m- D Aid i_e PVi 5 2012 D BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF MEDINA CI OF MEDINA In the Matter of the Application of No. SDP 2011-07 Eric Drivdahl, Geolotte Hommas Architecture, on behalf of David Treadwell No. SPR 2011-02 Treadwell Residence For a Substantial Development Permit and ) Site Plan Review FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION SUMMARY OF DECISION The request for a Substantial Development Permit and Site Plan Review for redevelopment of a residential lot containing geologically hazardous areas with a new single- family residence, retaining walls, multipurpose sports court and spa; installation of geothermal technology; repair of an existing dock; restoration of 50 lineal feet of existing beach; and capping 100 lineal feet of existing bulkhead at 538 Overlake Drive East, in Medina, Washington is APPROVED. Conditions of approval are necessary to address specific impacts of the proposed project. Request: SUMMARY OF RECORD Eric Drivdahl, Geolotte Hommas Architecture, on behalf of David Treadwell, requests a Substantial Development Permit and Site Plan Review for re- development of a residential lot containing geologically hazardous areas with a new single-family residence and other features, restoration of 50 lineal feet of existing beach, and capping 100 lineal feet of existing bulkhead at 538 Overlake Drive East, in Medina, Washington. Hearing Date: The Hearing Examiner held an open record hearing on the request on December 21, 2011. Testimony: The following individuals presented testimony under oath at the open record hearing: Kristen Clem Kissinger, City Planning Consultant Eric Drivdahl, for Applicant Page 1 of 18
Exhibits: The following exhibits were admitted into the record: 1. Staff Report, dated December 13, 2011 2. Application for Substantial Development Permit, received September 8, 2011, with attachments: a. City of Medina Substantial Development Application Checklist, undated b. City of Medina Owner' s Declaration of Agency, dated September 7, 2011 c. Hold Harmless and Indemnification Agreement, dated September 7, 2011 d. Vicinity Map, dated September 8, 2011 e. Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application Form( JARPA), received October 13, 2011 3. Letter from Eric Drivdahl, Gelotte Hommas Architecture to City of Medina, dated September 7, 2011, with the following attachments: a. View photos A-H, undated b. Massing study, computer models views 1-9, undated c. City of Medina Owner' s Declaration of Agency, dated September 7, 2011 ( same as Exhibit 2. b) d. Hold Harmless and Indemnification Agreement, dated September 7, 2011 ( same as 4. Notices: Exhibit 2. c) a. Notice of Complete Application, dated October 24, 2011 b. Declaration of Posting of Notice of Application, dated October 27, 2011, with attached Notice of Application for Shoreline, Site Plan Review, Administrative Special Use Permit, and SEPA, dated October 27, 2011 c. Declaration of Posting of Notice of Hearing, dated December 2, 2011, with attached Notice of Hearing& Determination of Nonsignificance, dated December 2, 2011 d. Affidavit of Publication of Notice of Hearing and DNS, dated December 2, 2011 e. Declaration of Mailing of Notice of Application and SEPA, dated October 26, 2011; with attached NOA, site plans, and SEPA Checklist to SEPA agency mailing list f. Declaration of Mailing of Notice of Application for Shoreline, Site Plan Review, Administrative Special Use Permit, and SEPA, dated October 26, 2011; with attached NOA to residences within 300 feet of the property 5. Letter from Neil and Jennifer Stanton to City of Medina, dated October 28, 2011 6. Email from Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, to Kristen Clem Kissinger, dated November 29, 2011, with email string 7. Site plans: a. Existing Site Plan& Analysis( Sheet A1. 1- SPR), dated September 8, 2011 b. Proposed Site Plan( Sheet A1. 1), dated September 8, 2011 c. Site Section Sport court( Sheet A1. 2), dated September 8, 2011 d. Lower Floor Plan( Sheet A2. 1), dated September 8, 2011 e. Main Floor Plan( Sheet A2.2), dated September 8, 2011 f. Upper Floor Plan( Sheet A2. 3), dated September 8, 2011 g. Exterior Elevations( Sheet A3. 1), dated September 8, 2011 Page 2 of 18
h. Exterior Elevations( Sheet A3. 2), dated September 8, 2011 i. Building Sections( Sheet A4. 1), dated September 8, 2011 j. Building Sections ( Sheet A4.2), dated September 8, 2011 k. Landscape Plan( Sheet L1. 0), revised, dated October 12, 2011 1. Shoreline Restoration Plan( Sheet L1. 1), revised, dated October 10, 2011 8. Geotechnical Engineering Study( G-3197), Group Northwest, Inc., dated August 31, 2011 a. Addendum to Geotechnical Engineering Report, dated September 7, 2011, with attachments: 9. SEPA documents: i. Existing Site Plan( Plate 1), dated September 7, 2011 ii. Proposed Site Plan( Plate 2), dated September 7, 2011 a. Addendum Determination of Nonsignificance, dated December 13, 2011 b. Determination of Nonsignificance, issued December 2, 2011 c. Environmental checklist, received October 13, 2011 10. Site photos a.- i, dated October 6, 2011 11. Geothermal Trenching Schematic Site Plan, undated 12. Dock Improvement Plans: a. Cover page, page 1 of 7, dated October 3, 2011 b. Existing Site Plan, page 2 of 7, plot date October 4, 2011 c. Existing Plan View, page 3 of 7, plot date October 4, 2011 d. Top& Elevation View, page 4 of 7, plot date October 4, 2011 e. Existing Section Views, page 5 of 7, plot date October 4, 2011 f. Proposed Section Views, page 6 of 7, plot date October 4, 2011 g. Construction Details, page 7 of 7, plot date October 4, 2011 13. Plans: a. Schematic TESC Plan, dated December 7, 2011 b. Schematic Drainage Plan, dated December 7, 2011 c. Storm Drain Outfall, dated December 2, 2011 14. Staff Analysis and Decision, Treadwell Sport Court Administrative Special Use Permit, dated December 1, 2011 15. Affidavit of Publication of Notice of Application for Shoreline, Site Plan Review, Administrative Special Use Permit, and SEPA, dated October 27, 2011 16. Letter from Hideyuki Hori to Hearing Examiner, dated December 12, 2011 17. Declaration of Mailing of Notice of Application for Shoreline, Site Plan Review, Administrative Special Use Permit, and SEPA, dated December 1, 2011; with attached NOH and DNS to residences within 300 feet of the property 18. Revised Landscape Plan( Sheet L1. 0), dated October 3, 2011 The Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions based upon the testimony and exhibits admitted at the open record hearing: Page 3 of 18
