Sudden Valley ACC denies parking pad, presses for more detail on driveways, retaining walls and trees; approves several smaller projects

The Sudden Valley Architectural Control Committee denied a request for a new parking pad and voted on a series of construction and landscape requests on March 20, while asking for additional technical information on several submissions including driveway open-space calculations and arborist assessments.

The committee denied a proposed parking pad (item 17) after members raised concerns about unnecessary impervious surface, inconsistent application measurements and the possibility the area would be treated as a de facto public parking area. Daniel (ACC member) summarized the committee’s view that the parking pad was unnecessary for the home; Dan Vink (ACC member) said, “If I’m buying this house, I don’t want to inherit a parking lot.” The committee’s final motion denied the pad and directed the builder to restore the site to landscaped condition so it would not invite parking.

Why it matters: ACC decisions control what homeowners may build in Sudden Valley and aim to preserve neighborhood character and protect permeable surfaces near waterways. Committee members repeatedly cited the community’s priority for preserving permeable open space and minimizing visual impacts of driveways and parking pads.

Key actions and details - Parking pad (item 17): Denied. Committee members reported conflicting square-foot figures in the application (one page listed 500 sq ft, another a 25-by-10-foot dimension). The maker of the request, Chad (builder/representative for the property), said the spot has already become an informal pickup/drop-off area used by parents; Chad said the suggestion to formalize it came from a site inspector. The committee amended its denial to require the builder to restore the area to landscaped condition with shrubs/trees to prohibit parking.

- Longshore Lane driveway (item 3): Denied pending open-space calculation. Adam (applicant) told the committee the planned concrete driveway is approximately 940 sq ft and therefore subject to Whatcom County seasonal soil-disturbance restrictions; a committee member said soil disturbance greater than 500 sq ft is prohibited before June 1 and after October 1 under county watershed rules. The committee requested a formal open-space calculation and will reconsider once it receives the numbers.

- 22 Hillside Place (item 9): Approved with conditions. The ACC approved new construction subject to a revised landscape plan that: removes a flag-marked tree outside the property line; shows proposed tree sizes (committee requested 5–8-foot specimen plantings where noted); and documents the raked driveway finish (rather than a parking pad). The committee left inclusion of stairs as a future construction-change request at the builder’s discretion.

- Retaining walls / propane tank (items 6 and 7 — 19 & 21 Englewood/related lots): Denied pending more specific drawings. The committee found the current submissions lacked site-plan dimensions, retaining-wall heights and clear placement relative to property lines. Because the two retaining-wall requests reference a shared wall, the committee asked the applicant to provide coordinated, dimensioned structural drawings and a site plan showing where the wall falls on each lot.

- New-construction resubmission, 19 Sudden Valley Drive (item 19): Denied pending arborist report. Committee members said the applicant did not provide the previously requested certified arborist assessment for two cedars (one 16-inch that straddles a property line and one 12-inch fully on the neighbor’s lot). The motion denied the submission until the ACC receives an arborist report addressing the current and expected post-excavation condition and the trees’ likelihood of long-term survival.

- Sandway Point Court stairs and deck (item 4): Denied pending consolidated submittal. The ACC asked the applicant to resubmit one consolidated package (site plan with dimensions and staking, and clear photos) so the committee can confirm whether proposed stairs encroach on Sudden Valley right-of-way.

- Consent approvals and smaller approvals: The committee approved a group of construction-change requests (items 11–15) by consent; it approved a planting plan for a condominium area (item 5), a single-tree removal at 40 Harborview (item 8), a modest natural-rock retaining wall (Sweet Clover Circle) and a two-story garage-and-breezeway demolition/rebuild at 54A Honeycomb Lane with the condition a lighting plan be provided. The committee also approved a tree removal (item 21) but added a comment that any future parking-pad or garage proposals at that location will require a separate submittal.

Committee rationale and next steps Committee members repeatedly emphasized Sudden Valley’s objectives: avoid unnecessary impervious surfaces, retain mature trees where feasible, and ensure new construction is in scale with surrounding properties. Where applications lacked basic technical details (open-space calculations, site-plan dimensions, certified arborist assessments, or clear staking on site), the ACC denied or deferred action and requested the missing documentation before a final approval.

Quotes and attributions - "If I’m buying this house, I don’t want to inherit a parking lot," said Dan Vink, an ACC member, during discussion of the proposed parking pad. - "There were two different numbers — 500 square feet on one page and 250 square feet on another — so it's hard to approve," said John (ACC reviewer/staff) when pointing out inconsistencies in the parking-pad application.

What the ACC asked applicants to provide (examples) - Dimensioned site plans showing retaining-wall lengths and heights and clarifying property-line placement. - Certified arborist reports addressing the viability of trees near proposed foundations and expected root/soil impacts from excavation. - Open-space calculations for projects that change permeable surface or add significant impervious area (applicants were reminded to follow Whatcom County watershed/soil-disturbance seasonal rules for work over 500 sq ft).

The committee indicated it will reconsider items after applicants return with the requested materials. No litigation or enforcement actions were reported at the meeting.