2003-04-17 Hearing Examiner MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS OF HEARING EXAMINER HEARING
Hearing Examiner: Don Largent
Applicant: Phoenix Development
File Numbers PRD-2002-171 and P-2002-172
April 17, 2003
Mr. Largent: What we are going to do is, basically, Steve will do a quick run down on the major issues and staffs
recommendation. At that point, either he or I will read in paraphrases of the people's comments from last time, because he
and I both took notes. At that point, you can give a short presentation, and then in that context, I guess, comment on
comments. As it stands right now, two of the individuals felt that they had expressed themselves adequately and felt there
was no real need for them to come down. The other woman, basically, put her stuff in writing and submitted it. So it is a
pretty straightforward proposition. Any concerns on that process?
A Member of the Audience: This person's comment is inaudible because she did not come to the microphone.
Mr. Bullock: Shall we get started?
Mr. Largent: Let's do that.
Mr. Bullock: Good morning, Mr. Examiner. I am Steve Bullock. I will be representing the City on this matter.
Mr. Largent: Before we get going, let the record show that the hearing on Case Number PRD-2002-171 and P-2002-172
opened at 9:37 a.m. For the record, this second hearing is being conducted because we had technical difficulties beyond our
control and the required recording of the last hearing, unfortunately, did not come through onto the tape. So we are going to
proceed as with last time. At this point, the individuals from the public who were at the original hearing and are not here
today have been contacted. One submitted a letter reiterating what she said. The other two, I guess, basically felt that they
had stated their concerns adequately.
Mr. Bullock: Well, one of them, Jessica Holiday, said that she had stated her concerns and had her questions answered. She
is the one that lived in Parkview Firs and didn't feel like she was going to come. The third one, Patrice Rappley, I have been
unable to actually have any interaction with, but I have left several messages. I have the notes from our previous hearing that
I will go through, but otherwise, I think she would still want to be here if she knew about it and if she was in town or
something.
Mr. Largent: Okay. I think that her comments were straight forward enough. I know that you and I both have them in our
notes and as part of your presentation you could just summarize those comments.
Mr. Bullock: Absolutely.
Mr. Largent: Okay, great. We will let you proceed then.
Mr. Bullock: Thank you Mr. Examiner. Again, my name is Steve Bullock. I will be representing the City on this matter. If
I burst into a coughing outbreak, just give me a moment. I am fighting through a cold. I would like to start by entering the
staff report into the record as Exhibit A. There are a couple of corrections I would like to make to it. First of all, on Page 1
the file numbers, as the Examiner mentioned first of all, are supposed to PRD-2002-171 and P-2002-172. On Page 2, the site
location, the address should be changed to 8526 Main Street. The request, again, is for a PRD and a formal plat.
Mr. Bullock: Because my presentation from the first meeting was just, basically, going through the staff report, I am not
going to go through the whole thing again. I think everybody here has a fairly good understanding of it. The one thing I
wanted to make sure got entered into the record, though, in regards to the report was an additional condition that staff would
like to have included and a correction of a condition, as well.
Mr. Bullock: First of all, recommended Condition 3.C.2, which deals with geotechnical reports for lots that are adjacent to
the steep slope, I had originally (this is on the very top of Page 3 of the report) had shown a range of lots. That was
misunderstanding of where the actual steep slope is on the property. The only place that qualifies as a steep slope that
construction is close to is in the northwest corner of this site. That statement should read "only for Lots 9 and 22 or any other
lots that end up being adjacent to the steep slope hazard area."
Mr. Largent: Only for Lots 9 and 22?
Mr. Bullock: Right. Or if they reconfigure their lots a little bit, whatever lot ends up being adjacent to the steep slope
hazard area. That's the revised condition. The new condition would be halfway down from there, which would be Condition
S.C. We would ask that some fencing be included around the critical areas tracts to ensure that they are protected and
preserved. That would conclude my presentation. I guess at this time, I will take the opportunity to kind of enter into the...
Mr. Largent: Let's back up for just a second. My fingers aren't flying as fast as they should be this morning. Give me that
additional condition again.