FINDINGS Application and Notice 1. Eric Drivdahl, Geolotte Hommas Architecture, on behalf of David Treadwell Applicant) 1, requests a Substantial Development Permit( SDP) and Site Plan Review SPR) for redevelopment of a residential lot containing geologically hazardous areas with a new single family residence and other features, as well as dock repair and beach and bulkhead restoration. The property is located at 538 Overlake Drive East, in Medina, Washington. 2 Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 2; Exhibit 2; Exhibit 3; Exhibit 7.a; Exhibit 7.b. 2. The City of Medina( City) determined the application was complete on October 24, 2011. The City mailed a" Notice of Application for Shoreline, Site Plan Review, Administrative Special Use Permit, and [ State Environmental Policy Act] SEPA" 3 to owners of property City posted notice at the City Post Office, on a City public notice board, and on the property on October 27, 2011. The City received comments from Neil and Jennifer Stanton and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. The City mailed notice of the open record hearing and SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance( DNS) associated with the application to owners of property within 300 feet of the property, posted notice and published notice in the Seattle Times on December 2, 2011. Testimony ofms. KristenClem Kissinger; Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 4; Exhibit 4.b; Exhibit 4.c; Exhibit 4.d; Exhibit 4.e; Exhibit 4.f, Exhibit 5; Exhibit 6; Exhibit 15; Exhibit 17. within 300 feet of the 4 property and to SEPA agencies on October 26, 2011. The SEPA Review 3. The City acted as lead agency and analyzed the environmental impact of the proposal as required by SEPA, Ch. 43.21C RCW. The City determined, after a review ofthe Applicant' s Environmental Checklist and other information on file with the City, that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. The City issued a Determination of Nonsignificance( DNS) on July 1, 2011. On December 12, 2011, the Applicant submitted a revision to replace an existing four-inch storm drain and outfall with a six-inch storm drain and outfall. The City' s SEPA Responsible Official determined that this revision would not substantially change the analysis of the t David Treadwell signed an Owner' s Declaration of Agency appointing Eric Drivdahl, Geolotte Hommas Architecture, to act as agent. Exhibit 2.b. 2 The property is identified by tax parcel number 9389100105. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 1. A legal description is provided on page 1 of the Staff Report and as part of Exhibit 12. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 1; Exhibit 12. 3 Kristen Clem Kissinger, City Planning Consultant testified that the Notice of Application( Exhibit 4.b) and Notice of Hearing( Exhibit 4.c) referenced SDP No. 2011-06 instead of SDP No.2011-07. 4 The City consolidated the DNS and application comment periods pursuant to the Optional DNS process provided by WAC 197-11- 355. Exhibit 4.b. Page 4 of 18
DNS. The City issued an Addendum DNS as set out in WAC 197-11- 600(4)( c) on December 13, 2011. No appeal of the DNS was received prior to the close of the appeal period on December 16, 2011. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 6; Exhibit 9.a; Exhibit 9.b; Exhibit 9.c. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning 4. The City of Medina Comprehensive Plan Preface states that the Plan represents the vision of Medina residents of the City' s development as a unique residential community. City Comprehensive Plan (last amended March 14, 2005), Preface, page 1. It is the basic policy of the City to retain and promote the high-quality residential setting that has become the hallmark of the Medina community. City Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, page 14. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property Single Family Residential. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 2. City Comprehensive Plan goals and policies relevant to the proposal promote maintaining Medina' s high quality residential setting and character, and preserving and fostering housing development consistent with the City' s high- quality residential setting. 5 City Comprehensive Plan, Section 1, page 14 and Section 4, page 34. 5. The property is located within the City' s R-20 zoning district, which requires a minimum 20,000 square feet minimum lot size. Surrounding property to the north and south is developed with single- family residences and is located within the R-20 district. Property to the west across Overlake Drive East is zoned R- 16, with 16, 000 square feet minimum lot size, and developed with single-family residences. Lake Washington abuts the property to the east. Medina Municipal Code (MMC) 17.24.010.A, Exhibit 7.b. Existing Site, Access, and Proposal 6. Overlake Drive East provides access to the northwest corner of the lot through a shared private driveway with properties to the north. The rectangular shaped lot measures 41, 269 square feet. The lot length is approximately 300 feet with a width of approximately 155 feet along the shoreline. The property is developed with a singlefamily residence with covered parking, asphalt driveway, parking area, and a sports court to the west. An approximately 100- foot long 9 shaped wooden dock extends from the property shoreline into Lake Washington. Exhibit 1, Staff'Report, page 3; Exhibit 2; Exhibit 5; Exhibit 7.a. 7. The Applicant proposes to demolish the existing residence and construct a two-story 8,930-square foot residence approximately twice as large. The proposed residence includes a 1, 465- square foot attached garage. A new parking courtyard will be constructed to the west of the residence. Additional features include retaining walls; a 5 City staff identified the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies as particularly relevant to the proposal: Land Use Goal LU-Gl and Housing Goal H-Gl. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 3. Page 5of18
