we have 12 dwelling units that will be going in at the site, must be reviewed through the SEPA process so that if any of the City's codes do not already address these issues, it gives the City the opportunity to impose additional mitigation measures above and beyond what our City's Development Codes require. I am probably going to say SEPA a lot and PRD a lot. A PRD is a planned residential development. Basically, that refers to the 12-lot subdivision that we are here to discuss today. Ms. Taylor: Okay. In my SEPA Report, I have spent a lot of time trying to state the reasons for SEPA and the reasons for issuing a mitigated determination of non -significance. The City has the right to respond to an environmental determination in three different ways. One of those, they can issue a determination of significance which would require the applicant to submit an environmental impact statement. The second way to respond to that is to issue a determination of non - significance. A determination of non -significance does not mean that the development will not have significant impacts to the environment. What it means is that the City's development codes already respond to those issues. Now the City can also issue a mitigated determination of non -significance, which is what I have done in this particular case. That is saying that City codes do seem to meet all of the requirements that we would put upon the applicant, except in terms of traffic impact fees. So this development will, obviously, add traffic to the neighborhood. As a result, they are required to pay fees per number of peak hour trips in the evening hour. So that is included in the mitigated determination (Attachment 12 in that attachment packet). The applicant submitted the environmental checklist, which is what State law requires him to do, and that is Attachment 13 in my list. Ms. Taylor: So we have received an appeal from Ellen Bruya, and I believe she is represented by her attorney today, Betty Drumheller. The SEPA appeal, there were basically three main issues that I saw. There was concern in the appeal about erosion control and how would the City be responding to that. There were concerns about increased run off, so potentially with this new development, where would the extra stormwater go. There was concern that it would go on adjacent properties. The third issue that was noted in the appeal was concern about the amount area between the subdivision and the neighboring property. Ms. Taylor: Basically, all three of these issues are already dealt with in the City's Development Code. The erosion control is dealt with in the Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. That is the engineering section of our code that has strict requirements that everyone must follow as they go to subdivide a property. We believe that those already meet the necessary requirement to control erosion. The second issue, increased run off is also dealt with in Edmonds Community Development Code 18.30. These are the same requirements that are required of everyone and the staff also feels that they are sufficient. The concern about the buffer area, the same thing. This really isn't an issue directly related to SEPA, but I will address it in my staff report when we get to reviewing the main subdivision, itself. Ms. Taylor: I would like to explain in terms of the erosion control and in terms of the run off issues. At this time, what the City is reviewing is a preliminary application. So at this time, the applicant is required to submit a preliminary drainage plan and at this time these are not final plans. They have to submit a preliminary plan. It's the preliminary that does receive approval. Then they will have to submit actual civil plans showing where the drainage is going to go, how the drainage is going to work. If the City staff sees that it does not meet the requirements of Chapter 18.30, the applicant would be required to make revisions of it. But at this time, the applicant is only required to provide a preliminary drainage plan. Ms. Taylor: Okay, I am going to skip to my report unless the Hearing Examiner has any questions about that. Mr. McConnell: Nope. Ms. Taylor: I think I just kind of dove right in so we should really go over the fact that this is a 12-lot planned residential development. I think most of you are familiar that it is just off of 172nd Street in North Edmonds. This could be developed as a standard subdivision. The property owner has the right to develop it as a standard subdivision. If that were done, there would not be any sort of buffer area around the site at all. You would probably see a road right down the middle of the property, similar to what you see in the plans here. Then the property would be divided into 12 or so lots. When that is done, each lot would have a required setback from the street and a required setback from the rear property line. The rear property lines obviously abut all of the neighboring properties. So in this particular zone, the rear setback would be 25 feet. So, essentially, if it was a standard subdivision, the house would have to be 25 feet from the rear property line. They would still have the right to put a shed in the rear of their property provided it is not bigger than 600 square feet. Obviously, they could have any sort of landscaping or whatever they would like in the rear of their property. Ms. Taylor: By going through a planned residential development, the applicant is going to be allowed to determine their maximum density, which means the number of lots that they can do at the property. They are allowed to determine it by looking at the entire square footage of the area and dividing by the underlying zoning. In this particular case, we have approximately 6.2 acres, I believe. The underlying zoning calls for a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. That is approximately '/2 acre. If the applicant was developing this as a standard subdivision, they would have to deduct the portion for the access right of way before they could determine the number of lots. So potentially, it could be one fewer lot. It still could be 12 lots. I just wanted to go through that so we have a good understanding of how it works, and I will take time for questions, too, when we are done. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Numbers PRD-2002-40/P-2002-93/AP-2003-3 February 6, 2003 Page 2 Ms. Taylor: The site, as it exists now, is undeveloped. As I mentioned, it is in the zoning for RS-20, and that is a single- family residential zone with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. In terms of the elevation of the property or the terrain, you will see that it slopes quite a bit from the eastern side of the property to the western side. It does change in elevation of approximately 100 feet across the property, so that is quite a bit of a slope. The applicant had to submit, obviously, topographic maps, and the staff had to review those to determine whether or not there are any critical areas on the property. By critical areas, I mean the City's Development Code has set things. Is there a wetland on the property? Is there a stream? Is there steep slope? A steep slope is defined according to the City Development Code as at least 20 feet in elevation and a grade of at least 40 percent. In reviewing the topographic information that was completed by a surveyor, it does not appear that any of the slopes on the property reach 40 percent. There is one area on the site where we get to approximately 38 percent, but we never quite make it to 40. So, technically, there are no critical areas on the site that the applicant would be required to protect and set aside as an area of non -disturbance. Ms. Taylor: Now, in order to receive approval for a planned residential development, there are a number of things that you have to show that you can meet. I have those listed on Page 2 of my report in the very first section of the introduction under application. Item 5 says "Major Issues." You will see there, it has to comply with the underlying zoning. It has to comply with the Edmonds Community Development Code Title 18, which is a public works requirements. Those are things in terms of drainage, erosion control. It must comply with the environmental review that is required by the State. It must comply with our critical areas ordinance and regulations. It must comply with the requirements of a planned residential development. It also must comply with the requirements of a standard subdivision, and it must meet with the requirements of the Hearing Examiner and City Council review. Ms. Taylor: So, we are basically going to go through these. I will try to do it quickly, I know this is going to be a long one. Now I have already gone over how it complies with the City's critical areas, although I might touch on that in a little more detail throughout my report. The first item you see at the bottom of Page 3, compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The City of Edmonds, as required by the State Growth Management Act, has set a Comprehensive Plan as to what the City would like to see in the future within the next 20 years as the City of Edmonds grows. We have set policies in the Comprehensive Plan that specifically address residential development, as well as soils and topography. So I have included all of those policies in the staff report. Certainly, feel free to take a look at them. Those are on Pages 3 through 5. After that, I have basically summarized how I feel that the applicant is meeting those requirements. Ms. Taylor: In particular, this area is designated a single-family residential area. So, obviously, that is what we are going to have in this area is single-family residences. As a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the City is required to accommodate for future population growth and to assume responsibility for additional citizens in the area and where we are going to have room for these people to live. A planned residential development is one way that can help to meet those requirements. The specific strategy that is called for in here is called design infill. In Edmonds, most of the City of Edmonds is fully developed. There are very few areas left for development. So in this case we are looking at infilling a particular area, recognizing that at some point in time it is going to be developed. This is what the applicant is proposing at this time, a 12- lot planned residential development. I should mention that the applicant, technically, could do a 13-lot planned residential development if he chose to. But at this time, he is only doing 12. Ms. Taylor: In terms of compliance with the residential goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan, you should see that the applicant is retaining some open space areas and buffer area around the plat. They are trying to create something that will fit in with the neighborhood and there won't be any issues with privacy for the neighbors. That is not to say there won't be any, but by having the buffer area, the applicant has gone above and beyond trying to accommodate that particular goal. Ms. Taylor: In terms of compliance with the soils and topography policies, the applicant is specifically proposing houses that will fit on the existing topography of the site. As you know, it slopes quite a bit from the east towards the west, down to the water, and there is going to be one main road running north and south. The properties on the east side are going to be on a hill, sloped that the driveway comes up off of the road to access the property. Those houses will be built into the slope to minimize grading. So on the street side it will likely appear as a two-story house. On the other side it may or may not be two stories, depending on how the slope is there. This is really refreshing because we do have a lot of instances in the City of Edmonds where people wish to grade as much as possible. They want to completely remove all of the dirt so that they can build quite a large home and ignore the fact that there is a slope there. