The URL can be used to link to this page

16202 72ND AVE W.pdfr i CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH * EDMONDS, WA 98020 * {206) 771-0220 * FAX (206) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER r St. 1 8 9 WkIllp 4P °+ "®► FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION P4,p � fv OF THE I3E0� EI�NIGQNl CITY APPLICANT: Philip & Mariam Lehn and Green Tara Inc. CASE NO.: AP-96-21 LOCATION: APPLICATION: REVIEW PROCESS: MAJOR ISSUES: 16202 72nd Avenue West (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). Appeal of Hearing Officer's decision on a short plat with respect to compliance with ECDC Section 18.80.010 in association with a proposed short plat (File No. S-95-163), (see. Exhibit A, Attachments 2, 3, and 4). Appeal of approval of a Short Subdivision, Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. a. Compliance width Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 18.80.010 (STREET STANDARDS). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.105 (APPEALS AND COURT REVIEW). Staff Recommendation: Deny Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report, and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the Lehn/Green Tara application was opened at 9:22 a.m., March 21, 1996, in the Plaza Room, Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:45 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the. Planning Division. • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. AP-96-21 Page 2 HEARING COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. From the City: John Bissell, Project Planner, reviewed the Planning Division Advisory report which recommended denial of the appeal. He added comments to the staff report and read from the City's Comprehensive Plan. He specifically pointed out the following policies: ® Residential Development Policy B.5.d. which states: Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc. Soils and Topography Policy B.2 which states: Streets and access ways should be designed to conform to the natural topography, reduce runoff and minimize grading of the hillside. He then noted that the Comprehensive Plan agrees with the appellant, but the ordinances do not appear to allow the option the applicant wants to build. From the Appellant: Phillip Lehn, Appellant, submitted Exhibits B through E into the record and then read Exhibit D which identified a few clarifications, corrections and omissions to Exhibit A. From the Community: No one from the general public spoke either in favor of or in opposition to the subject request. CORRESPONDENCE: As noted above, the appellant submitted several exhibits at the hearing. One of those exhibits was a letter from a landscape architect who supported the appellant's design alternative (Exhibit Q. Another of the exhibits was a petition signed by fourteen neighbors who oppose the widening of 72nd Avenue West as required by City staff and support the design alternative known as Option 3 (Exhibit E). Another letter was submitted prior to the hearing along with the appeal. This letter was signed by the President of Meadowdale Beach Community Council and it strongly supported the appellant's design alternative. (Exhibit A, Exhibit A, Attachment 2). Phillip & Mariam Lehn and Green Tara Inc. propose to divide two existing lots with a total lot area of approximately 76,109 square feet (1.75 acres) into 4 lots (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). The Engineering Division has required that the right-of-way of 72nd Avenue West be improved from 164th Street Southwest, north to the subject property (approximately 600 feet). The improvement includes widening the roadway to 25 feet for the southerly 200 feet, with the remainder of the roadway widened to 23 feet plus thickened edge for a total width of 24 feet. The appellant is proposing that the required roadway improvements be reduced to 20 ' Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. AP-96-21 Page 3 feet in width for the southerly 125 feet of roadway, and 16 to 18 feet including thickened edges for the remaining length up to the subject subdivision site (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2 and Exhibit B). FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE IDESCRIFTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a. cts• (1) Size: The total size of the subject property is 76,109 square feet. The size of the proposed lots is: Net , Ft. Gross Sq. Ft. Lot 1: 18,776.0 18,776.0 Lot 2: 16,145.5 16,145.5 Lot 3 12,698.7 15,541.2 Lot 4: 12,752.0 14,546.0 (2) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed with a single-family residence. The applicant has applied to further subdivide the property into four (4) lots to allow the development of three (3) additional single-family residences (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5). (3) Zonin : - The subject property is zoned RS-12 (single residential family with a minimum 12,000 square foot lot size requirement) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). (4) Terrain and -Vegetation: The subject property slopes down from 72nd Avenue West to the west, with some section sloping steeply and thus identified as critical areas. The existing vegetation is a mixture of mature and older fruit trees, ornamental vegetation and native trees and shrubs. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a. Facts: (1) The adjacent properties to the north, south, east, and west and are currently zoned as single-family (RS-12 and RS-20) (see Exhibit A, Attachments 1). (2) The adjacent properties to the east, north, and south are currently developed with single-family homes. The properties to the north and to the west are not developed to the maximum density, leaving a considerable amount of open space in the vicinity. Dearing Examiner Decision Case No. AP-96-21 Page 4 B. HISTORY 1. a) Facts: (1) The following is a chronological account of the development of the property located at 16202 72nd Avenue West. The purpose is to clarify what development has taken place on the property, as well as outline the appeals that have taken place. (a) September 27,1995 Philip & Mariam Lehn and Green Tara Inc. applied for a 4-lot short plat. (b) January 19,1996 Staff conducted a public hearing on the proposed 4- lot short plat. The Hearing O, ff icer approved the short plat with the conditions from the Engineering Division noted on Exhibit A, Attachment 4 of the Preliminary Review of the Proposed Short Subdivision (see Exhibit A, Attachment5). (c) February 20,1996 Appellantfiled an appeal of the City of Edmonds decision approving with conditions the Philip chi Mariam Lehn and Green Tara Inc. 4-lot short plat (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2) (d) February 29,1996 Appellant submitted amended drawings which includes Option 3. That option was discussed with the City engineer on site on February 29,1996 (see Exhibit B). (e) March 12,1996 and March 18,1996 The City Engineer responded to the appeal (see Exhibit A, Exhibit A, Attachments 3 and 4). C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. a.) Facts: The following is a review of the appellants issues, comments of the City Engineering Division and staff comments. (1) APPELLANT COMMENTS GENERAL OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CONDITIONS, The appellant explains that 72nd Avenue West north of 164th Street Southwest is approximately 600 feet long, with an 18 foot wide near the southern intersection, and an 11 foot wide roadway width at its northern end. Near the streets mid point there are two steep driveways with slopes of 27% and 17% which will interfere in the development of the roadway. IMPRACTICAL AND PROHIBITFVELY EXPENSIVE. The appellant explains in the appeal letter and Exhibit D that the required design would require the removal of several large trees, the demolition of an existing seventy-five foot long rockery, the removal of a massive amount of earth, the relocation of at least one and possibly two power poles and cable TV pedestals, the elimination of much of a very useful gravel parking space and the installation of an approximately ten foot high and one hundred foot long retaining wall. BUSIEST THROUGH STREETS VS. OUR .DEAD END STREET The appellant explains that the street standards apply to all streets in the City of Edmonds, and no distinction is made between the through streets and the dead end streets. The appellant believes that dead end streets should have different standards from the standards of through streets. MORE STREET MEANS MORE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE The appellant explains that the soils in the neighborhood can be destabilized by additional storm water runoff. The applicant also believes that the additional roadway required by the City would increase the impervious surface and thus increase the storm water runoff. SECTION 18.80.000 The appellant explains that he believes the Engineering Division has the authority to alter the street standards because ECDC section 18.80.000 states "The reconstruction of existing facilities shall conform to the standards as closely as is practical and economically feasible."(see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). 2. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: "This memo is intended to further clarify the Engineering Division position on application of ECDC Chapter 18.80 to Short Plat 5-95-163. The first section of code within Chapter 18.80, ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, establishes documents that the City adopts. The adopted documents are "Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction", amendments to the "Standard Specification for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction", "General Special Provisions" and "City Design Standards". All of these documents are produced by the State of Washington." "ECDC section 18.80.000 states "All new public works construction shall conform to the standards contained in these documents." The next line states "The reconstruction of existing facilities shall conform to the standards as closely as is practical and economically feasible." The standards referred to are the standards found in the state produced documents the City adopts. Nothing in this section of code gives staff the ability to waive any requirement found in the Edmonds Community Development Code. Developments are required to meet the standards found in ECDC section 18.80.010." "The staff interpretation of this code section is based in part on our understanding of the intent the City Council had when this code was last adopted. Council did not intend to grant staff the ability to waive street width or right-of-way requirements" Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. AP-96-21 Page 6 "Staff believes there is justification for allowance of a smaller road for this particular short plat. However, I Games Walker] do not believe there is any justification to reconsider the interpretation of ECDC section 18.80.000 which provides no waiver from Street Standard requirements. -The City and County Design Standards are generally intended for use on streets with more than 400 vehicle trips per day. The City's street standards were obviously intended to apply to low volume and Dead End streets since the Table of Street Standards applies to streets with less than 15 lots or units and includes Dead End requirements." "Staff does agree with the applicant that a road with less width could safely serve the development. The rockeries proposed by the applicant in his preliminary road improvement plans may create additional hazards along the road." "Creating less road surface results in less storm water runoff. Since runoff from this area drains through the Meadowdale landslide hazard areas, storm water runoff reduction has significant benefits." "The Street Standards require road improvements without regard to alignment of the right-of-way or topography. The applicants proposal to widen to less than Street Standard requirements does not create sight distance hazards that could be improved by a wider roadway" (see Exhibit A, Attachments 3 and 4). 2. Conclusions: (1) The design proposed by the appellant would not create any adverse impact to the adjacent properties or the traffic in the vicinity. Rather, if the road is built to City standards, the rockeries which would need to be constructed may create additional hazards along the road. (2) The design proposed by the appellant would not require the installation of new rockeries and would create safer conditions for slope stability and driveway slopes in the immediate vicinity. Furthermore, it would comply with Section 20.15B.010A of the Edmonds Code regarding critical areas protection. (3) The appellant's design alternative is consistent with several policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan including Residential Development policy B.5.d and Soils and Topography policy B.2. (4) Section 18.80.000 of the Edmonds Code provides guidance relative to both the new public works construction and to reconstruction of existing facilities. The language guiding the reconstruction of the existing facilities is pertinent since 72nd Avenue West is an existing facility. The key language in this case states that: "The reconstruction of existing facilities shall conform to the standards -us dgatly m is practical and economically feasible." (emphasis added) Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. AP-96-21 Page 7 (5) After reviewing the file, it is concluded that due to the unusual circumstances in this case relating to the topography and existing conditions along 72nd Avenue West, it would be neither practical from an environmental perspective nor economically feasible to reconstruct 72nd Avenue West to the street standards as they are now written. Furthermore, the standards are not totally consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and the interim Critical Areas Ordinance as they relate to this situation. (6) The appellant's alternative design which is shown on Exhibit B and is known as Option 3 is believed by the Examiner to provide a solution which conforms to the street standards as closely as is practical and economically feasible in this location. Therefore, the appeal should be upheld and the appellant should be allowed to reconstruct the portion of 72nd Avenue West as shown on Exhibit B to serve his proposed development. Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the Examiner concurs with the Appellant and upholds the appeal. Entered this lst day of April, 1996, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. Z04 -0s- Ron McConnell Hearing Examiner RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS: The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: Section 20.100.O10.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony, or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. TRANSMISSION REPORT THIS DOCUMENT WAS SENT ** COUNT # 26 *fie* SEND *** NO REMOTE STATION I.D. START TIME DURATION #PAGES COMMENT 1 206 889 0730 3-19-96 10:32AM 18'59" 26 TOTAL 0:1$'59" 26 XEROX TELECOPiER 7020 I. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................::............................................ I A. Application............................................................................................................. ..................1 B. Description of Proposal........................................................................................ ...................... ......:.2 C. Recommendations...................................................................................................................................2 II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Site Description............................................................................ .................. ............... ..2 B. History..............................................................:.........................................................................................3 C. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance...............................................................3 III. RECONSIDERATIONS............................................................................................................5 A. Request for Reconsideration..................................................................... Errorl Bookmark not defined. IV. APPENDICES...........................................................................................................................5 V. PARTIES OF RECORD.............................................................................................................5 I. INTRODUCTION A. Application 1. Applicant: Philip & Mariam Lehn and Green Tara Inc. (see Attachment 2). 2. Site Location: 16202 72nd Avenue West (see Attachment 1). Philip & Mariam Lehn and Green Tara Inc. proposed to divide two existing lots with a total lot area of approximately 76,109 square feet (1.75 acres) into 4 lots (see Attachment 4). The Engineering Division has required that the right-of-way of 72nd Avenue West be improved from 164th Street Southwest, north to the subject property (approximately 600 feet). The improvement includes widening the roadway to 25 feet for the southerly 200 feet, with the remainder of the roadway widened to 23 feet plus thickened edge for a total width of 24 feet. The appellant is proposing that the required roadway improvements be reduced 'to 20 feet for the southerly 125 feet of roadway, and 18 feet including thickened edges for the remaining Iength up to the subject subdivision site (see Attachment 2). C. Recommendations Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend denial of the appeal. The recomendation of denial of the appeal is based on the interepretaion made by the City Engineer that there is no administrative releif avalialbe from the City Street Standards. The interpretation by the City Engineer that there is no administrative ability to alter the requirements of the City Street Standards is based on City Council policy. II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Site Description 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) acts (1) Wig: The total size of the subject property is 76,109 square feet. The size of the proposed lots is: Net Sq. Ft. Gross Sq. Ft. Lot 1: 18,776.0 18,776.0 Lot 2: 16,145.5 16,145.5 Lot 3: 12,698.7 15,541.2 Lot 4: 12,752.0 14,546.0 (2) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed with a single-family residence. The applicant has applied to further subdivide the property into four (4) lots to allow the development of three (3) additional single-family residences (see Attachment 5). I (3) Zoning: - The subject property is zoned RS-12 (single residential family with a minimum 12,000 square foot lot size requirement) (see Attachment 1). AP9621.DOC J Match 18,19961 Staff Report 8c Manam Le n and Green Tara Inc File No. AP-96-21 Page 3 of 6 (4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property slopes down from 72nd Avenue West to the west, with some section sloping steeply and thus identified as critical areas. The existing vegetation is a mixture of mature and older fruit trees, ornamental vegetation and native trees and shrubs. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) The adjacent properties to the north, south, east, and west and are currently zoned as single-family (RS-12 and RS-20) (see Attachments 1). (2) The adjacent properties to the east, north, and south are currently developed with single-family homes. The properties to the north and to the west are not developed to the maximum density, leaving a considerable amount of open space in the vicinity. B. History 1. a.) Facts: (1) The following is a chronological account of the development of the property located at 16202 72nd Avenue West. The purpose is to clarify what development has taken place on the property, as well as outline the appeals that have taken place. (a) September 27, 1995 Philip & Mariam Lehn and Green Tara Inc. applies for a 4-lot short plat. (h) January 19, 1996 Staff conducted a public hearing on the proposed 4- loi short plat. The Hearing Officer approved the short plat with the conditions from the Engineering Division noted on Attachment 4 of the Preliminary Review of the Proposed Short Subdivision (see Attachment S). (c) February 20, 1996 Appellant files an appeal of the City of Edmonds decision approving with conditions the Philip & Mariam Lehn and Green Tara Inc. 4-lot short plat (see Attachment 2). C. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance 1. a.) Facts: The following is a review of the appellants issues, comments of the City Engineering Division and staff comments. (1) APPELLANT COMMENTS GENERAL OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CONDITIONS, The appellant explains that 72nd Avenue West north of 164th Street Southwest is approximately 600 feet long, with an 18 foot wide near the southern intersection, and an I 1 foot wide roadway width at its northern end. Near the streets mid point there are two steep driveways with slopes of 27% and 17% which will interfere in the development of the roadway. IMPRACTICAL AND PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE. The appellant explains that the required design would require the removal of several large trees, the installation of a large retaining wall, and the relocation of the steep driveways. Z BUSIEST THROUGH STREETS VS. OUR DEAD END STREET The appellant explains that the street standards apply to all streets in the City of AP962IIM / March 18,1996 / Staff Report ' 2..,: o & Mariam Lchn and Green Tara Inc File No. AP-96-21 Page 4 of 6 Edmonds, and no distinction is made between the through streets and the dead end streets. The appellant believes that dead end streets should have different standards from the standards of through streets. MORE STREET MEANS MORE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE The appellant explains that the soils in the neighborhood can be destabilized by additional storm water -runoff. The applicant also believes that the additional roadway required by the City would increase the impervious surface and thus increase the storm water runoff. SECTION 18.80.000 The appellant explains that he believes the Engineering Division has the authority to alter the street standards because ECDC section 18.80.000 states "The reconstruction of existing facilities shall conform to the standards as closely as is practical and economically feasible."(see Attachment 2). (2) ENGINEERING COMMENTS: "This memo is intended to further clarify the Engineering Division position on application of ECDC Chapter 18.80 to Short Plat S-95-163. The first section of code within Chapter 18,80, ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, establishes documents that the City adopts. The adopted documents are "Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction", amendments to the "Standard Specification for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction", "General Special Provisions" and "City Design Standards". All of these documents are produced by the State of Washington:' "ECDC section 18.80.000 states "All new public works construction shall conform to the standards contained in these documents." The next line states "The reconstruction of existing facilities shall conform to the standards as closely as is practical and economically feasible." The standards referred to are the standards found in the state produced documents the City adopts. Nothing in this section of code gives staff the ability to waive any requirement found in the Edmonds Community Development Code. Developments are required to meet the standards found in ECDC section 18.80.010." "The staff interpretation of this code section is based in part on our understanding of the intent the City Council had when this code was last adopted. Council did not intend to grant staff the ability to waive street width or right-of-way requirements" "Staff believes there is justification for allowance of a smaller road for this particular short plat. However, I [James Walker] do not believe there is any justification to reconsider the interpretation of ECDC section 18.80.000 which provides no waiver from Street Standard requirements...The City and County Design Standards are generally intended for use on streets with more than 400 vehicle trips per day. The City's street standards were obviously intended to apply to low volume and Dead End streets since the Table of Street Standards applies to streets with less than 15 lots or units and includes Dead End requirements." "Staff does agree with the applicant that a road with less width could safely serve the development. The rockeries proposed by the applicant in his preliminary road improvement plans may create additional hazards along the road." "Creating less road surface results in less storm water runoff. Since runoff from this area drains through the Meadowdale landslide hazard areas, storm water runoff AP9621.DOC / March 18,1996 / StaffReport • P nip & Mariam Lehn and Green Tara Inc File No. AP-96-21 Page 5 of 6 reduction has significant benefits" "The Street Standards require road improvements without regard to alignment of the right-of-way or topography. The applicants proposal to widen to less than Street Standard requirements does not create sight distance hazards that could be improved by a wider roadway" (see Attachments 3 and 4). 2. Conclusions: (1) The design proposed by the appellant would not create any adverse impact to the adjacent properties or the traffic in the vicinity. (2) The design proposed by the appellant would create safer conditions for slope stability and driveway slopes in the immediate vicinity. (3) According of current policy and code interpreattions, there is no administrative releif avalialbe from the City Street Standards. (4) The interpretation by the City Engineer that there is no administrative ability to alter the requirements of the City Street Standards is based on City Council policy. III. RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. Request for Reconsideration Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. B. Appeals Section 20.105.020.A & $ describe how appeals of Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. IV. APPENDICES Attachments 1 through 6 are attached. 1. Vicinity / Zoning Map 2. Letter of Appeal submitted by Philip & Mariam Lehn and Green Tara Inc. 3. Memorandum dated March 12, 1996 from Jim Walker, City Engineer. 4. Memorandum dated March 18,1996 from Jim Walker, City Engineer. 5. Final Review of Proposed Short Subdivision File No. S-95-42 with exhibits including the preliminary recomendation attached as Exhibit A of Attachment 4 6. ECDC section 18.80.000 AP9621.DOC / March 18, 1996 1 Staff Report Vicinity ATTACHMENT 1 File No. AP-96-21 c. r.vuuox may, - 3. Topographic Survey of Vicinity, V = 200' 4. Color copies of24 photographs ofthe street initially submitted 1-9-95 S. Photographic reduction of our Proposed Site Plan for GREENNESS 6. Half and full scale copies of 11-17-95 Plans, Profiles and Cross Sections A. Caption 1: 25 ft. Wide Street B. Option 2: 25 - 16 ft. Wide Street Respectfully, 1 Phillip Lehn Architect - cc: Paul Mar, Director of Community Services, James Walker, City Engineer, John Bissell, AICP - Associate Planner, Drew Wojtanik, President MBCC, Rich Haag, Fellow ASLA, David Dougherty,'P.E., Max Meyring GREEN TARA INCORPORATE]] ATTACHMENT 2 16202 - 72nd Avenue•West Edmonds, WA 98026 Telephone and File No AP-96-2 February 20, 1996 RECEIVED FEB 2 0 t996 City of Edmonds PF.RMIT COUNTER Planning Division 250 - 5th Ave. N., Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Appeal of Engineering Division's Street Widening Condition for GREENNESS W3 To whom it may concern: On February 5, 1996, the City's Planning Division approved GREENNESS, a short subdivision of two lots into four lots plus a common recreational parcel. Because the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) requires that ten or more lots be served by a twenty-five foot wide street (22 feet of pavement plus 3 feet of curbs and gutters), and because the two, newly created lots raise the total ultimately served to twelve, the Engineering Division originally required 72nd Avenue W immediately north of 164th Street SW to be widened to 25 feet throughout its entire, 600 foot length, Since the street is dead ended and only a small part of it will ever serve ten or more lots, the City Engineer later allowed the requirement to be reduced to 25 feet for its first 200 feet and 23 feet (24 feet with thickened edges instead of curbs and gutters) for its last 400 feet. However, because City's street standards are based on the more intensive types and much higher amounts of traffic experienced by through streets, it would still be unreasonable and inappropriate to impose even this reduced requirement on our quiet street, which will always remain dead ended. While appreciated, the reduction is obviously too small to make much difference and Green Tara Incorporated (GTI) and Mariam and I (the applicants) along with the Meadowdale Beach Community Council (MBCC), which represents all property owners living along the street, are united not only in our strong opposition to the Engineering Division's street widening requirement but also in our support of GREENNESS and our more appropriate design alternative for the street (Option 3). Because of the difficult site conditions along the street, compliance with the City's requirement will not only be technically impractical, functionally inappropriate, and aesthetically undesirable, it may also be prohibitively expensive. Useful space would be forever lost to make way for an unreasonably wide expanse of asphalt which would likely serve no other purpose than to encourage some to drive more recklessly. Massive amounts of soil would have to be excavated, exported and retained, at least one and possibly two power poles and cable TV standards would need to be relocated, a seventy five foot long rockery would need to be demolished and rebuilt, and, depending on the alignment allowed, several mature trees may need to be destroyed, all to create just two additional lots. Given the practical limitations and unusually high cost of complying with the City's street widening requirement, the test of practical and economic feasibility, prescribed in ECDC Section 18.80.000 ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, which neither differentiates nor excludes City standards, should enable the Engineering Division to reduce the requirement more substantially. Unfortunately, while the City Council is currently revising the code to enable the Planning and Engineering Divisions to exercise more discretion in their interpretations of it, the Engineering Division continues to be influenced and bound by the previous City Council's unwritten and unexplained interpretation of Section 19.80.000, which includes State standards but excludes City standards when applying the prescribed test of practical and financial feasibility. While sympathetic with our complaints, criticisms and design alternative, the City's Director of Community Services was recently advised by the City Attorney that the Engineering Division does not have the authority to reduce the City's street widening requirement and that our best, if not only recourse is to appeal the requirement. In encouraging us to file an appeal, the Director also said the Engineering Division would be willing to write a