court6 new multipurpose sports and spa; installation of geothermal technology; repair of an existing dock; restoration of 50 lineal feet of existing beach; and capping 100 lineal feet of existing bulkhead. No on-site parking spaces will be eliminated. The completed project will have three enclosed parking spaces, with room for eight additional parking courtyard spaces and seven additional parking spaces on the sports court. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 2 and 8; Exhibit 3; Exhibit 4. e; Exhibit 7.b. 8. Construction equipment and materials will access the site from the existing shared private driveway connecting to Overlake Drive East. Neil Stanton, who lives at 560 Overlake Drive East wrote a comment letter dated October 8, 2011, in response to the Notice of Application. Mr. Stanton raised concerns about the suitability of the private driveway for heavy trucks and opposed the use of the driveway for parking during construction. The City Planning Commission will review and approve a Level 2 construction mitigation plan, with a requirement that the private driveway be repaired to existing conditions. MMC 15.20.050.B.2, Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 8; Exhibit 5. 9. An existing unpermitted sports court located to the west of the current residence will be removed and replaced with a new 25- foot by 45- foot sports court that could also be used for parking. The proposed spa will be constructed as part of the deck on the east side of the proposed residence. A geothermal heating and cooling system with geothermal tubing will be installed underground within the lawn area between the proposed residence and Lake Washington behind the bulkhead. An emergency natural gas generator and other mechanical equipment will be located along the north side of the proposed residence surrounded by a block wall to obscure visual and noise impacts. City Planning Consultant Kristen Clem Kissinger testified that the Applicant will be required to meet City noise standards during construction. The Applicant will obtain a certificate of noise compliance as a condition of the City' s issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy issuance. Exhibit 1, Staff'Report, pages 5, 8 and 9; Exhibit 7.b; Exhibit 11; Testimony ofms. Kissinger. 10. The Applicant proposes replacing the existing dock' s wood decking with a grated plastic surface material. The removed wood decking will be disposed of off-site. No change to the size or configuration of the dock is proposed. The Applicant will also install a stone cap at the top of the existing bulkhead; construct a new concrete walk and granite stone set stairway to the shoreline; and restore 50 feet of existing beach. The Applicant has prepared a shoreline restoration and enhancement plan. The City' s Landscape Consultant has reviewed the plan and determined that it is consistent with City Code requirements. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, pages 5, 7 and 9; Exhibit 7.1; Exhibit 12. 6 On December 1, 2011, the City issued an Administrative Special Use Permit, with conditions, for the construction of a sports court adjacent to a single-family residence as set out in MMC 14. 08. 020.B.2; MMC 17. 52. 050.A and C. The proposed sports court is included as part of the Substantial Development Permit because it would be constructed within the 200- foot shoreline jurisdiction. Exhibit 7.b; Exhibit 14. Page 6 of 18
11. City staff reviewed the zoning code and determined that the proposed residence and associated features would be located outside of all zoning property setbacks( MMC 17. 24. 010.B); would have a maximum structural coverage of 11. 3 percent, lower than the code' s maximum structural coverage of 13 percent( MMC 17.24. 010. 07; would have a total impervious surface coverage of 29. 1 percent, lower than the total impervious surface of 52. 5 percent provided by code( MMC 17.24.010.C.3); and would be constructed to the maximum height of 36 feet from the lowest point of original grade ( MMC 17.34. 10.D). Exhibit I, Staff'Report, page 8; Exhibit 7.g; Exhibit 7.h. 12. GEO Group Northwest, Inc. prepared a Geotechnical Engineering Study( Geotech Study) for the site, dated August 31, 2011. Surface soils consist of glacial till deposits( Qvt) with glacial advance outwash deposits( Qva) in lower elevation areas near Lake Washington. The Geotech Study identified a steep slope greater than 10 feet in height and steeper than 40 percent grade on the western portion of the site. The remaining slopes to the east of the existing sports court and south of the existing residence are not considered steep slope critical areas under the City Code and the site contains no landslide hazard areas. The Geotech Study determined that it is geotechnically feasible to construct the proposed residence as designed. The Geotech Study determined that the nine-foot tall retaining walls for the proposed sport court and driveway areas should be supported on an improved subgrade to reduce the potential for settlement. Appropriate best management practices( BMPs) for erosion and sediment control will be utilized during construction, including silt fencing, as well as covering exposed soils with straw mulch or plastic sheeting during wet weather periods. A final review of the Geotech Study and critical areas report will occur prior to issuance of a grading and drainage permit. Recommendations are set forth in the Geotech Study and are included as conditions of SDP and SPR approval. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 6; Exhibit 8, pages 2, 5, 6, 8 and 12. 13. No trees or other vegetation would be removed from the property' s western steep slopes. The Applicant will remove five significant trees elsewhere on the property. 8 The Applicant will provide approximately 126. 5 inches of tree replacement mitigation for the removal of approximately 104 diameter breast height( DBH) inches of significant trees. The Applicant will apply for an administrative tree removal permit pursuant to Chapter 20. 80 MMC for final tree removal and mitigation. Table 20.80. 060(A). Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 9 and 11; Exhibit 7.k. 7 The proposed uncovered decks, patios, and sports court do not exceed 30 inches above original or finished grade, whichever is lower, and are thus not defined as structural coverage. MifC 17. 12. 010; Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 8. 8 MMC 12.28.020 provides: " Significant tree" is defined as any tree with at least one trunk of 10 inches in diameter or greater, measured at DBH and of a species noted as being a significant tree based on the document" City of Medina List of Suitable Tree Species for Private Property Replacement and Public Right-of-Way Planting." Page 7 of 18