Mr. Bullock: It would be S.C. "Fencing around critical areas tracts to assist in their protection and preservation."
Mr. Largent: Very good, thank you.
Mr. Bullock: From the April 3rd meeting, Patrice Rappley, address 21001 Pioneer Way. She commented on three things.
One of them was more of a question. But the two that were issues, is she had some concern regarding the path as it made its
way from the upper bench down to the lower bench and impact that that would have on the wildlife and the vegetation that is
in that area. Concern that some of the vegetation would be removed. Concern that it wouldn't be maintained and that people
would be engaging in activities there that would degragate the area, as well as degragate its feasibility for habitat.
Mr. Bullock: The other thing that she was concerned with was the proximity of the five houses on the lower bench off of
Pioneer Way. The fact that they are as close together as it were. She had a question about if fences would be required or
provided for the homes that abut onto that green space in the sloped section, but didn't really indicate a preference if she
wanted them or not. That is what I have down as my comments and notes from Ms. Rappley.
Mr. Largent: And my notes correspond to that, also.
Mr. Bullock: Mary Jo Sequoi also indicated some concern about the path impacts on wildlife, but her primary concern was
in regards to the street width of Pioneer Way, as it extends beyond the current cul-de-sac bulb. She further flushes out her
concern with that in the letter that has been submitted.
Mr. Bullock: The third person that gave testimony at the hearing on April 3' was Jessica Holiday, again from Parkview
Firs. She had some concerns about traffic and the impacts on Five Corners. We answered those concerns by drawing her
attention to the traffic report and the mitigation requirements implemented as part of SEPA. And she, otherwise, had a
question about build schedule, but in my conversation with her since then, has no other further concerns that she wants to
bring to the Hearing Examiner or the City Council's attention.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers PRD-2002-171 and P-2002-172
April 17, 2003 Page 2
Mr. Largent: Just for the record, my notes parallel Steve's on those three individual's comments. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Bullock: Thank you. Would you like to add?
Mr. Chrisman: I am Lyle Chrisman with the Engineering Department, City of Edmonds. At the last hearing, the question
was raised with regard to the sidewalk on both sides of the street on 211t' Place. Staff made the decision that sidewalks
would only be required on one side and would have to go at least half way through the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Largent: For the record, if I am not mistaken, the drawings and site plans that we have actually show that.
Mr. Chrisman: Yes.
Mr. Largent: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Chrisman: That's all I have.
Mr. Largent: Alright, great. I appreciate it. Your turn.
Mr. Egee: Good morning Mr. Examiner. Jim Egee.
Mr. Largent: Good morning, him.
Mr. Egee: I apologize for getting here a little bit late this morning.
Mr. Largent: But we appreciate you coming down to help us recreate this record.
Mr. Egee: Well, also with me this morning is Loree Quade of Phoenix Development. Mark Wiseman, Wiseman Designs
sitting to her right; Bob Vick from Phoenix Development and Sherrie O'Connell our project engineer are also here this
morning. We appreciate the opportunity to do this one more time, I guess.
Mr. Egee: Just to sort of reiterate from the earlier hearing, planned residential development solutions are supported by the
Edmonds Comprehensive Plan —particularly single-family residential development solutions —when significant benefits are
realizable. In this case, we are looking at tree retention, view or open space preservation, in this case primarily open space
preservation in a central open space tract that is situated between kind of both phases of the development. And of course,
highly designed and high quality residential development is promoted through architecture, landscape and design. We have
all of those elements present in the design before you this morning. Steeply sloped areas should be preserved, and we have
made a concerted effort here to preserve slopes, preserve sensitive areas, and staff has indicated that within their staff report,
as well.
Mr. Egee: Design infill is a planning term, but in fact, the reality is that when we have these pocketed areas that are sort of
left over areas from suburban type of development that occurred in the 70's and the 60's in this area. It is a way to soften the
impact of infill development, and also to make a transition. In this case, between the multi -family that exists to the
immediate south in the Mont Claire Project that was just recently approved and existing multi -family across from Main Street
and the single-family communities that exist in Shell Valley to the west, southwest and north. So this a little bit more
compact, if you will, single-family development is a way to bridge that transition with good design. Also, it is a little bit less
impact, actually quite a bit in terms of physical features, to the existing topography and vegetation than a standard
subdivision would be. We actually are proposing fewer homes than would be available through a conventional subdivision,
as well.