technical report supporting it. Therefore, despite the considerable additional cost of time and money to ourselves and project, Green Tara Incorporated and Mariam and I, along with all of our neighbors, formally appeal the City's very coarsely conceived street widening requirement as well as the Engineering Division's exclusion of City standards in its application of the previous City Councirs interpretation of ECDC Section 18.80.000. City of Edmonds Appeal February 20, 1996 Page two GENERAL OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 72nd Avenue W immediately north of 164th Street SW is approximately 600 feet long, 18 feet wide near its southern intersection and 11 feet wide at its northern end. Near the streefs midpoint, two driveways, with grades of 27% and 17% (the City's recommended maximum is 140/o) are located approximately 17 feet across the street from a steep, ten foot high embankment. North of the streets last driveway lies a very steep drainage ravine which will forever prevent the street from connecting to North Meadowdale Beach Road and becoming a through street. South of its intersection with 164th Street SW, 72nd Avenue W is a 22 foot wide through street and east of 72nd Avenue W, 164th Street. SW is a 32 foot wide through street until it begins to curve down to its main through street feeder, N Meadowdale Road, where it narrows to slightly less than 18 feet. THROUGH STREETS VS. DEAD ENDS Since ECDC makes no distinction between through and dead ended streets, the City's street standards must serve the "worst case" or most intense circumstances which in this instance would be through street traffic. There are many obvious differences between through and dead ended streets which cause them to experience different amounts and types of traffic. A through street serving at least ten lots (the minimum requiring a 25 foot wide street) not only serves the traffic generated by each of the ten lots moving in both directions, it also serves to connect many more lots in both directions beyond the original ten. Normal vehicular demand on a dead ended street is significantly less. Only those few lots at the end use most of the street to travel in both directions and no lots beyond those already located on the street ever use a dead ended street to get anywhere else. Because all incoming traffic must inevitably stop, speeds are generally slower and safety higher, particularly on relatively short, dead ended streets such as 72nd Avenue W. Since the street will never experience the regular intensity of traffic upon which the City's through street standards are based (i.e. through streets serving commercial as well as residential districts with 10 - 15 or even more lots), our dead ended part of 72nd Avenue W can continue to be adequately served by a much narrower street. EvIPRACTICAL AND PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE Compliance with the City's street widening requirement will cause us all to suffer costs which will far outweigh any possible benefit. To help you understand the anticipated impact, I have attached photographs, dated January 8, 1995, and the plans, profiles and cross sections of both Options I and 2 (please see my November 17, 1995 letter to James Walker describing both options). The following description divides the street into three, 200 foot segments (numbers in parentheses refer to the attached photos). The first segment, 0+00 through 2+00 (1-6 & 23-24), narrows from 18 to 16 feet in width. It is bordered by an 8 to 11 foot wide shoulder and seventeen, mature Douglas Firs (twelve have approximately 16" diameters) to the west and a drainage swale, a steep, 10' high embankment, several mature trees, a power pole and a cable TV standard to the east. If the street is aligned with the centerline of the right-of-way, as shown on Option 1, a tremendous quantity of earth would need to be excavated, exported and retained, the power pole and TV standard would need to be relocated and several mature trees, (now buffering a house and beautifying the street) would need to be destroyed. While Option 2 would eliminate the utility relocations and significantly reduce the amount of excavation along this segment by aligning the street further west, it would not eliminate excavation altogether. A wall and shy distance, while not shown, would likely be needed near station 1+00 and by shifting the street's alignment further west, the now parkable shoulder next to the row of Douglas Firs would be eliminated. The second segment, 2+00 through 4+00 (7 -8 & 15 -22), narrows from 16 to 15 feet in width. It is bordered by a terraced garden, a fire hydrant, a sports court, and the two, steep (27% and 17%) driveways on the west. The east side is bordered by a narrow drainage Swale to a 12" round GP invert, a steep, 10 foot high embankment and rockery, a power pole, and a cable TV standard. The dashed line immediately north of station 2+00 indicates the point where nine or less lots are served by the street. Because the two driveways on the west are already too steep, an enormous amount of earth would need to be excavated, exported and retained to carve a 23 foot width plus shy distance and rockery out of the steep embankment across the street. The existing, approximately seventy five foot long rockery would need to be demolished and reconstructed. The power pole and cable TV standard would need to be relocated and much of the existing gravel parking area on the east side would need to be eliminated. l {t City of Edmonds Appeal February 20, 1996 Page three The last segment, 4+00 through 5+93 (9-15) bends to the east before connecting to the last two driveways and narrows from 15 to 11 feet in width. It is bordered by GREENNESS, a few mature trees, including a 36" Douglas Fir, and two water meters on the west and a raised planter, a cable TV standard, two power poles and a couple of mature trees on the east. While the fewest number of houses would ever use much less need a 23 foot width plus shy distance and rockery along this last segment of the dead ended street, the greatest volume of earth would need to be excavated, exported and retained here to satisfy the City's requirement. When added to the projects, other required costs, the street widening requirement makes the project's financial feasibility very doubtful. While there was enough property to create three new lots, GTI decided it would be aesthetically more desirable to create only two. Given the property's original cost, length and cost of the design and regulatory review process to date, the cost of project financing, the anticipated cost of providing the new 600 foot plus water main and hydrant required by the Fire Marshal, and the development's 320 foot long private driveway, detention pond, and utility infrastructure, compliance with the street widening requirement should almost certainly make the project prohibitively expensive. SECTION 18.80.000 Because ECDC Section 18.80.000, ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS states, "The reconstruction of existing facilities shall conform to the standards as closely as is practical and economically feasible", and does not specifically differentiate or exclude City standards, we believe the Engineering Division already has justifiable grounds to further reduce the street widening requirement more substantially. However, while not specifically defined as such in the code, the Engineering Division says that it was the previous City Council's intent to interpret the word "standards" to mean only State standards and not City as well as State standards. We question the purpose as well as the validity of such a narrow interpretation. If it is considered reasonable and appropriate to hold State standards to the test of practical and economic feasibility when reconstructing existing facilities, why shouldn't City standards be held to the same test? According to the City Engineer, the current City Council is currently revising the ECDC to permit the Planning and Engineering Divisions to exercise more discretion when making technical interpretations of the code. Since the Engineering Division's interpretation of Section 18,80.000 is not literally prescribed by the code, since the current City Council expects the Engineering Division to exercise more discretion when interpreting the code, and since all the neighbors who live on the street are unanimously opposed to having their street widened in accordance with the City's inappropriate standards, we believe the Engineering Division has sufficient grounds to break from its unnecessarily restrictive interpretation of Section IS,80.000 and render a more reasonable judgment based on sound engineering principles. BUSIEST THROUGH STREETS VS. OUR DEAD ENDED STREET After preparing and submitting Options 1 and 2, we discovered that both Meadowdale Beach Road and 76th Avenue W (between Meadowdale Beach Road and North Meadowdale Road), two of our neighborhood's most intensely traveled through streets, are only 20 feet wide and have no curbs and gutters or thickened edges. While we understand that its generally unacceptable to advocate the perpetuation of non -complying standards, the discovery compels us to question the validity of those standards. If 20 feet works for Meadowdale Beach Road and 76th Avenue W, why must our quiet, dead ended street be 25 feet or even 23 feet anywhere? MORE STREET MEANS MORE RvIPERVIOUS SURFACE Because some of our neighborhood's soils can be destabilized by increased infiltration of storm water runoff, the City's Engineering Division is believed to be more concerned with controlling storm run off and limiting the amount of impervious surface added than it is with widening the street. Compared to our current design alternative (Option 3), the City's 25 to 23 foot street widening requirement would significantly increase the added amount of impervious surface by approximately 3,200 square feet. Ciry'ofEdfnands Appeal February. 20,.1996 Page four NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION As indicated in the attached January. 15, 1996 letter by President Drew Wojtanik, The Meadowdale Beach Community Council, a group representing fourteen neighboring property owners, voted unanimously to oppose the. Engineering Division's street widening requirement and to support GREENNESS and our alternative plan to widen the street. While individual neighbors have different reasons for their positions, we all share the conviction that the City's street widening requirement would be inappropriate, unnecessary, unreasonable, and ultimately wrong for our neighborhood. We are also convinced that the large sum of money which would otherwise be wasted on street widening would be better invested improving the quality of GREENNESS and thereby the neighborhood itself. OPTION 3 After discovering that both Meadowdale Beach Road and 76th Avenue W (between Meadowdale Beach Road and North Meadowdale Road), two of our neighborhood's most intensely traveled through streets, are only 20 feet wide and have no curbs and gutters or thickened edges, we decided to reduce the first 125 feet of our previously preferred option (Option 2) from 25 to 20 feet including thickened edges. The existing eastern edge of this segment of the street would be thickened and approximately 2 feet of additional width, including a thickened edge, would be added to the street's west side. From station 1+25 to station 2+00, where the street will serves nine or less lots, the streets new western edge would . angle back to the existing edge. From this point the street would maintain a 16 foot overall width including thickened edges until north of the steep driveways. By adding to its west side, the street would be widened to an 18 foot overall width, including thickened edges, north of station 3+25. GTI is currently preparing a plan, profile and crass sections of Option 3 which we plan to submit for your consideration within the next two weeks. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this appeal. . Respectfully, Phillip Lehn, Architect cc: Paul Mar, Director of Community Services, James Walker, City Engineer, John Bissell, AICP . Associate Planner, Drew Wojtanik, President MBCC, Rich Haag, Fellow ASLA, David Dougherty, P.E., Max Meyring GREEN TARA INCORPORATED 16202 - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Telephone and Facsimile: 206.742-6813 MEADQWDALE BEACH' COMMUNITY COUNCIL January 15,1996 RECEIVED FEB/2 0 1996 PERMIT COUNTER James C. Walker, P.E. City Engineer, City of Edmonds Community Services Department, Engineering Division 250 - 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 95020 J Re: Proposed widening of 72nd Avenue West, north of its intersection with 164th Street SW as a result of a proposed lot subdivision and development by Mr. Phillip Lehn Dear Mr. Walker: This letter is being submitted on behalf of the Meadowdale Beach Community Council (MBCC). The MBCC wishes to voice it's support for Mr. Lehn, and Green Tara Incorporated's (GPI) proposed subdivision of the site located at 16202 72nd Ave. West in Edmonds, and, further, to voice our str= opposition to the potential street widening requirement for 72nd Ave. West north of the intersection of 164th St. SW. On January 9th, 1996, the MBCC met to hear a presentation by Mr. Philip Lehn, who was representing GTI, regarding their proposal to further subdivide the subject site area to a total of four lots. Immediately subsequent to our meeting, MBCC members had received the City of Edmonds Mice of Public Nearing announcement -for the Planning Division's scheduled public hearing January 19, 1996 (file no. S-95-163). During this meeting Mr. Lehn made a very professional presentation to Council members, complete with a "to scale" mock-up model of the site location itself, architectural drawings of his proposed "Option 1" and "Option 2" dealing with the proposed street widening, and copies of his written correspondence between he and the City of Edmonds Community Services Department regarding the street issue itself. Based on the information as he presented it before the MBCC, we wish to make it known that we, as a council, offer our unanimous support for the proposed subdivision and building project. However, we stand united as well in our opposition to the City ordered street widening modifications being imposed on the project. In our opinion, Option 1, to widen the street to a full 25' was/is a totally inappropriate and impractical expectation. This opinion is based on the existing (and even potential increased) traffic volume on the street and the extremely undesirable modifications which would result to our existing neighborhood not to mention the incredible cost which would have to be borne by GTL We understand from your letter of November 22,1995, to Mr. Lahn that you have '"relaxed" your enforcement' of these rigid, standards to 23' for that area of the street north of the first 20V immediately north of the intersection with.164th Street SW. This hardly seems like much of a relaxation at all and will not relieve the neighborhoodof the extensive engineering modifications (i.e., removal of existing trees, excavation of huge amounts of a bank, rebuilding of a rockery, etc.). We find this expectation totally unacceptable, unwanted, and seemingly unnecessary. We understand from our January 9th meeting that Mr. Lehn may further modify his "Option 2" to reduce the first 200', to 20'-(vs 2s') and retain the 16' for the remaining distance north on the road, therefore a will comment on his anticipated change. MBCC �r�Lx suppo�s this approach and appeals to the City to use its good judgment in granting this: request. Even with the additional traffic resulting from Mr. Lehn's lot development, the volume just doesn't justify the need to meet imposed street widening standards that were obviously developed with situations other than this in mind. Therefore, the MBCC request the City Planning Department to research the historic development of the existing Edmonds Community Development Code 18.80.000 to understand size actual reasons for adoption of the existing code standards to see if this situation address the intent of those criteria and question whether the code truly is applicable and appropriate. Finally, members of the MBCC will attend the January 19th Public Hearing. MBCC reserves the right to withdraw this Ietter of support/objeciion based on information presented differing from what we currently understand are the facts in this case. Sincerely Drew Wojtanik President, Meadowdale Beach Community Council ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. st . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... ........... ................. ............. ................. ............ ........... .......... ........ ... ......... . ..... . ...... ............... ............... GPM C 1 Vi S 0 -FEB 2 4 1Q-96 PMMI f COUNTER December 5, 1995 James C. Walker, P.E. City Engineer, City of Edmonds Community Services Department, Engineering Division 250 - 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Proposed modification of the City's requirement to widen 72nd Avenue West north of its intersection with 164th Street SW. Dear Jiro: While I personally appreciate your decision to permit us to reduce our overall street width from 25 to 23 feet north of station 2+00, the modification is too small to either win the neighbors support or have much effect on the condition's harmfully high cost. Since Section 18.80.000, titled "ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS", does not specifically exclude the street standards of Section 18.80.010, why should they be interpreted differently? If it is considered reasonable and appropriate to hold the standards of Section 18.80.000 to the test of practical and economic feasibility when reconstructing existing facilities, why shouldn't the standards of Section 1B.80.010 be held to the same test? It is now apparent that there is a discrepancy between the City's 5-20-93 illustrated handout titled "Street Standards" which lists the required pavement width for 3'- 9 potential lots at 16' - 20' and the . ECDC's 6-30-89 "TABLE -OF STREET. STANDARDS" which lists the required pavement width for 5 - 9 lots at 20'. While this discrepancy cost us over a month of time and several thousands of dollars, it did prompt us to evolve a more meaningful and appropriate design for our quiet, dead ended street. Given the limited traffic ever to be served by the street, we continue to believe that a 16 foot width, including thickened edges, north of 2+00 would not only be safe, but also much less intrusive and allow us to spend more of our limited resources where they're really needed to improve the quality of the development. Jim Walker December 5, 1995 Page three To summarize, we believe the City`s street standards are, at least In this instance, unreasonable, inappropriate and wrong. If the City forces us to comply with these standards, our neighbors will resent and oppose our project, and we will suffer a financial burden radically disproportionate to the value of the two lots created. We believe the City should be consistent and apply the same test of practical and financial feasibility to its' street standards it applies to its' other standards when reconstructing existing facilities. By proposing a meeting with you and Paul Mar, we hope to avoid an appeal process which promises to be long and costly for the City as well as for ourselves. Phillip Lehn, Architect cc: Paul Mar, Director of Community Services Department Gordon Hyde, Engineering Coordinator John Bissell; A1CP - Associate Planner, City of Edmonds David Alskog; Livengood, Carter, Tjossem, Fitzgerald and Alskog David Dougherty; Site Development Services Max Meyring; Meyring and Associates Jim Walker December 5, 1995 Page two When I originally asked for your guidance- in resolving the conflicts posed by the streets meandering alignments, high embankments and steep driveways, you told me it wasn't your responsibility to the design the street. You said the street had to be 25 feet wide and the only way you could permit us to deviate from that standard was for us to document a."technical justification" which would demonstrate how one standard (street'width) would violate another (20% maximum grade for a driveway). Since the grades of two driveways on the street's east side (now 8.3% and 10%) would not exceed the Citys 20% maximum ailowable'grade if the 23 foot street width you now feel compelled to impose is measured from the existing edge of the two steepest driveways (now 17% and 27%) on the street's west side, compliance with the City's standard is not impossible, at least not technically. I presume you have therefore concluded that the technical justification you feel is needed to modify the requirement does not exist and, since the Department does not ordinarily apply the test of practical or economic feasibility to its street standards, you feel you must impose them, at least at this juncture, regardless of how unreasonable and inappropriate they may be. Since an appeal of your position, which will be long and costly for the City as well as for us, may be unavoidable, we would like to know first, if you can support our appeal and second, if you and Paul Mar, Director of Community Services, are willing to review the circumstances with me and our Civil Engineer, David Dougherty, to see if it is possible for us to agree upon a plan which permits us to avoid the appeal process altogether? During our November 17 meeting you said you didn't like rockeries or the curving alignment of our 25 foot wide option but stopped short of prohibiting them altogether. Since, your position on these matters directly affects our ultimate cost, the amount of excavation and the length and height of all required rockeries or retaining walls, we and our neighbors would like to know your position on these matters as soon as possible. I I While saying "The Street Standards have always been intended to apply to dead end street sections," you don't explain why. Do you really believe dead ended streets experience the same amount and type of traffic as thru streets or, are you following the dictates of an inadequately conceived code which falls to make the critical distinction? Since our dead ended street will never be a thru street and will always experience significantly less traffic than a thru street of the same length and number of lots, don't you think it's reasonable and appropriate to apply a different standard? In walking around the neighborhood during the past few days, I've measured a few street widths and have discovered that both Meadowdale Beach Road and 76th Avenue West, clearly two of our busiest thru streets, are only.twenty feet wide near our neighborhood and have no curbs and gutters or even thickened edges. While I understand that it's generally unacceptable to advocate the perpetuation of non- complying standards, my discovery compels me to question the validity of those standards. If 20 feet works on Meadowdale Beach Road and 76th Avenue West, why must our quiet, dead ended road be 25 feet or even 23 feet anywhere? Is it possible that we've allowed ourselves to be fooled into believing that a critical safety need exists when it in fact doesn't? is ' it really so desirable or even necessary to have so much of our land covered with asphalt? CITY OF EDMONDS LAl)RA M. HALL n MAYOR . 250 - 5TH AVE. N. * EDMONDS. WA 98020. • (206) 771.0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT p Public Works a Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering No ember 22, 1995 6 C1 V 1- D Phil Lehn ; 16202 - 72nd Avenue West �� COUNTER Edmonds, WA 98026 SUBJECT: ST WADER r€��t �rzNn e.�r �.tyTt� WEST Dear Phil: The section of code you reference in your November 17,1995 letter has not been interpreted to allow staff the authority to waive street standards. The statement in the ECDC 18 80 000 ADOPTOT N OE STANDAgn SpECjEjCATIONS " The reconstruction of existing facilities shall conform to the standards as closely as is practical and economically feasible." applies to the standards in the documents listed in section 18.80.000 (Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction, General Special Provisions, Washington State "City Design Standards", etc.) and not the Street Standards found in section 18.80.010. As mentioned at our meeting on November 17, 1995, the standard width for the street changes to twenty feet and not sixteen feet when less than ten lots access the road. The City policy has always been to avoid the narrowing of a roadway along its length. However, in this case, we could agree to an eleven foot wide lane northbound and a nine foot lane southbound, which changes to eleven feet near station 2+00 on your preliminary plan. Any ftuther street width reduction would need to be based on conflicting code requirements, such as not being able to maintain driveways at less than 20 % at the required road width. The Street Standards have always been intended to apply to dead end street sections. Streets may be required to meet higher standards than those listed in the ECDC section 18.80.010, but developers are not required to bear the costs. Please call me or Gordy Hyde at 771-0220 if you have any questions. Sincerely, JAMES C. WALKER, P.E. City Engineer JCWIsf c: Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator 72WIDTH DOc • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • !/ fZ p 10- Sister Cities International -- i�iekinan, Japan.. ! • • •' .L tR C .l�Y RECEIVED FEB2 0 1996 P RMIT COUNTER November 17, 1995 James C. Walker; P.E. City Engineer, City of Edmonds Community Services Department, Engineering Division 250 - 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re. Proposed waiver of the City's requirement' to widen 72nd Avenue West to 25 feet north of its Intersection with 164th Street SW. Dear Jim: As you know Green Tara Incorporated (GT1) hopes to* subdivide two existing lots to create just two new lots. Because the dead ended street to our property already serves eleven lots and the City's standard width for commercial as well as residential streets serving 10 to 15 lots Is. 25 feet, the City Is requiring GTl to widen approximately 600 feet of 72nd Avenue West to a uniform width of 25 feet. Because two existing_ driveways, which already exceed the C€ty's maximum allowed grade, are only sixteen feet away from an 8- foot high embankment and rockery on the other side of the street, it will be impossible to comply with the City's street widening requirement without suffering prohibitively high costs. Added to the Fire Marshal's requirement to provide a new hydrant and water main (over 600 feet of 8 inch ductile pipe), the costs associated the the City's requirement to widen the street to 25 feet clearly jeopardizes the project's economic feasibility. In accordance with section 18-80.000 of the City's Community Development Code which states, 'The reconstruction of existing facilities shall conform to the standards as closely as- Is practical and economically feasible", we believe the City has justifiable cause to revise if not waive Its` street widening requirement altogether. To help us find an econoriiically feasible way to satisfy the City's conflicting standards governing the width of streets and the maximum grade for private driveways, G n is submitting along with this letter, full and half scale plans and sections of two different options for widening 72nd Avenue West. In accordance with the. City's conditions, Option 1 maintains a constant width of 22 feet plus 3 feet for thickened edges (25 feet total) from the streets Intersection with 164th St. SW to €ts' termination at the entrance to "GREENNESS;" our proposed subdivision. Option 2 maintains the 25 foot width for that initial part of the dead* ended street which will experience traffic resulting from ten or more lots. At the point where the street will serve nine or less lots, Option 2 would widen the existing street to 16 feet. Option 1: The most obvious, characteristic of Option 1 is its' high cost and the massive amounts of dirt which would need to be excavated, exported and retained. Centered within the right of way, Option 1's first 200 feet would require the removal of several trees (including 8",10",12" and 18" Douglas Firs) which beautify and buffer a private yard from the street, the relocation of a power pole and television cable pedestal and the - construction of a 175, foot long rockery approximately 8 feet high. To avoid the two driveways, which already exceed the City's maximum grade, Option 1 would cut approximately 16 feet into a 10-foot high embankment, relocate another power pole and television pedestal, remove an existing rockery and build. another, approximately 125 feet long and 10 feet high. The last 200 feet of Option 1 would cut another 16 feet Into a 5 foot high embankment only to serve just three existing and two new tots. I Option 2: While complying with the intent of 'the City's standard governing street widths, Option 2 respects the. special circumstances effecting dead ended streets. Only that part of the street which would experience traffic generated by 10 or more lots would be 26 feet wide. By aligning this part of the street to the west of , the right of way's.centerline and by reducing the streets width to 16 feet where It serves 9 or less lots, much of Option 1's soil excavation, export, and retaining can be eliminated, two power poles and television pedestals can remain where they are, and several trees can be saved without Increasing the , grades of the steep driveways. 