Loading...
Comments from Todd Brown received 4-19-13.pdfRECEIVED April 19, 2013 APR 19 201 To: Jen Machuga, Associate Planner, City of Edmonds [DEVELOPMENT SERVICES From: Todd Brown, party of record COUNTER Subject: Comments in response to reconsideration requests re: PLN20120033 Dear Jen, Per the recent Order on Reconsideration from Mr. Olbrechts dated April 16, 2013,1 would like to provide this written response to the April 8, 2013 reconsideration requests. Points 1 and 2 regard buffer encroachments and storm water. In the city staff rebuttal Jennifer Lambert describes the conditions which would require written approval from the 1111 owners before a variance can be granted —that is, if it was shown that water naturally drains into the SW culvert and the applicants wanted to install some sort of storm water system that used the culvert. This is exactly the condition. Integral to the applicants' storm water drainage scheme is an overflow plan, as required by the city - the man-made ditch leading to the SW culvert as a route for overflow during high water events. During these events the north stream will be diverted to the SW culvert, substantially altering the water flow, thus requiring written permission from 1111. This is discussed more in point C below. The on-site drain system is designed to only accommodate a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. Given recent weather pattern changes and the unique, severe conditions on this site it seems reasonable to consider requirements for less frequent storm events. And if the city can't show, through some monitoring plan, that this drainage plan will be safe, then the request should be denied. The applicants' hired wetland ecologist didn't rebut the claim that the alternate drainage plan through the SW culvert was the best for the site, a position she held earlier. The applicants suggest in point 3 that flooding fears are unsubstantiated and are not enforceable review standards. While I took no pictures or videos of the flooding culvert, my wife and neighbors also witnessed these events. The city's Public Works department has records, both of when work was conducted to clear the blocked culvert and when preventive maintenance was performed. Also, I had at least 2 conversations with crew members, once when they were clearing the culvert and again as they were performing their culvert surveillance. I believe these substantiate our flooding concerns. I would like to clarify point 4, which regards the trash rack. In my presentation at the hearing I referred to Attachment 10, point 6 (a), dated January 14, 2013 from the applicants. In it they say "...including debris removal which the current proposal hopes to reduce the need for by installing a trash rack..." If you review the recording of that hearing you will hear me say from my written notes "A trash rack may be ineffective in preventing culvert blockage based on the soil type of this property." My opinion was formed after speaking to the culvert crew as they described the lay of the land and what they had removed from the blocked culvert. I'm unsure what contradictions the applicants are referring to. Comments from the city's culvert cleaning experts seem like applicable standards for review. 1 go on to say at the hearing "I think we deserve much more than just a hope that it will work." I would like to reiterate that — given the huge amount of water flow during heavy rainstorms, I would like to rely on more than the applicants' hopes that it will work to prevent our lane from being washed out. At the hearing the applicants did not rebut most of my testimony. In speaking with Tom Hillman after the hearing he said the reason was that I had made no legally rebuttable claims. From their request for reconsideration it now seems they were surprised by my comments. I would note that my written comments were submitted to the city before the required deadline, which allowed almost 3 days of review before the hearing. In point A the applicants state that our property does not receive runoff from their site. While that's true, our concern is not for our own property; rather, our access to it should the lane be flooded. They describe the 1111 owner as being helpful and agreeable "...to provide any necessary easements at the appropriate time." While that may be true, I maintain his written permission is still needed, as required by the city, and the appropriate time is during these variance requests proceedings. Point B regarding the home video is inaccurate. The video shows water rushing west, down Sierra Place, in the open culvert on the north side of the road in front of 1111. This water is easily traceable to the applicants' property. Olympic Avenue does not have any open culverts or ditches, which can be confirmed by the city. Point C again regards the culverts. The applicants state that the most water they've observed at the SW culvert's inlet is "... a small puddle." With this I agree. However, through our almost daily excursions past this culvert to our mailbox over the past 8 years, we have witnessed running water there every time it rains. A review of the site topography shows that most of the water from this property flows to the north stream — a point the applicants have made and to which I agree. A review of the topographic maps, though, shows that the water which falls on the proposed building site flows towards that SW culvert. This is the source of the flow we see during and after rainstorms and the water they wish to divert to the north stream. That it only accumulates a small puddle is further testament to the drainage value of this culvert. At the hearing the applicants said they had looked for the SW culvert outlet using some electrical culvert -finding device. In their request for reconsideration they describe snaking "a steel tape through it and found it dead -ended..." Knowing how flexible and prone to kinking these devices are, it seems that inserting a flexible steel measuring tape or electrical wire fish tape are not the most reliable methods for determining culvert patency. That it's not on the city's storm water system map seems like an easy fix — add it, especially since the 1111 owners are willing. Point D regards trees. A neighbor's conversation with Kat Ericson indicates Kat's tree opinions were misrepresented and that she doesn't support the tree removal plan. My conversations with Ida Fernandez indicate the same misrepresentation. Point E considers local house comparisons. While it's true they reviewed all of the lots directly abutting their property, many of these cannot even be seen from the proposed building site. They are higher up the hill, not accessible from the applicants' property, on completely different streets and are considered a different neighborhood. The intent of the comparison should be to look at other homes in the neighborhood — those on Sierra Place. Finally, I appreciate their ongoing concerns about drainage issues. Like them, we will also continue our diligence in reviewing these issues. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, YiY Z Todd Brown 1135 Sierra Place Edmonds, WA