Mr. Egee: As far as criteria for modifying the standards, the design flexibility built within the PRD Chapter, we are
providing some significant landscaping, which Mr. Wiseman is going to describe, as well as perimeter buffering, natural tree
retention, under story plantings and other techniques for preserving that look along Main Street that presently exists to some
degree with the large-scale vegetation, rockery, things that exist there. We are providing on -site recreation space for
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers PRD-2002-171 and P-2002-172
April 17, 2003 Page 3
residents and for children. We are providing trail connection which provides continuity between the upper bench portion of
the development and the lower portion at the end of Pioneer Way. Also, we will act as an inner pedestrian connection
between the existing neighborhoods in Shell Valley and Main Street.
Mr. Egee: We are providing additional buffering, again, as was mentioned at the last hearing, along the south line of the
property between ourselves and Mont Claire Condominiums and have even agreed to go in and work with their homeowner's
association to provide some additional plantings there. The narrower street right-of-way that we have arrived at (43 feet) will
help reduce impervious area. We are eliminating a sidewalk from one side as I believe was being discussed as I came in.
These measures will assure a better design within the development and less runoff impacts in the community and the
surrounding downstream drainage force, itself.
Mr. Egee: Off street parking totals will not be decreased by the reduced plat road width. The architectural design of the
buildings, themselves, is meant to provide harmonious use of materials that would be in keeping with the neighborhoods that
exist to the south and west, and particularly, Mr. Wiseman will speak to that, as well. None of the setbacks, however, from
the exterior lot lines are reduced from that that would be allowed by the underlying zoning, so we are preserving that effect.
We are minimizing the visual impact by, as I said earlier, reducing the number of units and actual massing of square footage
of buildings that would be potential under a conventional subdivision. I think staff, in their report, indicated that the building
envelopes, themselves, on a conventional subdivision could hold up to a 4,000 square foot residence, and we are averaging, I
think, around somewhere between 2,500 and 2,800 and we would have fewer of them.
Mr. Egee: We meet the design criteria of the PRD Chapter in terms of compliance —meeting two or more of the goals as set
forth in 23.50.050, with our single-family design criteria. Some of that will come out in testimony that is going to be in front
of you this morning. I am going to let Mr. Wiseman, I believe, speak to most of what I would call the sensitive design
elements that we have incorporated in the project. I will mop up on anything, I guess, that he leaves left for me.
Mr. Wiseman: Mark Wiseman, Wiseman Design Group, 2329 ?? Street, Seattle, WA. I am here on behalf of Phoenix
Development to present the team's work to you in this interesting infill project. The challenge of an infill project in a PRD is
to sensitively adapt and flexibly adapt the housing to create greater fit in the community and to provide a higher value of
landscape and recreation. I think that this project certainly demonstrates our success in doing that. We have prepared a
larger exhibit to give you a sense of the context of the existing neighborhoods around, and it is an interesting transition zone
with single-family over here and multi -family across Main Street. As you can see, the site plan is broken into two major
pieces, bisected by a green space, with these houses being relatively consistent with the single-family character here, and a
little bit more density on 851 Place being a good transition to the multi -family across Main Street.
Mr. Wiseman: This is an exhibit which shows existing conditions along Main Street just to give you a sense of context.
One of the first things, in terms of fit, that we saw was this large rock wall along Main. It really presents a wall to the
community. Part of our design concept, as expressed in this board and in our submittal package, has been to take advantage
of the opportunities that this site affords us by utilizing location of our driveways. We would pull that wall back and provide
pockets of green to give a more green edge along the street. We have also done a good job of trying to tie the project into the
context of the existing adjacent Mont Claire Project by utilizing, in our design, fencing and elements that really carry the
context forward. We are really trying to mesh very comfortably with our neighbors. Our signage and character elements all
are pretty soft. They are designed in a way to provide more green at the street. In fact, we have even located one of the
major open spaces right off of Main so that it softens the overall impact of the housing. Your sense of driving down Main
Street and your first view of the project takes some of the impact of Mont Claire away, and also this is a nice soft place to
enter the project.