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Numbers PRD-2002-40/P-2002-93/AP-2003-3 February 6, 2003 Page 3 Ms. Taylor: On the western side the property, the properties will be sloping downward from the proposed access road, in which case, some of the houses will actually appear as one story from the street, but will actually be two stories on the other side as it is built into the slope. Ms. Taylor: Okay, we are going to skip to compliance with environmental review. I spent a lot of time explaining the State laws and I am not going to really go through that again. But we have already touched on that. The next item is compliance with the City's critical areas ordinance. As I mentioned before, there are no critical areas as defined by the City's Development Code on this property. I have some attachments to support that, and you are welcome to take a look at those. Those are referred to at the bottom of Page 5 and top of Page 6 of my staff report. Ms. Taylor: Now, one of the most important reasons that we are here is to discuss compliance with the planned residential development code requirements. In order to do a planned residential development as opposed to a standard subdivision, the applicant must go through a much more detailed process and must use designs that would be typical to the lots, must have some sort of open space area. We are going to go through those specifically. We will start at the middle of Page 6 of my report, if you want to look along. Hopefully, it won't put you to sleep. The very first issue is Architectural Design Board review. As opposed to a standard subdivision, a planned residential development must be reviewed by the City's Architectural Design Board. This is the only single-family development that is reviewed by the Architectural Design Board. The Architectural Design Board typically reviews commercial projects and multi -family projects. They do not deal with single-family, except for when it comes to a PRD. Ms. Taylor: The applicant has proposed houses for seven of the twelve lots as to what they would like to put there. You will see that in my attachment packet "refer to Attachment 6," which is staff s report to the Architectural Design Board. Within that attachment, I have a number of attachments. You will see they are in a slightly larger font so you can actually tell. They are one of the only 11 x 17 large folded sheets in the attachment packet. Yes, you have it right there. That way, you can actually see some elevation views of what the applicant is proposing for what the homes would look like, as well as a site plan as to what the homes would look like on the first few lots there. The Architectural Design Board reviewed the project and I might mention were very impressed by what the applicant submitted. It is much better than what we have gotten in the past for planned residential developments. This is very refreshing because I think that anyone in the audience and myself including, if you take a look at the plans, you can really get a feel for what the houses will look like. When City staff goes to review the houses on additional lots if the PRD were to be approved, we would have a very good idea of what those houses should look like because they must be compatible with what is already being proposed on the property. Ms. Taylor: Under my compliance with PRD's, the Item 2—Modification of Standards, with a planned residential development, the applicant may propose to change what the standard development requirements are for that zone. So in this zone, it is RS-20, with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. The applicant can propose any lot size he wants. That does not mean that he is going to get a whole bunch of extra lots. That means the lots are going to be smaller and he is going to have more designated open space or recreational areas. It is just that the lots, themselves, can be smaller. The applicant can also propose to change the required setbacks for the lots, themselves. They cannot change the exterior setbacks. If the property were to be developed as a standard subdivision with one road straight down the middle and dividing it up into standard lots, each lot would be required to have a rear setback of 25 feet. So the applicant must have a rear setback or else a buffer area of 25 feet, with maybe a zero setback next to it. But they must have at least 25 feet going all around the subdivision, which the applicant has shown to do. In this particular case, the applicant has requested that the lots be smaller than 20,000 square feet, and you will see, I have got the map done right there, as to how they can get to 13 lots although they are only developing 12. They have proposed to reduce the setbacks on the majority of the lots, except for Lots 1 and 2, where there is not a buffer area between the PRD and the adjoining property. On the majority of the lots they have a street setback of 25 feet, side setbacks of 10 feet and a rear setback of 20 feet, except for the exception of Lots 1 and 2. The modifications that are proposed are permissible under the Edmonds Community Development Code. Ms. Taylor: Now, onto Item 3 there at the top of Page 7, they must show that they can meet specific criteria in order to be granted these modifications that I just went over. One of the first items is that they have to show that they are providing more landscaping than what is required by a single-family development and they are creating a greater buffer than what is required. As I went over before, they would be required to have 25 feet all the way around the subdivision between their new property and the adjacent properties. Just a 25-foot setback. They have already more than met that on the majority of the lots where you see the buffer area surrounding the properties. It is only Lots 1 and 2 that they are doing the actual minimum. But for Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Numbers PRD-2002-40/P-2002-93/AP-2003-3 February 6, 2003 Page 4 Lots 1 and 2 they have heavily landscaped those rear properties, which is not required at all by the City's landscape code requirements. There are no landscaping requirements for single-family residential zones, so the applicant is going above and beyond in terms of the landscaping requirements. Ms. Taylor: They must show that there is efficient and safe circulation. In this case, a pedestrian pathway and sidewalks will aid in the overall pedestrian circulation. They will be putting sidewalks up and down the proposed access street of the property as well as along 172', just where their property fronts 172nd. They must show that they have met the Architectural Design review requirements. I have already gone through that as the Board has already reviewed it and is recommending approval to the Hearing Examiner. Ms. Taylor: They must show that they have met all of the exterior setbacks. Once again, I think I have already gone through how they have met that. They must show that there will be a reduced visual impact of the development overall. Now, if this was developed as a standard subdivision, and the lots were at least 20,000 square feet in size, which is what they would have to be, they are allowed a maximum of 35 percent lot coverage for any buildings on the site, which basically gets us to 7,000 square feet. So, essentially, each lot could have 7,000 square feet of a building or some sort of a building. Now because the lots are much smaller, their lots will average 3,800 square feet of buildable area as opposed to that 7,000 square feet. So in that case, it will create a reduced visual impact. Ms. Taylor: They must be showing that they are going to preserve the natural features of the land. I have mentioned the proposed residences will be built into the existing topography. There must be a reduction in the overall impervious surfaces. In this development you will see some shared driveways, which will reduce the overall impervious surface. And just the fact that they are reducing the buildable area on the lot from 7,000 down to 3,800 will significantly reduce the total impervious area. Ms. Taylor: So in my conclusion with that, I would say that they have met all of the modification approval criteria in order to be granted the modifications they requested. Ms. Taylor: Now Item 41 have listed as design criteria. This is also a requirement of a PRD that they meet the five decision criteria. The first one is the design criteria. It must comply with the single-family development criteria, which is listed in the planned residential development section of our code, 20.35.050. Then it must show that they meet at least two of the next five items. I should say six total. They must meet the very first one absolutely, and then two of the next five items. The first one is design criteria. The applicant has provided open space areas above and beyond what is required of a PRD. They have approximately 38 percent of the entire site will be designated open space area. The applicant has also provided landscaping. You will see street trees up and down the proposed right-of-way, street trees along 172nd, and landscaping along 172nd. They are designing residences that fit in with the existing topography, and they are working to maintain as many of the trees as possible on the site. Ms. Taylor: In terms