14. The Applicant will replace an existing four-inch storm drainage outfall with a new sixinch outfall, located above the OHWM in the northeast corner of the site discharging into Lake Washington. Two catch basins are shown on the proposed site plan, one to the west of and the other to the north of the proposed residence. A stormwater system will collect stormwater from the roof and site and be treated through a Filtration Cartridge Vault, then tight-lined to the new outfall. The Applicant will apply for a grading and drainage permit meeting the City' s adopted Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Approved erosion control measures, including temporary sediment fencing, would protect Lake Washington water quality. MMC 13. 06.080. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, pages 7 and 10; Exhibit 7.b; Exhibit 13. Shoreline Master Program 15. The State Shoreline Management Act( SMA) and the Medina Shoreline Master Program City SMP) govern work within 200 feet of the Lake Washington ordinary high water mark. City ofmedina SMP (last amended 1990); RCW 90.58.030( 2) 0. Any" substantial development" within the shoreline requires approval of a substantial development permit. Substantial development is any development in which the total cost or fair market value exceeds $ 5, 718.00, or any development that materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state. RCW 90.58.030(3)( e). 9 16. Construction of single- family residences, including appurtenances, are exempt from requirements to obtain a Substantial Development Permit, unless grading is required that exceeds 250 cubic yards. The proposed project involves excavating and grading of up to 2,600 cubic yards of earth and importing 380 cubic yards of fill. Up to 1, 820 cubic yards of excavation is located within the shoreline area. If any part of a proposed development is not eligible for exemption, then a substantial development permit is required for the entire proposed development project. WAC 173-27-040( 1)( d); WAC 173-27-040(2)( g); Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 6. 17. The primary goal of the City SMP is to preserve the City' s shoreline for single family residential use in a manner that also protects and preserves the natural features along the shoreline and the quality of Lake Washington. City SMP, Section II.A, page 7. The City SMP Shoreline Conservation Goal is to preserve and protect the resources and amenities of Lake Washington for use and enjoyment by present and future Medina citizens consistent with property rights. City SMP, Section ILB, page 7. 18. The City SMP designates the subject property as an Urban environment. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2. Medina' s shoreline is divided into Urban and Recreation Conservancy 9" Development" includes construction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging; drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals, bulkheading; driving of pilings; placing of obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to this chapter at any state of water level. RCW 90.58.030(3)( d). Page 8of18
environment classifications categories" to reflect the fact that residential development is dominant along the shoreline." City SMP, Section III,page 10. The Urban environment is designated for low-density single-family urban residential development. City SMP, Section III,page 10. 19. The City SMP use regulations discourage development in environmentally sensitive areas unless it can be shown that measures can be taken to mitigate all related adverse impacts. City SMP, Section IV.B.2. Lake Washington is designated a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area. MAC 18.12.400.A.5. Subject to restrictions, residential and accessory structures are permitted uses in the Urban Environment. City SMP, Section IV.E.1 and 2. The City SMP use regulations encourage landscaping as a method of retaining a sense of nature in developed shoreline areas. City SMP, Section IV.B. 10. The Applicant submitted a shoreline restoration plan with proposed mitigation for land surface modifications for property within 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark of the Lake Washington shoreline. MMC 12.28.090. Exhibit 7.1. Proposed shoreline plantings include the planting of Western hazelnut trees, shrubs and groundcover. Exhibit 7.1. The City SMP requires the developer to control the entry of contaminants into Lake Washington within acceptable water quality standards during construction of new developments. City SMP, Section IV. B.8. A proposed condition requires extreme care to ensure that no toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or leach into surface waters. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 12. The Applicant will be required to obtain federal and state permits, including a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and Hydraulic Permit Approval from the state Department of Fish and Wildlife( WDFW). Exhibit 1, StaffReport, pages 6, 10 and 12. 20. The City SMP use regulations identify steep slopes and discourage removal or disruption of vegetation and ground cover on steep slopes. All project elements are located outside of the steep slope. City SMP, Section IV.C. The proposed sports court improvements will be located within the steep slope buffer. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 6; Exhibit 7.b. 21. The City SMP use regulations permit land surface modification only if necessary for an approved development or use of the subject property, or if incidental to landscaping for any use on the subject property. Such modification must be the minimum necessary; no direct or indirect adverse impacts occur to adjoining property or Lake Washington; all exposed surfaces must be revegetated or otherwise covered; dirt, rocks and similar materials must be stockpiled on the property as far as possible from Lake Washington; and materials deposited on the project must be clean and not contain substances that could pollute Lake Washington. City SMP, Section IV.D.1. 5. Site Plan Review 22. City Code requires a site plan review where the building site is at least 40,000 square feet in gross site area and at least twice as large as the gross site area ofthe smallest abutting Page 9 of 18
