HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-13-2004 - Supplemental MaterialsGary & Molly Madson
for
Dan & Sally Sue Coleman
3327 Evergreen Point Road
Medina, Washington 98039
425-455-1350 S E P 1 3 2004
BY:
September 10, 2004
Medina City Council
501 Evergreen Point Road
Medina, Washington 98039
Dear Council Member Pete Vail-Spinosa:
We are the daughter and son in law of Dan & Sally Sue Coleman and are representing
their interests in h f he council review of Ordinance 743. The Colemans are
the matter o t ou directly up slope and east of the new home project at 3329 Evergreen Point Road.
We have been significantly affected by Medina City Ordinance 743, as have the
neighbors to the North and South of us and wish to make comment concerning the
Ordinance. We expect the goal of this review by the Medina City Council should be
to understand the real impact that this ordinance places on its constituents. We
believe the issues around the permits and plans for 3329 Evergreen Point Road to be
a legitimate case study to that end.
The Medina geography makes it a distinctive and unique community. A key
distinguishing feature that sets Medina apart is it's setting with respect to Lake
Washington, and all the advantages (and responsibilities) that brings. Certainly a large
reason that the property values in Medina (and the property tax income to the City of
Medina) are as strong as they are, is they reflect the value to Medina residents of
enjoying access and views of Lake Washington. Ordinance 743 sets in place
landscape requirements that significantly impact those values. Ordinance 743 section
12.28.050 C correctly recognizes and respects those values by requiring that the
permit approval follow review criteria which states "The application has no materially
detrimental effects on nearby properties;" In defining "material", a reasonable person
would probably agree that a large part of the property value of hundreds of residences
in Medina are based on the views of the water. It is the opinion of real estate
professionals we have contacted that the Colemans' view is worth 20-25% of the
overall value of their property, and thus should be defined as "material" within 743.
The root cause of the conflict at 3329 EPR lies with Ordinance 743 requirements that
try to micromanage the landscape process, and call for excessive numbers of
replacement trees that result in over planting of the property footprint. Possible
suggestions to resolve that micromanagement would be to:
a. i Elim nate the graduated f g d scale ratio o replacement inches for trees of
larger diameter. This causes an unmanageable number of immature trees
to be planted that will cause detrimental effects to view, access, and open
space. Large mature trees, that have been maintained, allow for sunlight
to reach the ground. Replacing them with a "forest" of smaller trees
restricts the professional landscaper from properly designing a plan, and
creates a poor environment for plantings that enhance the property.
b. Only require tree replacement for those trees removed outside the new
building footprint. This will still keep the canopy intact, but help reduce the
problems of natural screens and over planting of theproperty. Certainl
P P 9 Y
the home owners will be sensitive to clear cutting their properties, and
devaluing their homes.
c. Allow the permit holder and neighbors to redistribute some reasonable
P 9
percentage of the mitigated tree replacement over adjacent properties to
the Permit holder. This will encourage a cooperative environment for
neighbors to work through the issues together, instead of tying their
hands.
d. Eliminate "same genus replacement", allowing for the circumstances of
the property and slope to dictate proper tree selection. Replacing one
large fir with many small firs may not be appropriate to the situation.
We also take strong exception to the drawing presented to the council by staff
.regarding these issues at 3329 EPR. The drawings of Post construction and Pre
construction landscapes are ambiguous and do not represent the situation. The
drawing implies the only impacts to views of the Colemans are with three small
trees. We have learned that the term "view" in the post construction drawing is that
of a person looking straight ahead through a fixed monocular telescope. This is
clearly an incorrect representation considering the drawing is being used in
context to defining Ordinance 743's mandate for "no material detrimental effect".
We have prepared several graphics to help you understand the Colemans' issues
with the ordinance, and the potential impact to the view from the Colemans'
residence as well as the Harts' residence to the north.
We also are concerned with the specific staff recommendation that the council
remove Ordinance 743 12.28.050 C. The property value impacts of all the
residents of Medina should be taken into account by the elected officials of the city
as it creates and administers its ordinances. Ordinance 743 creates the
circumstances that could cause a significant negative impact on many property
values, and we hope the city would maintain balance in these issues by keeping
12.28.050 C in place.
We appreciate your time and efforts in this matter.
Sincerely,
I
Molly & Gary Madson
Daughter & Son In Law of
Dan & Sally Sue Coleman
^
e .
v
FR{ Lti. c
Cl_ s�S
j� ♦� r t6 r/t^►.+�.]. i' t ,�
>r s! ��• ri% r. �+ ,f - .. k ' -•� .'i Y!�� 1 2�'
_ 3r�'i-a
`jfJ�''_..� � #fps � t.•� rr r, •;!-7'•+".si,,,i � ,�'�� '�� ,t;Q '''"' �� '�+�. 4„ � ;..,.- j � t.a
a � i� ,ape cf � , e� `•tT
;� ' -r � l •.�(� " aiy � �.��•'`�!4 ` ;••Y`°�a�� � ^'e ►it i M �i �r � T ��T ,�=.�:
R•i � y� t'� ,�r
—F.
,`:c`w.
