Building_development + Cross_cutting + Wildlife_habitat

11:49 of Vancouver City Limits. The site is located east of Interstate 5, north of State Route 500, south of Northeast 4th Plain Boulevard, and west of Northeast St. James Road. Vancouver City boundary is shown in purple, and Clark County's boundary is shown in white on the map. Looking a little closer at the site, the site is identified as parcel numbers 148882000, 148921000, and 148924000, again, highlighted by the arrow. Northeast 54th Street abuts the site's south boundary, and is classified as a collector arterial. The subject site is surrounded by single family residential development on all other sides, with the exception of the City of Vancouver stormwater facility that is west of the site.

12:50 For the site zoning, the site is zoned R9 for residential development, and the surrounding parcels are similarly zoned R9, with the exception of the city stormwater facility, which is zoned park, as you can see on the map there. Surrounding uses for the site, as you can see on the slide, the surrounding uses are largely detached single family residential, identified as number five, with a similar attached infill project near the site identified as number four. The city stormwater facility is, again, identified as number two, and Minnehaha Elementary to the east is identified as number three. Project overview. The site is approximately 2.29 gross acres, with 0.56 acres set aside for open space. The proposed project includes 18 lots for attached single family homes. The project is planned to be constructed

13:50 in a single phase, and timing is dependent on market demand. Parking is provided on each lot, with 11 additional parking spaces provided in track day, west of lots one and 12 here, and south of lots 16 to 18 over here. The project will include the installation of 72 new trees on site, including 12 street trees and 60 site trees, and at least 60% of those trees will be evergreen trees. Private streets will be constructed to provide access to lots and circulation in Northeast 54th Street. All necessary utilities to serve the planned lots will be constructed with the project. Stormwater will be collected, treated, and detained on site, then released to the city of Vancouver stormwater facility, matching existing discharge rates from the site. The project will be responsible for paying traffic, school,

14:47 and park impact fees, as well, excuse me, and correction or protection of the oversteepen slopes will occur based on the requirements of the geotechnical engineer and their report that's in the record. For public comment, I listed the general topics of concern from the public comments, and detailed responses to these are included in the record. As exhibit K, I'll run through a few high points on these. For lot sizes, as noted, this project is an infill project, and the proposed lots meet all dimensional requirements for infill lots in the R9 zoning district. Sidewalks are not proposed with this project as a majority of the surrounding areas do not have existing sidewalks, and a road modification was approved for this. Additionally, related to Minnehaha Elementary, there is not adequate right-of-way

15:44 for construction of sidewalks on Northeast 54th, and additionally, construction of any sidewalks require significant grading outside of the right-of-way on private property. Additionally, as noted in the letter provided by the Vancouver School Districts, students from this site will be bused to Minnehaha Elementary. Related to traffic, a traffic report is provided in the record, and the applicant, as noted, will pay applicable traffic fees for the project. Steep slopes have been addressed in the geotechnical report, and walls are planned and will be required to go through building permit review following land use approval, and the walls will be designed in coordination with a geotechnical engineer and a structural engineer to ensure slope stability for the steep slopes. All project grading will be contained on-site. Reference to slopes off-site was simply in regards to the fact that the existing slopes continued off-site to identify where they were,

16:43 and the project referencing projected two-to-one slopes was for design purposes so that site grades could be determined to ensure slope stability, identify grading catch points on-site, and the, excuse me, set the location of the retaining walls. The wellhead protection is only applicable when infiltrating stormwater, and infiltration is not proposed on this site. Additionally, the wellhead protection area that only touches the site, I believe, in the northwest corner, so it's a very limited area of the site that will be an open space. The site may have been used by wildlife in the past. However, given the site location, comprehensive plan designation, and zoning designation, that shows that the city has intended this site to be developed as proposed. Regarding the survey conflict of interest, Dan Renton, who provided survey work for the neighbor, informed them of his previous work related to the site,

17:41 and they elected to continue. Additionally, simply surveying properties in the past does not automatically create conflict of interest, and Dan Renton did not do any survey work directed by the applicant for this project. As noted in the staff report, the project is categorically exempt from SEPA, and the applicant's attorney has provided a detailed response, which is also included in exhibit K of the record that supports the categorical exemption determination. We reviewed the staff report and have no comments or requested revisions to the staff report. In conclusion, the applicable subdivision criteria are met or have been conditioned to be met, and the applicant supports staff's recommended conditions of approval. I'd like to thank staff for their time and effort they put into this review. The project engineer, applicant, and applicant's attorney, and myself, are here to answer any questions. Thank you for your time.

18:41 - Thank you, Mr. Andreotti. And thank you for stating that you've reviewed the staff, the applicant has reviewed the staff report. Salute that, I approve. That means that they have also reviewed the conditions of approval, the proposed conditions. I believe that there are, how many? Oh boy, well, I had it written down, 48. No, that's for the next one. There's a number of conditions of approval, 39 conditions of approval. Were there any objections or questions or clarifications that are requested with respect to the proposed conditions? - No. - Okay, I don't have any further questions at this time, but I may have some following public testimony and the city's testimony. Thank you very much. - Thank you. - All right. All right, now I will hear from Crystal Sanchez,

19:40 city planner, Ms. Sanchez. - Thank you, hearing examiner Marshall. - Great, let me swear you in real quick. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? - Yes. - Okay, great, thank you. You may proceed. - Okay, let me share my presentation. - Oh, and actually, if you could just introduce yourself on the record for those in attendance, that would be helpful, thank you. - Yes, I'm Crystal Sanchez, case manager for this project. - Great. - Let's see. Can you see my presentation? - Yes, I can. - Yep, perfect. As mentioned by the applicant, we're here for Swiss Terrace Infill subdivision. This is just an aerial overview of the site. This is for an 18 lot subdivision across three lots.