of the next few issues, public facilities, perimeter design. They will be serviced by all the public facilities in the area. In terms of the overall perimeter design, they have an open space area that is going along the eastern property line, the northern property and quite a ways on the western property line, as well. Except for, as I mentioned, Lots 1 and 2. There will be no additional buffering, but they do meet the requirements. Ms. Taylor: In terms of open space and recreation, the applicant has shown, not only the open space areas that I have mentioned, but they have got a proposed pathway running through the open space area. You can see that actually in Attachment 6. It is probably one of the very last pages of Attachment 6, where the applicant has submitted the landscape plan. With the landscape plan, they show recreational areas, as well. So there is a pathway running through the open space area with a variety of little stops, viewing points, exercise points, benches where people can sit and relax. It is meant to be, as I understand from the applicant, to be for a walk through the woods. That doesn't mean that some of the trees won't be removed. But they will try to retain as many as possible. If this area was designated an area of non -disturbance, which the applicant is not required to do, then they could not remove any of the trees. Ms. Taylor: Also, in terms of other impact, they also have a proposed terraced garden area. That would be in the open space area for those that live at the development there. They will have little area for gardening. The storm drainage facility, rather than just being a pit in the ground, it will be entirely covered over with a recreation court. It will be heavily landscaped Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Numbers PRD-2002-40/P-2002-93/AP-2003-3 February 6, 2003 Page 5 around the court. The Architectural Design Board has seen this as a really great option as opposed to just a typical stormwater detention facility that isn't all that attractive. Ms. Taylor: In terms of the streets and sidewalks, they will have to meet all of the requirements of the City's engineer. Those are listed in Attachment 5 in my packet. So they have more than met the decision criteria for the PRD. They have actually responded to more issues than they are required to. As I mentioned earlier, they are required to meet the design review and then at least two of the other items. They have met more than two. Ms. Taylor: Now, on to compliance with the subdivisions. Even though this is a planned residential development, they still have to meet the requirements of a standard subdivision. Those are, basically, five issues. The first one is environmental resources. The applicant needs to show that they are paying attention to the environmental resources of the property. In this case, the Architectural Design Board has recommended to the Hearing Examiner that the applicant try to retain as many trees as possible on the lot as opposed to just clear cutting each of the single-family lots. Staff would, obviously, like to see the same thing. Ms. Taylor: The second item is lot and street layout. I have gone through how they meet all of the requirements in terms of the required setbacks. We have dealt with this a lot so I don't think I am going to go through this again. But you are welcome to read it in the middle of Page 8 of my staff report. There will be no corner lots, no designated interior lots (meaning they would have even fewer setbacks than 25 feet). Ms. Taylor: Now, also under the subdivision criteria they must show any dedication that is required by our City Engineer. That is also listed in the City' Engineer's report in Attachment 15. They must make specific improvements to the property, and those are going to include stormwater drainage, sidewalks, water, sewer, all of that they will be required to do. Those are listed also in Attachment 15 in the City Engineer's report. Ms. Taylor: The very last item for compliance with subdivisions is that they are complying with flood plain management. That would require that they are actually located within a flood plain, and they are not. In the City of Edmonds, it is typically around Lake Ballinger and closer to the Sound where we would see anything like that. So this is not a flood plain area. Ms. Taylor: They must also comply with the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Code, and I have already gone through all of those items and they have more than met those. Staff is recommending approval of the planned residential development as proposed with a number of conditions. Those are listed on Pages 2 and 3 of my report. I will try to summarize them because they are probably rather boring to listen to. Where is my Page 3, here. Basically, they need to meet all the requirements of the City's Engineer. They will need to provide civil plans as a part of that. They will need to install a fire hydrant as required by the City's Fire Department. They will have to submit a bond that covers all of the landscaping improvements that they are saying they are going to do. That way the City ensures that the work is actually done. Once the work is completed, they will set up a maintenance bond so that within two years the City can check again to make sure that the landscaping is actually growing as it was planted. Ms. Taylor: Before they can finalize the subdivision, there are a number of things that they will have to do. They will have to go back before the City Council again. They will have to go to City Council this time, but they will also have to go again to get final approval. They will have to meet all of the requirements that are required by the City's Engineer prior to construction. That pretty much summarizes my report. I am available to answer questions, if necessary. Mr. McConnell: All right. Let's first go to the applicant and then the appellant. Then we will go to the citizens, and we will just follow that order. Who is speaking on behalf of the applicant? Ms. Taylor: You can use the podium or the table, whichever you prefer. Mr. McConnell: Whichever you feel more comfortable at. We just need to make sure you are at a microphone because our official record of the hearing is the tape. Your name and address sir? Mr. Steinman: My name is Merle Steinman. I live at 120 Northwest 195' in Shoreline Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Numbers PRD-2002-40/P-2002-93/AP-2003-3 February 6, 2003 Page 6 Mr. McConnell: What is the zip there? Mr. Steinman: 98177. Mr. McConnell: Okay. Go ahead sir. Mr. Steinman: We have been at this... We have owned the property for 25 years. We have decided, with the cost and expense of everything at this point in time, that it is time to develop it. It's a beautiful piece of ground that ... We have got two years into the development of this thing since we have started working with Kathleen and the City. We have gone through all the reports, which you have got and everybody else has. So I won't cover that very much because she has done a good job of putting it together and requesting what she needs, what we need, what is good for the City, good for us and everything else. We have covered everything we could possibly we do. I do have the engineer here with us to cover the points of any erosions or any layouts or anything like that. We have hired a architects to show you what will be done and the type of facilities it will be. Between the architects and the engineers, they have pretty well got that. We have gone to a landscape architect, and that has been done to this. We have been to all of the boards and the meetings and everything else that Kathleen wants and needs to show you want we can do. We have been doing this kind of thing for 25 or 30 years and I don't know any better than this, but that is beside the point. Consequently, that is where I guess, at this point, I will turn it over it Evan Henke. As far as I am concerned, if there are any requests or anything else, I will gladly try to answer any points that anybody has, including any of the neighbors or any other points. We have lived with it for 25 years. We have not changed the land, we have not changed the layout, we have not changed anything so that is where we kind of are at this point. Ready to make the next step. Mr. McConnell: All right. Just state your name and address for the record please. Mr. Henke: My name is Evan Henke. That's H E N K E. Our address is 12507 Belred Road, Bellevue, Washington 98005. Primarily I am here to address any questions that come up. But I did want to specifically address some of the issues raised in the appeal. There are several statements in there that are false. Proceeding through Section 1. The applicant makes no provision to reduce or control runoff from the east slope of the project. The applicant's response does not address the affect of removing foliage. Runoff will flow down the street and onto 172nd. Proposed plans for drainage do not show a diversion to deal with runoff. Could increase flooding and runoff onto the Bruya property which has historically suffered. Mr. Henke: Anyway, even though these are preliminary plans, there is a very comprehensive drainage system shown. It consists of not only collect, water treatment, and finally detention. The drainage plans actually appear in the package in a couple of places, but Sheet 4 specifically draws attention to what is being proposed. Mr. McConnell: Are you talking about Attachment 3, Sheet 4? Mr. Henke: Yes. Mr. McConnell: Okay. Ms. Taylor: And that is part of Attachment 6. I know that is really confusing. It is part of Attachment 6, the Architectural Design Board Staff Report. Mr. McConnell: Okay. Mr. Henke: I just want to run through some of the main features on that. Essentially, what is going on is there is a full collection system that runs right down the roadway. It consists of catch basins placed in the curb and gutter line on the road. In the back of Lots 1 and 2 there is another collection system that pipes literally through the hill and down to the detention center. The rest of the basin that is not captured directly by the roadway is funneled also towards the detention center. Basically, all of the water, both that is on site and including some off site flow, comes into the property and is channellized down to the detention structure. What is shown on Sheet 4. If you will, there is a little bit of a ridgeline running through the property. On the existing site, as it stands, the northern two thirds of it drain out kind of through that back center gully on the western edge. The southern third is the area that drains down towards 172nd and the appeal property. What we