residentially developed property. 10 The Applicant' s site is 41, 269 square feet and the property to the north is approximately 17, 314 square feet. MMC 14.020.A.2.b; Exhibit 1, StaffReport,page 9. The Applicant presented the following information as part of the site plan review portion of the hearing as set out in MMC 14. 12.040.C.2. a-g: an initial site analysis( Exhibit 3); a drawing of existing site conditions including all trees at least 24- inches diameter breast height( Exhibit 7.a; Exhibit 7.k); preliminary floor plans Exhibit 7.d; Exhibit 7. e; Exhibit 7. f); photos of adjacent development, trees on the site and other views from the site Exhibit 3. a); graphical depiction of the property' s zoning envelope( Exhibit 3; Exhibit 3. b); description of the proponent' s objectives( Exhibit 3); and architectural renderings of the proposed residence from the perspective of each home on abutting properties with photos of existing conditions (Exhibit 3. a, Exhibit 3. b; Exhibit 10). 23. The proposed residence will be sited within the zoning envelope setbacks of 30 feet from the front and rear property lines, and 20 feet( 15 feet of site width, not to exceed 20 feet) from the side property lines. The City staff determined that a 50- feet wide setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark( OHWM) is required. The City Planning Consultant visited the site and took photos on October 6, 2011. The site will be buffered by existing and proposed vegetation along the property lines. The new residence will be 40 feet closer to Lake Washington and would obstruct southeast views from the neighboring property to the north. The Applicant submitted a massing study depicting a taller new residence, but showing no significant reductions in views of Lake Washington from adjacent properties. No comments from adjacent property owners regarding views were submitted.' 1 MMC 17.24.010.B; MMC17.38.080; Exhibit 1, StaffReport, pages 8 and 11; Exhibit 3; Exhibit 3. b; Exhibit 7.b; Exhibit 10. 24. The orientation of the proposed residence and adjacent residences is toward Lake Washington to the east. The adjacent properties each include a dock from which the larger proposed residence would be visible. Photos of the site show tall shrubs along the north and south sides of the existing residence providing privacy for adjacent residences to the north and south. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 11; Exhibit 3.a; Exhibit 3. b. 25. Eric Drivdahl, Geolotte Hommas Architecture, a licensed architect and Applicant representative, testified the site plan was designed to preserve views and protect privacy. He testified that the Applicant has not requested any departures from the City Code. As part of the site plan review he identified one tree on the property on Exhibit 18, which exceeds 24 inches diameter breast height that would be removed. Testimony ofmr. Drivdahl. 10 The Applicant requested a consolidated permit review of the SDP and SPR. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 4. 11 Hideyuki Hori, a neighbor to the west at 531 Overlake Drive East submitted a comment letter stating no objection to the proposal, dated December 12, 2011. Exhibit 16 Page 10 of 18
26. Ms. Kissinger testified that the proposal complies with all City Code, county, state, federal requirements with a condition that the Applicant obtain all required state and federal permits and approvals. The City staff recommended that the SDP and SPR be approved, with conditions. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 12, Testimony ofms. Kissinger. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide requests for Substantial Development Permits. Medina Municipal Code (MIvIC) 2. 78. 070; MMC Table 20.80.060( C). A Site Plan Review is decided by the Planning Commission. MMC Table 20.80.060(C). However, as set out in MMC 20. 80. 090, the Applicant requested a consolidated permit review for the SDP and the SPR. The Planning Director designated the Hearing Examiner as the authority for deciding consolidated project applications. The Hearing Examiner may approve the site plan as submitted; approve the site plan as submitted with conditions; or reject the site plan. MMC 14. 12. 040(c)( 4). Criteria for Review Shoreline Management Act The Shoreline Management Act is codified at RCW 90. 58. 020. Applicable policies of RCW 90. 58. 020 include those to foster" all reasonable and appropriate uses;" protect against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife; and give priority to single family residences and appurtenant structures in authorizing alternations to the natural condition of the shoreline. Permitted shoreline uses must be designed to" minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public' s use of the water." RCW 90.58.020. In passing the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, the legislature recognized that" ever increasing pressures of additional uses are being placed on the shorelines necessitating increased coordination in the management and development" of the state' s shorelines. RCW 90.58. 020. The legislature also determined that" unrestricted construction on the privately owned or publicly owned shorelines of the state is not in the best public interest." RCW 90.58.020. Accordingly, the Shoreline Management Act requires local governments to develop a master program to regulate shoreline uses consistent with its guidelines. RCW 90.58. 080( 1). Shoreline Management Act Regulations The Department of Ecology shoreline regulations are located in Chapters 173-26 and 173-27 of the Washington Administrative Code ( WAC). Chapter 173-26 sets forth procedures and guidelines for local adoption of shoreline master programs that are not applicable to the Applicant' s permit request. Chapter 173-27 sets forth permitting procedures and permit criteria. The Hearing Examiner reviews the application under the following criteria: 1) A substantial development permit shall be granted only when the development proposed is consistent with: Page 11 of 18
