PLN20120033 Request for Reconsideration by Applicant.pdfExaminer
Date:
Regarding:
To:
• r - �- • • -
PLN20120033: Decision of March 28, 2013��
Planning Director, City of Edmonds
Requestors: Tom and Lin Hillman, Applicants
15915 741h PI W, Edmonds WA 98026
(425) 745-4669
LinHillman@comcast.net
We ask that reconsideration include the following:
1. The opinion of wetland biologist Andrea Bachman of Wetland
Resources, Inc. which was emailed to Jennifer Machuga of the Planning
Department on Friday, April 5, 2013 in response to condition 1. We believe
this addresses the issues and the condition should be removed.
(Additionally we feel that the part of this condition that directs staff to
"displace as much of the wetland encroachment into the second story of
the proposed home and further northward into the buffer as much as
reasonably possible" is both vague and unenforceable. It is not staff's role
to perform redesign functions, nor to presume what level of reduced
encroachment the hearing examiner would view to be reasonable.)
2. Revision of condition #2 to indicate a code source for the requiring of a
stormwater monitoring program for a single-family residential project as
well as a performance standard to which it should be held, or elimination of
this condition.
3. Revision of condition #3 to limit city engineering staff's application of
stormwater regulations to the appropriate code sections and city policies.
Neighbors' unsubstantiated claims and letters describing their no -growth
opinions and flooding fears are not enforceable review standards.
4. Removal of condition #8 requiring trash rack installation. Our proposing
of a trash rack in the stream •-• was in direct response to Mr. Brown's
overflow, but we are willing to remove it from our plans should city
engineering staff s review determine it is either unneeded or in any way
detrimental to the flow of the stream. This should be determined during
staff review subsequent to our building permit submittal. Mr. Brown's
opinions that the proposed trash rack is both "unnecessary to keep the
stream safe from flooding" (page 3) and "insufficient to prevent culvert
obstructions" (page 4) are contradictory and not standards for review.
During the hearing, documents were entered into the record which were not
part of the packet of exhibits distributed prior to the hearing, and we had
neither seen nor read until they were given to us at the hearing itself. We
were not given sufficient time to prepare an adequate rebuttal to the points
made in these documents written by the neighbors. Therefore we would
like to make herewith the following points of clarification and rebuttal to the
comments generated by the neighbors:
A. Both Mr. Brown and Mr. Schroeder own properties that are upslope of
the proposed project and would not receive runoff from our site. Mr.
Hachler of the immediately neighboring 1111 Sierra Place directly to the
west and downslope of the property has been very helpful and agreeable to
our proposed development. He granted access to his property for our
investigation of drainage issues and offered to provide any necessary
easements at the appropriate time.
B. The home video shown at the hearing showed rainwater flows
northward along Olympic Avenue that were coming from the south, not
from our property. Our lot does not drain to theirs.
C. The existing culverts under the lane accessing neighboring properties to
the north have invert elevations within 2-1/2 inches of each other. The
northwest (streambed) one is at 208.87' and the southwest at 208.68',
which led us to believe that runoff from our lot could drain either way. The
most water we have observed at the southwest culvert's inlet over the 2
years we have owned the property is a small puddle. On the other hand,
the northwest culvert in the streambed has always had an ongoing flow.
We abandoned our idea of using the southwest culvert when we snaked a
steel tape through it and found it dead -ended, and also discovered it was
not included in the city's stormwater system map. The map showed the
northern streambed stormwater path as well as a storm pipe line across the
street in the neighbors' front yard under a rockery built over the city right-of-
way. We decided the streambed discharge was less disruptive and more in
keeping with the existing flow path.
D. The location of our proposed residence requires tree removal of
primarily older and smaller alders, many of which are leaning and pose
falling hazards. The largest one we intend to take out is a 40-inch maple
which is a stump. We have made continuing efforts to retain both the 42-
inch cedar in the middle of the stream buffer as well as the 36-inch maple
at the buffer's edge, keeping our building envelope as far out of the drip
lines (canopies) of these trees as we could. The hearing examiner's
suggestion of moving the house further northward into the stream buffer
ignores these significant trees. Additionally, two of the neighbors
(Fernandez and Ericson) have verbally expressed their agreement with our
proposed tree removal.