have done on Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Numbers PRD-2002-40/P-2002-93/AP-2003-3 February 6, 2003 Page 7 this, the way the standard are you first look at what is the amount of drainage that comes off the property before any development occurs. Then the standard for development is that under what is called a two-year event up to a ten-year event, you have to reduce that runoff by fifty percent. In plain speaking, if there is 100 gallons a minute that would run off the property today, after the development we can only allow 50 gallons to run off of it. That is what brings about the detention structure. Mr. Henke: On this particular site, the way it all worked out, the area that is shown there as Basin B-1, B-2, that whole area. That's the portion of the site that currently would drain onto the Bruya property. This development is going to greatly lessen the risk that they are ever going to see any runoff because what we have done is take that drainage and divert it back into to the collection system and brought it back to the detention structure. The runoff from this project out of that basin will be zero. We have taken it across and over to the detention. So I was rather surprised to read those comments and can state pretty flatly that there is no basis in them. Ms. Drumheller: Do you want me to respond now or ... Mr. McConnell: Why don't you wait. You will certainly have an opportunity. Let's let him finish with everything he has to say. We will stay here until we make sure every questions is answered. Okay. Mr. Henke: For right now, that is really all I have. Mr. McConnell: Okay. Do you have anything further, Mr. Steinman. Mr. Steinman: I don't... We have known this property. There has been no real erosion to start with that amounts to anything. There was, at one time, it went down into a kind of gully, which had been a catch basin and run on out. But there has not been anything in the last ten years since they put in a catch basin and drainage because it has already been taken care of. We will put a retaining wall like it shows and capture anything there. As far as the trees and the vegetation that's on there, there is practically none on there now except plantings. The trees start from there on back. They are really not heavy in that area. The back is fully forested on their lot and our lot. Then the road at 172°d basically, the way we are doing it, stops as far as they are concerned where it turns north in to the property and the existing drainage down there has not changed in ten years either. It has been the same as it has been and will remain, which is the 172nd question if there is anything. Mr. McConnell: Okay. I think it is up to you, the appellant. You can make your statement regarding the SEPA appeal, any questions you may have, and we will gather everything from all the neighbors and everybody so that when we get back to it, I would like to have Mr. Steinman and the engineer answer all the questions from you and all the neighbors all at the same time so we don't have people coming up and going back and forth and the microphone. Ms. Drumheller: Okay. I Betty Drumheller, and I represent Ellen Bruya. We are here, both on the SEPA appeal and... Mr. McConnell: Your address please. Ms. Drumheller: I am sorry. Hanson, Baker, Ludlow Drumheller, 300 Surrey Building, 10777 Main Street, Bellevue, Washington 98004. I am here both on the SEPA appeal and the review we discovered on Monday, which is great. I prepared a package that I would like to present in evidence. Let me give it to you and I will tell you what is in it. Mr. McConnell: All right. Thank you. I'll enter the package, basically what it is is a letter from Betty Drumheller dated February 51, with a number of attachments. What I will do when I prepare my report is list each of these items separately, rather than going through it all right now, if you don't mind. Ms. Drumheller: That's fine. We will be going through. What we would like to do is essentially address the issue that keeps coming up in the staff report and everything else. That is Lots 1 and 2 and the impact they will have on the Bruya property. I know you have reviewed the appeal and you have been to visit the site, you indicated, which is excellent because I think that that will help us explain what our concerns are. What we would like to do... There are several areas that we would like to focus on. First, we have provided a survey which indicates how close the house is to the survey property line. Second, we have prepared a tree survey. The applicant just stated, and has repeatedly has stated, and the tree survey prepared Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Numbers PRD-2002-40/P-2002-93/AP-2003-3 February 6, 2003 Page 8 by the applicant shows almost no trees on this site. If you have been to visit it, I am sure realize that, in fact, there are a number of trees on the site, although you may have been confused about the property line. So we would like to talk about the tree survey that we have prepared of the area we are requesting be preserved as a ten -foot buffer. Ms. Drumheller: In addition to that, we have gotten a letter from a drainage engineer, actually a professional engineer, regarding the drainage system. Essentially, we would like to talk a little about that. So I am going to ask Barbara Bruya, who prepared the tree survey, to bring that forward and talk about it. It is attached to your packet if you want to see it. It is easier to read. Barbara. Do you want to put it up here or do you want to do it over there? What is easier for you? Mr. McConnell: Okay. This is .... Okay. I am following you. Barbara Bruya: My name is Barbara Bruya. My address is 3815 - 33rd Avenue West, Seattle, 98199. I am Ellen Bruya's sister. I am also a master gardener and have had my landscaping business for two years. I am familiar with native shrubs and trees. I walked this property with Ellen in the ten feet to the east of 6900 172nd. The Steinman tree survey, not a lot of these trees were listed so we started at the back of the property where the survey points were. This, you can see, represents the property line. We started at the back. We did the diameter of the trees using the method of measuring from one side of the tree to the other and then using that for the diameter. We didn't do the height, but as you can see I don't climb trees that high. You can see in starting at the back property line for Ellen's property (and this would be to the east of the proposed planned development). Starting at the back I have listed groupings 1 through 53 of evergreens. In the grouping right in this area here you can see that from my chart there are nine evergreens ranging in size from six inches in diameter to 14. 19 is the largest in this group and that is at the back of the property. We did not go onto Mr. Steinman's property as he had asked Ellen not to go on that property. So this is just from her property over. Barbara Bruya: You can see trees 10 and 11 represent or are starting a grove cedars which are 12 inches, 30 inches, 6, 21, 16 and 39 inches in diameter, which are quite sizeable for cedars. Then there is a group of hemlocks as we are coming south on that road on the adjacent property. There is a grove of rhododendrons. We have some more evergreens. If I get down on Number 28, there is 13 evergreens on the Steinman property that represents Lot 2. Those have to 75 to 100 feet tall and from not going on the property, the diameter of the trees have to be at least 16 inches. Then we walked along the property line. You can see we have sumac and pyramadalis all over four inches in diameter, established rhododendrons, wisteria, rhododendrons, there is a black pine at the front of the property that is eleven inches. The black pine is eleven inches in diameter. So that was a concern of ours is that some of these plants and shrubs were not listed on the previous survey. We felt that it needed to be addressed. Barbara Bruya: I also have pictures that would make this easier, since you all didn't go to the property. The first one represents a pinto that is eight inches in diameter that is at the front of the property. There is a lone evergreen that was on the Steinman survey. Mr. McConnell: Okay. I will have a chance to look at them all. Barbara Bruya: There are tons of rhododendrons down on 172nd and very mature vegetation in the established rockery on the side. These on Lot 2 represent the stand of 13 evergreens that were not listed on the survey. This shows the top of Lot 1 looking down towards the Bruya property on 172nd and looking up from the driveway. The driveway, again, looking up to the neighbor's house that shows a significant flow. This one is looking east. The large speed bump on the top of the existing driveway to try and divert water from running down. This represents the black pine, and that is on the corner of the lot and then mature pyramadalis that have four inch diameter trunks all along the existing property. Mr. McConnell: Okay. Let me take those photos and enter those. They will become Exhibit 5. Let me just count the number of photos I have and I will number those in my report, also. There are 12 pages, but 13 photographs. That becomes Exhibit 5. Let's put those together. Barbara Bruya: Do you have any questions or anything further you would like to know about the vegetation? Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Numbers PRD-2002-40/P-2002-93/AP-2003-3 February 6, 2003 Page 9 Mr. McConnell: No, I think this is pretty self explanatory. I think what I am going to do is go back again after the hearing and take a look again at the property and at the trees so that I am a little more familiar with them. I have been there, but oftentimes, I learn things during the hearing and then I go out and double check things. Barbara Bruya: This is quite confusing too because visuals impacts to the property are different than what you would expect. Mr. McConnell: Since we apparently have a moving property line, you know... Ms. Drumheller: Yes, that is another issue I should say. Ellen is here, and she would like to talk about some of her concerns. Mr. McConnell: Okay. Ellen Bruya: My name is Ellen Bruya. That is spelled B R U Y A. I live at 4107 — 127t' Street Southeast, Everett, Washington 98208. I would like to start by giving you some background information. I was married to Ron Steinman for 20 plus years. My ex father-in-law is Earl Steinman, both who have an interest in this project. They are also the builders of the home I have at 6900 — 172"d. With that said, I hope you can understand that the project of Meadowdale Estates has been in the planning for as long as I have known this family. I feel that adding twelve homes will finally finish the neighborhood. I am concerned about the applicant's apparent unwillingness to create a buffer between my property and their plat. If you notice, they have a 25-foot buffer around most of the project, except when it comes to my common property line. The homes that border the east property line are going to retain their privacy and are allowed to preserve their more rural character. I am not. My lot is the lowest point of the new development and the new development will look over and sit above and impose on my privacy in a way that will not impact the other lots surrounding this development. Ellen Bruya: As mentioned above, this has been in the planning state for 20 plus years. Over that period of time, the now mature vegetation was planted with the Steinman's help to screen and buffer the project from our home. On their landscape plan, they are planning to replace these mature trees and plants with plants that will not screen or create a buffer for another twenty years. On the tree survey, there was no denoting that any of this vegetation even existed. Ellen Bruya: My next concern is the water runoff. The vegetation was also planted to slow the flow of water coming down from lots one and two of the proposed plat. The applicant's tree survey does not reflect a true detail of the plants and trees on these lots. I do not believe the calculation on the water runoff took into account that these trees and plants are being removed since no one was even aware that they existed. The engineering that is showing on the plan is confusing. It appears the water can run up hill. I had an engineer look at these plans, and he is certain that the water must be collected and must be routed to the storm detention pond or I will have increased water problems. I have been flooded many times in the past from water from the property next door and also coming down 172nd. Ron Steinman has regraded the hillside above my home more than once to stop our basement from flooding. I also have a rather large speed bump at the top of my driveway that diverts the water from entering my property and flooding my basement. Ellen Bruya: I have a couple concerns remaining. The applicant's proposed development drainage plan suggests that there is a road or a system installed flowing down 172nd to Meadowdale Beach Road. The road, 172nd, stops at the top of my driveway. It is just natural blackberries, alders, everything else. My next concern is that the applicant does not clearly show that all the water will be collected and routed into the storm detention pond. My engineer indicated that this is a critical element. All the water collected should be diverted to a detention vault. The applicant does not have any provisions for maintaining the stormwater system. His proposed CCR's does not require anyone to maintain this system, and there is no procedure for collecting money and hiring someone else to maintain it. My engineer states that it is very important that this system be checked and cleaned regularly. If the system is not maintained, the impact on my property will be just astronomical. With the close proximity of my deck and driveway and everything else, I stand a very high chance of being flooded again. Ellen Bruya: Then my other concern. We have pilliated woodpeckers. We have the Van Tailed Pigeons that were never addressed, and their habitat even considered when this application was submitted. In conclusion, what I am requesting is that the drainage issues be carefully reviewed and installation monitored. I am extremely concerned about this water runoff. It is Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Numbers PRD-2002-40/P-2002-93/AP-2003-3 February 6, 2003 Page 10 important to have the water collected and directed away from my property. Given the historic problems I have had with water runoff and the fact that my property is the lowest point, I am the one most likely to suffer water problems. And I request that the applicant be required to provide a mechanism to maintain and pay for that maintenance. Ellen Bruya: The last one I have. I request that you require the existing trees in that ten -foot buffer between my property and Lots 1 and 2 be retained as a native landscape buffer. I see no reason to remove all the existing trees and shrubs, which provide a natural buffer and are mature, they're attractive, they're well -maintained and helpful to soil and the water on the slope. To be replace with little tiny one -gallon, five -gallon shrubs, that will take another twenty years to create a buffer. I am not against this development. I think that if they could make these modifications they could still do the development as planned and it would not take away from my value and would greatly decrease the impact on my lot. Mr. McConnell: Okay. Ms. Drumheller: I don't think I can say it any more eloquently than Ellen has said it. Mr. McConnell: Again, for the record, just state your name again. Ms. Drumheller: Sorry. Betty Drumheller again. We have submitted in the packet two letters regarding the pilliated woodpecker habitat and the vantailed pigeon habitat, both of which, I believe, are protected species that are apparently in these trees because that is where they have been sighted repeated. Karen Zolman is here if there are any questions regarding that. This is not something brought up in the appeal because I didn't find out about it until Monday, but if you have questions on that, we certainly can answer that. Mr. McConnell: They were not raised in the appeal argument. I can look at it as part of the overall PRD, but as you are well aware, if it I not raised in the appeal argument, according to the rules and requirements, I cannot consider it as part of the SEPA appeal. Ms. Drumheller: I understand that, and I am sorry I didn't know about that earlier. But I did want you to be aware of the fact that these trees do provide important habitat for whatever reason. Other than that, I have some questions regarding the drainage issues, and you will find our letter from Mr. Chuck Manning. His conclusions, I will just summarize them very briefly, are that the engineering is basically sound, but that the maintenance issues are critical and this bio-swale system, the water needs to be diverted. It can't just sit. It was unclear to use, in looking at the drainage preliminary plans, whether or not the water was, in fact, going to be carried away from the property. I believe you testified it was in both directions. Mr. McConnell: Asa matter of fact, we have someone from the Engineering Department who has just joined us. Ms. Drumheller: That was one of our major concerns is that the soil will become very saturated. I am sure you can see from the survey that the porch or the deck is less than five feet from this property line and very close to the proposed drainage system, so that is a big issue. That is all we have to say unless you have questions. Mr. McConnell: No, the one issue you did raise, and that is the issue of the property lines. In the letter and everything I see that. Is there anything else you want to say about that at this time? You have seen the letter from Mr. Snyder? Ms. Drumheller: Yes. The issue of the property line, I am glad you brought that up because I did want to mention it. Initially, the surveyed plat went across the driveway and through the wood deck. The survey issue, I believe, has been resolved although the applicant has never recorded their survey in the record, as required. So we don't have any recorded proof that they have accepted the survey. I asked our surveyor, who prepared Ellen's survey, which is on this Board, to look at the packet and confirm to me that the survey lines were in conformance with what we believe the correct survey lines are. And it is our understanding they are. If they are not, we have got a big problem because we don't want the plat on top of our driveway. Mr. McConnell: Well, Mr. Snyder said. You know, that has got to be resolved before they are able to sell the lots. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Numbers PRD-2002-40/P-2002-93/AP-2003-3 February 6, 2003 Page 11 Ms. Drumheller: Well, there is a second issue. The second issue is a potential adverse claim to this portion of the property, and that has not yet, we are looking at that at this point. But that is outside of this... Mr. McConnell: That is beyond my role. Ms. Drumheller: Absolutely, and it is outside of this hearing. So we simply have let that lie while we worked on determining what the outcome of this hearing would be. Mr. McConnell: All right. Thank you. Ms. Drumheller: Are there any other questions? Mr. McConnell: No. Anybody else from the audience that wants to speak? Okay, with that, let's get some response back from the City. Mr. Chrisman is here from the Engineering Department. You heard the questions and the concerns about maintenance of the detention facility and the bio-swale and the drainage facility, and of course we will get a response from the applicant also. But I am sure that you are here to respond to some of those issues. Mr. Chrisman: Right. The detention facility and the bio-swale will be the maintenance responsibility of the homeowners within the plat. The City, because this is going to be a City street... The street within the plat will be a public street. The storm catch basins on the road will be maintained by the City. But, like I said, the detention facility and the bio-swale will be properly maintained. Now, one of the requirements and responsibilities that public works has is to inspect these facilities on a yearly basis to make sure that they are being maintained correctly. If they are not, the public works sends a letter to the homeowners association advising them that they need to do whatever maintenance is required. If they don't, then they are in violation and we take the appropriate action to make sure it is corrected. Ms. Drumheller: I just wanted to ask you to impose on the applicant the obligation, in writing in the covenants, that the homeowners maintain the storm drainage system. The current covenants do not require the homeowners to maintain it and they have a very weak assessment system so there is really not any way to collect money to deal with these kinds of problems. I think in a typical development where there is significant maintenance responsibilities, both the common areas and of the drainage facilities, that the covenants are much clearer and certainly have an enforcement mechanism that will work to do that. I would ask that that be a condition for everybody's benefit. Mr. Chrisman: There is a section in our code that requires the