1 .' While the City's standard governing street widths makes no distinction between "thru" and "dead end streets,.we all know the traffic experienced by the two types Is significantly different. A "thru" street serving at least ten lots (the minimum requiring a 25 foot wide street) not only serves the traffic generated by each of the ten lots moving In both directions, it also serves to connect many more lots -in. both directions beyond the original ten. Normal vehicular demands on a "dead ended" street is significantly less. Only those few lots at its' end use most of the street to travel in both directions and no lots beyond those already located on the street ever use a dead ended street to get anywhere else. Because all Incoming traffic must inevitably stop, speeds are generally slower and safety higher, particularly on relatively short, dead ended streets'such as 72nd Avenue West. Since the street will not experience the regular Intensity of traffic upon which the Cky's'"thru street" standards were based (i.e. thru streets serving commercial as well as residential districts with 10 to 15 or even more lots), our dead ended part of 72nd Avenue West can continue to be adequately served by a much narrower street. Respectfully, Ae, Phillip Lehn, Architect cc: John Bissell; AICP - Associate Planner, City of Edmonds David Alskog; Livengood, Carter, TJossem, Fitzgerald and Alskog Dave Dougherty; Site Development Services Max Meyring; Meyring and Associates GREEN TARA INCOP"RATED - 16202 - 72nd Avenue West - Edmonds, WA 98026 - 206742.681 S r IC ) CITY OF EDMONDS LAURA M. HALL 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 96020 • (206) 771.0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT J p Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering a 9 0 It I''Ci January 16,1995 FE8 2 0 1996 g PERMIT COUNTER Allard Russell and Grace LaRose 3868 Prairie, Dunes Drive Sarasota, FL 34238 , Re: Short Plat Requirements for S-94-139 (16202 - 72nd Ave W) Road Width Dear Mr Russell, n We were recently approached by Phil Lehn, a potential purchaser of your property, a regarding the subject short plat requirement to widen 72nd Ave. W. to twenty-five feet north of 164th St. We also discussed his letter over the telephone. Since you are the recorded owner of the subject property, we want to inform you of our position regarding the requirements. Based on the number of houses 72nd Ave will serve with the development of the plat, the road must be widened to twenty-five feet (22 feet of ' roadway and 3 feet of curb/gutter) to meet the City Development Code. Before we would consider any deviation to the roadway width requirement, we will require a technical justification, using sound engineering practices, demonstrating how the impact on the neighbors would violate the City Development Code (for example, driveway slope increased above 20%). To keep the neighborhood's rural look, we will allow an asphalt thickened edge in lieu of concrete curb and gutters, but all other requirements stand per plat requirements. If you have any questions, please call me at 771-0220. GAMES C. WALKER, P.M. Acting City Engineer ALC/JCW/sf cc: Phil Lehn , / John Bissell., Associate Planner s-94-139MOC •-Incorporated August 11, I890 • Sister Cities International -- Hekinan. Japan MEMORANDUM Date: March 12, 1996 To: John Bissell From: Jim Walker e Subject: APPEAL OF PLAT CONDITIONS - S-95-163 It appears that Phillip Lehn is appealing two staff decisions. The first is the street widening requirement applied to his short plat. The second is the staff interpretation that ECDC section 18.80.000 ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS does not give staff latitude to waive Street Standards and only applies to the documents (City Design Standards, Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction, etc.) listed in section 18.00.000. Staff believes there is justification for allowance of a smaller road for this particular short plat. However, I do not believe there is any justification to reconsider the interpretation of ECDC section 18.80.000 which provides no waiver from Street Standard requirements. The Street Standards in ECDC section 18.80.010 were created to apply in situations where the City and County Design Standards provided little guidance. The City and County Design Standards are generally intended for use on streets with more than 400 vehicle trips per day. The City's street standards were obviously intended to apply to low volume and Dead End streets since the Table of Street Standards applies to streets with less than 15 lots or units and includes Dead End requirements. The specific street standard requirements placed for this development were based on the standards in ECDC section 18.80.010. Staff does agree with the applicant that a road with less width could safely serve the development. The rockeries proposed by the applicant in his preliminary road improvement plans may create additional hazards along the road. Creating less road surface results in less storm water runoff. Since runoff from this area drains through the Meadowdale landslide hazard areas, storm water runoff reduction has significant benefits. ATTACHMENT 3 File No. AP-96-21 S Subject: CLARMCATION OF LEHN "PEAL - S 95-163 This memo is intended to further clarify the Engineering Division position on application of ECDC Chapter 18.80 to Short Plat S-95-163. The first section of code within Chapter 18.80, ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECMCATIONS, establishes documents that the City adopts. The adopted documents are "Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction", amendments to the "Standard Specification for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction", "General Special Provisions" and "City Design Standards".. All of these documents are produced by the State of Washington. ECDC section 18.80.000 states "All new public works construction shall conform to the standards contained in these documents." The next line states "The reconstruction of existing facilities shah conform to the standards as closely as is practical and economically feasible." The standards referred to are the standards found in the state produced documents the City adopts. Nothing in this section of code gives staff the ability to waive any requirement found in the Edmonds Community Development Code. Developments are required to meet the standards found in ECDC section 18.80.010. The staff interpretation of this code section is based in part on our understanding of the intent the City Council had when this code was last adopted. Council did not intend to grant staff the ability to waive street width or right-of-way requirements. cc: Gordy Hyde It ATTACHMENT 4 File No. AP-96-21 O In o Ex. CD + New 8' Du Thicken Ex. Edge - :, _ 335 - — i � ': - �,-4-,1, -:.-�,': - - ;,- ,1-,.11 * 11. ,1�,.� :II�, �:;�, - - � I�'�:�I, 332.7.4 �.,,�,� I -I I I1;i:I�. ' 3 :I'l 11I1", -" 1t .-:-I t� 332 7 — 330 -327 3 ' - _ _ __ _ — _ _ 326 7 EBT Curb Y >^ 12 611 , 7' 6w 16"OF _ 334 7 _ _ 335 332 05 3317 ,, 331 6 . < _ `3251 __. 325 e -- <' -- 331-6 — --- -- 330 coneeT 3296 curb __ _ ___ 0 +. 50 340 II - ; 335:5 _'" — — _ . -------------' __ __ __:335 — Gravel' BTII — 330.5 330.1 — — — — 330 7 ' EBS ; . 334:5 EBS — --- — . 330 329 6" - . 329 7. ' di#ch —= -- -- — 1 + 00 : ,. . 323:6 323.9 curb EBT _ _ - 30 - _--- - -- 337.i , - __= e a__- --_- -= _ — --3 35' 328.4" i 329.1 329.1 Conc.; EBT' 329:38 EBT. -- -- --- - — - 330 -- - ----------brk'. ,32� — -Edge -- — -- - - - - --- . . 320.4 "' 19.4% : - .. .. -�. _ , ,: 328.7 'drwy. 1. + 28 ` " ditch ;. ----- — --- ' : 1 336 6 " 340 ' PP `. T:S." ,.. , ----_____�___�____M______ _ - -- - __335' 328.4 . ! EBT -- -- --- ------ wI _32_8_2 —F----- ---- — EBT _ 328:57 _ 7.6% 25.1 �, 327uo ------= 32a.o ---- —ditch -- - ---- -- 325 - -- -- ---- in asphalt _ — ----- 318.9(i) drive 1 + 50. ... . . _ .. ._...... ....� .. �325 8 325 4 $ 3% _ _ _ _ E8T 325.77 "EBT , drwy .:., 2 ` + 67 _ -- — — — — — — 325 317 6(i} East Rim s 2 40 + r.. _ = 330 321.7O 3221 322: -- — -- 324 7 324:3 326 7 Grave! Parking ,Ta -- brk terraced EST 324:69 ---- �; -------- EBT ' — - _ ------- _- ��_ 325,:` garden . 316 6:' — --- -- 2 + 19 —toes — 2 +: 9 _ — --- — — -- --- — — --- 330 323.9 323:7 ' 326., ; EST 32 03 EBT Gravel .Porkjng: gravel` edge.-- ---- ------- --- --_-- --- --` — - —.— 325 .. .:. .. --322.61 2 + 32, 325 8 326.8 Ts..: — — -- brk-- �— toe 323 7 323_8 323 6 -- -- -- -- 325 — — — — - --- —brk _ ) % --- EB 319.6; s: side Drwy3 .+ 0i ------==------ ---- _ __=- _—_-_—_— --- 2 : + 37 328.6 toe of --- ----------- — rockery 323:3(i) _ —323.38 ____ 323.3 ----- --- -- ----- — ---- 326 ' _ --�-�--= -- -- 22:45{i} -- --- 322.57 -- -------bTc__ EST}. �.Y brk . 323.1 . 17% -- -----------------toe---=---------= ---- 320 ��` ----------- — 319:6 3 + 1 2 + 50 Gross { 0' 5'` 1 p' . 20' f .2 • �9,.. fd ttf t rob 323 1 _ 320 3 EBT 318 2 2 + 56 drwy 328- tae of C4Cke y 322 8{i} _. --- -- 322 9 . --__ - - - -=- ---- _- _ 3 2 - ------------ ---- toe 32 2 6EBI -------------20 - 3 317 �(1} East Rim SSMH PP' _ - -- ---- �..._ . 328 9{i} Ff-1 8 0,." 8'-0 , {ae of 322 4(i) rocke y'- EF7777, 322.6; 321 7 °. 322:1 322.62r 322.2(1). -- 323 El _ -- brk terraced :, -- --- -- - toe -- - - --- 320 garden -- -- _------ - - - _ 316. _ _ - -- - --- ----- 315 " toe.- 291- , 3'23- ----- ------ -- - - - -- ----- r330 --- --------- 328.6(i} -- toe of 3224 ___' _ _ --322.3�i} _ -- _rockery _ --- 325 -- -- -- -- brk Y 322.61 ` EBT' -i-�-16°l0:' 322'1{i}, : 327:25 TS -- ---_-- -_-- _ �----=-- - ------- ----- `320 _ -- 319 6 S. Side, 323.7T 5 Drwy 3 + 00 335 " . - ----- '327.9 _ 328. toe ----- f '330 ' T.S rack r y 32 5.9 1 --r-=------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 322.45{i} ; -----_ _ -----------=+-------------- LE . ; 322.57 17% brk 322.0 >'' 323.9 _ ----- - ---_---toe -=--------- ------ 320 -- ---- -------------- 319.6 3+12` Cross sections (}' S' 1 p' 20' 30' 40' 3241 remove —r — .322.65(i)_ _-- EBT _ drw� _-- 3227' 10%�j —'325 3 4;3 31, = 320 -_ to -- -- —Canter 323 4 325" 5 + '4C 322.82 P 322 4 -- — -- — — 320 — -- — — -- — - -- r EBT EBT. 321.7 r — Y:31 3.2 E T: --- — ---=322_4 ---- — -- — ---- — ---------- -- -- --- ----- 320 Rtz tie. 3: 322.5 75 lawn. 323.0 ------- --- ----- — 322:5 _ —---- _. .. _:-------- — — --- 320 5 + 2 EST" EBT 4 + 00..'` 321.7 -- -- — ----- -- — — — — — — 315.3 - - EBT " 325 — — — —— 323.15 -------------i_ ------------------ --- --= -=---=320 -j ---------_—=__- _—_---_-= -- 5.+5 4+25 /6 . 2�Z9•'�1h " `S — - -- — -- — -- — —:.320 3 ''+ 2 _ 322 6 __ _ __ 3219 ' 32412 — 320 EBT 322.62 T' 322.2320 320 7 EBT : 12 GP 3+ 53 t Y 325 322.65(�} 3241 -- 323 -- —EBT — --- — 322.7; drwy — -— 325 - 322.3' 8T''toe — 320' 3 + 59 — 315 . 322.82 . _ plonter _ 323.4 325 — — 330 322.8 322.4 ---- -: EBT----- — ' _ -- EBT320 --------------- --- >, ,... 3 +. 79' 325 -�' 327.25 TS 320 _ 322_4 --- -- -- _ — --- ---- 323.0 — RR tie- --- --. -- 325 — -- 323:75 '— 323.0 322.5 own 335,EBT —-- -- ---------- —--------- EBT 20 4 + 00 e, — 330 — Y, — 325 -- -_ — ----------- ------- ----- — — -- 323.15 32284 _ __ EBT . _ --- _ 325 323.9 ____- 320 _— —--------- =-=--------` -------- -- ----- — ---`320 — — 4. + 25 ;er ft �I, l' � . ., . . � .:, � :: .1, , � - :,,�..-�,�,,,�-',�,,.�,��,:""",*,--,�,�- � , , �, � *".*,' - , ,� � � . - 6: , ". , -, - , � , " * - , , "i - -1. - ,: ... �:; , - - ", -,,� � - " -� , , "- :, :7 - : , I ,� I , , I � , , ." ,�,,, '': %,I:,�� I I I . � ", 7- I I I -- - . - - �� , , ,%,� i � �;,�:�,�,-*,��, ,, 1. ''. ., ,� � , " . , I ', 1" : , ; ,�., �'- a270;,I,, "1.� 'I�I": 1"-,� ,,1,,,- ,,1I� �,I ,:-,.;� , . �; -; -32� 2 4- ' ,� I. ;. ,,�, �,�, ��1 -;� � .I , . . "I". � � I - � , I- , ::" : -Ir �-,� -,1,: ,,I; ,:,".� ;::.. �,, �,;� ��,:.�I:,�� .-:zI :, ,1"l ��.,,.I ".,l1"�- I:��I,I.: .� � , , . ,: �7� ,� !,.,: ,I ,; ,,,,_I ,..��'ll",�."!.-"�'ll�"-"''*"�.,".,�",� - , . .., , � , — :: -, ,, - ,. ;- ,;I,,.�-' ��."-I, �,, :�,I1 ,,, .,-I,,,:i l%,�II �, , � �" " ,� "�, �I ��;�:,� ,,, I� :,, ,. ,::" �,,, .,�.� ,�,,," -*I*� ,-I-I..- :�,II .1 �-,�� V,,,�,. -�. ..' I,:i ,�1. - EST ,-. 'I ,.. :, �:�� PP I,I� �1,I . . , -, ; �i ,��I�. :., - o.. - ,.� � I", ,-, �� ,�.. ��.`-� -1,- '11-��-- ,,",�� . - - , .. -� �,'I ,., - .��, ,11 -�� ,, - - , �:I :I I-� : .,, , ,, - 325 �� ,'�:I :I-",-I. ,,-,�I�, --: � , -"�, ,, .. ,. ., ,..I"! ,..I ,,_ ,I ., �:��I ��,, , " �, :,; 3 -:�,, �,,- �,,, ,,,'.,� � . �� ,, ,�� .I ,-, ", �,.I��I: ��,.- �*1,, .,1 �,.1� I,.:,, ,.-,- ��,I, :�-,- ,,�,,�: I-�-.-: ,"III .lII1 ,l".,� �:I,I ,1:,II1 1'. �,.-. �,:I" � ,-, � ;,. ,,,��1 ,,"; ,, ,,-i,.,I� ,,,, �� . ,�. , ,....�, ,,�.,� ,,:2 ,. ,��,-. ,:�� - .,.�_,i-1.: . , : , I 1 . I � :: .. ,— � .:- -��1-,. I,��-, -�� .�� ,,,,i �,..-:II , � , � � ,�� ,� ,- .e�..,,,�I I�, 1., ,,1- ,� �- .,�.,, d, �,, ,�:�� ,1:. ,I�,,,� I,1- , , , , .� . , � � :.,. "%"�,, ,-, .,, ,�:, ,�,- �,��.- ,..�, - i - .1!-� , ::" . , �I ' -- - - I ,:, ., , - � ,, :.,�I:�:.I-;I ,, -1'", ,� ,-"-:1:I,i ,;-,.-. ', I-�,.- ,-��. ,.�. ,,.�II �: .;'1I .:,1* I.Io� .,�1,� � -�., �� - s. .: � --I, �.-: I�,I�, ,.�. �,,I�- .,: ,�, �, � �, — - - :, ,. :,; �I ,,I-� :,,�� —,--,�, ,I,� ,�" ',�.I' .,�-,, I " � - ' 326 -, -�. ;,, .:,, "-. ,1"I� �-,�,"�, .I,, � - ,,-� ,-,. �, ',, Y,�� - ��-', ,, ,� ,:� , ,�I",--- , , ;� , ;,: ,,, , L -:", ', �-�l ,,��,1.I, �- -., �� .,.1,�,� ,�: �-,,., ,,I1I .I ,� ,1,�.� -I. Z.I-� , , , .- "�� ,. ,.-, ,- I,,% .322 Q �1 ,A ,,- ,:,. ,I� .%: ,:,, � - 11 .� ,-,,.,I ,,I�.I.,L . ,,, ,�, --" -�E ",.� �-� ,�:-1:: !.,-",1II,..I !11,�,- � - .:�, :- , . � � � �, ,�14 -,� "�.,1 ,-�I ,, .� ,, ,' ,��. ;� :��1,,� ,,11-� � ,-"�..;��1 ,I,, ,� ,,'q�,�I :�,�I,. EST, : ,, ,,;-; ,��,'� . " �.,t', , -�. 4 A. 50 I� �* , I ,,, � , �,f - .t. ,I.,�' I, "" '� 1, .-: :I,:, :��- �I::. -, ,", ,;' �-,:, ,: �. ', ,,-� ,I,-.�I�,,1 ,:,. :"�-"� ,, �:- ��. ,1.1I� ,�1. ,,,.I -I'� ,.I1:. I':,I'�LI, 1�� -,.. -,. ,-,� ".,-,1, i11: . :,- , . , , 1 - : .�",. � , ,: �� ,,� -I,: :, ,-:,4,, ., .,,, ,I :J, ,"7�, 1,�. *�, :. ,,-, ,� -�,- ,.,1:-�,I -,,I ,�:�, .I.:1, .�,,I�I: 1'.:I�I,, , , . I .� I ,, ,. ��:I;,- -,,�. ��.I,�" �,�1��: :, ,�� , ��-" �.-- , , .,,: �,�,'i �I",:�: f�: �:�I;� I , , , ,I�.I . . " , . - - , I,. . ,* - � ., 325 2 + \. 325.5 1 .- ,7! .1,-.1�: �:�� :II "I� ,�., '. .�I11 .II 1:.1 ;.'1 ,,�I1-. �% -1 ,: :,�- �� I ,1I,� "'",I�I ,-:-., ,,.IIi :�� ,I ,,,,I �!:,� ,�I' : ,�� ,,, , , --: ,�.� ,- 1,7, ��. ," .1. .�� ",�, ,� ,. ,, �.,: .1 -,I1 ,, �:-�. -�"� -,,:I ,I� ,�,,: ,,1, �,,: ,�I 1,�1 -,,I :,-�,j.. -,I �_ ,. , , " ... - ,,� , ' " ., ,� �1�� 1I. %�, :,�"� .,�,�� ,I:�I �: ,,d:�,� -.:.: "-', . �� , -., ' ,, ..�- -,: ,,,., �:!- � I .�. I: ,. r �, " �z 1� ,, "', ' ,- V_ ,-1��, ,, ", II ..I: �: .:: ,,,1,:.-," � : I, �,- --I.�r,.�:I , M i- �7* ;, .,- ��, I: I�,�- ,I ,.,II, ,,,1:� ��,�.� 1� , - , , 1, 1" ��,I�, t,, �� -� -.: -----�- . -, -� .,�.,� .I;- ', -�--,.�.,, -, - - - - 7 3253 :. �, ,,, ;: �, ! ,:, , ,,�� ,- . ,,�� :.J � , -":I "7 ,.I �1 ,".. -,"�- ��, ..I ,I ..,..� :�...i 23.55 . . , -�, 1.I �. - -, V " � .� : ,' ,, ,,,�I .I ,I I, ��:� -1 I� ,,� ':�- j: 1�I,. .I7,.: -IIII ��-�I �,,,,,�.,,-.- � — - ., �. , : �,.1- -. ,,,,, i,�,�I, . ��' , 1:l%; 1,�� T l : ,I �, �.", ,,. l log fence,' �!��I' ,, ;.. i� �, �,- ,, .� '�, ':!.f1- ",_ I�-I ,1:" . ,,,, 'I..I ,,,j., �"�i� ,�I.I , I , �, � :- ,�, :. ��, ,:I ,�-� I 320 Q �II ,1 �� ,�. �1.,1 ;1 �'i� , �*1�, - - - � - II - 320 . �:�:-- �,. -�,;.,,I I''I I�I , :, �, ,- . . -� "! ,.", ,.-, �- :. ,,,,I z..F: ,c�*- �..I�.1� -�.I -w.-1 � :320.5 �--I �! � � 320 0 �''. g I. �, ,I: ,I,,, 1 � 1, ,,- -, .� -, ,,,.: , "�- .;. :.�-, �::�,-.�.. �,� ,:�1"� ',-,: 1 ,.,II,:. -I I �I _I ; I 4 + 75 EST . 11 ,. "1 ,: : � � I P, ,��",,�, � , : .,, ,, .: !,I I,:. I, -� �� t�: �.7I�- ,,:-1, �,�,, I,.I .�,I I.— ,, ,� %,,, ,�-�II ',�-I,,��, ,1�,.,,..:,I1 1I .-,, ,,, ��' ,,I II..,, ,�' I,-�--,� .,.""-!7.I;,�,, , 1EST ,> �.I , I I � I , � , , � .1 � . ;, .1 �:',, .:: I� :�. ..I�,� :,' .. ,I .',� -�I�-I�I;, . �,, � -,. : �: ��, , , .i- ,-: , �:�, .� �,� ��, ,� 7�-,� ��,�I :1, ,I ,�,I �,I , ,: , . . -�: -,,:� 1. ,, ��1,I -I:, �I1 '.I, .,.1,,, '1Il,",, , � I1� . : � I!, �I I ,� .I pl �,: .. II .- ,., 1I �, remove '36' DE-,l , l." . I :, � ,.` o, ' ,� I"�-1 �� I, I�I ,.,. ,- .II: �- ,.I ,-- ,I:.:I :-. ��II� 4,I, �,. ,I �-� ,� �I'. .,�,,. .II I�:': -�, . , --.i , �,: .�, -I - I. :- '� l-.* .�, ��I %�- I,, -,��, 1, ,',. -,:I" ,,� :I, :,.-: ,. , � �, ! � ,- � , . -�--, :. -, ,:,..1�, "- -:�, ,--,p ,1�I1 .---',I � , , ��: ��,I :,1 l,1 II- I,.�I ��: -�,:.71 I --,, ; �I� ,�- .1I� :,I i �`--- e�, 3 4"3�: ,I , -. -,, � ,I -.- �,�, �.,,�: � ,1 �, ,I - � -1 ,I:; �; �1� - - . �- ,,I1I,,]:, -:: �,, . I - --- - : 11� I:" 1, ,I. �,,,;� 1I ��, �. l,II�_, �-�. .,-�I � ;, 325 1 ,,L,, .� .:1 1,'.: I. ",� ,�I�I :,. ,,1��; -� �- ,I . .,- �� I ,. ,,:,., �,,�4 . , 1, � -- -:1 1�. I,,: t:iI,! -i.--I ,I1II .-;, I"�� <!j/; I - i :� � - 1 I � III " �. -- ---z7 , , � � -. ,:,: : ,,I ��I I,.�- ��,, ��II,. I.I II I�. ,1�<� ,%:��1 1.II' ,�.I "I �:�I ,�I., 'II I�I 1-'l �,-I."- ' 319.6— -- "- .l: :,I ,I�� -I �,-,I ��.,-� "� 1. -�I:,-, . I I . I - � ," — --- �, �I .. ,- �;'I: ��. ,,PI �,,- ,-II ,,, .,�" -�,�" "`,,I��I 1,�1:1" ,,�, , � .* - �.d. ., --a , !. ,:�� .I :�,- ,.. -:, ,.I �.�1,I, 1,-I�:, ,I�I, . .'". �, " �, ,.� ::!�. -1.,-�- ,,-I, ",,1'1I ,,,' - � ,�I1 -Io :,,I'.,- I.�II,�,,� 1I�",I � , , . , ��. � 1 2 I ,, -, : , I I : l ,-:�, :I�,-It'I.I.,I4 1. I: 11�, I1.I I,,I- "� ,-1 ..�, ,-- I I1, I, ,,., �,:,— �,"��I-� � , .!I -, I . ,,* . �, ,l III ,%,1I ,:., ,-,I ,,,� �, � ,, i ,.,. -', -.:I,111.,;-�,,.Z ,, �:-. ,-I ,�I:,� ;I� ,.,1I I i I. ,�, ,p 11, 1`,I, ,� ,*,.: ��1,�I�': - .�-- ,—.�: . , , . : ' �, ��; ,, ��I I1,I. .��, �,,�,% 317:9 .� ,1'"�: 1I1 , , � , , , 313 7' '� ,. -�1 - ,. ,�, -1 , , � -I�,,,,��.�,: ,�:� ----- ; . , :,, I, -1,:, �-1,, I.,, I,I�,� -- _ -. I , i ! �I .. . " �, .. ,, .�% ,,I �I. ; '.I�' .,�I:,I; .-�,,�. EBT .� �,� .�, I��-I., :1, .:...:� �,1�, EST�:� -- � ,, .Iz � . - , I�, ,. .. 1,, :b ,�:I", ,.�, , --, 315 . � . :I .. ,�I �I ,� ,��,�� :�'4,,, ,�1,-,�-,. ,.1.-; �. , a, I� �: -�I�-,"1 :I�," .,:,: .,� :.— ,1, ,": :,,,.--, II 1�1-,: -: .I1I�I, .�� II', ,�� -�I'�,� .�c,.�,, � . . 1� I >; .. �, � �1, "�II,�.�,-..�II1 I ;� , � ,�, , ,, 4 , . �, , , �I�, �I..,� .,I , � , � .: :,.,I 5 + Oa I��,, �'. :,. I '� . � � , : :,I-��I-I. .. � , , 1� , :, I ,l ,,!� : :�I :, �� 1,I:-�� ,I ,-� ,I, ,',:.-1,.',� �� ,11..., 1,� �I 11I� ,1-:I 1II II .��II -I,. 1- :� ..�7 :�i. I :':,:,i;I"� �.II,��:, , ," : !I � , I I � 1,-,*I,� � , -� .� :� �, :��.� ., ' �� ,l- �I�� I. �l ,. II .., �I ,,,�� I lI" ,- :, � I : ��: , � :I � � 4. -I,. ;-, .- �I�I. ;. , I , �i �, I. ,,I � , :, . I - ,�� .� �, .I, .:i- ,- .,.-�� I . .� :: .I �. I�'I1��1.� - I . l� � �, " -I � , , .- � --- . . , � � � .I � ' ,I :1I-,-, -- �1 -1 ,�I, :�1 -.,I l. ��,.� . . , ,� - -- -- . �, I .t -I ,.. I��I� , , , ' I� - - - - , ,,� . ,1 ,� ,�, :. ,1 �I !�".. ,�4 ,. . � , � - ` 325 .� �., :�.-- - I "� ,�� I, ." --1�,,,Il�III�,1I.�II,� ��. �,, I: -�:,I.d;- .I.I I, , 321.7.. -� f ]I I : ,1, . "1; :�� .I..I �1 ..�,,1I �. ,-,,, ��,, II.-I�,,� ,,,� I ,,I �-�� ,I,. I-..��- I1,;lI*� ��""I,,.�-, � I I I - , �'.I II1 I-,. --�,-Z.', , I ; � , , -, :, -,: ��,,: :.I,,.,,-�, 1�I�. 1.I,- ,�l� ..�1 , , .1 ;11 :.I I:. �,.," ,�,�,. iII_ 7-� 7IIl:,I:.,I �. _7I I I , I4-�:.� �I ' ,I .1 1I�- .II. ,I.I .,II. ",1:� , -- ---_ �I ,- ,I...fi 1, I ! —_ _-- --- - .�,I. ,� I1I -1 I'-.:, —_ ' - 320 �: �I7� �,:I"��,, . , � : , ,, c �I; %� ,-, I� �-Il� � I �,I 1,�, �.-1� I : 31 :I,- .2 315.9 , ,- .., :�, .1 .:.1 1" II: II �,,, II,--� 1 I E ' I . , ," I�� I,�-�...-:,, T;' � EST . � 1. I.. .11I- II-, ,1�, , � ' `; ' :7I,,�: . :' 1 'I 1- ,1-I I:, .,I,�,I. ,,� - I I I. II�� I,� �� I� . " 1 - �� 1I ,I .,.I .::, :�, !1"- .l:,, I1�, I`, .I,1I �I,I, IIl,,,,I��. � 1 I � - ---------------------- I , � , I . I -�� - �1 I1I,� ,, �:� 1I1, I.�� .1-�:.I.":.-,�,,.l,-I ------------ . ' 1. � 1I�. . I ,j 1.I:, I�;�t. :, .1�-,, �,,,.,., :,I-, .,�,,1.�- : . - - - � , , :. I� �. �. :I "I eI1 :I" �I�.1 :- -lI, �,.�. :..-., I�---. .I,�,�-' �:I.�.,,,, � 315 1I II 1.I: 'I !.�� :� ,i,,, :II,.,,.: : , , � �I �� Ij, Ii-1 �,��,, ,�,",I.��.,�1,--,�I:' .:,.I�. I,-,,1 .1-;` I�,I ,I�'',�:'��,�� .,,� II,,. ,,I;., ,,,,. 1I�:,7 I��-.I. ,I.,,,I1: I- ��- .1,,,-�� I,'," I I I , , I�- 1 I I . :, I -.I , 1 ,I ` I 5+25 1 : . I :� Ir -I.-� II.." I %-;, �I .� I� II, ..II I. �� .,vI--: �1,�I �,'.-�.,. -'-��--1�"�-�I, I I . � .�"I , �: , � . . ��, . I'I 1 I1. I 1 ,� II � II' �I . - . " I. I . I� 1I�I -. ,.1- I,, 1..� ,,.,, ��I. I� I� 41� -�,� 1,,, ..,� ��.�� ,.,,, I1. . , ., 1 I - "� I-1 :,� 1, ". �1- I,, I�':, II�� ..�,,,,, iI, � , I, I .I. : �� II; .;, ,�1 -,,q�, 1,- II� I� II;:,:,-I1.I ., �, I-.- I.,I, 17 .::I �, I,,- I � I . 1 I 1- : I : �.: I1,:I �I1I � I .1 321.7 . I I " ,� -.�� 1.�-I I � . I I , . I : I 1,l, �� -I ��. I1,.�l, I"" �: ,�!, I�":- �-��,,-�-,.'I . , . .I% ,� �� : �, �.' .�I 1 � � I, I :I -- ----------------------- I1 , . =----'-___-'�----- .� I-1.�," -;:,,--":-I I , --- -== -----320 . ,, I: . I1 .I �-: II 315.3 .I �-�� —I,,;1. I�,� I I..EST 315.0 1,'. 1. II;.�: I,I-I,"-,:, . � ' 1I- �7. . , ,� . ,, II�I � , ;� EST 1.. I, ,11 1,�i -'�, 1: I , II I� II �; -.�..."- .�,-�;, . , -I , ., ,:'�: I.,� .�-, �;, �A� -- ----------- ,__ . � I I II I I I I1 II,, I,1!,, 1, - I I: I�, II7�I - - 315 � I- �,I ��,� I- ,.. , :-,, -I "- .;:, I.� 1 �.. -'� I�1I II� � � - ,� . � I 1.',I�.- I,�,,: I:- I, 1.,� .; ,I;; 1. I -- �, -' :,-� .,,,�,L .,,,, -" -.'�,, 1,., -.�--� I I ,:, . � , - rI � l I .", ,. -��,... -t --,I 1.l -:�,, ., .� � ,� __-__ 310. I t,., I � � "- I.,'�,.I I- I, ,',-:� �"14,: 11-. .-�I � � , II .,� 5+50 .. I: I.�,4 1" "� � .I, , -�, ,,,",1� �.,I -� ,, . , a� - .,, .�, III�-,; I�� I�� I� ,,:1�I I� I1 II:�, .I I.,,� I . , . I I .I, .. I I- I I� �,1 I1 ,,I,�:� �1-:l I�,. ,�,.,��: F�,�, :. .�., ,--:1,:. : ,� I , , . il- , ,, - , �. �,� �-,, ,,�, I;.,:, I!�,, � . I ,' " "�I--,,,�I1,, ,_ - 0 ,., ,;c .t.? I:: 1�,"� I�:, .,,,,' I,. :1-, i,, �,- .,, I��; .�� ,.,,,-, -,1,-"/, �!�.,�:., :,-� I.�I-�. 4��-111 I,,,.,,— —,7�,� I::.. I..�:; I�I; �� ."� ,Y i-�- I'-, 1� 1...I-,"�1�� I� ,,—� ,c!- I: ." I5 I� ,�:I ,1�"1 II;--�.:- I�1,:;� .1-.::I,: , . .. I I � - �I . I I , - � I,1I I, ,. , ... .-, , , 1� - . �'�, I-1�" " ".�� ,-, .,4:-� ,�. II�,�I �-- ,I,.�,� �.�-, -- .. ,I ,- -. :. ,-:.,1 � � ",I1 1. . � , , �� : ,;. , ,� ,,, ,: ,:,: ,, - -,l�, -�.1,,, :,:,.-�vI -:� ,: �:'� -11� ,-I ,::. ��I ,,��'.,,L .— � � � : �.-. ,,, , , :, - --,, .-" -1"�., ,, 42.' 2ilp- �6 � ., ;,. ..,*-�� ,I: 1,-,,� 11 1 ,1-,. -I 11 11 I I I - I � : I -I - ,.. ,.i �:', ,,,-, -� -- lI l ,. .1 , , : , . � -,. -.� ,l� ��, ,�,i �-," .c "" �I �% , % �,� , , ,, ,� 4 ,,!'� - , ,,�, . �:. 1, , ., � . - .11 tniti Rt , 'nl -.q �._ j _—) Re: Green Tara Incorporated and Phillip and Mariam Lehn's Appeal of the City's Street Widening Condition for GREENNESS, file # AP-96-21 Dear Mr. McConnell: Before addressing the substance of this appeal, a few clarifications, corrections and omissions need to be identified to better understand the "PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS." I received our copy of this report less than two days ago and regret that staff was unable to give us more time to prepare this response. L B. Our proposal is not as described in the Planning Division's Advisory Report. Our proposal, titled Option 3, is as described in our 2-20-96 letter to the Planning Division and as subsequently amended by our 2- 29-96 drawings. A copy (six pages) of our drawings which describe Option 3 is attached to this letter. . Since a copy of our drawings for Option 3 was also submitted to the City Engineer and discussed in detail during his meeting with me at the site on 2-29-96, logic compels me to presume that the very favorable comments made in his 3-12-96 memorandum to John Bissell refer to this design alternative. H. A. 2. a) (2) While properties to the north and west are not yet developed to their maximum density, our count of lots served by the street, which is identified in my 2-20-96 letter, includes all existing legal lots. H. C.1. a) (1) "UvtPRACTICAL AND PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE" I did not explain nor do I believe that the City's Street Standards would require the relocation of the steep driveways. In addition to the possible removal of several large trees and the certain installation of a large (approximately 10 foot high and 100 feet long) retaining wall, which is listed in the City's report, the demolition of an existing seventy-five foot long rockery, the removal of a massive amount of earth, the relocation of at least one and possibly two power poles and cable TV pedestals, and the elimination of much of a very useful gravel parking space is identified in my 2-20-96 letter but omitted in staffs report. EXHIBIT FILE NO. -� �' Ron McConnell i Hearing Examiner March 21, 1996 Page two (2) While stating "Staff does agree with the applicant that a road with less width could safely serve the development.", the following sentence needs clarification. The rockeries "proposed by the applicants" which "may create additional hazards along the road" are only needed if the City forces us to meet its inappropriate 25 / 24 foot wide street standard. Because Option 3 doesn't require any rockeries, a denial of this appeal would impose the hazard. While I believe the City Engineer intended to make this point, I feel his wording may cause some to misunderstand the nature of our proposal. OMISSIONS While including a copy of Meadowdale Beach Community Council President, Drew Wojtanik's 1-15-96 letter, the staffs report never mentions that the Council, which represents all property owners living along the street, voted unanimously to support our project and to oppose the City's street widening requirement. Yesterday I was informed that staff often receives such letters which do not always reflect the opinions of the people they claim to represent accurately. To eliminate any doubt about the accuracy of Drew's letter and the real attitudes of our neighbors, I wish to submit the attached petition which opposes the City's requirement and supports Option 3. This petition was signed by at least one and usually both owners of each property along the street with the exception of Art Haig who is recuperating from open heart surgery and who expressed his support for our project and opposition to the city's street widening requirement during our recent subdivision hearing.. The staffs report also fails to include Rich Haag's 2-26-96 letter to you supporting our design alternative and a copy of our drawings for Option 3 submitted to the City Engineer on 2-29-96. By erroneously presuming the City Engineer would convey a copy of the drawings to the Planning Division's general file without being specifically asked to do so, I feel largely responsible for this last omission. Yesterday I submitted a copy of our drawings for Option 3 to John Bissell, the Project Planner, and have attached another copy to this letter. While clearly the most inflexible and dysfunctional interpretation, staffs claim that there is no administrative relief available from the City Street Standards is not the only interpretation which can be drawn from the ordinance governing STREETS .AND DRIVEWAYS. As the introductory paragraph for the entire ordinance, Section 18.80.000, ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS can and should be interpreted to pertain to all standards listed throughout the chapter. While the subsections identify which state documents are adopted, the introductory paragraph subjects and integrates those same documents (state standards) to and with changes (city standards) made throughout the rest of the ordinance. Since the tests of practical and economic feasibility when reconstructing existing facilities are required in the ordinance's introductory paragraph and do not specifically exclude city standards or even differentiate city from state standards, they should apply to city as well as state standards. Because it is neither practical or economically feasible to reconstruct 72nd Avenue West in conformance with the city's street standards, our appeal should be granted. Ron McConnell Hearing Examiner March 21, 1996 Page three While the City Engineer claims his interpretation is based on the legislative intent of the former Council which enacted the ordinance, he offers no substantiating evidence. While the claim may or may not be valid, it would be more reasonable for staff to base their actions on the language of the ordinance itself rather than someone's subjective interpretation of what several Council member's intents used to be seven years ago. Even if the Engineering Division's very questionable interpretation of Section 18.80.000 is sustained, the City's Comprehensive Plan, which supersedes Chapter 19.80, contains policies which would be seriously violated if the Engineering Division is allowed to impose its street standards on our part of 72nd Avenue West. The Comprehensive Plan's Residential Development Policies: B.2. "Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures in the area," B.5.d. "Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc.," and B.6. "Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage." and Soils and Topography Policies: B.2. "Streets and access ways should be designed to conform to the natural topography, reduce runoff and minimize grading of the hillside.", and C.1.c. "Only minimal amounts of cut and fill on hillsides exceeding 15% slope should be permitted so that the natural topography can be preserved. " would all be violated if the City's Street Standards are imposed. CRITICAL AREAS ORIDEI ANCE Because the street is located in an environmentally sensitive area considered geologically hazardous because of its steep slopes and poor soil conditions, and because slides in the area have already been triggered by increases in the soil's water content, the very first goal of the City's INTERIM CRITICAL AREAS Ordinance, Section 20.15B.010.A, which seeks to "Protect members of the public, and public and private resources and facilities from injury, loss of life, property damage or financial losses due to flooding, erosion, landslide, seismic events, soils subsidence or steep slope failure. would also be violated by the unnecessarily large increase of impervious surface permanently imposed by a denial of this appeal. In his March 12 1996 memorandum, the City Engineer indicated that "there is justification for allowance of a smaller road for this particular short plat," "that a road with less width could safely serve the development," rockeries required by the city's standards "may create additional hazards along the road," that "Creating less road surface results in less storm water runoff." and "Since runoff from this area drains through the Meadowdale landslide hazard areas, storm water runoff reduction has significant benefits." and "The applicants proposal to widen to less than Street Standard requirements does not create sight distance hazards that could be improved by a wider roadway." 8 z 1 �r M 72 Philip &Mariam Lchn and Green Tara Inc File No. AP-96-21 Page 2 of 6 4. Review Process: Appeal of approval of a Short Subdivision, Hearing Examiner, conducts public hearing and makes final decision. 5.. Major Issues: a. Compliance width Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 18.80.010 (STREET STANDARDS). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) , Chapter 20.105 (APPEALS AND COURT REVIEW). B.'(Description of Proposal Philip & Mariam Lehn and Green Tara Inc: proposed to divide two, existing lots with a total lot area of approximately 76,109 square feet (1.75 acres) into 4 lots (see Attachment 4). The Engineering Division has required that the right-of-way of 72nd Avenue West be improved from 164th Street Southwest, north to the subject property (approximately 600 feet). The improvement includes widening the roadway to 25 feet for the southerly 200 feet, with the remainder of the roadway widened to 23 feet plus thickened edge for a total width of 24 feet. The appellant is proposing that the required roadway improvements be reduced to 20 feet for the southerly 125 feet of roadway, and 18 feet including thickened edges for the remaining length up to the subject subdivision site (see Attachment 2). C. Recommendations Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend denial of the appeal. The recomendation of denial of the appeal is based on the interepretaion made by the City Engineer that there is no administrative releif avalialbe from the City Street Standards. The interpretation by the City Engineer that there is no administrative ability to alter the requirements of the City Street Standards is based on City Council policy. II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Site Description 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Size: The total size of the subject property is. 76,109 square feet. The size of the proposed lots is: Net Sq., Ft. Gross Sq.1-1 Lot 1: 18,776.0 18,776.0 Lot 2: 16,145.5 16,145.5 Lot 3: 12,698.7 15,541.2 Lot 4: 12,752.0 14,546.0. (2) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed with a single-family residence. The applicant has applied to further subdivide the property into four (4) lots to allow the development of three (3) additional single-family residences (see Attachment 5). (3)Zoning: - The subject property is zoned RS-12 (single residential family with a minimum 12,000 square foot lot size requirement).