a) The policies and procedures of the act: b) The provisions of this regulation; and c) The applicable master program adopted or approved for the area. Provided, that where no master program has been approved for an area, the development shall be reviewed for consistency with the provisions of chapter 173-26 WAC, and to the extent feasible, any draft or approved master program which can be reasonably ascertained as representing the policy of the local government. 2) Local government may attach conditions to the approval of permits as necessary to assure consistency of the project with the act and the local master program. WAC 173-27-150. In addition, no permit shall be issued for any new structure of more than 35 feet above the average grade level that would obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines. WAC 173-27-140(2). Construction shall not begin until 21 days from the date of filing of the decision with the Department of Ecology or until the review proceedings have been terminated. WAC 173-27- 190( 1). Pursuant to Chapter 173-27 WAC, the Hearing Examiner must review the relevant City Shoreline Master Program( City SMP) goals, policies and regulations. Medina Shoreline Master Program The City SMP contains goals, policies, and regulations that are applicable to the proposed development. The primary goal of the City SMP is "[ t] o preserve Medina' s shoreline for single family residential use, in a manner that also protects and preserves the natural features along the shoreline and the quality of Lake Washington." City SMP, Section II.A, page 7. The City SMP Shoreline Conservation Goal is to preserve and protect the resources and amenities of Lake Washington for use and enjoyment by present and future Medina citizens consistent with property rights. Shoreline Conservation Policy 2 provides that future substantial development of the shoreline shall be designed and constructed to minimize adverse effects on the natural systems, including aquatic habitats. City SMP, Section II.B, page 7. The intent of the Urban classification is to indicate that Medina's shoreline, except public areas and private recreation areas, has been designated in its entirety for low-density single-family urban residential development. City SMP, Section III.A, page 10. The City SMP contains regulations that apply to all uses, developments, and activities on Medina' s shorelines and establishes those uses, developments and activities, which are permitted in the shoreline environment. City SMP, Section IV,page 11. Residential development is permitted within the shoreline jurisdiction pursuant to certain restrictions provided by the City SMP Use Regulations: Page 12 of 18
1. Residential Residential development shall be permitted subject to zoning and subdivision code regulations and the following restrictions: a. New residences shall not be permitted over Lake Washington. b. The water's edge shall be kept free of buildings other than structures required for boat storage. c. Shoreline zoning shall not be changed to increase materially the density or intensity of shoreline use. d. High-rise structures on the shoreline shall be prohibited. e. Building setbacks applicable to the underlying zoning shall be maintained. City SMP, Section 1V.E, page 13. Site Permit Review Criteria The Hearing Examiner may approve a Site Plan Review if the following criteria are satisfied: A.1. Proposed development shall be sited, within the zoning envelope, in such a way as to minimize the visibility of the building from the perspective of the adjacent lots. See Exhibits A and B for two examples. The siting preferences of the applicant shall be considered. 2. Proposed development shall not create significant privacy impacts for neighboring lots. Review of this criterion shall include an examination of the likely patterns of activity in the use of the subject lot and neighboring lots. Examples include protecting the privacy of a neighbor' s existing outdoor entertainment area( See Exhibit C) and the sensitive siting of a gatehouse that is expected to have a large volume of traffic. 3. Preservation of landscape in its natural state by minimizing grade changes and vegetation and soil removal. a. The natural topography of the property shall not be dramatically altered. b. Reasonable efforts shall be required to preserve existing trees that are at least 24 inches diameter breast height, and other natural landscaping. " Diameter breast height" is defined in Chapter 12. 28 AMC. 4. If applicable, the site plan shall include site placement measures to accommodate large gatherings and mitigate the impacts( traffic, parking, noise, exterior lighting, etc.) on the neighborhood. 5. If applicable, proposed site plan shall include measures to accommodate all domestic employees and groundskeepers and to mitigate the impacts traffic, parking, noise, etc.) on the neighborhood. Page 13 of 18