homeowner to maintain the detention facility at least semi- annually. If they don't, then they are in violation of the code, at which time we can take the necessary steps to get them to correct it. The procedures is normally we advise them, give them the time to take care of it, if they don't do it, then we give a notice to correct. There is a time element. If they don't do that, then there is a notice of civil violation and a fine of $100 per day until they do correct it. This would be the same procedure for the common owned plat. The association would be responsible for maintaining it. If it is found that they are not maintaining it, they will be given the same procedure that someone with a single-family detention system would be given. The mechanism is in the code to make sure that they maintain it. Mr. McConnell: As the City official, you know, requiring a CC and R... Since, in my mind, the City code addresses this pretty adequately, if there is that kind of procedure that the City has that mechanism in place, in code language, to address that, I think it becomes. If the applicant wants to include that in a CC and R, that is fine. But I prefer to deal with the City codes. When the City codes are as clear as they are and appear to address the problem as well as it does, I don't think that the City needs to go beyond its code. I understand your concern and I understand the issue, but I think, from what I can see, it is pretty well addressed. Yes sir. Mr. Kaplan: I just have a question. Mr. McConnell: Could you come up to the microphone, sir? Mr. Kaplan: My name is Alexander Kaplan, and I am the closest neighbor on 172°d Street. Would you please specify what a detention system is? Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Numbers PRD-2002-40/P-2002-93/AP-2003-3 February 6, 2003 Page 12 Mr. McConnell: Before I do that, what is your address, sir? Mr. Kaplan: 7010 — 172"d Street Southwest, Edmonds. Mr. McConnell: Okay, and how do you spell your last name? Mr. Kaplan: K A P L A N. Mr. McConnell: Good. Thank you. Okay, go ahead. Mr. Chrisman: Basically, what a detention system is is a storage facility, whether it be a vault or corrugated metal pipe of a certain length and diameter. The intent is to store water and then release it at a rate that is not greater than what the surface runoff is of the area prior to development. That way, you know, when they add all this new impervious surface, you are really not getting any more surface runoff than you did prior to development. It is a storage facility with a mechanism in there to release the water at a controlled rate. Mr. Kaplan: How do you maintain it? Mr. Chrisman: How to maintain it? What they would have to is, there are access points... In this particular instance, there are access manholes. The homeowners association would pop the tops, basically look in there, look at the sediment level, and in this case they would probably have to hire somebody to clean it. It is pretty good size. Now most detention systems, when people get them cleaned, they have a vacuum truck. It is like a giant vacuum cleaner, and they come in and suck out all of the sediment. Mr. McConnell: Do you have anything further? Ms. Drumheller: No. I think that it is clear that it is going to be a job to get it done if there is no mechanism for doing it except the City code. Maybe the City code will handle it. Mr. McConnell: There clearly is a code requirement that it be addressed and that it be inspected on an annual basis. Ms. Drumheller: How does that work when it is on common area and there is no homeowners association? I mean the homeowners own the land in common, does every homeowner have to pay the cost of doing this? Does the City have to go and collect the money? How does that happen? Mr. McConnell: I don't know how they collect it, but I can just require that a homeowners association be developed to address the common area problem. The common area, I can certainly write that as a condition. Because we do have some common properties, and we need to have some kind of group, as you will, be responsible for those common properties. From that standpoint, yes. So the City has an entity, if you will, to go after... Ms. Drumheller: Well, that is sort of what my concern is. If you think of Mr. Kaplan's question. If somebody has to go lift manholes and bring in a truck, it is going to be tough. Mr. McConnell: I can certainly require a homeowners association. How they establish how they are going to assess each other is not something the City wants to get into. But I can require that a homeowners association be required to be responsible for the common areas, including the detention facility. Ms. Drumheller: I think that would be good. Then there would be somebody to go to. Mr. McConnell: Yes, somebody to go to. That is fine. That is not a problem. That way it would be very clear who the City is going to be going to. They would have to have an association. The association bylaws, they could establish that themselves. But they will be clearly responsible, so every one of those twelve homeowners will be commonly responsible for the maintenance of that open space. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Numbers PRD-2002-40/P-2002-93/AP-2003-3 February 6, 2003 Page 13 Ms. Drumheller: Thank you. Mr. McConnell: What happens is, there is a value to that property. The City could actually put a lien against the property, I guess. Mr. Chrisman: Normally, on plat development, on the recorded document, if there are common areas, normally it identifies the lot or lots, depending on the situation, in this case it would be all twelve homeowners. They would be equally responsible for maintaining the detention facility and any other common area that is theirs. Of course, the street is the City's maintenance responsibility. Ms. Drumheller: It is going to be a publicly dedicated street, cul-de-sac? Mr. Chrisman: Yes. Ms. Drumheller: Okay. Thank you. Mr. McConnell: Any other questions of the City staff or the applicant's engineer? Do you have any comments you want to make, sir? I need to get you at the microphone if you do want to speak. Mr. Henke: I did want to back up. In relation to the tree survey. What is shown on here is intended to show the density involved and not each individual tree. On Lot 2, for instance, the area shown with a count for approximately 40 trees. It is not that we are not trying to show them, it is just that there is nothing, it is a broad enough area that it was not practically to be concerned with each individual placement. Mr. Henke: Back to the drainage. I regret that we ... Mr. McConnell: Let me just get one question in here. Regarding the tree survey, I don't know if you can speak for Mr. Steinman. Maybe he will speak for himself on this. But do you have any problem retaining the trees in the ten -foot buffer area? Mr. Henke: I will have to let him speak to that. Mr. McConnell: Okay. Mr. Henke: I can say that part of the reason why Lots 1 and 2 are different than everything else is this margin of setback, in that you need to have enough room left to build a home. The 25-foot setback that is existing leaves, I want to say leaves a narrow, but long, footprint available for construction. To pull another ten feet out of that truly is an imposition on those sites. Mr. McConnell: I take it, looking at topography, moving the entrance of the road to the first couple lots, moving it to the east is not practical. Mr. Henke: It is not practical. Merle can speak to this beyond that. On that drainage, I want to get back to that, and I don't know how best to convey this. If you want to join me here, I can point on the map where I am talking about. I guess I can show where the facilities are being proposed here. Essentially, right as the roadway enters 172na Mr. McConnell: Now you are looking at the drainage study right here? Mr. Henke: No, I am actually looking at Planning Sheet 4, which is the preliminary drainage plan. Ms. Taylor: And that is all part of Attachment 6. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Numbers PRD-2002-40/P-2002-93/AP-2003-3 February 6, 2003 Page 14 Ms. Henke: Basically, set within 172", right down here in the corner, these catch basins basically collect what is going on up in this area. It is, I mean we saw this going in. This roadway actually has a high point about here, where this section is going this way. This section of the road does slope down towards 172nd, but the storm drainage pipe flows back this way. Ms. Drumheller: Then how do you get the water uphill? Mr. Henke: You don't. You can deceive gravity. Ms. Drumheller: That is what we have been wondering about. Mr. Henke: What you do is the... I mean, in an ideal world, you are running storm drainage pipe out there with two or three feet of cover. Well, here we start off with that dimension, but as it heads back this way, we are going to be in the neighborhood of five and six feet deep back here. Ms. Drumheller: So you are digging into the ground to get the water to go down over to the stormwater detention. Mr. Henke: No, to give us flow. So we are running, you have got a hill, and we are running backwards underneath it so that we can catch both areas. Mr. Drumheller: Now is that true with the bio-Swale, also? Mr. Henke: No, that is not the swale. Now what is going on in these two areas, yes, they are going to have to pay for this. But there is a catch basin set in the back of this lot now. There is a catch basin there. Ms. Drumheller: Is that a new one? Mr. Henke: No, it is to be constructed. Ms. Drumheller: You said now. Mr. Henke: I am sorry. It is planned. There is a pipe that runs all the way through here and back over to a CB over by the detention facility. To put this pipe in place, because you are probably aware there is ridgeline, this is directional drill. We are going to drill the pipe in. We have plenty of grade, we just have a ridgeline in the way. We are going to drill right through it and place that pipe in. So, that is why I was saying, all of this area that currently drains this way, it won't do that anymore. Ms. Drumheller: It will be caught all in this catch basin? Mr. Henke: No, the only thing that this catch basin really has to serve is that little bit of area. Ms. Drumheller: So, all the topography is such that you believe that all the drainage will go into that catch basin from Lots 1 and 2. Mr. Henke: From Lots 1 and 2. Ms. Drumheller: And what about the drainage that would be coming this direction? Lot 1 slopes this way and that way, so there is going to be lots of drainage coming... Mr. Henke: So you have go curb and gutter all the way through, so this is blocked. What doesn't change, and I mean... What doesn't change is the runoff that is coming down 172'. If that drainage reaches you now, it is still going to reach you. Ms. Drumheller: It is going to continue to reach her property. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Numbers PRD-2002-40/P-2002-93/AP-2003-3 February 6, 2003 Page 15 Mr. Henke: Now, there are some recent comments from the City requesting some storm drainage improvements on 172nd that will be part of the final plans. But they are not shown in this level. Ms. Drumheller: But there will be some. Mr. McConnell: In other words, possibly another catch basin in front of your property somewhere? Mr. Henke: Yes. Possibly. Mr. McConnell: Which would then take care of part of the problem on 172nd coming on down your way. Mr. Henke: It could. I mean we just saw these, literally, when the packet came out. We haven't had time to see how it would incorporate in. But I believe that is the City's intent. Mr. McConnell: Mr. Chrisman, go ahead. Mr. Chrisman: Also, on 172nd, we are requiring the developer to widen that portion of 172nd that is narrow in front of his property and then put what they call a hammerhead at the end of 172nd. Also a curb and gutter will be put in. They will also have to put a catch basin in order to pick up the runoff. That will go to the City storm system that is at the end of the street. Mr. McConnell: Okay. Ms. Ellen Bruya: Can I ask a question? Mr. McConnell: Certainly. Ms. Ellen Bruya: When you say where it narrows. That is going to take these people's front yard out. Mr. Chrisman: That's City right-of-way. It won't take their yard out. Right now, it is like a graveled area. But that is City right-of-way. Ms. Ellen Bruya: Which side of the street are you going to take it out of? Mr. Chrisman: It is going to be on the south side. Ms. Ellen Bruya: Which will be their front yard. And then how are you going to structure the hammerhead? Mr. McConnell: The City is not going on anybody's private property. Okay. It is on the City right-of-way. If they have some of the City right-of-way landscaped, that is still City property. Ms. Ellen Bruya: Would you diagram what the hammerhead you are proposing will look like? Mr. Chrisman: Basically, it is going to look like a T. That is the simplest way to explain it verbally. You have got the street coming down, and at the end, it is going to look like T. Ms. Ellen Bruya: All right. It is not going to come on my property is it? Ms. Drumheller: No, it can't come into any of... Mr. McConnell: Wait a minute. Let me explain. What they are talking about is having at the end a T. There would be a gradual turn so you could turn into that T. So somebody coming down that street could turn around easily. A fire truck coming down. A police car coming down. Whoever happens to come down would come down and would have a way to turn around without turning around in a driveway. We would turn around at the end of the street in what we call a hammerhead. It is fairly common in many small developments. If it is small enough, the City will allow a hammerhead Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Numbers PRD-2002-40/P-2002-93/AP-2003-3 February 6, 2003 Page 16 instead of a cul-de-sac. But with something like this they require a cul-de-sac. But in a very small development they would allow something like a hammerhead. Mr. Chrisman: If we had the right-of-way at the end of 172nd Street to accommodate a cul-de-sac, then we would have required a cul-de-sac similar, but a little bit larger, than what is on the plat. But because we don't have sufficient right-of- way there to accommodate a full cul-de-sac, the next best thing for a turn around is our hammerhead. So that is what we are going to require them to put in. Mr. McConnell: From a safety standpoint, that allows something like a fire truck to come down, turn around safely. Delivery trucks to come down, turn around safely, mail trucks, whatever, can turn around more safely than what is there now. In the process, somebody's plants may have to be moved, but what they are talking about is only City right-of-way. It wouldn't be putting anything on anything but City right-of-way. As you well know, no matter how long you have been on that City right-of-way with plants, there is no adverse possession of public property. Ms. Ellen Bruya: But by widening that road, that means being... Mr. McConnell: On the north side, they have to widen in front of their ... Ms. Ellen Bruya: Right, I understand that. So when you are talking about 172na, where it narrows and then widening... Mr. McConnell: Well, they are only widening in front of their property on the north side. Just adjacent to their property. Mr. Chrisman: They are going to the end of 172na Mr. McConnell: Oh, they are going to the end of 172na. Okay. Mr. Chrisman: There is sufficient impact with the development to require that additional improvement. Mr. McConnell: Okay. Ms. Taylor: I need to make sure I only have one person speaking at a time on the tape. So if you do have a question, you can come to the podium. It's okay. Come on up. Mr. McConnell: Okay. We just need your name. Ms. Kaplan: 7010 — 172na Street Southwest, Edmonds. My question is, what exactly is going to be done. (Note: I could not pick up Ms. Kaplan's comments on the tape. I don't think she was speaking into the microphone. But she only said one sentence.) Ms. Taylor: I think what I am going to suggest is that, perhaps after the hearing closes, the engineer can actually the public where the T will be. Mr. McConnell: Yes, because this is an engineering issue and something that is going to have to be detailed by the Engineering Department. This is a requirement by engineering, and maybe as soon as the hearing is over you can get together with Mr. Chrisman and he can show you exactly what is being required of the applicant here. This is something that is a fairly standard engineering practice. It does get beyond what I am going to be involved in with the PRD, itself. This is a pretty standard thing that the engineering code just comes up and says this is what we want for these reasons. We'll let you get together with Mr. Chrisman here. He is the person to talk with. Mr. Kaplan: Yes, but it is definitely not in the application. It is required, right? My question is why were not notified about it. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Numbers PRD-2002-40/P-2002-93/AP-2003-3 February 6, 2003 Page 17 Mr. McConnell: This was not in the application. That is right. This is not in the application. This is something the City has required because of the codes the City now has in place in response to that application. But it wasn't in the application. You are right. Mr. Kaplan: But why were not notified about it? Ms. Taylor: Okay. I can respond to that. The reason why you were not notified is because any portion of the City's right- of-way that is undeveloped, at any point in time, the City can go ahead and develop it. We are never required to notify you. That is the City's property. So that is why that was not included with the application. Mr. McConnell: The applicant didn't apply for that. The City is just requiring it. Ms. Taylor: Only within the City's right-of-way. Not on anyone's private property. Mr. McConnell: No private property at all. Just the City right-of-way is the only thing involved. The City already owns that property. Okay. Ms. Taylor: There are a lot of areas in the City where the full right-of-way is not developed. It is not paved the entire width This is not uncommon. Mr. McConnell: When I came to look at the property, I tried to come off of Meadowdale Beach Road. It doesn't work that way. I looked at the map and said, okay. I got down there and thought, this isn't working. I pulled out my Thomas Brothers and found a way. There are lots of rights -of way that is not developed. Okay. Any other questions for the staff or the engineer? Yes. Ms. Barbara Bruya: On your tree survey, you just seem to have the bulk of the trees at the back of the property going east and west and not north and south. That was our concern. That is why we differ on our tree surveys. You have the bulk of the trees on Lot 2 going east and west, where we found a significant trees north and south. I just wanted to point out that difference. Ms. Taylor: The applicant's tree survey is found in Attachment 6 on Sheet 11 of 11. Ms. Barbara Bruya: At the corner towards the front, on 172nd, there was no denotations in that area of any trees existing at all. There is a black pine, anyway, it is all listed on the... Mr. Henke: This is just from some very ragged memory, but the area that the road has been graded in and then as you remember that most of that front lot had been graded. I won't say there was none, but the focus of the trees, the density of the trees, was where that ridge line headed back in there towards where proposed Lot 2 is. That is just what my memory was. I am not saying that there aren't more than specifically what is shown, but like I said, there is enough out there, that our intent is to focus on ... The criteria was greater than six-inch diameter trees and where they were. That is what we attempted to do. Ms. Barbara Bruya: My confusion on that is you show the densely wooded, which is perfect. But if it moves in one way or the other, according to this survey, there are no trees on specifically Lots 1 and 2 running north and south. Mr. Henke: No, there are three major trees shown. Ms. Barbara Bruya: Right, but there is a lot more than your three that are there. Mr. Henke: That are more than six-inch diameter? Ms. Barbara Bruya: Yes, sir. Ms. Drumheller: They need to go into that area of the property that they show the trees. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Numbers PRD-2002-40/P-2002-93/AP-2003-3 February 6, 2003 Page 18 Mr. Henke: Yes, they did not go over the property line. Ms. Drumheller: No, but if you look at the trees that are in that area, there are at least 53 trees within ten feet of the property line. Ms. Taylor: Are we getting all this on tape? Mr. McConnell: I don't think so. Again, this is ... Ms. Drumheller: This is just to clarify, I believe, that although did not go... From a distance, they could see that there were at least 13 trees, which were trees of a significant height that would suggest they had a diameter greater than six inches. I believe this was the testimony of Ms. Barbara Bruya. Also in that ten -foot area between the survey boundary line of the property and Lots 1 and 2, there were a number of significant trees, your designation of which does not seem to take those into account. That is something that is Barbara Bruya's concern regarding the tree survey that was submitted. Mr. McConnell: I am going to go back out there again, as I mentioned. Ms. Drumheller: Yeah. You may want to take a look at the survey stakes out there because they are kind of hard to see, I have to tell you. I climbed around a lot of stuff to look at them, but they are there. Mr. McConnell: Mr. Steinman, I guess I do need to ask you a question. That is, regarding the trees, I'll take a look to try and determine which tree survey is more accurate. But at any rate, with respect to the ten -foot buffer that they have requested along Lots 1 and 2, what is your response to that, Mr. Steinman? Mr. Steinman: The trees that are kind of landscape trees in the corner, I doubt will be disturbed. Mr. McConnell: Do you mean in the corner of Lot 1? You are talking about the southwest corner? Mr. Steinman: Yes. Right at the top of their driveway. Most of those trees, I am sure will be left because they are landscape type trees, they are not native trees. There are only one or two trees onto property besides the back sections, which would be behind Lot 2. That lot is 100 feet in depth, and that is as far as that is going to go. There are very few trees in that first 100 feet. The other trees that are there are pretty well shown on this. The rest of this will be landscaped in the front. We can landscape the house. You can see where you have got to put the house on the rest of it. There, that is on the plan. We will keep the landscaping type trees. They will be left as much as they possibly can do. We will have to put this small retaining wall in there to... Mr. McConnell: On Lot 1? Mr. Steinman: On Lot 1. It will basically go right under Lot 2. Mr. McConnell: When you say under Lot 2... Mr. Steinman: Yes, because we are going to horizontal drill the line underneath. Mr. McConnell: Okay. So you are not going to have a retaining wall on Lot 2? Mr. Steinman: No. There will be no retaining wall on Lot 2. Mr. McConnell: Okay. Just a three-foot high rockery on Lot 1. Mr. Steinman: Right. That's the best way out of it. Ms. Ellen Bruya: How far is that? Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Numbers PRD-2002-40/P-2002-93/AP-2003-3 February 6, 2003 Page 19 Mr. McConnell: It shows it a little bit off the boundary line so I presume that there would be some distance between the boundary line, then, and the retaining wall so you can work ... Mr. Steinman: It will only take about five feet or something. It won't take much. Mr. McConnell: Yeah. But I am suggesting between the foot of the rockery and the property line... Mr. Steinman: We will try to put it right on the property line or close to the property line if we can. Ms. Taylor: Back on the tape, back on the tape. Ms. Drumheller: Why are you putting the rockery on the boundary line? Why don't you set it back ten feet? Mr. Steinman: We don't have room to set it back ten feet and get the bio-swale in and the drainage and the rockery and everything else. Plus we need all the property we can get. Somebody would have to maintain what we leave anyway. It would be the foot of our... We can't go down on the property. It is better to be on the property because you won't have weeds and brush and everything else growing in there which we can't take care of. Ms. Drumheller: Well, the homeowner would take care of it if it were there probably. My question is on the ten -foot buffer that we are requesting. My understanding ... Did I understand you correctly? Perhaps I misunderstood you. If there is required a ten -foot buffer, that does not diminish the setback. In other words, it can be included in the setback. So if the Hearing Examiner were to decide to require the ten -foot buffer, that would not move the houses because it would be part of that 25-foot setback. Is that correct? Ms. Taylor: If the applicant chose to retain the ten -foot buffer area there, he could establish the rear setback for those lots as 15-feet from the ten feet. So it is a total of 25 feet. That is a potential solution, but it is really up the applicant whether or not they want to do that. If this was a standard subdivision, they could remove all the trees. Ms. Drumheller: We are asking that that be a condition. Ms. Taylor: Right. Mr. McConnell: I am looking at a need for a rockery in the same place where you want the buffer. Ms. Drumheller: Why is the rockery needed? Mr. Henke: The rockery is there to bring up the level on that lot. Currently, it has been graded out and there is a kind of an armored slope back in there that is used, I don't know if it is used for a parking turn around or something of that nature. That area needs to be filled and the rockery would support a portion of that fill. Ms. Drumheller: That rectangular area where the boat was stored? Is that what you are referring to? Is that right Mr. Steinman? Mr. Steinman: I can point to it. Ms. Drumheller: Is this the area you are talking about? Mr. Heinke: This area right in here. Ms. Drumheller: That is not anywhere near the drainage. That is what I am wondering about. This is where that... Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Numbers PRD-2002-40/P-2002-93/AP-2003-3 February 6, 2003 Page 20 Mr. Henke: Right. This is all... Here is the existing contours, and these are the proposed contours. You have got to fill some of this area to get that slope up. Secondly, to be able to erect drainage and to keep it here, the actual... If here is our property line, you have got this slightly battered rockery, and then we actually grade back from it to create a low spot over here. And then we come up this way. This catch basin is setting here, so this isn't heading off that way. In terms of drainage and these other things, the closer we crowd that property line, the better. If we move this in as we go this way, then we also have to come this way to catch grade. What that requirement for three-foot rockery, maybe that becomes four feet. The other problem is now that you have this area underneath the rockery that they really don't have a clean way to access and maintain. Ms. Drumheller: Well, if the existing shrubs are maintained here. Those don't require much maintenance. Mr. Henke: That would be kind of the trade off. You can leave them maybe there, but it is going to be unmaintained space. (Note: I can't here what is being said here. There are at least three or four sentences that are inaudible.) Ms. Drumheller: If they are going to put another rockery three or four feet on top of that... Mr. McConnell: Where would your rockery be in relation to the existing rockery. Mr. Steinman: This rockery would just continue on. Basically, we would now be back here unless they are over on our property now. This is for a sun deck. Consequently, this rockery here would be down the property line here and raised so that the water is kept over on our property. That is what they want. Ms. Ellen Bruya: There is a three-foot rockery here... Mr. Steinman: No there is not a three-foot rockery there because this is open Mr. McConnell: One at a time here. Ms. Ellen Bruya: Excuse, there is too a rockery right there, Merle, where... Mr. Steinman: There isn't. Not in front of this here. Ms. Ellen Bruya: That's true to a point. Mr. McConnell: Okay. So there is no rockery north of here. There is a rockery here. Okay. So you are saying the existing rockery would be extended? Mr. Steinman: That is right. That is all. Ms. Ellen Bruya: So the trees could stay there. So why can't the trees stay there? Mr. Steinman: What trees are there? Ms. Ellen Bruya: Well, there are all these. There are all these. Mr. Steinman: Are these trees on ours or yours? Ms. Ellen Bruya: I don't know. Mr. Steinman: Well then, I guess we better find out. If they are on yours, they are yours. If they are on mine, they are mine. Ms. Ellen Bruya: They are right on the property line, Merle. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Numbers PRD-2002-40/P-2002-93/AP-2003-3 February 6, 2003 Page 21 Mr. Steinman: Well that is great. Let's leave them there. Ms. Ellen Bruya: Let's leave them there. That's what we are saying. Let's leave them there. Mr. Steinman: We don't have any problem with that. Mr. McConnell: We have too many people talking right now. Ms. Ellen Bruya: This is the rockery that comes down the driveway and it goes down... Mr. McConnell: Okay. I will go out and take a look at it. I will go take a look at it. Mr. Steinman: Right. This rockery back here is stricken. Mr. McConnell: Okay. I will look at this very carefully. Mr. Steinman: Thank you. Mr. McConnell: I think I understand all the issues. Okay. Anything further. Ms. Taylor: Should we enter that drawing into the exhibits? Mr. McConnell: That wasn't really a drawing. Ms. Taylor: Okay. Mr. McConnell: I though about that. It isn't a drawing. Basically, all he was saying is that he has got to have a little bit of dip behind the rockery to catch the water. Ms. Taylor: Okay. Good. I think that the engineer here, Mr. Chrisman, as well as the applicant and his representative, have more than covered most of the issues that were brought up. The only thing that I want to respond to is the potential woodpecker habitat. As a condition of approval, I have recommended, let's see, that's on Page 2, under B—Decision, Number 2b. The applicant must submit a letter from the Department of Fish and Wildlife just clarifying that there is nothing out there. If there is anything out there, they will be required to comply with the State and Federal laws. That is really out of the City's hands. But if there was a certain species out there, depending on the status of the species, whether it is endangered, threatened, or whatever, the applicant will have to comply with their standards. If that means they can only develop certain areas of the property during certain times of the year, or whatever. They will have to meet those requirements. I have dealt with this before. It is just extra things that they will have to do and have to prove. Mr. McConnell: Okay. Anything else? If not, I will close the hearing. The report that will come out on the SEPA determination will be a decision from me. The report that comes out from me on the PRD will be a recommendation to City Council. Two different processes so there will be two different reports on this issue. I will go out the property. If anyone sees me out there, I can talk about the weather, but I can't talk about any issues outside the hearing room. You folks, I recommend you talk to Mr. Chrisman about the hammerhead turn around after the hearing. If he can answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much. 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 PRD-2002-40/P-2002-93/AP-2003-3 February 6, 2003 Page 22