(see Attachment 1). AP9621.DOC / March 18, 1996 / Staff Report , Philip & Mariam Lchn and Green Tara Inc File No. A.P-96-21 Page 3 of 6 r� (4) Terrain Wand, VWgetation: The subject property slopes down from 72nd Avenue West to the west, with some section sloping steeply and thus identified as critical areas.. The existingvegetation is a mixture of mature and older fruit trees, %. ornamental vegetation and native trees and shrubs. x 2: Neighboring Development And Zoning: a} Ems: ? (1) The adjacent properties to the north, south, east, and west and are currently zoned as, single-family (RS-12 and RS-20) (see Attachments 1). (2) The adjacent properties to the east, north, and south are currently developed with single-family homes. The properties to the north and to the west are not developed to the maximum density, leaving a considerable amount of open space in the vicinity. . & H1stor' y .. 1. a.) Facts: (1) The following is a chronological account of the development of the property located at 16202 72nd Avenue West.. The purpose is to clarify what development has taken place on the property, as well as outline the appeals that have taken place. (a) September 27, 1995 Philip & Mariam Lehn and Green Tara Inc. applies for a 4-lot short plat. (b) January 19, 1996 Staff conducted a public hearing on the proposed 4- lot short plat. The Hearing Officer approved the short plat with the conditions from the Engineering Division noted on Attachment 4 of the Preliminary Review of the Proposed Short Subdivision (see Attachment 5). (c) February 20, 1996 Appellant files an appeal of the City of Edmonds decision approving with conditions the Philip & Mariam Lehn and Green Tara Inc. 4-lot short plat (see Attachment 2). C. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance 1. a.) Facts: The following is a review of the appellants issues, comments of the City Engineering Division and staff comments. (1) APPELLANT COMMENTS GENERAL OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CONDITIONS, The appellant explains that 72nd Avenue West north of 164th Street Southwest is approximately 600 feet long, with an 18 foot wide near the southern intersection, and an 1 i foot wide roadway width at its northern end. Near the streets mid point there are two steep driveways with slopes of 27% and 17% which will interfere in the development of the roadway. IMPRACTICAL AND PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE. The appellant explains that the required design would require the removal of several large trees, the installation of a large retaining wall, and the relocation of the steep driveways. BUSIEST THROUGH STREETS VS. OUR DEAD END STREET The appellant explains that the street standards apply to all streets in the City of A.P9621.DOC ! March 18,19967 Staff Report `V Philip & Mariam L.ehn and Green Tara Inc File No. AP-96-21 Page 4 of 6 Edmonds, and no distinction is made between the through streets and the dead end streets, The appellant believes that dead end streets should have different standards from the standards of through streets. MORE STREET MEANS MORE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE The appellant explains that the soils in the neighborhood can be destabilized by . additional storm water runoff. The applicant also believes that the additional roadway required by the City would increase the impervious surface and thus increase the storm water runoff. SECTION 18.80.000 The appellant explains that he believes the Engineering Division has the authority to alter the street standards because ECDC section 18.80.000 states "The reconstruction of existing facilities shall conform to the standards as closely as is practical and economically feasible "(see Attachment 2). (2) . ENGINEERING COMMENTS: "This memo is intended to further clarify the Engineering Division position on application of ECDC Chapter 18.80 to Short Plat S-95-163. The first section of code within Chapter 18.80, ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, establishes documents that the City adopts. The adopted documents are "Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction", amendments to the "Standard Specification for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction", "General Special Provisions" and "City Design Standards". All of these documents are produced by the State of Washington." "ECDC section 18.80.000 states "All new public works construction shall conform to the standards contained in these documents." The next line states "The reconstruction of existing facilities shall conform to the standards as closely as is practical and economically feasible." The standards referred to are the standards found in the state produced documents the City adopts. Nothing in this section of code gives staff the ability to waive any requirement found in the Edmonds Community Development Code. Developments are required to meet the standards found in ECDC section 18.80.010." "The staff interpretation of this code section is based in part on our understanding of the intent the City Council had when this code was last adopted. Council did not intend to grant staff the ability to waive street width or right-of-way requirements" "Staff believes there is justification for allowance of a smaller road for this particular short plat. However, I [James Walker] do not believe there is any justification to reconsider the interpretation of ECDC section 18.80.000 which provides no waiver from Street Standard requirements ... The City and County Design Standards are generally intended for use on streets with more than 400 vehicle trips per day. The City's street standards were obviously intended to apply to low volume and Dead End streets since the Table of Street Standards applies to streets with less than 15 lots or units and includes Dead End requirements." "Staff does agree with the applicant that a road with less width could safely serve the development. The rockeries proposed by the applicant in his preliminary road improvement plans may create additional hazards along the road." "Creating less road surface results in less storm water runoff. Since runoff from this area drains through the Meadowdale landslide hazard areas, storm water runoff AP9621 MOC 1 March 18,1996 / Staff Report . Philip & Mariam Lehn and Green Tara Inc File No. AP-96-21 Page 5 of 6 reduction has significant benefits." "The Street Standards require road improvements without regard to alignment of the right-of-way or topography. The applicants proposal to widen to less than Street Standard requirements does not create sight distance hazards that could be improved by a wider roadway" (see Attachments 3 and 4). 2. Conclusions: (1) The design proposed by the appellant would not create any adverse impact to the adjacent properties or the traffic in the vicinity. (2) The design proposed by the appellant would create safer conditions for slope stability and driveway slopes in the immediate vicinity. (3) According of current policy and code interpreattions, there is no administrativexeleif aValialbe from the City Street Standards. (4) The interpretation by the City Engineer that there is no administrative ability to alter the requirements of the City Street Standards is based on City Council policy. CONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS III. RE The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. Request for Reconsideration Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. D. Appeals Section 2O.1O5.02O.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. IV. APPENDICES Attachments 1 through 6 are attached. I. Vicinity / Zoning Map 2. Letter of Appeal submitted by Philip & Mariam Lehn and Green Tara Inc. 3. Memorandum dated March 12, 1996 from Jim Walker, City Engineer. 4. Memorandum dated March 18, 1996 from Jim Walker, City Engineer. 5. Final Review of Proposed Short Subdivision File No. S-9542 with exhibits including the preliminary recomendation attached as Exhibit A of Attachment 4 6. ECDC section 18.80.000 AP9621.DOC / March 18, 1996 / Staff Report C a j t636 w: PERMIT COUNTER n . -r• February 20, 1996 City ofEdmonds Planning Division 250 - 5th Ave. N., , Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Appeal of Engineering Division's Street Widening Condition for GREENNESS 5- RS - l" . :. To whom it may concern: £ Green Tara incorporated (GT1) and my wife Mariam and 1, along with the unanimous support of our neighbors, wish to appeal the Engineering Division's street widening condition for, GREENNESS and.have attached copies of the following foi your consideration. 1. Correspondence: 1. 2-20-96 Appeal of Engineering Division's Street Widening Condition 2. Meadowdale Beach Community Councirs 1-15-96 letter to James Walker 3. Phillip Lehn's 12-5-95 letter to James Walker 4. James Walker's 11-22-95 letter to Phillip Lehn 5: Phillip Lehn's 11-17-95 letter to James Walker 6. James Walker's 1-16-95 letter to Allard Russell and Grace LaRose 11 Documentation: 1. Notarized Adjacent Property Owner List, 2. Vicinity Map, V =1 Mile 3. Topographic Survey of Vicinity, 1" = 200' 4. Color copies of 24 photographs of the street initially submitted 1-9-95 . 5. Photographic reduction of our Proposed Site Plan for GREENNESS 6. Half and full scale copies of 11-17-95 Plans, Profiles and Cross Sections A Option l: 25 8. Wide Street B. Option 2: 25 - 16 8. Wide Street Respectfully, t Phillip Lehn, Architect cc: Paul Mar, Director of Community Services, James Walker, City Engineer, John Bissell, A1CP - Associate Planner, Drew Wojtanik, President MBCC, Rich Haag, Fellow ASLA, David Dougherty,'P.E., Max Meyring GREEN TARA INCORPORATE ATTACHMENT 16202 - 72nd Avenue.West Edmonds, WA99026 Telephone and File ' No. AP-96-21 r f +_... February 20, 1996 City of Edmonds Planning Division 250 - Sth Ave. N., Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Appeal of Engineering Division`s Street Widening Condition for GREENNESS To whom it may concern: RECEIVED PERMIT COUNTER S-as- 1'63 On February 5, 1996, the City's Planning Division approved GREENNESS, a short subdivision of two lots into four lots plus a common recreational parcel. Because the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) requires that ten or more lots be served by a twenty-five foot wide street (22 feet of pavement plus 3 feet of curbs and gutters), and because the two, newly created lots raise the total ultimately served to twelve, the Engineering Division originally required 72nd Avenue W immediately north of 164th Street SW to be widened to 25 feet throughout its entire, 600 foot length. Since the street is dead ended and only a small part of it will ever serve ten or more lots, the City Engineer later allowed the requirement to be reduced to 25 feet for its first 200 feet and 23 feet (24 feet with thickened edges instead of curbs and gutters) for its last 400 feet. However, because City's street standards are based on the more intensive types and much higher amounts of traffic experienced by through streets, it would still be unreasonable and inappropriate to impose even this reduced requirement on our quiet street, which will always remain dead ended. While appreciated, the reduction is obviously too small to make much difference and Green Tara Incorporated (GTI) and Mariam and I (the applicants) along with the Meadowdale Beach Community Council (MBCC), which represents all property owners living along the street, are united not only in our strong opposition to the Engineering Division's street widening requirement but also in our support of GREENNESS and our more appropriate design alternative for the street (Option 3). Because of the difficult site conditions along the street, compliance with the City's requirement will not only be technically impractical, functionally inappropriate, and aesthetically undesirable, it may also be prohibitively expensive. Useful space would be forever lost to make way for an unreasonably wide expanse of asphalt which would likely serve no other purpose than to encourage some to drive more recklessly. Massive amounts of soil would have to be excavated, exported and retained, at least one and possibly two power poles and cable TV standards would need to be relocated, a seventy five foot long rockery would need to be demolished and rebuilt, and, depending on the alignment allowed, several mature trees may need to be destroyed, all to create just two additional lots. Given the practical limitations and unusually high cost of complying with the City's street widening requirement, the test of practical and economic feasibility, prescribed in ECDC Section 18.80.000 ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, which neither differentiates nor excludes City standards, should enable the Engineering Division to reduce the requirement more substantially. Unfortunately, while the City Council is currently revising the code to enable the Planning and Engineering Divisions to exercise more discretion in their interpretations of it, the Engineering Division continues to be influenced and bound by the previous City Council's unwritten and unexplained interpretation of Section 18.80,000, which includes State standards but excludes City standards when applying the prescribed test of practical and financial feasibility. While sympathetic with our complaints, criticisms and design alternative, the City's Director of Community Services was recently advised by the City Attorney that the Engineering Division does not have the authority to reduce the City's street widening requirement and that our best, if not only recourse is to appeal the requirement. In encouraging us to file an appeal, the Director also said the Engineering Division would be willing to write a technical report supporting it. Therefore, despite the considerable additional cost of time and money to ourselves and project, Green Tara Incorporated and Mariam and I, along with all of our neighbors, formally appeal the City's very coarsely conceived street widening requirement as well as the Engineering Division's exclusion of City standards in its application of the previous City Council's interpretation of ECDC Section 18.80,000. City of Edmonds Appeal February 20, 1996 Page two GENERAL OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 72nd Avenue W immediately north of 164th Street SW is approximately 600 feet long, 18 feet wide near its southern intersection and 11 feet wide at its northern end. Near the streets midpoint, two driveways, with grades of 27% and 17% (the City's recommended maximum is 14%) are located approximately 17 feet across the street from a steep, ten foot high embankment. North of the street's last driveway lies a very steep drainage ravine which will forever prevent the street from connecting to North Meadowdale Beach Road and becoming a through street. South of its intersection with 164th Street SW, 72nd Avenue W is a 22 foot wide through street and east of 72nd Avenue W, 164th Street. SW is a 32 foot wide through street until it begins to curve down to its main through street feeder, N Meadowdale Road, where it narrows to slightly less than 18 feet. Since ECDC makes no distinction between through and dead ended streets, the City's street standards must serve the "worst case" or most intense circumstances which in this instance would be through street traffic. There are many obvious differences between through and dead ended streets which cause them to experience different amounts and types of traffic. A through street serving at least ten lots (the minimum requiring a 25 foot wide street) not only serves the traffic generated by each of the ten lots moving in both directions, it also serves to connect many more lots in both directions beyond the original ten. Normal vehicular demand on a dead ended street is significantly less. Only those few lots at the end use most of the street to travel in both directions and no lots beyond those already located on the street ever use a dead ended street to get anywhere else. Because all incoming traffic must inevitably stop, speeds are generally slower and safety higher, particularly on relatively short, dead ended streets such as 72nd Avenue W. Since the street will never experience the regular intensity of traffic upon which the City's through street standards are based (i.e. through streets serving commercial as well as residential districts with 10 - 15 or even more lots), our dead ended part of 72nd Avenue W can continue to be adequately served by a much narrower street. IMPRACTICAL AND PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE Compliance with the City's street widening requirement will cause us all to suffer costs which will far outweigh any possible benefit. To help you understand the anticipated impact, I have attached photographs, dated January 8, 1995, and the plans, profiles and cross sections of both Options 1 and 2 (please see my November 17, 1995 letter to James Walker describing both options). The following description divides the street into three, 200 foot segments (numbers in parentheses refer to the attached photos). The first segment, 0+00 through 2+00 (1-6 & 23-24), narrows from 18 to 16 feet in width. It is bordered by an 8 to 11 foot wide shoulder and seventeen, mature Douglas Firs (twelve have approximately 16" diameters) to the west and a drainage swale, a steep, 10' high embankment, several mature trees, a power pole and a cable TV standard to the east. If the street is aligned with the centerline of the right-of-way, as shown on Option 1, a tremendous quantity of earth would need to be excavated, exported and retained, the power pole and TV standard would need to be relocated and several mature trees, (now buffering a house and beautifying the street) would need to be destroyed. While Option 2 would eliminate the utility relocations and significantly reduce the amount of excavation along this segment by aligning the street further west, it would not eliminate excavation altogether. A wall and shy distance, while not shown, would likely be needed near station 1+00 and by shifting the street's alignment further west, the now parkable shoulder next to the row of Douglas Firs would be eliminated. The second segment, 2+00 through 4+00 (7 -8 & 15 -22), narrows from 16 to 15 feet in width. It is bordered by a terraced garden, a fire hydrant, a sports court, and the two, steep (27% and 17%) driveways on the west. The east side is bordered by a narrow drainage swale to a 12" round GP invert, a steep, 10 foot high embankment and rockery, a power pole, and a cable TV standard. The dashed line immediately north of station 2+00 indicates the point where nine or less lots are served by the street. Because the two driveways on the west are already too steep, an enormous amount of earth would need to be excavated, exported and retained to carve a 23 foot width plus shy distance and rockery out of the steep embankment across the street. The existing, approximately seventy five foot long rockery would need to be demolished and reconstructed. The power pole and cable TV standard would need to be relocated and much of the existing gravel parking area on the east side would need to be eliminated. City of Edmonds Appeal February 20, 1996 Page three The last segment, 4+00 through 5+93 (9-15) bends to the east before connecting to the last two driveways and narrows from 15 to 11 feet in width. It is bordered by GREENNESS, a few mature trees, including a 36" Douglas Fir, and two water meters on the west and a raised planter, a cable TV standard, two power poles and a couple of mature trees on the east. While the fewest number of houses would ever use much less need a 23 foot width plus shy distance and rockery along this last segment of the dead ended street, the greatest volume of earth would need to be excavated, exported and retained here to satisfy the City's requirement. When added to the project's other required costs, the street widening requirement makes the project's financial feasibility very doubtful. While there was enough property to create three new lots, GTI decided it would be aesthetically more desirable to create only two. Given the property's original cost, length and cost of the design and regulatory review process to date, the cost of project financing, the anticipated cost of providing the new 600 foot plus water main and hydrant required by the Fire Marshal, and the development's 320 foot long private driveway, detention pond, and utility infrastructure, compliance with the street widening requirement should almost certainly make the project prohibitively expensive. SECTION 18.80.000 Because ECDC Section 18.80.000, ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS states, "The reconstruction of existing facilities shall conform to the standards as closely as is practical and economically feasible", and does not specifically differentiate or exclude City standards, we believe the Engineering Division already has justifiable grounds to further reduce the street widening requirement more substantially. However, while not specifically defined as such in the code, the Engineering Division says that it was the previous City Council's intent to interpret the word "standards" to mean only State standards and not City as well as State standards. We question the purpose as well as the validity of such a narrow interpretation. If it is considered reasonable and appropriate to hold State standards to the test of practical and economic feasibility when reconstructing existing facilities, why shouldn't City standards be held to the same test? According to the City Engineer, the current City Council is currently revising the ECDC to permit the Planning and Engineering Divisions to exercise more discretion when making technical interpretations of the code. Since the Engineering Division's interpretation of Section 18.80.000 is not literally prescribed by the code, since the current City Council expects the Engineering Division to exercise more discretion when interpreting the code, and since all the neighbors who live on the street are unanimously opposed to having their street widened in accordance with the City's inappropriate standards, we believe the Engineering Division has sufficient grounds to break from its unnecessarily restrictive interpretation of Section 18.80.000 and render a more reasonable judgment based on sound engineering principles. BUSIEST THROUGH STREETS VS. OUR DEAD ENDED STREET After preparing and submitting Options 1 and 2, we discovered that both Meadowdale Beach Road and 76th Avenue W (between Meadowdale Beach Road and North Meadowdale Road), two of our neighborhood's most intensely traveled through streets, are only 20 feet wide and have no curbs and gutters or thickened edges. While we understand that it's generally unacceptable to advocate the perpetuation of non -complying standards, the discovery compels us to question the validity of those standards. If 20 feet works for Meadowdale Beach Road and 76th Avenue W, why must our quiet, dead ended street be 25 feet or even 23 feet anywhere? MORE STREET MEANS MORE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE Because some of our neighborhood's soils can be destabilized by increased infiltration of storm water runoff, the City's Engineering Division is believed to be more concerned with controlling storm run off and limiting the amount of impervious surface added than it is with widening the street. Compared to our current design alternative (Option 3), the City's 25 to 23 foot street widening requirement would significantly increase the added amount of impervious surface by approximately 3,200 square feet. White individual neighbors have different reasons for their positions, we all share the conviction that the City's street widening requirement would be inappropriate, unnecessary, unreasonable, and ultimately wrong for our neighborhood. We are also convinced that the large sum of money which would otherwise be wasted on street widening would be better invested improving the quality of GREENNESS and thereby the neighborhood itself. OPTION 3 After discovering that both Meadowdale Beach Road and 76th Avenue W (between Meadowdale Beach Road and North Meadowdale Road), two of our neighborhood's most intensely traveled through streets, are only 20 feet wide and have no curbs and gutters or thickened edges, we decided to reduce the first 125 feet of our previously preferred option (Option 2) from 25 to 20 feet including thickened edges. The existing eastern edge of this segment of the street would be thickened and approximately 2 feet of additional width, including a thickened edge, would be added to the streets west side. From station 1+25 to station 2+00, where the street will serves nine or less lots, the street's new western edge would angle back to the existing edge. From this point the street would maintain a 16 foot overall width including thickened edges until north of the steep driveways. By adding to its west side, the street would be widened to an 18 foot overall width, including thickened edges, north of station 3+25. GTI is currently preparing a plan, profile and cross sections of Option 3 which we plan to submit for your consideration within the next two weeks. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this appeal. . Respectfully, Phillip Lehn, Architect cc: Paul Mar, Director of Community Services, James Walker, City Engineer, John Bissell, AICP - Associate Planner, Drew Wojtanik, President MBCC, Rich Haag, Fellow ASLA, David Dougherty, P.E., Max Meyring GREEN TARA INCORPORATED 16202 - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Telephone and Facsimile: 206-742-6813 i fir; e� C� MEADO`YVDALE BEACH COMMUNITY COUNCIL RECEIVED January 15, 1996 F E B 2 0 199G PERMIT COUNTER James C. Walker, RE. City Engineer, City of Edmonds Community Services Department, Engineering Division 250 - 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Proposed widening of 72nd Avenue West, north of its intersection with 164th Street SW as a result of a proposed lot subdivision and development by Mr. Phillip Lehn Dear Mr. Walker. This Ietter is being submitted on behalf of the Meadowdale Beach Community Council (MBCC). The MBCC wishes to voice it's support for Mr. Lehn, and Green Tara Incorporated's (G'T1} proposed subdivision of the site located at 16202 72nd Ave. West in Edmonds, and, further, to voice our str�,,,on�, opposition to the potential street widening requirement for 72nd Ave. West north of the intersection of 164th St. SW. On January 91h, 1996, the MBCC met to hear a presentation by Mr. Philip Lehn, who was representing GTI, regarding their proposal to further subdivide the subject site area to a total of four lots. ImediateIy subsequent to our meeting, MBCC members had received the City of Edmonds Notice of Public Hearing announcement for the Planning Division's scheduled public hearing January 19, 1996 (file no. SA5-163). During this meeting Mr. Lehn made a very professional presentation to Council members, complete with a "to scale" mock-up model of the site location itself, architectural drawings of his proposed "Option 1" and "Option 2" dealing with the proposed street widening, and copies of his written correspondence between he and the City of Edmonds Community Services Department regarding the street issue itself. Based on the information as he presented it before the MBCC, we wish to make it known that we, as a council, offer our unanimous support for the proposed subdivision and building project. However, we stand united as well in our opposition to the City ordered street widening modifications being imposed on the project. In our opinion, Option 1, to widen the street to a full 25' was/is a totally inappropriate and impractical expectation. This opinion is based on the existing (and even potential increased) traffic volume on the street and the extremely undesirable modifications which would result to our existing neighborhood not to mention the incredible cost which would have to be borne by GTL f us , We understand from your letter of November 22,1995, to Mr. Lehn that you have "relaxed" your enforcement, of thesi rigid standards to 23' for that , area of the street north of the first 200' immediately north of the intersection with 164th Street SW This hardly seems like much of a cations t e extensive engineering modff ' vet the neighborhood of h relaxation: at all- and will not retie h g (i.e., removal of existing trees, excavation of huge amounts of a bank, rebuilding of a rackety, etc.). We find this expectation totally unacceptable, unwanted, and seemingly unnecessary. We understand from our January 9th meeting that Mr. Lehn may further modify his "Option 2" to reduce the first 20V to 29 (vs 25) and retain the 16 for the remaining distance north on the road, therefore we will comment on his anticipated change. MBCCjy. supports this approach and appeals to the City to use its good judgment in granting this request. Even with the additional traffic resulting from Mr. Lehn's lot development, the volume just doesn't justify the need to meet imposed street widening standards that were obviously developed with situations other than this in mind. Therefore, the MBCC request the City Planning Department to research the historic development of the existing Edmonds Community Development Code 18.80.000 to understand the actual reasons for adoption of the existing code standards to see if this situation address the intentof those criteria and question whether the code truly is applicable and appropriate. Finally, members of the MBCC will attend the January 19th Public Hearing. MBCC reserves the right to withdraw this letter of support/objeciion based on information presented differing from what we currently understand are the facts in this case. Sincerely, Drew Wojtanik President, Meadowdale Beach Community Council EADO�1D L E BEACH CO14f�1'Zl�I�' CC?2191�CI.L Wilie Wellington * 7109164th St SW. 743-3641 :. 3: Ruby Wellington Jim Nagai 16318 71 PI W 787-6161 4. Dianne Briggs Arthur & Martha Haig * 16222 71 Pt W 742-7707 t " 5. 6. John &Pam Connors :, John & d'EIaine Johnson * 16220 70 PL W 16122 72 Ave W 743.6817 743-2902 ` 7. Phil &: Mariam Lehn * 16202 72 Ave W 742-6813 8. 9.. (Lot) Phil Lehn Michael & Linda Duffy * 16238 72 Ave W 742-0804 10. Drew & Linda Wojtanik * * 16306 72 Ave W 16330 72 Ave W 742-9287 742-0242 11. 12 Dave &Kathy Wells r Rita Stillings * 16342 72 Ave W 743-3576 13.. Scott & Joyce Wright * 7211 164th St SW 745-9440 * COMMUNITY COUNCIL INVITEES 1/14/96 6 .......... .... -............... ....... 7 13 11 8 14 12 i0 lot 72rtd, Ave W 1 2 . 3 A 5 .:: 6 4 ................. S .. 'fit ........ ,..