Mr. Wiseman: The Tract 999 Open Space has been designed to provide some of the recreational opportunities for the
community. It is proposed that we put a fence along the street for safety for kids. There is a path system through it and an
active lawn space in the middle. It just provides a nice anchor and green space, which we worked off along Main. I am
really working with that edge to make it a good fit for the neighborhood. The other major open space on this project is this
walkway through. Originally, it started out just as an open space, and we began to view the greater opportunities of
connecting into the community and have proposed, and the City has agreed, that the path system that goes all the way to Pine
Ridge Park creates much more pedestrian orientation and functionality. We actually have a loop that runs through the site,
and we see that as a very active space with an opportunity for bird watching, perching up there, people can get exercise and
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers PRD-2002-171 and P-2002-172
April 17, 2003 Page 4
run along it if they want, and can get to the park. It offers the opportunity for people in Shell Valley, as well, to be able to
move all the way to Pine Ridge Park.
Mr. Wiseman: Since we have presented this plan, we have actually planned a revision which demonstrates additional green
space because we shortened Pioneer Way at the end and created to gated elements to deal with the community's concern
about traffic through. We are just demonstrating that we are consistently working towards trying to provide less impacts,
keep more green space, keep more trees. We have tried to carefully locate the path system through the existing trees, and as
the exhibit I just showed you shows, trees can be saved throughout that area to create continuity of the green space.
Mr. Wiseman: I understand there was a concern of one of the community members about possibly people using this space.
Our feeling is that the housing that is nearby provides eyes on the pathway in a way that minimizes any potential risk for that
pathway. We also understand that the homeowner's association will maintain it. We see that as being a high -quality
environment that is consistently maintained throughout the life of the project.
Mr. Wiseman: We have worked really carefully in beginning to decide locations for housing. The locations that you see
and the types of houses here are tentative locations subject to an adjustment, but these houses have been really upgraded in
designed in a custom way for this site. Consistent with the PRD, we have looked at high quality architectural that wraps all
the way around the houses. We have added the details of trellis elements and stone at the base, sidewalks that connect
directly to the sidewalk so that they are urban on the front portions wherever possible. And then they have been located on
the site plan in a way that presents them nicely to the community. So those places where they have wonderful detail at the
corner have been located in a way to really take that into account. So it is really a custom designed house with architecture
that wraps all the way around it, thoughtfully placed on these lots to take advantage of the opportunities that the site affords
US.
Mr. Wiseman: We have tried to carefully integrate the five houses on this side of the site off of Pioneer Way. They are a
little bit closer together than the existing houses, but the setbacks are very similar in most cases. They have similar driveway
character. In fact, what we are trying to do in the housing is to develop a housing product that is as nice or nicer than the
existing housing. These are some examples from the existing context on Pioneer Way, that housing. We have really tried, in
our design, to do the same thing. This is an example of the similar housing in other projects to give you a sense of the
character and the consistency of character between what is being proposed here on this project and what the existing context
looks like. You can get a sense here that the architecture wraps all the way around the houses in all cases not just at the
fagade. They are all three-dimensional products with nice rooflines and character. So we think it is a really comfortable fit in
terms of the way it will work into the community.
Mr. Wiseman: We have worked with other challenges, as well. We have proposed that ... so we have the path leading in
that way along the one side and tying in that way. We tried to do it in a way that doesn't create too much impact on any one
house, so it is comfortably design. There is quite a bit of room here. We have, in addition, augmented that with additional
plantings where necessary where disturbance occurs. We have proposed a high level of planting that shows on our landscape
plans to develop a concept that uses primarily native and draught adapted materials that will provide good habitat value,
interest, seasonality, color for the residents of the community.