20:38 The applicant is utilizing narrow and infill development standards for these lots. Narrow lots require one guest parking space for every three narrow lots. The applicant is providing 11 spaces, which meets this requirement. The project is exempt from super view as minor new construction, given the number of lots they are proposing. Another thing to know is the critical areas maps on these lots are steep slopes and severe erosion areas. A critical area report and geotechnical report were required and submitted. As stated in the staff report, staff condition that an updated geotechnical report would need to be provided. Once a geotechnical consultant has been able to review updated grading plans to verify conformance with recommendations mentioned in the report and verify whether a quantitative slope stability analysis would be required. We did hold a notice of application

21:36 and public comment period. The comment period was held from April 9th to May 11th. Public comments are included with staff report as exhibit H. We received eight public comments during this period. One public comment was received after the comment period, but they were all included together in exhibit H. Some common topics that were brought up were residential density and compatibility, traffic safety, seep exemption, the critical area and stormwater concerns. As mentioned before, this is an infill development where the applicant is proposing attached single family dwellings. This allows a lot size to be as small as 1500 square feet. Seep exemption and the critical areas were discussed earlier in the presentation. And also the product has been reviewed by the city's transportation and stormwater departments and was deemed compliant with their requirements. Here's another aerial showing the zoning. As mentioned before, it's surrounded by R9

22:36 and to the Southwest, there is a lot zoned park. This is owned by the city and is used as a stormwater facility. And we've gone over the other applicable code sections listed here. Staff is reviewing this for subdivision approval. The approval process for this is a type three subdivision, which is required for 10 lots or more. It was reviewed against the preliminary plot approval criteria and subdivision technical standards. And with this staff recommends approval of the subdivision as conditioned in the staff report. And do you have any questions? - Okay, thank you, Ms. Sanchez. In your presentation, you noted that the public comments, including one that was received after the comment period, those are all included in the record and you've addressed them in your staff report.

23:32 And I also see that the applicant also submitted something to address the public comments that's also attached but not attached. It's also one of the exhibits in the record. Okay, I think I had one question. Oh, did staff determine that there were any revisions or conditions of approval that were necessitated by the public comments that were submitted? - No, the conditions weren't specific due to public comments. It was just during staff review that we had a few conditions that were added. - Okay, thank you. And I appreciate the summary of the topics on which public provided comment. I don't have any further questions at this time, but I will, again, await to see if I have questions following public testimony. Thank you.

24:30 Okay, and now it's time for public comment. I will be keeping track of time on my little phone timer, but I'd also appreciate if each individual member of the public also kind of kept an eye on time so that we can make sure that everybody has an opportunity to testify tonight. So thank you. And it looks like Mr. Erickson might be the first one up. - Thank you. - Sorry, Mr. Erickson here. It sounds like you were about to say you represent and you may be an attorney or another representative, but I do swear everybody in. So let me swear you in real quick. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? - Yes. - All right, thank you. Please state your name, spell your last name and explain who you're representing

25:30 or what your interest is in the application. - Mark A. Erickson, spelled E-R-I-K-S-O-N. There's no C in my name. I represent Jonathan D. McLaughlin, Joshua Ford Grant, Kevin P. Devine, Timothy and Laura Sherburn and Jason Vosberg, all of whom have residence within the neighborhood of the proposal. - Okay. - I am a party of record. I did submit comment. I'm gonna get some very specific issues tonight and I'm going to request that the record be held open for two weeks. I did not get the notification that the staff report was available on the second. In fact, I got it a week later from a client and I'd like more time to comment on the staff report. - Okay. We will address that at the end, but thank you. - My clients have recommended that the proposal be denied for the following reasons.

26:28 Courts have inherent power to review an administrative action to assure that it is not arbitrary and capricious, defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of facts and circumstances. We refer to that in the law as substantive due process. The facts and circumstances that concern us maybe summarize this neighborhood character. In 1978, the court of appeals, Washington court of appeals, affirmed the denial of a variance to allow multifamily development where the applicant failed to present evidence to negate findings of fact. And I realized that this is a single family attached, which is not really different in structure than multifamily, they're townhomes. The court in Ling v. Whatcom County Board of Adjustment, which is 21 Washington app 497 reading at 500, said that surrounding use of lots in the immediate vicinity and the zone is predominantly for single family residences. There are no special circumstances applicable to the applicant's property

27:25 or to the intended use that have not been applied generally to other property and class of use in the same vicinity and zone since the S2 zoning was adopted in 1973. If the application for a variance is to be granted, it would appear that the board would have no basis for denying subsequent various applications by other owners. The single family zoning benefits enjoyed by the area would be lost. Now during the same year, the Washington Supreme Court held that the general purpose of zoning is to stabilize uses, conserve property values, preserve neighborhood character and promote orderly growth and developments. Again, that's the city of Bonnie Lake 91 wash second, 19 reading at 28. In the present case, the entire neighborhood was developed with single family detached residences, except three lots in the present proposal and two adjacent lots owned by the city of Vancouver designated as parkland. In addition to the conflict between attached and detached residences,

28:23 the minimum lot size in the original R9 zone is 5,000 square feet. That's the EMC table 2410-040-1. My clients relied upon maintenance of neighborhood character when investing in their residences. The applicant is proposing lot sizes ranging from 1,946 square feet, that's lots 14 and 17, to 3,344 square feet, that's lot one, with the remaining 15 lots ranging between 2,000 and 3,000 square feet. None of the proposed lots can satisfy the original R9 zoning minimum lot size, thus violating the neighborhood character which promoted orderly single family development.