-.. _. := i December 5, 1995 James C. Walker, P.E. City Engineer, City of Edmonds Community Services Department, Engineering Division 250 - 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 F E 9 i99a PERMIT COUNTER Re: Proposed modification of the City's requirement to widen 72nd Avenue West north of its intersection with 164th Street SW. Dear Jim: While I personally appreciate your decision to permit us to reduce our overall street width from 25 to 23 feet north of station 2+00, the modification is too small to either win the neighbors support or have much effect on the condition's harmfully high cost. Since Section 18.80.000, titled "ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS", does not specifically exclude the street standards of Section 18.80.010, why should they be interpreted differently? If it is considered reasonable and appropriate to hold the standards of Section 18.80.000 to the test of practical and economic feasibility when reconstructing existing facilities, why shouldn't the standards of Section 18.80.010 be held to the same test? It is now apparent that there is a discrepancy between the City's 5-20-93 illustrated handout titled "Street Standards" which lists the required pavement width for 3• - 9 potential lots at 16' - 20' and the. ECDC's 6-30-89 "TABLE OF STREET. STANDARDS" which lists the required pavement width for 5 - 9 lots at 20'. While this discrepancy cost us over a month of time and several thousands of dollars, it did prompt us to evolve a more meaningful and appropriate design for our quiet, dead ended street. Given the limited traffic ever to be served by the street, we continue to believe that a 16 foot width, including thickened edges, north of 2+00 would not only be safe, but also much less intrusive and allow us to spend more of our limited resources where they're really needed to improve the quality of the development. Jim Walker December 5,1995 Page two When I originally asked for your guidance• in resolving the conflicts posed by the street's meandering alignments, high embankments and steep driveways, you told me it wasn't your responsibility to the design the street. You said the street had to be 25 feet wide and the only way you could permit us to deviate from that standard was for us to document a, "technical justification" which would demonstrate how one standard (street width) would violate another (20% maximum grade for a driveway). Since the grades of two driveways on the street's east side (now 8.3% and 10%) would not exceed the City's 20% maximum allowable grade if the 23 foot street width you now feel compelled to impose is measured from the existing edge of the two steepest driveways (now 17% and 27%) on the street's west side, compliance with the City's standard is not impossible, at least not technically. I presume you have therefore concluded that the technical justification you feel is needed to modify the requirement does not exist and, since the Department does not ordinarily apply the test of practical or economic feasibility to its street standards, you feel you must impose them, at least at this juncture, regardless of how unreasonable and inappropriate they may be. Since an appeal of your position, which will be long and costly for the City as well as for us, may be unavoidable, we would like to know first, if you can support our appeal and second, if you and Paul Mar, Director of Community Services, are willing to review the circumstances with me and our Civil Engineer, David Dougherty, to see if it is possible for us to agree upon a plan which permits us to avoid the appeal process altogether? During our November 17 meeting you said you didn't like rockeries or the curving alignment of our 25 foot wide option but stopped short of prohibiting them altogether. Since, your position on these matters directly affects our ultimate cost, the amount of excavation and the length and height of all required rockeries or retaining walls, we and our neighbors would like to know your position on these matters as soon as possible. I While saying "The Street Standards have always been intended to apply to dead end street sections," you don't explain why. Do you really believe dead ended streets experience the same amount and type of traffic as thru streets or, are you following the dictates of an inadequately conceived code which fails to make the critical distinction? Since our dead ended street will never be a thru street and will always experience significantly less traffic than a thru street of the same length and number of lots, don't you think it's reasonable and appropriate to apply a different standard? In walking around the neighborhood during the past few days, I've measured a few street widths and have discovered that both Meadowdale Beach Road and 76th Avenue West, clearly two of our busiest thru streets, are only twenty feet wide near our neighborhood and have no curbs and gutters or even thickened edges. While I understand that it's generally unacceptable to advocate the perpetuation of non- complying standards, my discovery compels me to question the validity of those standards. If 20 feet works on Meadowdale Beach Road and 76th Avenue West, why must our quiet, dead ended road be 25 feet or even 23 feet anywhere? Is it Possible that we've allowed ourselves to be footed into believing that a critical safety need exists when it in fact doesn't? Is it really so desirable or even necessary to have so much of our land covered with asphalt? cc: Paul Mar, Director of Community Services Department Gordon Hyde, Engineering Coordinator John Bissell; AICP - Associate Planner, City of Edmonds David Alskog; Uvengood, Carter, Tjossem, Fitzgerald and Alskog David Dougherty; Site Development Services Max Meyring; Meyring and Associates GREEN TARA INCORPORATED - 16202 - 72nd Avenue West • Edmonds, WA 98026 - 206-742-6813 CITY OF EDMi 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS. WA 96 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPAF Public Works • Planning • Parks November 22, 1995 Phil Lehn .16202 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 SUBJECT: Dear Phil: The section of code you reference in your Noven staff the authority to waive street standards. The STANDARD SPECTMATIONS " The reconsti standards as closely as is practical and economic. documents listed in section 18.80.000 (Standard Construction, General Special Provisions, Washi Street Standards found in section 18.80.010. NDS I • (206) 771-6220 r FAX (206) 771-0221 d Recreation • Engineering !AURA M. HALL MAYOR RECEIVED F E 8 2 0 1996 PERMIT COUNTER 17,1995 letter has not been interpreted to allow ement in the ECDC 18.80.000 ADOPTION OF Dn of existing facilities shall conform to the feasible." applies to the standards in the ;ifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal in State "City Design Standards", etc.) and not the i As mentioned at our meeting on November 17, 1.995, the standard width for the street changes to twenty feet and not sixteen feet when less than tin lots access the road. The City policy has always been to avoid the narrowing of a roadway along! its length. However, in this case, we could agree to an eleven foot wide lane northbound and a nine foot lane southbound, which changes to eleven feet near station 2+00 on your preliminary plan. Aaly further street width reduction would need to be based on conflicting code requirements, such as not being able to maintain driveways at less than 20% at the required road width. The Street Standards have always been intended to apply to dead end street sections. Streets may be required to meet higher standards than those listed in the ECDC section 18.80.010, but developers are not required to bear the costs.i Please call me or Gordy Hyde at 771-0220 if yotj have any questions. Sincerely, �ax e . *4(.& JAMES C. WALKER, P.E. City Engineer JCW/sf c: Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator 72WIDTH.DOC ' • incorpora�,natjorkaj ed August 11, 1890 + Sister Cities tnte -- Hekinan, Japan RECEIVED - y FEB 2 0 1996 RMIT COUNTER November 17, 1995 James C. Walker; P.E. City Engineer, City of Edmonds Communi,y Services Department, Engineering Division 250 - 5th Avenue N. Edmonds', WA 98020 Re: Proposed waiver of the City's requirement to widen 72nd Avenue West to 25 feet north of its intersection with 164th Street SW. Dear Jim: As you know Green Tara Incorporated (GTI) hopes to- subdivide two existing lots to create just two new lots. Because the dead ended street to our property already serves eleven lots and the City's standard width for commercial as well as residential streets serving 10 to 15 lots is. 25 feet, the City is requiring GTI to widen apparoximately 600 feet of 72nd Avenue West to a uniform width of 25 feet. Because two existing. driveways, which already exceed the City's maximum allowed grade, are only sixteen feet away from an 8- foot high embankment and rockery on the other side of the street, it will be impossible to comply with the City's street widening requirement without suffering prohibitively high costs. Added to the Fire Marshal's requirement to provide a new hydrant and water main (over 600 feet of 8 inch ductile pipe), the costs associated the the City's requirement to widen the street to 25 feet clearly jeopardizes the project's economise feasibility. In accordance with section 18.80.000 of the City's Community Development Code which stones, "The reconstruction of existing facilities shall conform to the standards as closely as is practical 'and economically feasible", we believe the City has justifiable cause to revise if not waive its' street widening requirement altogether. To help us find an economically feasible way to satisfy the City's conflicting standards governing the width of streets and the maximum grade for private driveways, GTf is submitting along with this letter, full and half scale plans and sections of two different options for widening 72nd Avenue West. in accordance with the. City's conditions, Option 1 maintains a constant width of 22 feet plus 3 feet for thickened edges (25 feet total) frorjn the streets intersection with 164th St. SW to its' termination at the entrance to "GREENNESS,* our proposed subdivision. Option 2 maintains the 25 foot width for that initial part of the dead ended street which will experience traffic resulting from ten or more lots. At the point where the street will serve nine or less lots, Option 2 would widen the existing street to 16 feet. Option 1: The most obvious, characteristic of Option 1 is its' high cost and the massive amounts of dirt which would need to be excavated, exported and retained. Centered within the right of way, Option 1's first 200 feet would require the removal of several trees (including 8", 10",12" and 18" Douglas Firs) which beautify and buffer a private yard from the street, the relocation of a power pole and television cable pedestal and the - construction of a 175 foot long rockery approximately 8 feet high. To avoid the two driveways, which already exceed the Ciity`s maximum grade, Option 1 would cut approximately 16 feet into a 10 foot high embankment, relocate another power pole and television pedestal, remove an existing rockery and built. another, approximately 125 feet long and 10 feet high. The last 200 feet of Option 1 would cut another 15 feet into a 5 foot high embankment only to serve just three existing and two new lots. Option 2: While complying with the intent of'the City's standard governing street widths, Option 2 respects the, special circumstances effecting dead ended streets. Only that part of the street which would experience traffic generated by 10 or more lots would be 25 feet wide. By al€gning.th part of the street to the west of the right of ways centerline and by reducing the street's width to 16 feet where it serves 9 or less lots, much of Option 1's soil excavation, export, and retaining can be eliminated, two power poles and television pedestals can remain where they are, and several trees can be saved without increasing the grades of the steep driveways. While the City's standard governing street widths makes no distinction between "thru" and "dead end" streets, we all know the traffic experienced by the two types Is significantly different. A "thru" street serving at least ten tots (the minimum requiring a 25 foot wide street) not only serves the traffic generated by each of the ten lots moving in both directions, It also serves to connect many more lots •in both directions beyond the original ten. Normal vehicular demands on a "dead ended" street is significantly less. Only those few lots at its' end use most of the street to travel in both directions and no lots beyond those already located on the street ever use a dead ended street to get anywhere else: Because all incoming traffic must Inevitably stop, speeds are generally slower and safety higher, particuiariy on relatively short; dead ended streets such as 72nd Avenue West. Since the street will not experience the regular intensity of traffic upon which the Cky's "thru street" standards were based (i.e. thru streets serving commercial as well as residential districts with 10 to 15 or even more lots), our dead ended part of 72nd Avenue West can continue to be adequately served by a much narrower street. Respectfully, Phillip Lehn, Architect KOH John Bissell; AICP - Associate Planner, City of Edmonds David Alskog; Uvengood, Carter, Tjossem, Fitzgerald and Alskog Dave Dougherty; Site Development Services Max Meyring; Meyring and Associates , GREEN TARA INCORPORATED - 16202 - 72nd Avenue West - Edmonds, WA 98026 - 206-742-6813 CITY OF EDMONDS LAURA M. HALL 250.5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (208) 771.0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation . Engineering . 890.1g9- + p January 16, 1995 FEB 2 0 1936 PERMIT COUNTER Allard Russell and Grace LaRose 3868 Prairie Dunes Drive Sarasota, FL 34238 Re: Short Plat Requirements for S-94-139 (16202 - 72nd Ave W) Road Width Dear Mr Russell, We were recently approached by Phil Lehn, a potential purchaser of your property, regarding the subject short plat requirement to widen 72nd Ave. W. to twenty-five feet north of 164th St. We also discussed his letter over the telephone. Since you are the recorded owner of the subject property, we want to inform you of our position regarding the requirements. Based on the number of houses 72nd Ave will serve with the development of the plat, the road must be widened to twenty-five feet (22 feet of roadway and 3 feet of curb/gutter) to meet the City Development Code. Before we would consider any deviation to the roadway width requirement, we will require a technical justification, using sound engineering practices, demonstrating how the impact on the neighbors would violate the City Development Code (for example, driveway slope increased above 20%). To keep the neighborhood's rural look, we will allow an asphalt thickened edge in lieu of concrete curb and gutters, but all other requirements stand per plat requirements. If you have any questions, please call me at 771-0220. � e, *,At JAM ES C. WALKER, P.M. Acting City Engineer ALC/JCW/sf cc: Phil Lehn I John Bissell., Associate Planner S-94-139.DOC *-Incorporated August II, I$90 0 Sister Cities International Hekinan, Japan It appears that Phillip Lehn is appealing two staff decisions. The first is the street widening requirement applied to his short plat. The second is the staff interpretation that ECDC section 18.80.000 ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS does not give staff latitude to waive Street Standards and only applies to the documents (City Design Standards, Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction, etc.) listed in section 18.00.000. Staff believes there is justification for allowance of a smaller road for this particular short plat. However, I do not believe there is any justification to reconsider the interpretation of ECDC section 18.80.000 which provides no waiver from Street Standard requirements. The Street Standards in ECDC section 18.80.010 were created to apply in situations where the City and County Design Standards provided little guidance. The City and County Design Standards are generally intended for use on streets with more than 400 vehicle trips per day. The City's street standards were obviously intended to apply to low volume and Dead End streets since the Table of Street Standards applies to streets with less than 15 lots or units and includes Dead End requirements. The specific street standard requirements placed for this development were based on the standards in ECDC section 18.80.010. Staff does agree with the applicant that a road with less width could safely serve the development. The rockeries proposed by the applicant in his preliminary road improvement plans may create additional hazards along the road. Creating less road surface results in less storm water runoff. Since runoff from this area drains through the Meadowdale landslide hazard areas, storm water runoff reduction has significant benefits. ATTACHMENT 3 File No. AP-96-21 Thismemo is �itended to further clan the Engineering Division position clarify g g on application of ECDC Chapter 18.80 to Short Plat 5-95-163. The first section of code within Chapter 18.80, ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIINS, establishes documents that the City adopts. The adopted documents are "Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction", amendments to the "Standard Specification for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction", "General Special Provisions" and "City Design Standards". All of these documents are produced by the State of Washington. i i ECDC section !18.80.000 states "All new public works construction shall conform to thei standards contained in these documents." The next line states "The reconstruction of existing facilities shall conform to the standards as closely as is practical and economically feasible." The standards referred to are the standards found in the state produced documents the City adopts. Nothing in thi� section of code gives staff the ability to waive any requirement found in the Edmonds Community Development Code. Developments are required to meet the standards found in ECDC section 18.80.010. The staff interpretation of this code section is based in part on our understanding of the intent the City Council had when this code was last adopted. Council did not intend to grant staff the ability to waive street f width or right ;of -way requirements. cc; Gordy Hyde ATTACHMENT 4 i File No. AP-96-21 i ITY fJF MIJ PL MNG`iDMSION r. FINAL. REVIEW OF PROPOSED SHORT -SUBDIVISION DATE: FEBRUARY 5,1996 h FILE: S-95-163 s TABLE OF CONTENTS Section L INTRODUCTION.......... ... i r A. APPLICATION.. B. PUBLIC HEARING ................ ........ ................:. ................... ................ l C. DECISION 2 ` 11. FINDINGS OF FACT ...: ...... ... ... ..... ... ..2 III.CONCLUSION..... ....... ................. ....... ..................` ........... ....... ................ `........ .. 3 IV. EXHIBITS ...... ......... .... .. .. .....3 V. PARTIES OF RECORD ... .... .. ...... ... .4 { I. ' INTRODUCTION A. APPLICATION i. Applicant: Philip and Mariam Lehn, and Green Tara Inc. 2. Site_Location: 16202 72nd Avenue West(see Attachment I of Exhibit A). 3. Request: Divide two (2) existing lots with a total lot area of approximately 76,109 square feet (1.75 acres) into 4 lots. Lot Area of each proposed lot as revised at the January 19, 1996 hearing: LtSq..Ft. Gross Sq. Ft. Lot 1: 18,776.0 18,776.0 Lot 2: 16,145.5 16,145.5 Lot 3: 12,698.7 15,54112 Lot 4: 12,752.0 14,546.0 4. Review Process: Hearing Officer conducts public hearing and makes decision. 5. Major issues: a) Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030, site development standards for the RS-12 zone. b) Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.75, subdivision requirements. c) Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.95, staff review requirements. B. PUBLIC HEARING Philip & Mariam Lehn Green Tara Inc. S-95-I63 C. DECISION Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions; Attachments and Exhibits and the testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing of Janaury 19, 1996; upon the impressions of the Hearing Officer after making a site inspection of the subject property, the following is the decision of the Hearing Officer for the City of Edmonds Planning Division: The Subdivision as revised at the January 19,1996 hearing is AVVx9ygd with the following conditions: 1. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds ` Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure' compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 2. Engineering Division conditions listed on Attachment 4 of Exhibit A, as ammended by, Exhibit B attached hereto, 3; The applicant may process a tree clearing permit as a part of the subdivision improvements, grading, building, or site development permit. All tree clearing shall be subject to the following conditions. a) A tree clearing plan must be approved by the City of Edmonds Planning Division prior to the removal of trees. All clearing must comply with the requirements of the Tree Clearing Ordinance, section 18.45 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. This condition applies for all developments including development prior to the recording of the subdivision, during the subdivision development, and with the construction of all buildings on the property. 4. All utilities shall be placed underground in conformance with chapter 18.05 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. S. Approval of the short subdivision is subject to the conditions and requirements of the City Engineering Division. These conditions are contained in Attachment 4 of Exhibit A. 6. Prior to recording the applicant must complete the following requirements: a) Engineering Division conditions listed on Attachment 4 of Exhibit A, as ammended by Exhibit B attached hereto. II. FINDINGS OF FA T A. The Findings of Fact on pages 1 through 4 of the Planning Division Staff Report (Exhibit A) are found by the Hearing Officer to be supported by the evidence presented during the hearing, and by this reference are adopted as the Planning Division's Findings of Fact. A copy of said report is attached hereto as Exhibit A. B. James Walker, City Engineer, testified that the Engineering Division has sent a letter to the applicant stating that they would modify the roadway width requirements, allowing the roadway of 72nd Avenue West to be more narrow toward its northern end (see Exhibit B). C. The applicant submitted his testimony in the form of a letter to John Bissell, Associate Planner. In this letter the applicant submitted as attachments a map which revises the lot dimensions and adds a recreational tract to be shared by all owners (See Attachment 1 of Exhibit C). D. The applicant then testified as follows that he believes that the tree clearing conditions do not accurately reflect the City of Edmonds tree clearing ordinance requirements: (1) The applicant testified that the ordinance does not require that all trees on site are to be retained unless the applicant can clearly demonstrate that the building and utilities could not Page 2 of 4 Philip & Mariam Lehn Green Tara Inc. S-95-I63 practicably be designed to retain trees, as stated in the preliminary staff report. The ordinance requires the applicant to provide a plan which demonstrates its tree removal will be an enhancement (ECDC 18.45.050(B)(2). The applicant further testified that since technically undefined, the term "enhance" must be interpreted in accordance with the ordinance's purposes which safeguard a reasonable use and enjoyment of an applicant's property. The test of practicality applies only to the provision's exception to permit tree removal for installing roads and utilities. (2) The applicant's testimony continued, stating that the ordinance does not require that trees may not be removed for the sole purpose of enhancing views as stated in the preliminary staff report. The applicant stated that, the enhancement and enjoyment of a lots view is reasonable on view property and as such is protected by the ordinance. (3) The applicant testified that the condition found in the preliminary staff report requiring an arborist to identify dead, diseased or dying trees was beyond the authority of the Planning Staff. For all the reasons stated above, the applicant testified, the City should withdraw its conditions regarding our compliance with the Tree Clearing Ordinance as written in the Preliminary Review of Proposed Short Subdivision and instead, simply impose the condition that the subdivision must comply with the ordinance. E. The applicant testified that he has been trying to obtain a waiver or reduction of the City's street widening requirement since January 9, 1995. As indicated by President Drew Wojtanik's January 15, 1996 letter to the City Engineer, the Meadowdale Beach Community Council, an association of local property owners, voted unanimously to support our plans for GREENNESS and to oppose the street widening requirement. Because the City's Community Services Department currently lacks the administrative authority to waive or reduce the requirement, we are necessarily compelled to appeal the condition imposing it. According to the Department's Director, the City Engineer has agreed to write a technical report to the Hearing Examiner favorable to our appeal (see Exhibits B and D). F. John Johnson of 16122 72nd Avenue West testified that he is the property owner to the north of the subject property and that he agrees with the proposal. G. Jim Walker, City Engineer testified that the concepts proposed in the preliminary drainage analysis should be acceptable, with the understanding that infiltration is discouraged in this area and the proposed pond must be lined. Mr. Walker also testified that he would refrain from placing any formal conditions on the drainage plan until a final drainage and site development plan are submitted. H. Art Haig of 16222 71st Place West testified that he is heartily in favor of the proposal, and does not want to see the road widened. I. Section 18.45 of the Edmonds Community Development Code contains the Tree Clearing Ordinance. The purposes section of this ordinance found in EC15C section 18.45.000 does not prohibit the clearing of vegetation for the promotion and preservation of views. CONCLUSION A. The revised subdivision meets the minimum requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code as conditioned. B. The tree clearing ordinance found in section 18.45 of the ECDC does not necessarily require tree retention in the event that a view will be enhanced. In addition, the requirements of Section 18.45 can be imposed at the time of site development. Therefore subdivision conditions should require all clearing to comply with the requirements of the Tree Clearing Ordinance, section 18.45 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. C. The Engineering Division has considered the applicant's request to modify the roadway standards. The Engineering Division has responded with a partial modification which they believe meets the code requirements of the ECDC. Therefore the Engineering Division Requirements should be amended to include the changes made by the City Engineer as stated in the November 22, 1995 letter to the applicant(see Exhibit B). Page 3 of 4 - Lot 4 121752 0 d) Areas and setbacks: Staff Interpretation 95-05 states "Any lot proposed to be created within a short subdivision or a formal plat, where an existing zone district boundary divides the proposed lot, shall comply with the dimensional and area standards of the zone district overlaying more than 50% of the area of the proposed lot. All building bulk standards shall comply with the zone district in which the building is located"(see Attachment 5). Since RS-12 zone district overlays more than 50% of all of the lots, the dimensional and area standards of the RS-12 zone shall apply. The portions of lots 1 and 2 which are overlaid by the RS-20 zone district must comply with the setbacks for that zone. Lot areas are adequate for the RS-12 zone. Setback delin ation's are adequate for the RS-12 and sn1e3P.DOC 1 EXHIBIT ,,._ . _..... ILn�o. ��s -16 -` 1 C) RS-20 zones for lots 1, 3 and 4. The setback orientation shown for lot 2 is not in conformance with the City of Edmonds Codes and Policies. If the applicant wishes to use the setbacks as shown for lot two, the applicant must obtain a variance or a modification to the subdivision, or the lot, lines for lot 2 must be reoriented so that lot two is considered as a flag lot. The setback orientations below assume that the applicant does not take any of the aforementioned actions (see Attachments 5 and 6). The setback orientations will be as follows: Lot 1 Street Setbacks: From the edge of the access easement. Side Setbacks: From the north and south property lines: Rear Setbacks: From the west property line. Lot 2 Street Setbacks: From the east property line. Side Setbacks: From the north and south property Iines. Rear Setbacks: From the west property line. Lot 3 Street Setbacks: From the east property line. Side Setbacks: From the north and south property lines, and from the access easement, Rear Setbacks: From the west property line. Lot 4 Street Setbacks From the east property line. Side Setbacks: From the north and south property lines, and from the access easement. Rear Setbacks: From the west property line. 3. Lot arrangement to topoeranhv: The subject site has a number of steep slopes throughout. The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report which indicates that the lot arrangement to topography is acceptable (see attachment 9). 4. Lot Coverage of Existing Buildings on Proposed Lots:. 35% maximum lot coverage is allowed a) Lot 1: The existing house and garage located on lot 1 cover less than 10% of the area of lot 1. b) Lot 2: There are no existing buildings located on lot 2. c) Lot 3: There are no existing buildings located on lot 3. d) Lot 4: There are no existing buildings located on lot 4. 5. Compliance with the City Tree Clearing Ordinance The existing site is heavily vegetated and has several areas of steep slopes. Section 18.45 of the EC©C regulates tree removal and states that lots which are environmentally sensitive, and/or which have areas with 25% slopes or greater must comply with the requirements of the tree clearing ordinance in order to remove vegetation. This site is governed by that ordinance. The tree clearing ordinance prohibits the clearing of a site for the sake of future development. In addition, the ordinance requires the retention of trees with a caliper greater than 6 inches, if retention is possible. Therefore, the following conditions should be incorporated into the subdivision requirements: a) No trees may be removed without a tree clearing permit which may be processed as part of a subdivision, grading, building, or site development permit. b) All building permits and /or tree clearing permits must be accompanied with a tree clearing plan which must be approved by the City Planning division in accordance with the following criteria: (1) All trees on site are to be retained unless the applicant can clearly demonstrate that the building and utilities could not practicably be designed to retain trees. If site development plans, including building plans and utility plans, landscaping plans and impervious surface plans, are created without regard to these conditions the cost of creating new plans will not be considered in the practicability of the design. s95163P.aoc 2 (2) Trees may not be removed for the sole purpose of enhancing views or creating speculative building sites. - (3) Trees shown to be hazardous may be removed. Prior to the removal of a hazardous tree, an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture must state in writing that the subject tree poses a hazard, and that statement from the arborist must be presented to the City Planning Division staff. The property owner may request City Staff to determine if a tree is hazardous prior to the review by an arborist. If the tree poses an obvious hazard to 'the public health, safety and welfare, City Staff may approve the tree removal. Otherwise, staff will not make a determination, and will defer the matter to an arboirst. in all cases the required arborist review will be the financial responsibility of the property owner. (4) Clearing and stump removal must be consistent with the recommendations of a licensed geotechnical engineer. Upon completion of clearing and grading of the lots, if no building permit has been approved, hydro -seeding must occur within 7 days. (5) These tree clearing conditions will continue after recording of the subdivision so long as Section 18.45 of the Edmonds Community Development Code as now or hereafter amended. b. Consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance? Yes as conditioned. E. CONFORMANCE TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I . Conforms to the policies of the Comprehensive Plan? Yes. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 1. Is this site identified on the City's Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map? Yes. 2. Is an Environmental Checklist Required for this application? Yes. The applicant has submitted an environmental checklist, and the City has issued a determination of nonsi,gnificance (DNS) (see attachment 10). G. CRITICAL AREAS REVIEW: 1. Critical Areas Review number: CA-94-102 and CA-94-130 2. Results of Critical Areas Review: Since there are two lots involved in the subdivision, two critical area reviews were completed. Both critical area reviews reveled steep slopes greater than 40% with more than 20 foot vertical elevation gain. Therefore the applicant was required to submit a survey showing the exact location of those slopes. This survey has been received as part of the critical areas review for both original lots. The applicant also joined with the City in a three party contract with a geotechnical engineer in order to reduce the required buffers and setbacks from 50 feet to 10 feet. The study, prepared by Earth Consultants Inc., recommended the reduction of the required setbacks and buffers to 10 feet. That study was accepted by the City (see Attachment 8). H. REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS AND DEDICATIONS I. Engineering, drainage and street dedications: 2. Parks or other facilities? None . II. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION: See City Engineer's Report (see Attachment 4). Approve the proposed 4-lot short subdivision subject to the following conditions: I. Engineering Division conditions listed on Attachment 4 2. The following conditions regarding tree clearing are imposed: a) . A tree clearing plan must be approved by the City of Edmonds Planning Division prior to the removal of trees. S95163P.DOC 3 b) No trees may be removed without a tree clearing permit which may be processed as part of a subdivision, grading, building, or site development permit. c) All building permits and /or tree clearing permits must be accompanied with a tree clearing plan which must be approved by the City Planning division in accordance with the following criteria: (1) All trees on site are to be retained unless the applicant can clearly demonstrate that the building and utilities could not practicably be designed to retain trees. If site development plans, including building plans and utility plans, landscaping plans and impervious surface plans, are created without regard to these conditions the cost of creating new plans will not be considered in.the practicability of the design. (2) Trees may not be removed for the sole purpose of enhancing views or creating speculative building sites. (3) ' Trees shown to be hazardous may be removed. Prior to the removal of a hazardous tree, an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture must state in writing that the subject tree poses a hazard, and that statement from the arborist must be presented to the City Planning Division staff. The property owner may request City Staff to determine if a tree is hazardous prior to the review by an arborist. If the tree poses an obvious hazard to the public health, safety and welfare, City Staff may approve the tree removal. Otherwise, staff will not make a determination, and will defer the matter to an arboirst. In all cases the required arborist review will be the financial responsibility of the property owner. (4) Clearing and stump removal must be consistent with the recommendations of a licensed geotechnical engineer. Upon completion of clearing and grading of the lots, if no building permit has been approved, hydro -seeding must occur within 7 days. (5) These tree clearing conditions are required prior to the recording of the subdvvsion and will continue after recording of the subdivision so long as Section 18.45 of the Edmonds Community Development Code as now or hereafter amended. John Bissell 11 9. Nam: THE CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT ARE SUBJECT TO REVISION BASED UPON TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS PROPOSED SUBDIVISION. III. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity / Zoning Map 2. Application 3. Proposed Short Plat 4. Engineering Division Requirements 5. Interpretation 95-05 6. Letter from John Bissell, Associate Planner establishing setbacks from proposed access easement. 7. Critical Areas Determinations for original lots A and B (CA-94-102 and CA-94-130) 8. Critical Area Study allowing the reduction of steep slope buffers and setbacks to 10 feet. 9. Geotechnical Report from Earth Consultants Inc. dated April 4,1995. 10. State Environmental Policy Act Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA DNS). S95163P.DOC 4 Vicinity Map ATTACHMENT 1 File No. S-95-163 city of ec honds �,,` land use appl icatioh ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ❑ COMP PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ❑ HOME OCCUPATION )0.3FOJ,RMAL SUBDIVISION ORT SUBDIVISION ❑ LOLINE ADJUSTMENT ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT / STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT 0 VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION U OTHER SEPA FILE # —�A45 -1 'b*ZONE �DA.TE L REC-D BY FEE y'2,�6 RECEIPT#9 2 HEARING DATE ❑ HE 'd. STAFF C! PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC I TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED Green Tara Incorporated & Applicant Phillip & Mariam Lehn Phone 206-742-6813 Address 16202 — 72nd Avenue 1•7. Edmonds 17A 98026 Property Address or Location sane Property Owner 11 ( B) _ t�� ..c . Phone 206-742-6813 Address 16202 — 72nd Avenue 17. Edmonds WA 98026 Agent Phillip Lehn Architect Phone 206-742-6813 Address Sat- 1e Tax Acc # 5131-000-067-0308 ( parcel A) Sec. S Twp. ___2.7_U _ Rng. _ aF Legal Description See Attached Details of Project or Proposed Use _ Request apAroval for a 4 lot Short Subdivisio in a R-12 zone. The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or employees. f he undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public official Inter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attend ATTACHMENT 2 File No. S-96-163 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT ` m jj Rjill#,# Yxf ATTACHMENT 3 File No. S-95-163 f�. W�Will� ,vf `' 1 a.••, ",°rScx F' iif .. ;Rights -of; Way ;fdz pbttc;strr; . , :; >, , :.: :., X _� �trte~ntSi�Gxfy:utt#itlesti �Z�1�fe cress, �`diez"tutiltttes) ... ' .:: Provide all easements as required. X 3 ':'Streeftmp oy6ftiieriis'(ACPwith'curb: ri Widen 72nd Ave. W. to 25 feet with curbs and gutters or X asphalt thickened edge 4:..Street.lurnarcund:. On -site turnarounds required on all new proposed Iots X Private drive to be constructed 12 feet wide with curbs and X gutters iff required for drainage. Maintain two feet shy distance from proposed retaining structures. 5. Sidewalks and/or walkways: X t . Street lights: X 7. Planting strip: S. Water system improvements (pipelines, fire hydrants, pump stations, telemetering, D.S.H.S., etc.): Lots to connect to public system X 9. Sanitary'sewer system improvements (pipelines, pump stations, telemetering, health district, etc.): Provide sanitary sewer service to each proposed lot X Lots to connect to public system X 10. Storm sewer system improvements (pipelines, pump stations, 'DOE, fisheries, etc.): Provide water quality amendments per Ordinance 3013 X Provide on -site detention system for all impervious surfaces X All impervious surfaces to be connected to detention X X 11. On -site drainage (plan per Ord. 1924): All impervious surfaces to be connected to detention X X 12. Underground wiring (per Ord. 1387): Underground wiring is required for all new construction. X X 13. Excavation and grading (per UBC, Chapter 70): Grading permit is required for 50 cubic yards to 500 cubic X X yards Grading in excess of 500 cubic yards requires permit and X X SEPA 14. Signage (per City Engineer): Provide fire and aid sign for proposed Lots I and 2 X 15. Survey monumentation (per Ord., Section 12.10.120): X 16. As -built drawings (per City Engineer): Provide as -built drawings for all utilities installed. X 17. Otherrequirements: a) Plat showing lots, easements, legal survey information X b) Legal documents for each lot X c) Field staking - lot corners (by professional surveyor) X d) Maint. agreement (private road and utilities) X e) Utility development plan X f) Traffic study g) Others ATTACHMENT 4 File No. S-95-163 EFFECTIVE DATE BARRING APPEALS: May, 9 1995 Due to the nature of land use zoning covering areas, rather than individual lots, there are specific instances where zone district boundaries cross legally created lots. In some of these cases the lots are large enough that they may be divided. The question has arisen as to how to divide a property when it is not practical to follow the zone district boundaries in order to create usable lots. Specifically, what is the minimum lot size and width required when there are more than one zone district present on the site, and what bulls standards are to be used when a building is constructed. Section 20.75.085(B)(3) of the Edmonds Community Development Code states that "Each lot shall meet the applicable dimensional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance" The Zoning Ordinance gives no specific guidance as to which standards to use Where a lot crosses zone district boundaries. Therefore, we must look to the ECDC for general: guidance. ECDC section 15.05.010(C) states that a purpose of Zoning and Comprehensive Planning is "To anticipate and influence orderly and coordinated development of land and building use of the city and its environs..." ECDC section 15.05.010(D) states that a purpose of Zoning and Comprehensive Planning is "To encourage coordinated development..." ECDC section 15.20.005(B)(4) & (6) states that a purpose of Zoning and Comprehensive Planning is to "Support retention of existing housing" and to "Require that new residential development be compatible with natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage." INTERPIDOC ATTACHMENT 5 File No. S-95-163 MERPIDO . , � d CITY OF ELMONDS LAURA M. HALL 250 - STH AVE. N. + EDMONDS. WA 96020 • t2061771-0220 + FAX 12061771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT I q p Public Works + Planning • Parks and Recreation + Engineering 890.19 j lanuary 13, 1995 i Phil Lehn Green Tara Associates 524 Main Street Edmonds. WA 98620 RE: Setbacks from proposed access easement. Dear Mr. Lehn I have reviewed your map which shows your proposed access easement location. I have identified the two primary lots as lot A and lot B for the purposes of this discussion. I have not identified the proposed lots that would be created on lot B as they do not exists at the time of this letter. The proposed easement would bisect lot B for the purposes of providing access to the proposed house or houses on Lot A. No ' access to the house or houses that might be built on lot B is proposed. No more than three houses would gain access from the proposed casement. ne Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 21.90.120 defines Street as'" the public or private right-of-way or access easement which provides vehicle access to more than three lots." The ECDC Section 21.90.130 defines Street Lot Line as "the line or line along the edge of a strut." llte ECDC Scetion 21.90.140 defines Street Setback as "the minimum distance required by this code for buildings to be set back from the street lot line. The ECDC Section 21.85.010 defines Rear Lot Line as -aline or lines which are opposite and most distant from the street tot line." The ECDC Section 21.85.020 defines rear setback as the minimum distance required by this code for buildings to be setback from the rear lot fine." The ECDC Section 21.90.040 defines the Side Lot Line as "any lot line which is not a street or rear lot line." The ECDC section 21.90.050 defines Rear Setback as "the minimum distance required by this code for a building to be set back from a side lot line." According to these definitions, the proposed access serving three (3) or fewer houses would not create a street tot line or a rear lot line. Therefore the proposed access would create a side property line. Therefore 10 foot side setbacks would be taken from the edge of the proposed access easement which is shown to provide service from the upper portion of lot A to the lower portion of tot a through lot B. If however, the access provided service to more than three (3) houses, the access would be defined as a street and a street setback of 25 feet would be taken. I hope this answers your questions. if you have any additional questions please feel free to contact me. t is •.�.._.� �w �z � =-- .._._ _ .... John Bissell Associate Planner ATTACHMENT 6 File No. S-95-163 + Incorporated August I I. IS90 m Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japa + CA .E NO. qq—( 3ro Critical Areas Checklist Site Int'ormation (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation) 1. Site Address/Location: &°W')- '7P-iab Ave UJGc-, ' F—P)A(ATAD.S 2. Property.Tax Account Number. s %3 `�C?tJ 'bCo7 -' 0 1 �?a 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): -Il q .000 -t- 4. Is this site currently'developed? yes; Y no. LU" If yes; how is site developed? /l.t&.V t t iq . t¢Je tjOW dtlhCAJW^ 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. Flat:' less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15`ib (a vertical rise -of W-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33 feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: M (a' ; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: O ; Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway N p floodplain of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year- round? ' Ili 4 Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? ). 10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow ; shrubs ; mixed ; urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) K 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: tia For City Staff Use Only L Site isZoned? —1'2. 2. ;SCS chapped soil type(s)? _ t 3: 'Wetland inventory or C.A. map indicates wetland present on site? ,y ° 4., :critical Areas inventory or C.A. map indicates Critical Area on sits? 5. Site within:de.signated earth subsidence, landslide hazard area? 6 . Site designated on the'EnvironmentallySensitive Areas Map? DETERMINATION : >SI'IJDY;.ItEQt1IRED CONDITIONALWAIVER :Reviewed by:, : >::,::'::::;:. ::;<: = ';':. < .'Pl?n?ier;:.:: `: .:. .:::::•..) ATTACHMENT 7 Revocrtora3 File NO. S-95-163 Project Description: Single ]Family Residence Waiver Criteria (all criteria must be found to apply): XXX There will be no alteration of the Critical Area or its required buffers; XXX The development proposal will not impact the Critical Area in a manner contrary to the goals, purposes, objectives and requirements of the Critical Areas ordinance; XXX The development proposal meets the minimum standards of the Critical Areas ordinance; XXX The above findings are based on the following conditions of approval: 1. Before any permit application may be applied for, submit to the Planning Department a topographic survey prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor delineating Steep Slope Hazard Areas. Any slope over 30% with more than 10 feet of rise will be classified as a Steep Slope Hazard Area. A 50 foot buffer is required from both the top and toe of the slope. A 15 foot building setback is required from the 50 foot buffer. 2. If the results of the above survey determine the lot unbuildable, any development which is not identified as an exception per ECDC Chapter 20.15B must receive a Reasonable Use Exception or a Variance pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.180A and 20.15B.040C). 3. All proposed development of the subject lot must meet the requirements of Chapter 19.05 of the Edmonds mmunity Development Code. yz� �g )LU -S - Name Si ature Date 6 / 34 481 go 05. ft s- 3SfI746 to (3i 40, 4n A -it A —A to C; zcQ. `3 Ito a: 0%% • 2 2 5. 3 ",Z =At cn 53 40 4 im Pm #- n 4 t-* %n -05 % 0 s Q) 5,0 ""A D 7 8 210 0) 60 0/ 52 -51 00 5z 162ND ZA� 164 Soo '0 5 11w, :)w a 0 li q 7- 65 0 in 54,0.2 1:3 36S.2 FB at 3b 62 am 64- 68 90 1,14 CIS 1 fellry 63 - — - — - — - N 61 164T H ATLAS OF EVERETT COPYRIGHTED Aqo PUBLISmea sy KROLL MAP COMPANy, INC.. SEATTLE SCALE:) IN. 200 FT 12 1— cn * D IV ab PAVING RrECEIVE:0 WATER MA i u SEWER PERMIT COUNTER 911IJ�J�1� TZ4. v cc .4- uj L w L a) CD C-') cc LU r; ciry of "WOMos J U N f 5 i9� 1t IWA rromAe;e 1.94so PERMIT caiiNTER SQ sL, [ar at'rt vs SAOC, rn ,,op slope , AS ivyvoE' 3 foaao ~�-• Acc4sS AREA 2y� l33 S �r vt' r 2�9Qa 1 4 ; l exc. azsew t lE3.3.9rc CA )ENO, Critical Areas Checklist Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation) 1. , Site Address/Location: ( ay a 7AILd 41"t- M) 2. Property Tax Account Plumber. S� ! ?,/ no D e7 -0A S''7 '# � 8- 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): i a 4. Is this site currently developed? ✓yes; no. - If yes; how is site developed? h -,&- azt DY»n • 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33 feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: ; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: ; Approx. Depth: What seasons) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway floodplain of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year- round? Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? }. 10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow ; shrubs ; mixed urban landscaped (iawn,shrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: Rev 011Ma e City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination Applicant: Emoke Rock Determination #: CA 94102 Project Name: Permit Number: — Site Location: 16202 72nd Avenue West Property Tax Acct #: 1 5131-000-067-0357 Project Description: Non -project specific — Waiver Criteria (all criteria must be found to apply): XXX There will be no alteration of the Critical Area or its required buffers; XXX The development proposal will not impact the Critical Area in a manner contrary to the goals, purposes, objectives and requirements of the Critical Areas ordinance; XXX The development proposal meets the minimum standards of the Critical Areas ordinance; XXX The above findings are based on the following conditions of approval: 1. Before any permit application may be applied for, submit to the Planning Department a topographic survey prepared by a Licensed land Surveyor delineating Steep Slope Hazard Areas. Any slope over 30% with more than 10 feet of rise will be classified as a Steep Slope hazard Area. A 50 foot buffer is required from both the top and toe of the slope. A 15 foot building setback is required from the 50 foot buffer. 2. If the results of the above survey determine the lot unbuildable, any development which is not identified as an exception per ECDC Chapter 20.15E must receive a Reasonable Use Exception or a Variance pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.180A and 20.15B.040C). 3. All proposed development of the subject lot must meet the requirements of Chapter 19.05 of the Edmonds C mmunity Development Code. Name Signature Date AGREEMENT R.EEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES FOIL PREPARATION OF A CRITICAL AREA STUDY �a AAAAA�C* c._ iaere"tnafta referred to as "Proponent," 40f7nds.Tr astute o relen"ed to as Consultant," and the City n+r9itcr err to as the City, for and in consideration orlmutual protniscs contained herein agree and contract as follows: I. The City's Planning Official has determined that a Critical Arcs may exist on or near the subject property, pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.1 S.B. II. The City is to direct and supervise preparation and finalization of a critical area study�r describe the items in accordance with ECDC Section 20.15.$.15t?. . Paragraph 118 mall be applicab-te only during the life of this contract. The work - of the Consultant and the critical area study ,arc for the purpose of providing the City with information and analysis, independent from the Proponent and the owner of the subject property. To that end, the Consultant shall, during the life of this agreement, perform no other nscrvices for Proponent with respect to the subject property. In addition, the Consultat t shall ot perform services for the Proponent with rrspcct to other property or proposed developments without full .disclosure thereof to the City. Proponent specifically agrees not to co =un'cate with the Consultant, except for such communication as may be necessary tor the Consultant to carry out the performance of this agreement. Any such communication bttwecn the Proponent and Consultant shall be carried on only in the presence of or with th6 prior approval of the City. IB• Proponent agrees to pay to Consultant in the manner set forth in Section VIi below the reasonable costs of having the C7tical area study prepared. The Consultant has been recommended and selected by the City. Proponent understands and agrees to pay Consultant for actual time and materials expended in accordance with the score of services set for*�i in Attachment "A" hereto, provided, howez,cr, that the total to be received by the Consultant for preparation of the critical area study shall not exceed the sum of S_InS , o o Progress payments arc to be issued to Consultant in accordance with the provisions of Sections VII and IX in this agreement. IV. The Proponent agrees to cooperate reasonably with both Consultant and the City so: as to cause the efficient and prompt preparation of the critical area study. The City agrees toirmake available to the Consultant all relevant information in the City's fibs. V. The scope of services contemplated by this agreement shall include reparation of a critical area study which shall be delivered to the City on or before oc. o � 4, t.�.y VI. Consultant shah prepare and deliver to the City up to 5 copies of the critical area study. "VII. Proponent shall, within ten (10) days of the signing of this agreement: (a) Deposit with the City of Edmonds fiords sufficient to pay for the cost of preparation of the critical area study, but not less than S 2 00. o o subject to • the provisions of subparagraph (b) below; Ne 1 of catrrxtxarx4rvAr20t C36M,AL%C0Wr uc (b) Agree to disbursement from time to time of funds on deposit in said account to pay for Consultant services covered by the Agreement. VM_ Yf the Proponent fails to deposit funds with the City as specified in Section VII of this agreement within the mluiredd-ten days, this agreement shall terminate. IX. Consultant agrees to submit invoices for services and costs to date on a monthly basis along with a description of services rendered and a project progress rcport. The Consultant shall submit the original invoice to the City and a copy to the P'roponeat. The City shall pay the iAvoiced amount from the assigned account described in paragraph VII of this agreement within thirty (30) days of receipt if the work. covered by the invoice has been satisfactorily completed. X. In the event the City, in its sole opinion determines there is a need for changes in the scope of work in Attachment "A," the City shall obtain from the Consultant an estimate of the total. added charges and shall seek the Proponerifs written approval, which shall not be unmasonably ,withhcid. This Agreement shall then be amended to cover these changes, and the funds deposited accordingly to cover the changed scope of work. Failure to obta n such approval from the Proponcn! and to obtain err. izic=asv in lire funds deposited to cover the proposcd changes at the time of amendment, shall be grounds for suspension of wotlk until agreement is reached. XI. The parties hereto agree that the critical a= study and all supporting material therein submitted by the Consultant in the course of performing services under this agreeme4t shall be, in the hands of the City of Edmonds, as public rceords and not subject to copyright. Consultant further agrees to make mscarch notes and any other work products produced in Performing this agreement available to the City for reproduction, upon completion of the critical area study, or sooner upon request by the City. XII. Unless otherwise specified within this Agreement, this proposal shall be governed by the laws of the City of Edmonds and the State of Washington. Xlll. (a) The parties intend that an independent Consultant/City relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee. or representative of the Consultant stt'all be deemed to be an employee, agent, or representative of the City or Proponent for any purpose. Employers of the Consultant are not entitled to any of the benefits the City provides for City employees. The Consultant will be responsible for the acts:of its employers, agents, and subcontractors during the performance of this Agreemcnt The Consultant further agrees to testify at any hearing concerning the project or the critical area study only if requested to do so by the City, unless pursuant to court order. (b) Consultant covenants and agrees to indemnifi•, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employers f o= znd agzIM^, any i dud at! c3112FIiS, riCtlons, ttamagCs, liability, cost and cxpettsc, including reasonable anorricy's fees, in connection with or occasioned, in whole or in part by any act or omission of Consultant, its officers, agents, employees, customers, or licensees, or arising from or out of Consultant's failure to comply with any provision of this Agreement, regardless of whether it is alleged or proven that the acts or omissions of City, it officers, agents or cmplpyecs caused or contributed thereto. With respect to the performance of this Agreement, and as to claims against City„ its officers, agents and employees, the Consultant expressly waives its immunity under Title 51 of the Revised Code of Washington for injuries to its employees and agrees that the obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless provided for in this paragraph extends to any claim brought by or on behalf of any employee of the Consultant. This waiver was mutually negotiated by the parties. `Thus indemnity provision shall not apply in the event any acts or omissions of the City -%=c Pxvc 2 of < cA(tnc)xtn"(DA a CK)nr J.%ca.ru, C7 the "0 cause oOf y ►damage or agraph were injury. To the extent any of the damages referenced ence of the City, by of resulted from the concurrent n', its agents or employees and the Consultant. its officers, agents, =aufdorceeabk �, this obligation to bde nWfy, defend and hold harznIcss is valid and toP y and employees.* rn ce to the extent of the negligence of the Consultant, its officers. agents (c) Ia the Performance of the services herein contemplated, the Consultant is an m T"idennt contractor with the authority to control and direct e details of the work, subject to applicable � Perf miance of the contemplated herein must meet the a nfCdafions. However, the results of tyre work c s approval of the City, and shall be subject to the '' g rights of inspection and review to secure the satisfactory eonnplction thereof, as required by ECDC Chapter 20.15.B. NN - Proponent agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City from any and alli claims for breach of contract or other claim for damages brought by Consultant on account of eny act or failure to act by the Proponent to pay the sums due under the tenets of this Agreement. Xv. The Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or tzcarrt for ern because of, color, religion, sor national origin. Pto yment ex, XVI- The Laity reserves the right to suspend or terminate this notice to the Consultant and terminated a8�_mwt on tent (10) days written, entitled to receive reasonable co -nation for Servicesodered to the date of term atios6n or suspension. The Consultant shall then invoice the City for all work 'termination a satisfaeto performed in a ry manner through the effective date of termination, and shall be paid by thb City, subject to the limitations on liability contained in Paragraph IX; provided that -if the termination is due to the fault of the Consultant, no payment shall be due, XVII. The Proponent reserves the right to suspend or terminate this Agreement written notice to the Consultant and City, and withdrawal of alt building, t10t� days subdivision, and/or receiiine permit applications. If temnimtcd or suspended, on��ultaainnt shall be entitled to receive reasonable compensation for services rendered to the date of termination or suspension. XVIlI_ In the event that any legal action is necessary to enforce the terms of the Agreetnc4t, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other petty a sum for reasonable attomcy's fees, including reasonable attorneys fees incurred prior to the filing of the action. XTX. Consultant agrees to rc pore to the City any situation that might involve it possible eondict of interest in connection with the performance of the Agreement The Consultant shall nol have a financial interest in the proposal other than fees due under this Agrcen3ent. The Consultant Will not perform any work or provide any services to any person in connection with or rc: lated to the Proposal, except as provided in this Agrcement. The Consultant has listed in Attachment "$" all present c; n ets cr s; o-;. ; ;: t1,e �Prvpu>�cnt. XX. The Proponent agrees to provide the Consultant with a legal description of the project site, reproducible site plan or Mans, copies of any relevant site studies produced by :other consultants, and such other information as rcquircd by the Consultant. The proponent agrees to cooperate reasonably with both the City and Consultant so as to facilitate the efficient and Prompt Preparation of the criticel area study. X7Q. This Agreement, including the Attachments hereto, represent the entire agreement and understanding between the parties, and any negotiations. Proposals. or agrzrnents are intended to be integrated herein and to be superseded by this written Agreement. Ya�gc 3 orl GU{Ynn((4tGtG3 tt'[1t.C%t]'7C tLKYx+1'7taC: 1 ACFiMu'"Ta� EXECUTED by the Parties henceo this . clay CITY OF EDMONDS C{7NSUI.TA2vT, y By Mayor name.0 AT?'IrST/AL�I�;i�iENT1CA? ED+ kOPONEN By., �. B Ci Clerk � nctrrre;,p I..C;ti? " L.}7� .. title- !D'. Qom.. . APPR0' RM PLANNING MANAGER. By By.».