LYA yy j/e �lJ
1
4
Rt ?
r M f,. Y.f�► �fa�'tc .fx, �''s"�,ry • kxl y►'t�~
tic
4
ko•
S y ,�
'ai'
E e^
Ir
ef
• rr
kj ;iF � �- { it - s �► � . � - '�'«s ;.�� � J4 ►''- � ,Yr'. { ,, ;� _
$[, '-� 3 -�- - . '�►I,- �r-� v is
'.,��% t x s�0 ��� �-i"'.r�rlM. '��y , ,. ' ' � �.. aY'.y»���,.� -s+t yS �.� �y,y�r� a'^� . e `- .•w~ ^� � � � ,
�V�. r ,r •'�C'' -.`i' *+^'.�' s:.a',. Ott -� `�i'-�trWrl•� t•" 'r y.{•�
�r, V7�_
It
MCI
t ,..-'}1 ii r .� � '�`�"j" �Y" �y-3._ 4,,,,u�1 � �►.. �`�" . '1
� f
V69
.74
A r +r' i r5 a+' +et +Y�•Q'• 1 1!r ! Y- y r..'F �' \ 3" .7 '� �l /r
1 f P
t -�' ti 'i.. �fF}`•c{, �'yt� � y},, •� `d�,�.� t rl.�^ r!r• *� �>� �s-..i�*,�4� ,•�_f '1+. �. ,.�' � M1 : � �
w ,,�• r �_!. �.-,�7L`4:-�� f :':w .'3,'. 1%�7i,. �. '*r �;�, '�'�' yr. s ... � ��
:�` ram= ` � "i • � � �`'
6
7� '� �i _.f,`. z �� ri 7 }- •..!' 1. .-}.:
,,w♦«#;r 'nr-, •R Y"5n" k• '*z'�` of 'r4^. ,�„ .- -C
.�y `
'� ''� �� •.� �'• � � �,� �,. _ y�� to
ly
• � +min h,: . ", � � � - s,R �'�'
: -'-. ^ .. ib �.F. ~-t � '°�1 ��, yA i • j:�.l .Mj � � 'if• tir `�� t I �.
as '�
- i
��, ar.� *rya• y,,,, �, z ar, "':�, �• :
' .:. aJ . �k ;�•. F ; t � jRJK" nry.* `'R :�^*VFu _1:r �_��'s..,r w s.a t i -
t.# r •l s.si �" r .... �`, t'?�':t ,AUr ,:•
�., -� �-'`z �� ,, .! :� .} `�"`. . i .ate �' 1`3''.•+�' '
IMF
. rAF
elf
.nk : .�. r; d * it � '1 i V. .YR t �� 1 �... �•:
4
7SEP
N77- 1 3 ?004
BY:
Pieter Knook and Anne Wolff
3317 Evergreen Point Road
Medina, WA 98039
September 13, 2004
Medina City Council
Re: Tree Replacement Code
In connection with your consideration of an amendment to the Tree
Replacement Code, we should like to make several points as a result of
problems that we have experienced in applying the current code to our
new construction project at 3329 Evergreen Point Road.
1. The total quantity of replacement trees required was found to be
excessive, leading to the over -planting on our site with a resulting
negative impact on the views of our uphill neighbors. Possible
remedies would include:
a. Only requiring the replacement of trees removed outside the
buildable area versus the building footprint
b. Allowing the removal of trees without mitigation that fall
within the primary lot access (driveway) as was the code in
the original Tree Ordinance (not the one recently changed)
c. Eliminating the graduating scale for replacement inches for
trees removed of greater size. Require standard inch for inch
replacement for all trees removed, regardless of size.
2. While we recognize the City's need to encourage the use of natives,
this should not be regulated under the code. In many cases,
requiring the use of native species conflicts with the need to
achieve an appropriate design solution which satisfies the needs of
neighbors.
Same genus replacement has proved to be equally problematic.
(For example, if a large Oak tree is removed, it does not make
sense to require 6 small oak trees to planted in its place.
Yours faithfully,
Pieter Knook and Anne Wolff.
S E P O 9 2004
BY:
Gus and Ann Hart
3337 Evergreen Point Road
Medina, Washington 98039
425-455-1350
September 9, 2004
Medina City Council
501 Evergreen Point Road
Medina, Washington 98039
Dear City Council Members:
As neighbors northeast of the new home project at 3329 Evergreen Point
Road, we have been concerned since May that most of the tree mitigation
required by MMC 12.28.060 is being planted in the east 100 feet of that property
with significant impact to the views from our property as well as the 3 properties
south of us.
As you review the City's ordinances, please be mindful of the effect they
have on adjacent property values. In our case, trees removed from the building
site of this project are being mitigated by planting 9 firs, 7 maples, 3 cedars, and
3 paper birch on the east (uphill) 100 feet of the property.
Having owned our Medina home for 34 years, we trust that the City
Council will uphold both the intent and spirit of MCC 12.28.050, which specifically
states at C. that "The application has no materially detrimental effects on nearby
properties;,,
We appreciate your enterprise and consideration for the protection of our
interests.
Sincerely,
Gus and Ann Hart