Mr. Wiseman: I just wanted to quickly go through. There are four examples here of housing product. There is not just one
style. The goal was really to have a variety of housing product proposed so that it did not have a monotonous feel —it really
had the sense that the community does of different types of housing developed over time. We have tried to be very careful in
that regard, also, and really propose at least four housing types that are very nicely detailed.
Mr. Largent: Would the applicant be developing all the properties or would then be sold off to different developers?
Mr. Vick: My name is Bob Vick, Phoenix Development, 7127 — 196' Street Southwest in Lynnwood, 98036. Our plan, at
this point, is to actually build the houses. We are preparing the project so that these are examples of product that could be
sold off if we decide to go down that path.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers PRD-2002-171 and P-2002-172
April 17, 2003 Page 5
Mr. Largent: The reason I raised the question is that the plans show four examples of what might go in there. I know that is
your intent. But the reason I raise the question is that if something happens and you end up selling this off, there is no
guarantee that another developer would follow this particular plan. I just wanted to point that out.
Mr. Vick: That is correct. That is an important clarification. These are examples of the product that could go there.
Mr. Wiseman: Thank you. Mark Wiseman again. We have also tried to be really thoughtful in looking at the relationships
in other areas. For example, we have worked with Mont Claire Condominiums and have proposed additional evergreen trees
as a way to mitigate the relationship with the two products. The densest part of the Mont Claire Condominium Project is
right here, and you can see the open space opposite. It does a good of mediating that relationship where there is the chance
for some overview, and we have proposed additional trees beyond that which was required to try and create a good edge. So
really, on just about all sides of the site, we have thought about edge and green and have tried to present something that fits
the means of the overall community that has a green flavor to it consistent with the other development in this area. With that,
I will hand it back to Mr. Egee, unless you have any questions.
Mr. Largent: I do have actually more of a ... I just wanted to bring something in from the last hearing. One of the
individuals who was here last time from the public asked why the location for the path, as it runs through that ravine area...
I recall your comment being along the lines of there was some drainage associated with the site, and this kind of follows the
drainage plan.
Mr. Wiseman: Yes it does. That is still the case. There is a utility easement through there, and the disturbance that is
necessary as a result of that installation is exactly the location that we chose for the path. We carefully coordinated to make
sure we took advantage of the opportunity that that presented.
Mr. Largent: Great. Thank you. At this point, I don't have any questions of the presentation.
Mr. Egee: I just had a few quick things, if I could, Mr. Examiner. Mr. Egee again. (There is a little bit of dialogue missing
when the tape changed sides)... of staff as to the type of fence that will be required to be placed around the critical area tract.
Mr. Bullock: That is something that we would be willing to work with you on the design. We don't think that anything
more than some kind of split rail fence is going to be required for that.
Mr. Egee: Okay. Thank you. That is acceptable to us. The only other thing I wanted to mention is sort of working
backwards here a little bit as we complete our design effort. I haven't really done this up to this point, but I happened to
notice that it was in my materials that I have with me. While Mr. Wiseman was giving his presentation, I read through the
thirteen elements to the purpose statement of which you ought to try to achieve when you do a PRD. I think it is noteworthy
that I believe that we have met twelve of them. I won't go through them and list them individually. The only one we
probably don't meet is affordability. But as I looked at the others and I look at this PRD design, I believe we have been
extremely successful in complying with the purpose of the PRD Chapter. With that, I will close our portion of it, but I would
note that we will be available to perhaps stick around a little bit to make sure that the take took this time. I didn't mean that
in any negative way, I just want to be sure.
Mr. Largent: Okay. At this point, I don't have any further questions. Does staff have anything they would like to add?
Mr. Bullock: No sir.
Mr. Largent: How about the applicant?
Mr. Egee: Nothing.
Mr. Largent: Okay, let's tentatively show that the hearing on this application closed at 10:05 a.m. I appreciate you all
coming.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Numbers PRD-2002-171 and P-2002-172
April 17, 2003 Page 6
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-2002-171 and P-2002-172
April 17, 2003 Page 7