E. Our comparison of the building footprints and square footages of living
spaces and garages of neighboring properties considered all of the lots
immediately abutting ours. Our proposal showed a smaller size than all of
them. The Mallot house across the street, and other homes further away
were not included. We agree that the Mallot home is smaller than our
proposal. However, including it in the analysis would still show that our
proposal is smaller than the average of all the homes nearby, and therefore
still reasonable. We do not claim, nor do we need to show, that we are
proposing the smallest house in a 300-foot radius, nor in the R-12 zone.
F. We wish to reiterate that we share the neighbors' concerns that drainage
issues are a major priority for development in this area, and we have
communicated this to them. We are prepared to continue our diligence in
studying the issues, requirements and best available science and
engineering practices to apply to this project.
We believe the contents of this request to be true. Thank you for your
reconsideration.
Sincerely,
Tom and Lin Hillman
Fwd: Sierra Place property, Edmonds
mailbox:///C:/Email/mail.comcast.net/Sent?number=528646...
Subject: Fwd: Sierra Place property, Edmonds
From: Lin Hillman <LinHillman @comcast.net>
Date: 4/5/2013 8:50 AM
To: "Machuga, Jen" <Jen.Mach uga@edmondswa.gov>
CC: "Lambert, Jennifer" <jennifer.lam bert@ci.edmonds.wa.us>
Hi Jen,
Here's Andrea's opinion regarding the decision.
Lin
Original Message
Subject:Sierra Place property, Edmonds
Date:Thu, 4 Apr 2013 18:19:40 -0700
From:Andrea Bachman <andrea@wetlandresources.com>
To:Lin Hillman <LinHillman @comcast.net>
Hi Lin,
This is regarding the question of whether encroaching into the on -site
Category III wetland causes significantly more damage to the wetland
functions than building within its buffer. The buffer in consideration is the 25'
wide upland area between the proposed house and the on -site Type Np
stream. While this area is both a wetland and stream buffer, it was specifically
retained for protection of the stream. In considering all ecological functions
provided on this site, it is my opinion is that the current proposal is likely to be
the least damaging alternative.
On this particular site, buffers provide functions that are as important as
wetland functions. If the house were constructed closer to the stream, it
would be difficult to replace lost stream buffer functions, especially water
quality and erosion control functions. Since the on -site slope wetland offers
moderately low levels typical wetland functions, impacts to water quality
improvement functions are expected to be minimal and can be easily
mitigated through a proposed enhancement plan and stormwater plans.
Potential impacts to mature evergreen trees should be considered as well.
1 ..4?7 A /n 1'1n90 4n.1^ AWN
rwu: sierra riace property, numonus maiioox:///t,:/nmau/maii.comcast.net/3encrnumner=bzbb4b...
There is a 42" western red cedar tree between the proposed house and
stream that shall be retained by the current project proposal. This tree is of
greater value than the immature red alder and mixed native and non-native
shrub community within the wetland impact area. This mature cedar tree has
potential to provide valuable habitat for a variety of small mammals and birds.
It also provides stream bank protection and water temperature control
functions. Constructing a new house any closer to the stream would certainly
result in detrimental impacts to this tree.
In the highly unlikely case that a "reasonable" development could actually
achieve 100% avoidance of the on -site wetland, the result would still be zero
buffers along the wetland and stream. Based on the conditions of this site,
building closer to the stream to avoid wetland impacts would likely cause
greater detrimental impacts to stream functions and values than the current
proposal to impact the wetland. Sacrificing a small part of this on -site wetland
to maintain an adequate stream buffer appears to be the best option for this
site.
I hope this helps. Please contact me if you have any other questions.
Andrea Bachman
Senior Wetland Ecologist
Wetland Resources, Inc.
9505 19th Ave SE, Suite 106
Everett, WA 98208
Phone: 425.337.3174
Fax: 425.337.3045
2 of 2 4/A /9012 1(1.17 AM