B. Proposed site plans must also comply with all other Medina Municipal Code, state, federal, and county requirements, except as set out in subsections C and D of this section. 12 WC 14. 12. 030. The criteria for review adopted by the Medina City Council are designed to implement the requirement of Chapter 36. 70B RCW to enact the Growth Management Act. In particular, RCW 36.70B.040 mandates that local jurisdictions review proposed development to ensure consistency with City development regulations considering the type of land use, the level of development, infrastructure, and the characteristics of development. RCW 36. 70B.040. Conclusions Based on Findings Shoreline Development Permit 1. With conditions, the proposal is consistent with the policies of the Shoreline Management Act. Applicable policies of the Shoreline Management Act( SMA) include those to foster" all reasonable and appropriate uses"; protect against adverse effects to the public health, the land, and vegetation and wildlife; and give priority to single family residences and appurtenant structures in authorizing alterations to the natural condition of the shoreline. Permitted shoreline uses must be designed to " minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public' s use of the water." RCW 90.58.020. The proposal is consistent with the policies of the SMA, as the proposed development entails replacement of a single family resident and appurtenant structures, as well as restoration of existing beach area. The City provided public notice of the application, Determination of Nonsignificance, and associated open record hearing. Although the public notices and DNS referenced SDP No. 2011-06 instead of SDP No. 2011-07, they included the correct property address and public comment was received; the Hearing Examiner concludes that this was harmless error. The City reviewed the Applicant' s Environmental Checklist and other information on file with the city and issued a DNS. City staff recommended approval of the SDP. The proposal is consistent with Ch. 173-27 Washington Administrative Code WAC) and the SMA implementing regulations. Conditions are necessary to ensure that the Applicant obtain all required local, state, and federal permits associated with the proposed development; comply with the Geotech Study recommendations; and install shoreline and landscape plantings. Findings 1-21, 25 and 26. 2. With conditions, the proposal is consistent with applicable SMA regulations. The Department of Ecology shoreline regulations are located in Chapters 173-26 and 173-27 of the Washington Administrative Code( WAC). Chapter 173-26 sets forth procedures and guidelines for local adoption of shoreline master programs that are not applicable to the Applicant' s permit request. Chapter 173-27 sets forth permitting procedures and 12 MMC 14. 12.030.0 and D set out departures from the MMC. The Applicant has not requested any departures. Page 14 of 18
permit criteria. This proposal is being reviewed under the criteria set forth in WAC 173-27- 150. These criteria are intended to implement the policies of the SMA, which requires that all shoreline projects be consistent with the SMA and an approved local Shoreline Master Program. The proposed residence will not obstruct a substantial number of residences on adjacent areas. Conditions are necessary to ensure that the Applicant obtain all required local, state, and federal permits associated with the proposed development; comply with the Geotech Study recommendations; install shoreline and landscape plantings; and allow construction only after 21 days from the filing of the decision with the Department of Ecology or end of any review proceedings. The proposal is consistent with the City SMP, as described in more detail below. Findings 1-21, 25 and 26. 3. With conditions, the proposal is consistent with the City SMP and applicable SMP regulations. Residences, subject to subdivision and zoning codes, and accessory structures are permitted uses in the Urban shoreline designation, with restrictions. The proposal meets the primary City SMP goal of preserving Medina' s shoreline for single family residential use, while protecting the quality of Lake Washington. The proposal meets the use regulations for residential use because there is no building over Lake Washington; the water' s edge will remain free of buildings; the shoreline zoning would not be changed; no high-rise structures on the shoreline will be constructed; and building setbacks of the underlying zoning would be maintained. The proposal would also meet the City SMP general regulations. Although the development would occur within the shoreline area of Lake Washington, the Applicant will take steps to mitigate all related adverse impacts and to ensure that no toxic or deleterious materials reach Lake Washington, by providing stormwater treatment, silt fencing and erosion control. The Applicant will also implement a landscaping plan reviewed by the City. Conditions are necessary to ensure that the Applicant obtain all required local, state, and federal permits associated with the proposed development; comply with the Geotech Study recommendations; and install shoreline and landscape plantings. Findings 1-21, 25 and 26. Site Plan Review 4. With conditions, the proposed development is sited within the zoning envelope to minimize the visibility of the building from the perspective of the adjacent lots. The proposed residence will be approximately double the size of the existing residence and will be located 40 feet closer to the shoreline than the existing residence. The southeast views from the residence to the north would be reduced. However, existing trees and shrubs and additional proposed plantings would minimize the visibility of the new residence. The views from neighboring residences are toward Lake Washington to the east. Adjacent property owners did not submit any comments for the record regarding visibility concerns. Conditions are necessary to ensure that the Applicant obtain all required local, state, and federal permits associated with the proposed development and install shoreline and landscape plantings. Findings 1-14, 22-26. Page 15 of 18
5. With conditions, the proposed development will not create significant privacy impacts for neighboring lots. The proposed residence will be constructed 40 feet closer to the shoreline than the existing residence, within the zoning building envelope and within the zoning setbacks. The views from the proposed residence are toward Lake Washington to the east. Existing trees and shrubs and additional proposed plantings would screen the property from neighboring lots. Adjacent property owners did not submit any comments for the record regarding privacy concerns. Conditions are necessary to ensure that the Applicant obtain all required local, state, and federal permits associated with the proposed development, and install shoreline and landscape plantings. Findings 1-14, 22-26. 6. With conditions, the proposed development will minimize grade changes and vegetation and soil removal. The Applicant proposes extensive grading. However this is the minimum necessary for the construction of a new, larger residence. Other proposed activities within the shoreline or 50- foot buffer, including installation of geothermal piping, beach restoration, bulkhead capping, and replacement of dock decking would not involve grade changes or vegetation and soil removal. The Applicant will submit a tree replacement plan to mitigate for the five significant trees proposed for removal. Existing trees and other vegetation will be maintained on the property' s western steel slopes. Conditions are necessary to ensure that the Applicant obtain all required local, state, and federal permits associated with the proposed development; comply with the Geotech Study recommendations; and install shoreline and landscape plantings. Findings 1-14, 22-26. 7. With conditions, the site plan includes site placement measures to accommodate large gatherings and mitigate the impacts( traffic, parking, noise, exterior lighting, etc.) on the neighborhood. The proposal includes a 1, 465- square foot garage with additional parking available on the property driveway/courtyard and sport court. Existing trees and shrubs and additional proposed plantings will screen any exterior lighting from neighboring lots. Conditions are necessary to ensure that the Applicant obtain all required local, state, and federal permits associated with the proposed development; comply with the Geotech Study recommendations; and install shoreline and landscape plantings. Findings 1-14, 22-26. 8. The site plan includes measures to accommodate any domestic employees and groundskeepers and to mitigate the impacts( traffic, parking, noise, etc.) on the neighborhood. The application does not indicate any domestic employees or groundskeepers. Adequate on-site parking on- site exists to accommodate such employees and would not create a significant adverse impact on the neighborhood. Findings 1-14, 22-26. 9. With conditions, the site plan complies with all other Medina Municipal Code, state, federal, and county requirements. The Applicant submitted plans, drawings, photos, and information to the City for review. Ms. Kissinger testified Page 16 of 18
that the proposal meets all MMC requirements and that other state and federal permits and approvals will be required as a condition. The site plan complies with the Shoreline Management Act and City SMP. The Applicant did not request any departures from the City Code. Conditions are necessary to ensure that the Applicant obtain all required local, state, and federal permits associated with the proposed development; comply with the Geotech Study recommendations; and install shoreline and landscape plantings. Findings 1-14, 22-26. DECISION Based on the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the Hearing Examiner APPROVES a Substantial Development Permit and Site Plan Review for re-development of a residential lot containing geologically hazardous areas with a new single-family dwelling, retaining walls, multipurpose sports court, and spa; repair of an existing dock; installation of geothermal technology; and restoration of 50 lineal feet of existing beach and 100 lineal feet of existing bulkhead at 538 Overlake Drive East, in Medina, Washington. The following conditions apply to both the Substantial Development Permit and the Site Plan Review: 13 1. The recommendations set forth in the Geotechnical Engineering Study, dated August 31, 2011, Exhibit 8, pages 6-17) and Addendum dated September, 7, 2011 ( Exhibit 8a) are incorporated as conditions of the Substantial Development Permit. 2. The project shall significantly comply with the site plan layout presented in Sheet A1. 1 in Exhibit 7 and dock improvements plans identified in Exhibit 12. Minor revisions may be approved by the Director of Development Services pursuant to MMC 14. 12. 050 and WAC 173-27- 100. 3. The Applicant shall obtain State and federal agency approval prior to issuance of building permits, including a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and a Regional General Permit( RPG) from the Army Corps of Engineers for the dock improvements. 4. Vegetation shall be installed per the planting plans on Sheet L1. 0 and L1. 1 of the permit drawings( Exhibit 7) prior to finalizing building permits. 5. The Applicant shall place address numbers at least six inches in height at the end of the dock prior to finalizing building permits. 13 This decision includes conditions designed to mitigate impacts of this proposed project as well as conditions required by City Code. Page 17 of 18
6. The Applicant shall obtain all pertinent construction permits for all proposed improvements. All conditions of approving the permits shall be included as conditions of the Substantial Development Permit. Permit requirements shall be adhered to for the duration of the project. 7. Extreme care shall be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or leach into surface waters. The permittee shall report all spills immediately to the Washington Department of Ecology( 425 849-7000). 8. This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and nothing in this permit shall excuse the applicant from compliance with any other federal, state or local statutes, ordinances or regulations applicable to this project, but not inconsistent with Shoreline Management Act( RCW 90. 58). This permit may be rescinded pursuant to RCW 90.58. 140( 7) in the event the permittee fails to comply with the terms or conditions thereof. 9. Construction pursuant to this permit shall not begin or is not authorized until twenty-one( 21) days from the date of filing order of the local government with the regional office ofthe Department of Ecology and the Attorney General, or until all review proceedings initiated within twenty-one days from the date of such filing have terminated. Decided this day of January 2012. I:='. ' Hearing Examiner Sound Law Center A. ALLEN Page 18 of 18