�"' Scott Snyder CjtyL Attorney itob Chavej Plaun;ng Division Attac2unents: Scope of Services I w ..UOZLS[llp s z Earths Consultants Inc. <k otedutkal Wighwem. (k'0k)9LS0; & 1Esiv1ronnuasta1ti -i tn1 sts i t October 6, 1995 E-1165-1 1 City of Edmonds € Community Services Department, Planning Division 250 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attention: John Bissell Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Supplement i 16202 - 72nd Avenue West f!, Edmonds, Washington Reference: Earth Consultants, Inc. Visual Site Reconnaissance and`, Geotechnical Engineering Study E-1165-1, April 4, 1995 i G Dear Mr. Bissell: In accordance with your request, we are providing this letter to specifically address setback requirements of the City of Edmonds. t i Based on the information presented in the referenced document, it is our professional opinion that the proposed development will not decrease the stability of the slopes on adjacent properties. In addition, as stated in the referenced document, the proposed development should increase the stability of the site. Furthermore, in our opinion, the geologically hazardous area buffer of 50 feet should not apply, as the proposed development will result in construction on the slopes, and, as stated in the referenced document, the stability of the site would be increased bythe proposed development. In our opinion, the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact on the site, the public or any private party. This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. .Should .you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, �y of Y ;��:,'AOL EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. ~�o �. ;' '., . • td.tw Manager of Geotechnical Services KRCJkc cc: Phillip Lehn Ex%%11 rr 1805.136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, M ATTACHMENT 8 222 E. 26th Street, Suite 103, Tacoma, Washing Bellevue (206) 643.3780 Seattle (206) 464.1584 FAX (206) 7z File No. S-95-163 - --� ._........ Earth Consultants Inc. cmtedmimi Engineers. c-e6"Lsm & Em4mmr ntai scientLsts April 4, 1995 E-1165-1 Green Tara Incorporated 16202 - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98026-4904 Attention: Mr. Phillip Lehn, Architect Subject: Visual Site Reconnaissance and Geotechnieal Engineering Study Update 16202 - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington Reference: Earth Consultants, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Russell Residence 16200 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington E-1165, dated December 3, 1979 Greenness Residential Development Site Plan, dated January 8, 1995 Dear Mr. Lehn: We are pleased to present the results of our visual site reconnaissance performed on February 9, 1995. The purpose of our reconnaissance was ,to observe the existing site conditions and to modify or add to the recommendations contained in the referenced study if necessary. Shallow hand excavations and exposures on the bluff were utilized to provide subsurface information for Parcels A and B of the proposed site development. Based on the results of our reconnaissance, it is our opinion the recommendations contained in the referenced study remain applicable for the proposed site development with the additions and modifications contained in this document. In general, subsurface conditions across both parcels appear consistent with those encountered during the original investigation. We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service to you during this phase of project development, and we look forward to working with you in the future. Should you or your consultants have any questions about the content of this letter, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. ATTACHMENT 9 _. 1805.1361h Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, W File NO. S-95_163 Bellevue (206) 643.3780 Seattle (206) 464.1584 FAX (206) 7 1. Project Descrintion We understand the site is to be developed with four single-family residences, two on Parcel A and two on.Parcel R. At this time, final construction plans are not available; however, we anticipate the homes to be,wood frame structures with either concrete slabs on grade, or wood -joist supported flooring. Foundations are anticipated to be conventional continuous and spread footings. Three of the four residences are anticipated to be built into the face of slopes. At the time this report was written, specific structural design information was not available. However, based on our experience with similar projects, we would anticipate wall loads of approximately two (2) kips per lineal foot, slab loads of about one hundred 000) pounds per square foot (psf) and column loads of about twenty-five (25) kips. If any of the above design criteria are incorrect or change, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, ECi should be retained to perform a general review of the final design. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The proposed site is located at 16202 - 72nd Avenue West in Edmonds, Washington. The site is bowl shaped with drainage down to the west from an elevation of about 320 feet near 72nd Avenue West to about 255 feet in the southwest corner of the property. A fifteen foot high ridge runs along the west property line. This ridge is located at the top of a bluff that drops about one hundred and fifty to two hundred feet down to another residential development along the edge of Puget Sound. The parcels have slopes ranging from about 10 percent up to about 65 percent. Relatively level areas are located above the bowl and in the bottom of the. bowl. Along the north edge of the bowl, there is an existing house that will remain as part of the proposed development. Earth Consultants, tnc. E-1165-1 Page 3 Subsurface The site was explored for the study performed in 1979 by excavating three test pits in the vicinity of the upper two houses and by ten hand excavations for the current phase of work. Hand excavations were performed in order to confirm the consistency of soils with respect to those observed in 1979. The following is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered. In general, the test pits encountered up to eighteen. inches of silty sand (Unified Soil Classification SM) overlying poorly graded sand with silt, or poorly graded sand (SP-SM and SP).' The poorly graded sands were observed to be in a medium dense to dense condition with the overlying silty sand being loose to medium dense. Groundwater was not observed in any of the test pits for the original study, or in any of the hand excavations performed for this reconnaissance and update. Additionally, seepage was not observed on the upper portion of the bluff face. DISCUSSiON AND RECOMMENDAATiONS This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area for the exclusive use of Green Tara Incorporated and its representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report, in its entirety, should be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. Slope Stability During our site reconnaissance, the site slopes were observed for signs of instability. At the time of our reconnaissance, there generally does not appear to be any evidence of instability such as head scarps, hummocky terrain, or vegetation patterns which would indicate past slope failures. in addition, indicators of potential future instability such as tension cracks, or seepage zones were not observed. In our opinion, the site appears stable based on our site observations and experience. Earth Consultants. Inc. Green Tara Incorporated ` April 4, 1995 E-1165-1 Page 4 Additionally, the proposed site development should enhance slope stability by providing subsurface drainage and retaining soils, based on our understanding of the proposed development. Removal of the ridge at the top of the bluff, as proposed, would also enhance I, the stability of the bluff by reducing the driving forces. Site Preparation and General Earthwork Construction areas should be stripped and cleared of all surface vegetation and any other deleterious material. Stripped materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. After stripping operations are complete, filling operations to provide the design slab subgrade elevation may then commence. The ground. surface where foundations or structural fill are to be placed should be proofrolled. All proofrolling should be observed by a representative of ECI. Soil in any loose or soft areas, if recompacted and still yielding, should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill to a depth that will provide a stable base. Structural fill is defined as any compacted fill placed under buildings, slabs, pavements, or any other load -bearing areas. Structural fill under floor slabs and footings should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve (12) inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its laboratory maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should also be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of maximum dry density except for the top twelve 0 2) inches which should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. During dry weather, most soils which are compactible and non -organic can be used as structural fill. On -site soils should be suitable for use as structural fill, provided the grading operations are conducted during dry weather and the moisture content of the soil is near the optimum. However, laboratory testing indicates the native silty sand and sand with gravel and a trace of silt contain at least five percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve. Soil with more than five percent fines will degrade if exposed to excessive moisture, and compaction and grading will be difficult if the soil moisture increases significantly above its optimum condition. Earth Consultants, Inc. Green Tara Incorporated April 4,r 1995 E-1165-1 Page 5 If the native soil is exposed to moisture and cannot be adequately compacted then it may be necessary to use an imported free -draining granular fill. Fill for this purpose and for use in wet weather should consist of a fairly well graded granular material having a maximum size of three inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction. In order to provide grades for the driveway, it may be necessary to place fill on a sloping grade. In our opinion, the placement of fill on slopes is generally acceptable; however, where theslope exceeds 25 percent, the - fill should be keyed and benched into the slope. This process consists of excavating a keyway at the toe of the planned fill. The keyway should have a width of about six to eight feet and a depth of two feet into medium dense to dense native soil. The slope above the keyway should then be cut into a series of horizontal to slightly inward -sloping benches. Typically, the benches are excavated with a small bulldozer as the fill is brought up. The width of the benches will vary with the gradient of the slope, usually the gentler the slope, the wider the benches. Plate 1, Slope Fill Placement, schematically shows the keyway and benches. Foundations Based on our understanding of the proposed project, the information in the referenced study and our observations of the site, it is our opinion the proposed buildings can be supported on a conventional spread and continuous foundation system obtaining support as described in the referenced study. Residences may be built into the site slopes, provided the footings are placed such that the face of the footing is a minimum of ten feet from the slope face (Plate 2). All footing excavations should be observed by an ECI representative prior to placing forms or reinforcement in order to confirm conditions are as anticipated. Stab -on -Grade Floors Slab -on -Grade floors may be supported as recommended in the 1979 study. Concrete slabs resting on soil ultimately cause the moisture content of the underlying soils to rise. This results from continued capillary rise and the ending of normal evapotranspiration. As concrete is permeable, moisture will eventually penetrate the slab unless some protection is provided. Earth Consultants. Inc. Green Tara incorporated April 4, 1995 E-1165-1 Page 6 To minimize these problems, suitable moisture protection measures should be used. Various alternatives exist, including concrete toppings or additives and synthetic moisture -resistant membranes. Information on the product usage, installation and warranty should be obtained from the manufacturer if these products are used. The effectiveness of such measures can be improved by installing a capillary break under the membrane or damp -proofed slab. A capillary break, if used, should consist of a minimum of four inches of free -draining sand or gravel. if a moisture -resistant membrane is used, care should be taken during construction not to damage the membrane and the seams should be sealed. Two inches of damp sand may be placed over the membrane for protection during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. Retaining Walls Retaining walls and foundation walls that will act as retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the retained soils. Walls that are designed to yield can be designed to resist the lateral earth pressure imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of thirty-five (35) pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The equivalent fluid weight should be increased to fifty (50) pcf for walls that are restrained at the top from free movement. These; values are based on horizontal backfill. For retaining walls allowed to yield and a backfill slope of up to 2H.1 V, an equivalent fluid weight of sixty-five (65) pcf may be used for design. The equivalent fluid weights assume that surcharges due to hydrostatic pressures, traffic, structural loads or other surcharge loads will not act on walls. If such surcharges are to apply, they should be added to the above design lateral pressures. The lateral resistance design values (friction and passive pressure) given in the referenced study are applicable for retaining walls. I Retaining walls should be backfilled with a free -draining material conforming to the WSDOT specification for gravel backfill for walls (WSDOT 9-03.12(2)). The free draining material should extend a minimum of eighteen inches behind the wall. The remainder of the backfill should consist of structural fill. A perforated drain pipe should be placed at the base of the wall. Drain pipes located in the free -draining backfill soil should be perforated with holes less than one-half inch in diameter. The drain pipe should be surrounded by a minimum of one cubic foot per lineal foot with 3/4-inch rock or should be wrapped with a filter fabric. Earth Consultants. Inc. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time during an earthquake. Due to the existence of medium dense to dense soils and the lack of a near, surface ground water table, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction induced damage at the site is low to minimal. The UBC . Earthquake regulations contain a static force procedure and a dynamic force procedure for design base shear calculations. Based on the encountered soil conditions, it is our opinion that site coefficient of 1.2 should be used for the static force procedure as outlined in Section 2334 of the 1991 UBC. For the dynamic force procedure outlined in section 2335 of the 1991 UBC, the curve for Deep Cohesioniess or Stiff Clay Soils (Soil Type 2), should be used for Figure 23-3, Normalized Response Spectra Shapes. Site Drainage During construction, water must not be allowed to stand in building areas. Loose surfaces should be sealed at night by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades must allow for drainage away from the building foundations. The ground should be sloped at a gradient of 3 percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from the proposed residences. This gradient may be reduced to 2 percent in paved areas. Earth Coneuftents, Inc. We understand that, due to the sloping nature of the site and proposed structures, it will not be possible to slope the ground surface away from the foundations on all' sides of the: buildings. Therefore, where surface gradients are. toward the structures, suitable collection and discharge methods should be utilized to remove water from the building areas. Two options for collections and discharge of water are a concrete lined swale, or allowing the gravel backfill for the retaining walls to act as an interceptor trench by not covering the gravel at the surface with topsoil, or other relatively impermeable material. 'There are drainageoptions other than those mentioned. ECI will be available to discuss drainage with you. Groundwater is not anticipated to have a significant impact on construction since no seepage was observed during the original subsurface exploration or the visual site reconnaissance.. However, if groundwater seepage is encountered in foundation or excavations during a shallow sump construction, the bottom of the excavation should be sloped pits. The collected water can then be pumped from these pits to a positive and permanent discharge, such as a nearby storm drain. Depending on a e stem magnitude of such ch se cage. it may also be necessary to interconnect the sump pits by Footing drains should be installed around the perimeter of the structure, at or just below the invert of the footing, with a gradient sufficient to initiate flow. A typical detail is provided on Plate 3. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing drain system. Where foundation walls will act as retaining walls, the retaining wall drain can also be used as a footing dram. Excavations and Slopes t The following information is provided solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that ECI is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the Contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. Earth Ccnsukants, tnc. Green Tara Incorporated April 4, 1995 E-11 G5-1 Page 9 State law requires that temporary slopes be inclined at specific slope ratios depending on the type of soil exposed on . the slope. Based on the information obtained from our field exploration, the site soils expected to be encountered in excavations would be classified as Type B by OSHA, and as such, temporary cuts greater than four feet in height should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than 1 H:1 V (Horizontal:Vertical). Any temporary slopes should be observed by a representative of Earth Consultants, Inc., during excavation in order to confirm that the soil conditions are as anticipated and to provide timely recommendations should differing soil conditions be encountered. Should slopes not be able to be cut back to this slope inclination, or cuts greater than twenty feet in depth be required, we can provide temporary shoring design recommendations upon request. All permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined 2H:1 V or flatter. Recommendations for support of other permanent slope ratios can be provided on request. All cut slopes should be observed by ECI during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated. Supplementary recommendations can then be developed,. if needed, to improve stability, including flattening of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains. In any case, water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slopes. All permanently -exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. LIMITATIONS Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, and engineering analyses, the design information provided us, and our experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations submitted in this document are based upon the data obtained from the test pits and our site reconnaissance. Soil and groundwater conditions between test pits may vary from those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory locations may not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, ECI should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding with the construction. Earth Consultants. Inc. Green Tara Incorporated E-1165-1 April 4, 1995 Page 10 Additional Services As the engineer of record, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications. ECI should also be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations ,and to facilitate design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. We do not accept responsibility for the performance of the foundation or earthwork unless we are retained to review the construction drawings and specifications, and to provide construction observation and testing services. We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service to you during this phase of project development, and we look forward to working with you in the future. Should you or your consultants have any questions about the content of this letter, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Sincerely, 1 EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. I Douglas S. Lynne eR• CA/1� 0j Staff Engineer WAS &lr Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. fix17P,7 l Manager of Geotechnic DSL/KRC/kmI EXPIRES Kl�y1�4 Attachments: Plate 1 - Slope Pill Placement Plate 2 - Footings On or Adjacent to Slopes . Plate 3 - Typical Footing Subdrain Earth Consultants, Inc. SCHEMATIC ONLY — NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING FINAL SLOPE GRADIENT ill ==til tit ISEE TEXTIH EXISTING t/ :,'. • -,; !' GRADE TYPICAL "BENCH" /.. =01 p =11j MINIMUM 4 FEET _ aII+:111 WIDTH ILt�i i n _Ili'=14i "KEY" tut _I�l EXISTING [H GRADE LEGEND ^TT Free draining, organic free. granular material with a maximum size of 3 Inches; containing no more than 5 percent fines (silt and clay size particles passing the No. 200 mesh sieve I or other material approved • by geotechnical engineer. Key way fill Is same as structural fill described above. Key way should be minimum 2 feet deep and 6 feet wide, extending the full length of the slope face. ------ Approximate original ground line. NOTES: • Slope should be stripped of topsoil and unsuitable materials prior to excavating key way or benches. • Benches will typically be equal to a dozer blade width, approximately 8 feet, but a minimum of 4 feet. • Final slope gradient should be 2:1 1Horizontal: %rtica11. • Final slope face should be densified by over building with compacted fill and trimming back to shape or by compaction with dozer or roller. • Planting or hydroseeding slope face with a rapid growth deep rooted vegetative mat will reduce erosion potential of slope area. • Use of pegged in place jute matting or geotechnical fabric will help maintain the seed and mulch in place until the root system has an opportunity to germinate. • Structural fill should be placed in thin loose lifts not exceeding 10 inches in thickness. Each lift should be compacted to no less than the degree specified in the site preparation and earth work section of this report. No additional lift should be placed until compaction Is achieved. SLOPE FILL PLACEMENT no Earth Consultants Inc. Greenness Residential Development Edmonds, Washington' LProjNo. 1165-1 Drwn. - GLS Date Mar. 195 Checked DSL Dated 3/23/95 Plate - 1 Foundation ; FOUNDATIONS ON OR ADJACENT TO SLOPES Earth Consultmts Inc. Greenness Residential Development C,wc ""°` '&wk*vrwW SidmimEdmonds, Washington Pro). No. 1165-1 Drwn. GLS Date Mar. 'as Checked DSL Date 3/23195 Plate 2 Slope To Drain •� - y - h;' ' i •'••i:.'h''T:''.o-.."�y,'•* �L:F.� [•�i: �Ti-: '�i_yr�t u rk t t �:+Mf.ze}:i'�$;13.'•i rr �l-!: � � D p ; ';';:n .i?s...i,.i'"L'Ltr :': s.'Li N..�+�;�� •iu�'�r•;z;''ti Y�G•:}Y tist�,tii..:F.'-.. :yv.�; 2:-.i+'.•�rx=�:t :,.,y2��•, i:�� } s� 7 it 5Vic, •~t�ih �Q%��.^�'.rtr `.•�^fm~.�.i Kii^i•" i .O'+. � p 'y'�.a•:Y j��ar � 6 Inch min. .t S~{l�"•'-:!::e} :t;+Y` Y:�S: 'i"4' 1 •y r 4 • '�f L t ".1- O 'p . D _ .., N� '/ al• YK:!•s�.v4,:+ yi 'F +, knlsA..� ••YM1.�•: .tj'.s ..•'(Ki:iy e p } �?L �:�,S�, �� ./.a ttt •. _} y 3. ♦ 1,-�, ..;}rj )t :'.. tT`i'`i .ny i't..T • V"=0 .• _ "�?3 y. ki. i e.r;.t • :u. t � ._• • . +S"•t: a D• w O o. *. i'.- .•; •. r••.•pw ,� �O"- w0 �� ice`.• •:•:: �. ;.::o',;�...o.Q,r,l�•, o+•�• D :. 18Inch min. 7. 4 Inch min, .^�' :o^�•-'-;; ��•�o�-'_:�:.�' •"" �' •' Diameter . ; :.:: _ :. p ;: --: ;.;I o o° . • ., D Perforated Pipe"` „ : - •. =4• .•, . • - Wrapped in Drainage ^ e ^ : .• •��• O O O O • O C OD 00 • q. Fabric p• D- Q. D. p p D D D 2 inch min. 2 inch min. j 4 inch max- 12 inch min. SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING LEGEND Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability material. - u •• Fine aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete; Section 9-03.1 (2) of the a WSDOT Specifications. (j Drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid with perforations or ��✓� slots facing down; tight jointed; with a positive gradient. Do not use flexible corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing lines. Wrap with Mirafi 140 Filter Fabric or equivalent. Earth Consultants Inc. TYPICAL FOOTING SLlBDRAIN DETAIL. Greenness Residential Development ��`t °"°""E,gt'°&C4o`0V$AF""rorwr^ AWSc ""h Edmonds, Washington L.Pr! No. 1165-1 Drwn. GLS Date Mar. `95 Checked DSL Date 3/23/95, Plate 3 r � 1 k DiSTRIBUT10N ` E=1165-7 4 ` Copies Green,. ara lncar orated P , '! 6202 ?2nd Avenue West :Edmdnds,.:Washington '98026-4904 Attention: Mr. philtip Lehn Copy. CT Engineering,;Inc . _.. ,. ,180Nickergon Street, Suite 302 Seattle: ',Washirigton 98109 Atfentian: Mr; Charles` Griffes Earth' Co�sUkahU , Inc: CITY OF EDMONDS 25d 5TH AVENUE NORTH. EDMOW-32d2t \. RCW I97-1 i-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of oro___nzat: Four lot subdivision with associated site development including the installation of a site drainage system and detention pond, installation of a roadway for site access, installation of underground utilities, with an estimated total grading of 2027 cubic yards to accomplish aforementioned site development. Proponent: Philip Lehn, Architect, 16202 72nd Avenue West, Edmonds, WA 98020 Location of proposal, including street address if any: 16202 72nd Avenue West Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c). This decision was 1 made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. l x_ There is no comment period for this DNS. This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2), the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by 19. Responsible Official: Jeffrey S. Wilson f - I s Position/Title Current Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Services - Planning Division Phone: 771-0220 ! -Address: City of Edmonds, 250 5th Avenue North; PJrao— 5ds,'W 98020 Date- 113196 Signature:. _ You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 250 -5th Avenue North,. Edmonds, WA 98020. no later than __. Ianuary t7 M1996, by filing a written appeal citing the reasons. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Jeffrev S. Wilson to read or ask about the procedures tar SEPA appeals. _ Posted on January 3 1996, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this forth, along with a copy of the Checklist. Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist: xx Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section �X Edmonds School District No. 15 E .U. Box 47703 Olympia. WA 98504-7703 Attn: Brian Benzel. Superintendent 20420 68th Avenue West XX Department of Wildlife Lynnwood. WA 98036-7400 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012Community Transit Attn: Marvin Freel Attachments 1133 164th Street South%vcst. #200 I.ynnwood. WA 98037 CITY OF IEDMONDS LAURA M. HALL 260 - 6TH AVE. N. , EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX )206) 771.0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering . ago.,,9y November 22. 1995 Dear Phil: The section of code you reference in your November 17,1995 letter has not been interpreted to allow staff the authority to waive street standards. The statement in the ECDC 18,80,000 ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS " The reconstruction of existing facilities shall conform to the standards as closely as is practical and economically feasible." applies to the standards in the documents listed in section 18.80.000 (Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction, General Special Provisions, Washington State "City Design Standards", etc.) and not the Street Standards found in section 18.80.010. As mentioned at our meeting on November 17, 1995, the standard width for the street changes to twenty feet and not sixteen feet when less than ten lots access the road. The City policy has always been to avoid the narrowing of a roadway along its length. However, in this case, we could agtee to an eleven foot wide lane northbound and a nine foot lane southbound, which changes to eleven feet near station 2+00 on your preliminary plan. Any further street width reduction would need to be based on conflicting code requirements, such as not being able to maintain driveways at less than 20% at the required road width. The Street Standards have always been intended to apply to dead end street sections. Streets may be required to meet higher standards than those listed in the ECDC section 18.80.010, but developers are not required to bear the costs. Please call me or Gordy Hyde at 771-0220 if you have any questions. Sincerely, �"o e. * & JAMES C. WALKER, P.E. City Engineer JCWIsf c: Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator 72WIDTH.DOC + Incorporated August 11, 1890 +� Sister Cities. International -- Hekinan, Japan EXHiB1TJ:,�- _. ._._ ....... While. pleased with the City's prellminary'approval of our proposed four lot short subdivision, Green Tara incorporated (GTI) and Mariam and I wish to make a few, relatively minor modifications to our Preliminary Plat Plan, note a few inaccuracies in the City's report and formally object to some of the conditions which the City's Planning and Engineering Divisions have imposed. 1) 1. APPLICATION: C. APPLICANT: The Applicant is Green Tara Incorporated and Phillip and Mariam Lehn, not solely Phillipand Mariam I-Ohn. 2) D. ANALYSIS OF DESIGN: 2. Lot sizes and dimensions: In accordance with my recent discussions with you, we are attaching two copies of a revised Preliminary Plat Plan dated January 15,1996 which 1) identifies Parcel X, a fifth lot for common recreation along the subdivision's most western property line and 2) modifies Parcel 2's eastern boundary where it abuts Parcel 3 in order to conform with the City's Codes and Policies as they relate to Parcel 2's front, tear and side yards. All land zoned R-20 except 312.5 SF of Parcel I is now considered Parcel X. The new setbacks and approximate areas are as shown' on the attached plan and as listed in the General Information. EXHIBIT FILE Preliminary Review Response January 18,1996 Page two 3) 5. Generally, we believe several conditions listed in this section of the City's report are much more restrictive than the ordinance itself. Given the City's responsibility to judge our compliance with such relative terms as "reasonable", "practical". "necessary", "feasible", 'enhancement", etc., we are naturally concerned about this evidence of bias. b) (1) The ordinance does not require that "All trees on site are to be retained unless the applicant can clearly demonstrate that the building and utilities could not practicably be designed to retain trees." The ordinance requires the applicant to provide a plan which demonstrates its tree removal will be an enhancement. Since technically undefined, the term "enhance" must be interpreted in accordance with the ordinances purposes which safeguard a reasonable use and enjoyment of an applicant's property. The test of practicality applies only to the provislon's exception to permit tree removal far installing roads and utilities., {2} The ordinance does not require that uTrees may not be removed for the sole purpose of enhancing views...0 On'the contrary, the enhancement and enjoyment of a lot's view is reasonable on Mew property" and as such is protected by the ordinance. (3) The ordinance does not require nor provide the Planning Division with the authority to require the conditions to remove hazardous trees as imposed by this criteria. On the contrary, the ordinance specifically exempts 'Emergency situations on private property involving danger to life or property or substantial fire hazards." Since these criteria are more restrictive than those required by the ordinance, they would be an improper and inequitable application of the ordinance and we therefore request they be removed as conditions of the subdivision. Given its many non-native plants and sizable areas with slopes less than 25%, we would also like to know why the entire site has been designated "environmentally sensltive�". We are proposing to clear and grade the site and to remove and replace existing trees and provide new trees as indicated in our September 26, 1995 Proposed Site Plan. In addition, we have reached an agreement with Carol Walker (a copy is attached), "to replace trees west of (our) common property with lower growing trees and shrubs tocreate and maintain an unobstructed view of Puget Sound which can be seen from an elevation of 255 feet (NGVD)". After our Proposed Site Plan is granted preliminary approval, we intend to prepare a final landscaping plan and to apply for a land clearing permit as required in the ordinance. The City Engineer has said he will allow us to clear and grade the site's western ridge and, since the area is located close enough to the proposed detention pond to be considered an accessory space, the City Engineer has also said he is willing to allow the work to be included as part of the scope covered by the subdivision's general clearing and grading permit. Preliminary Review Response January,18,199b Page three 4} 11. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION: 1 We have, been trying to obtain a waiver or reduction of the City's street widening requirement since January 9, 1995. As indicated by President Drew Wojtanik's January 15, . 1996 letter to the City Engineer, the Meadowdale- Beach Community. Council, an association of local property owners, voted unanimously to support our plans for GREENNESS and to oppose the street widening requirement. Because the City's Community Services Department currently lacks the administrative authority to waive or reduce the requirement, we are necessarily compelled to appeal the condition imposing it. According to the Department's Director, the City Engineer has'agreed to write a technical report to the Hearing Examiner favorable to our appeal.. The Engineering Division has also agreed to A3 identify the conditions of thek acceptance and/or objections to the general concepts proposed In the preliminary drainage analysis prepared by Site development Services and submitted to the City on September 27, 1995 and B> identify and describe in a more design specific fisting of sanitary sewer system requirements, the City's obligation to provide and maintain grinder pump and pipeline systems for which.lots. To safeguard our right to a timely notice and a reasonable period to appeal any requirement or interpretation considered adverse, we believe items A and B listed above should be made available on or soon after Friday, January 19, 1996. 2. For all the reasons stated above, we believe the City should withdraw its conditions regarding our compliance with the Tree Clearing Ordinance as written in its 'Preliminary Review of Proposed Short Subdivision' and instead, simply Impose the condition that the subdivision must comply with the ordinance. While Lam concerned about the evermore complicated and expansive nature of the regulatory process, the City's apparent unwillingness to permit its own administrators to make reasonable decisions which would help to minimize the City's as well as the applicant's regulatory burden, and the high costs of time and money which have been needed to get us to this point, I am also encouraged by the City's exceptionally fine staff and believe we can still realize our hopes for GREENNESS. Thank you for helping.us reach this important stage in the process. Yours Truly, Phillip Lehn, Architect ' GREEN TA.RA INCORPORATED 16202 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 206-742-6813 James C. Walker, RE. City Engineer, City of Edmonds Community Services Department, Engineering Division 250 - 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Proposed widening of 72nd Avenue West, north of its intersection with 164th Street SW as a result of a proposed lot subdivision and development by Mr. Phillip Lehn Dear Mr. Walker: This letter is being submitted on behalf of the Meadowdale Beach Community Council (N BCC). The MBCC wishes to voice it's support for Mr. Lehn, and Green Tara Incorporated's (GTI) proposed subdivision of the site located at 16202 72nd Ave. West in Edmonds, and, further, to voice our strong opposition to the potential street widening requirement for 72nd Ave. West north of the intersection of 164th St. SW. On January 9th, 1996, the MBCC met to hear a presentation by Mr. Phiilp Lehn, who was representing GTI, regarding their proposal to further subdivide the subject site area to a total of four lots. Immediately subsequent to our meeting, MBCC members had received the City of Edmonds Notice of Public Hearing announcement for the Planning Division's scheduled public hearing January 19,1996 (file no. 5-95-163). During this meeting Mr. Lehn made a very professional presentation to Council members, complete with a "to scale" mock-up model of the site location itself, architectural drawings of his proposed "Option 1" and "Option 2" dealing with the proposed street widening, and copies of his written correspondence between he and the City of Edmonds Community Services Department regarding the street issue itself. Based on the information as he presented it before the MBCC, we wish to make it known that we, as a council, offer our unanimous support for the proposed subdivision and building project. However, we stand united as well in our opposition to the City ordered street widening modifications being imposed on the project. In our opinion, Option 1, to widen the street to a full 25' was/is a totally inappropriate and impractical expectation. This opinion is based on the existing (and even potential increased) traffic volume on the street and the extremely undesirable modifications which would result to our existing neighborhood not to mention the incredible cost which would have to be borne by GTI. EXHIBIT FILE NCI. '-�% .._. We understand: from your letter of November 22,1995, to Mr. Lehn that you have "relaxed" your enforcement of these rigid standards .to 23' for that area, of the street north of the first 200'' immediately north of the intersection with 164th Street ` SW This hardly seems like much of a relaxation at all and will not relieve the neighborhood of the extensive engineering modifications (Le., removal of existing trees, excavation of huge amounts of a bank, rebuilding of a rockery, etc.). We find this expectation totally unacceptable, unwanted, and seemingly unnecessary. We understand from our January 9th meeting that Mr. L,ehn may further modify his "Option T' to reduce the first 209 to 29 (vs 251) and retain the 16 for the remaining distance north on the road, therefore we will comment on his anticipated change. 1ViBCCX supports this approach and appeals to the.City to use its goad judgment in granting this request.` Even with the additional traffic resulting from Mr. L,ehn's lot development, the volume just doesn't justify the need to meet imposed street widening standards that were obviously developed with situations other than this in mind. Therefore, the MBCC request the City Planning Department to research the historic development of the existing Edmonds Community Development Code 18.80.000 to understand the actual reasons for adoption of the existing code standards to see if this situation address the "intent" of those criteria.and`question whether the code truly is applicable and appropriate. Finally, members of the MBCC will attend the January 19th Public Hearing. MBCC reserves the right to withdraw this letter of support/objection based on information presented differing from what we currently understand are the facts in this case. Sincerely, ------------------ S .................. . ........ .......... 18.80 CHAPTER 18.80 STREETS AND DRIVEWAYS 18.80.000 ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS The documents listed in this section are adopted by this reference subject to changes made in this chapter. The City Clerk and City Engineer shall keep these documents on file for public review. All new public works construction shall conform to.•the.standards contained in these documents. The reconstruc- H-0 --of existing facilities shall conform to the Standards as closely,as is practical and economically feasible. A. Public Works Construction. All public works construction undertaken by the City ty with funds provided by the State of Washington, all projects for which the use of such specifications are required by the State and all projects for which said specifications are required by order of the City Engineer, shall be undertaken in accordance with the standards contained in "Standard Specifications'for'Road, i. Bridge and Municipal Construction" prepared by the Washington State Department of Transportation and the American Public Works-.,.Assoc..iati-on..x:,Wa-shington State Chapter, as the same exists or, as- hereafter amended, along with any amendments and 'General Special Provisions (GSP) promulgated thereunder. Increased requirements may be imposed as a result of EPA requirements or when ordered by the City Engineer in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare. B. Major andSecondary Arterial Streets. Streets defined as major arterials and/or secondary arterials by the definitions established in RCW 35.78.010 shall be constructed and/or reconstructed -in accordance with the Washington State "City Design Standards" as prepared by the State of Washington Design Standard Committee. (Ord. 2713, 1989; 2475, 1985; Ord. 2264, 1982.] 18.80.010 STREET STANDARDS The standards for all street construction other than designated major and secondary arterial streets constructed in accordance with ECDC 18.80.000(B) shall be as shown in the Table of Street Standards below. The Public Works Director shall prepare drawings illustrating the street standards. Sidewalk standards and requirements are contained in Section 18.90.030 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. (06/30/89) ATTACHMENT 6 174 File No. AP-96-21 18.80.010 TABLE OF STREET STANDARDS Number of Minimum ' Lots or R.O.W.* Pavemoni- Cijrbs Dead End Zone units- Width, Widt It Gutters. Rec jLmts 1-2 lst4 1,21 4 No Turn ar'd RS-12 1-.2 1514 1214 Not RS-8, 6 1-2 1514 1214 Yes 2 RM,B,C 1-2 15o4 1214 Yes2 RS-20 3-4 20:4 16t4 No RS-1 2 3-4 20,4 16s4 Nol RS-8, 6 3-4 20t4 16 4 Yes2 RMrBjC 3-4 301 221 Yes2 2 RS-,20-., 5-9 301 201 Yes Yes 2 5-9 301 201 2 RS-8, 6 5-9 301 201 Yes RM,B,C RS-201 5-9 10-15 301 401 221 221 Yes2 2 Yes cul/s ac R$-12 10-15 401 221 Yes 3 RS-8, 6 10-15 401 221 Yes3 3 RM,B,C 10-15 401 Yes All 16+ Dependent on Design Yes3 Or easement; additional width shall be required in accordance .with the provisions of the City's official street.map and/or ,sidewalk plan under the City's Comprehensive Plan. Notes: 1. Asphaltic concrete if needed for drainage (thickened edge or curbs). 2. Asphaltic concrete (thickened edge or curbs). 3. Portland cement concrete (vertical or rolled). 4. If the Fire Chief and Public Works Director can demonstrate that the fire fighting or rescue operations may be impaired by limited roadway width, the right-of-way width and paving requirements for a street or access easement may be increased and/or additional paved or graveled shoulders required. Both such decisions shall be staff decisions rendered and appealable as provided in ECDC 20.95.050. All streets and access easements must be paved to a minimum width of 16 feet unless otherwise provided herein and developed in accordance with the City of Edmonds' Street Standards, on file in the..City Engineer's office. This paving requirement does not pertain to alleys as defined in section 21.05.025 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. 175 (06/30/89) All topography within the right-of-way limits incivaing. all utilities. Names'of all streets and adjoining subdivisions. Typical roadway section of proposed street.' Existing and proposed drainage structures (indicate direction of flow) and easements. 18.80.050 UTILITIES Locations for utilities shall be shown on the Engineer's Drawing provided for in this chapter. The Public Works Director may authorize deviations in the case of special circumstances due to topographical. configurations, existing -and * .,proposed:.de.velopment or other engineering considerations. Mains and service connections to all lots shall be completed prior to placing or replacing any surfacing materials. The construction of underground,ut,il " ities shall conform to the Standard SpeciEicatibns.-fbr Muni*cipal Public Works Construction adopted by this chapter. 18.80.060 DRIVEWAY AND CURB CUT REQUIREMENTS A. Permit Required. No person shall begin work on the construction alteration, repair or removal or any driveway or the paving of any parking strip on any or adjacent to street, alley or other public place in the city, without * first obtaining a permit from the Public Works Director. Fees shall be as set forth in Chapter 15.00. B. Location. 1. No driveway shall be so located as to create a hazard to pedestrians, bicyclists or motorists or invite or compel illegal or unsafe traffic movements. 2. Unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Directory all driveways including the returns shall be confined within lines perpendicular to the curb line and passing through the property corners. 177 (06/30/89) 18.80.060 .3. No driveway shall be constructed in such a manner as to be A hazard to any existing street lighting standard, uf-j',,jt*y pole, traffic regulating device, or fire cost of relocating any such street structure wh,n necessary to do so shall be paid by the abut} ng property owner. The relocation of any street !�I.Lucture shall be allowed only on approval of the ptirson owning the structure involved. 4. On private property every driveway must provide access to parking structures or access specifically designated for parking purposes requiring the entrance of vehicles. C. Size and Number. L. Except as otherwise provided, the width of any residential driveway shall not exceed 20 feet exclusive of the radii of the turns, with such measurement being made parallel with the center line of the street. Driveway approaches shall extend from the edge of the existing street a distance of twenty (20) feet or to the edge of the property line, whichever is greater. Approaches shall be constructed of asphalt concrete pavement or.an equivalent approved by the City Engineer. -The standard width for..-.commercial-and!other nonresidential streets shall be thirty (30) feet. At the application of the applicant or the City Engineer, additional width in excess of the established standard mays oet.;ap p, govedAas.,a,staff decision to a maximum width of-f6rty ( 40)-feet. Such decision shall be made only after notice and hearing in accordance with provisions of ECDC 20.95.050. Such application shall be approved only if: (a) it conforms to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; (b) is found to be in the public interest when the needs of the applicant are reviewed and balanced in light of the benefits to the general public and the impacts, if any, on the immediate neigh- borhood; and (c) is consistent with or enhances public safety and will not create a hazard to vehicular, pedes- trian or bicycle traffic. The Public Works Director may authorize additional residential driveway width for three -car garages and for access driveways necessary for off-street parking or recreational vehicles. [Ord. 2713, 1989.1 D. Driveway Slopes. 1. Driveway slopes shall not exceed 14% unless authorized by the Public Works Director as set forth below. (06/30/89) 178 1. The street as proposed is the only economical and environmentally reasonable alternative; 2. The street as proposed will not create a traffic, pedestrian or bicycle ha"zard or otherwise negatively impact the safety of its use; 3. The police and fire chiefs concur in the increased street slope; and 4. The public health, safety and general welfare will not be adversely affected. C. The Public Works Director shall place in the appropriate City file, a signed, written statement of findings and reasons for authorizing the street slope to exceed 12%. The statement shall also contain the maximum slope authorized up to 15%. [Oral.. 2713, 1989.1 It appears that Phillip Lehn is appealing two staff decisions. The first is the street widening requirement applied to his short plat. The second is the staff interpretation that ECDC section 18.80.000 ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS does not give staff latitude to waive Street Standards and only applies to the documents (City Design Standards, Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction, etc.) listed in section 18.00.000. Staff believes there is justification for allowance of a smaller road for this particular short plat. However, I do not believe there is any justification to reconsider the interpretation of ECDC section 18.80.000 which provides no waiver from Street Standard requirements. The Street Standards in ECDC section 18.80.010 were created to apply in situations where the City and County Design Standards provided little guidance. The City and County Design Standards are generally intended for use on streets with more than 400 vehicle trips per day. The City's street standards were obviously intended to apply to low volume and Dead End streets since the Table of Street Standards applies to streets with less than 15 lots or units and includes Dead End requirements. The specific street standard requirements placed for this development were based on the standards in ECDC section 18.80.010. Staff does agree with the applicant that a road with less width could safely serve the development. The rockeries proposed by the applicant in his preliminary road improvement plans may create additional hazards along the road. Creating less road surface results in less storm water runoff. Since runoff from this area drains through the Meadowdale landslide hazard areas, storm water runoff reduction has significant benefits. -14 of the right of -way or topography '` The applicants proposal to widen to less::: than Street Standazd requirements hoes not create 'sight distance hazards that,- could l e improved bV: a wider roadway. J,. cc Gordy Hyde . 4 l it S SY 1 r i 5 fl t = f HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: j r� ter ,r, r� �� r � c '•`� S �' � �' � zi+� fi '� Y "' -`�rt Y ,► �6I�. E.F ;,u?/,,. js��,i; *"�"� t.r 1 i�, c a t i�%! �, r v n,,,,a�•);3'rf tEx� ..�; yt, a. +F'i •s 4%ti I{`rr.s ridgy». �� .; al r}/�'F ?a 7'�"�, r�u ,: ''>r' �i !�,� ey.t: x x�'t Sj �.k k, -} . & ZONE DISTRICT �� THE HEARING WILL BEGIN AT . M., IN THE PLAZA MEETING ROOD, LIBRARY BUILDING, 650 MAIN STREET, EDMONDS. WASHINGTON. IF YOU WISH TO COMMENT ON THIS PROPOSAL, YOU MAY COME TO THE HEARING AND SPEAR. YOU MAY ALSO WRITE A LETTER STATING YOUR VIEWS WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING. PLEASE ADDRESS THE LETTER TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND INCLUDE THE ABOVE FILE NUMBER. IF THE ITEM IS CONTINUED TO ANOTHER HEARING BECAUSE THE AGENDA IS NOT COMPLETED, OR FURTHER INFORMATION IS NEEDED, THE DATE OF THE CONTINUED HEARING WILL BE ANNOUNCED ONLY AT THE MEETING. ADDITIONAL INFORMA NORTH, EDMONDS (PH{ Y BE OBTAINED AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 250 FIFTH AVENUE 33S THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR CONCEALMENT OF THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE OF THE HEARING IS A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT. THIS NOTICE MAY BE REMOVED AFTER ift-11% 7 f 5131-0001-052--0305 John Johnson 16122 72nd'Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 5131-000-051-0108 Source One Mtg 27555 Farmington Rd Farmington Hills, M1 48334 5131-000-n064-0.004 Donald Iverson 2018 150th Pl SE Mill Creek,- VIA 98012 5131-000-053-007 John nson 1612 72nd Ave W Edm nds, VIA 98026 5131-000-066-6002 Carol: Walker . 16209 75th P1 W Edmonds, WA 98026 5131-000-068-0109 DonalXrk, eh 2018 h Pl SE Mill WA 98012 5131-000-051-0108 Greg & Jeanine Casper 16100 N Meadowdale Rd Edmonds, WA 98026 5131--000-065-000 Cliff Lawson 16221 75th Pl W Edmonds, WA 98026 5131-000-068-0208 Rita Stillings 16342 72nd Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 5131-000-068-0307 5131-000-068-0406 5131-000-068-0505 Drew & Linda Wojtanik David & Kathryn Wells Bank of America/SPNB 16306 72nd Ave W 16330 72nd Ave W 10600 Valley View St Edmonds, VIA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Cypress, CA 90630 5131-000-068-0505 5131-000-067-0308 5131-000-067-0100 Scott & Joyce Wright Phillip & Mariam Lehn Green Tara Inc 7211 164th St SW 16202 72nd Ave W 16202 72nd Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 5131-000-067-0209 Michael & Linda Duffy 16238 72nd Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 6495-000-003-0006 John & Pam Commors 16220 70th Pl W Edmonds, WA 98026 6495-000-006-0003 Prudential Home Mtg PO Box 4157 Frederick, MD 21701 6363-000-005-0003 Mildred Larsen 16232 70th P1 W Edmonds, WA 98026 6495-000-001-0008 Randal & Alyson Harwood 16228, 70th Pl W Edmonds, WA 98026 6495-000-004-00005 Rolf & Marilyn Toberer 16209 70th Pl W Edmonds, WA 98026 6495-000-006-0003 Eric & Pam Daviscourt 16211 70th P1 W Edmonds, WA 98026 6363-000-009-00009 Seattle Fed Credit Union PO Box 780 Seattle, WA 98111 6495-000-002-0007 Howard Landsverk 16224 70th P1 W Edmonds, WA 98026 6495-0 0-005-0004 Rolf & 3.lyn TobereY 16209 7 h Pi W Edmon , JA 98026 6495-000-007-0002 Max & Lar. Englesberg 16215 70th Pl W Edmonds, WA 98026 6363-000-009-0009 Howard McEwen 16318 71st Pl W Edmonds, WA 98026 6363-000-010-0006 6363-000-011-0005 6363-000-012-004 Arthur & Martha Haig James T. Nagai Citicorp Mtg Inc 16222 71st Pl W 16318 71st Pl W PO Box 790009 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 St. Louis, MO t � I t.. � ..� i C. City of Edmonds Planning Division 250 - 5th Ave. N., Edmonds, WA 98020 February 20, 1996 Re: Appeal of Engineering Division's Street Widening Condition for GREENNESS To whom it may concern: RECEIVED D J PERMIT COUNTER 5--q5— 163 On February 5, 1996, the City's Planning Division approved GREENNESS, a short subdivision of two lots into four lots plus a common recreational parcel. Because the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) requires that ten or more lots be served by a twenty-five foot wide street (22 feet of pavement plus 3 feet of curbs and gutters), and because the two, newly created lots raise the total ultimately served to twelve, the Engineering Division originally required 72nd Avenue W immediately north of 164th Street SW to be widened to 25 feet throughout its entire, 600 foot length. Since the street is dead ended and only a small part of it will ever serve ten or more lots, the City Engineer later allowed the requirement to be reduced to 25 feet for its first 200 feet and 23 feet (24 feet with thickened edges instead of curbs and gutters) for its last 400 feet. However, because City's street standards are based on the more intensive types and much higher amounts of traffic experienced by through streets, it would still be unreasonable and inappropriate to impose even this reduced requirement on our quiet street, which will always remain dead ended. While appreciated, the reduction is obviously too small to make much difference and Green Tara Incorporated (GTI) and Mariam and I (the applicants) along with the Meadowdale Beach Community Council (MBCC), which represents all property owners living along the street, are united not only in our strong opposition to the Engineering Division's street widening requirement but also in our support of GREENNESS and our more appropriate design alternative for the street (Option 3). Because of the difficult site conditions along the street, compliance with the City's requirement will not only be technically impractical, functionally inappropriate, and aesthetically undesirable, it may also be prohibitively expensive. Useful space would be forever lost to make way for an unreasonably wide expanse of asphalt which would likely serve no other purpose than to encourage some to drive more recklessly. Massive amounts of soil would have to be excavated, exported and retained, at least one and possibly two power poles and cable TV standards would need to be relocated, a seventy five foot long rockery would need to be demolished and rebuilt, and, depending on the alignment allowed, several mature trees may need to be destroyed, all to create just two additional lots. Given the practical limitations and unusually high cost of complying with the City's street widening requirement, the test of practical and economic feasibility, prescribed in ECDC Section 18.80.000 ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, which neither differentiates nor excludes City standards, should enable the Engineering Division to reduce the requirement more substantially. Unfortunately, while the City Council is currently revising the code to enable the Planning and Engineering Divisions to exercise more discretion in their interpretations of it, the Engineering Division continues to be influenced and bound by the previous City Council's unwritten and unexplained interpretation of Section 18.80.000, which includes State standards but excludes City standards when applying the prescribed test of practical and financial feasibility. While sympathetic with our complaints, criticisms and design alternative, the City's Director of Community Services was recently advised by the City Attorney that the Engineering Division does not have the authority to reduce the City's street widening requirement and that our best, if not only recourse is to appeal the requirement. In encouraging us to file an appeal, the Director also said the Engineering Division would be willing to write a technical report supporting it. Therefore, despite the considerable additional cost of time and money to ourselves and project, Green Tara Incorporated and Mariam and I, along with all of our neighbors, formally appeal the City's very coarsely conceived street widening requirement as well as the Engineering Division's exclusion of City standards in its application of the previous City Council's interpretation of ECDC Section 18.80.000. City of Edmonds Appeal February 20, 1996 Page two GENERAL OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 72nd Avenue W immediately north of 164th Street SW is approximately 600 feet long, 18 feet wide near its southern intersection and 11 feet wide at its northern end. Near the street's midpoint, two driveways, with grades of 27% and 17% (the City's recommended maximum is 141/6) are located approximately 17 feet across the street from a steep, ten foot high embankment. North of the streets last driveway lies a very steep drainage ravine which will forever prevent the street from connecting to North Meadowdale Beach Road and becoming a through street. South of its intersection with 164th Street SW, 72nd Avenue W is a 22 foot wide through street and east of 72nd Avenue W, 164th Street. SW is a 32 foot wide through street until it begins to curve down to its main through street feeder, N Meadowdale Road, where it narrows to slightly less than 18 feet. THROUGH STREETS VS. DEAD ENDS Since ECDC makes no distinction between through and dead ended streets, the City's street standards must serve the "worst case" or most intense circumstances which in this instance would be through street traffic. There are many obvious differences between through and dead ended streets which cause them to experience different amounts and types of traffic. A through street serving at least ten lots (the minimum requiring a 25 foot wide street) not only serves the traffic generated by each of the ten lots moving in both directions, it also serves to connect many more lots in both directions beyond the original ten. Normal vehicular demand on a dead ended street is significantly less. Only those few lots at the end use most of the street to travel in both directions and no lots beyond those already located on the street ever use a dead ended street to get anywhere else. Because all incoming traffic must inevitably stop, speeds are generally slower and safety higher, particularly on relatively short, dead ended streets such as 72nd Avenue W. Since the street will never experience the regular intensity of traffic upon which the City's through street standards are based (i.e. through streets serving commercial as well as residential districts with 10 - 15 or even more lots), our dead ended part of 72nd Avenue W can continue to be adequately served by a much narrower street. EAPRACTICAL AND PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE Compliance with the City's street widening requirement will cause us all to suffer costs which will far outweigh any possible benefit. To help you understand the anticipated impact, I have attached photographs, dated January 8, 1995, and the plans, profiles and cross sections of both Options 1 and 2 (please see my November 17, 1995 letter to James Walker describing both options). The following description divides the street into three, 200 foot segments (numbers in parentheses refer to the attached photos). The first segment, 0+00 through 2+00 (1-6 & 23-24), narrows from 18 to 16 feet in width. It is bordered by an 8 to 1 I foot wide shoulder and seventeen, mature Douglas Firs (twelve have approximately 16" diameters) to the west and a drainage swale, a steep, 10' high embankment, several mature trees, a power pole and a cable TV standard to the east. If the street is aligned with the centerline of the right-of-way, as shown on Option 1, a tremendous quantity of earth would need to be excavated, exported and retained, the power pole and TV standard would need to be relocated and several mature trees, (now buffering a house and beautifying the street) would need to be destroyed. While Option 2 would eliminate the utility relocations and significantly reduce the amount of excavation along this segment by aligning the street further west, it would not eliminate excavation altogether. A wall and shy distance, while not shown, would likely be needed near station 1+00 and by shifting the street's alignment further west, the now parkable shoulder next to the row of Douglas Firs would be eliminated. The second segment, 2+00 through 4+00 (7 -8 & 15 -22), narrows from 16 to 15 feet in width. It is bordered by a terraced garden, a fire hydrant, a sports court, and the two, steep (27% and 17%) driveways on the west. The east side is bordered by a narrow drainage Swale to a 12" round GP invert, a steep, 10 foot high embankment and rockery, a power pole, and a cable TV standard. The dashed line immediately north of station 2+00 indicates the point where nine or less lots are served by the street. Because the two driveways on the west are already too steep, an enormous amount of earth would need to be excavated, exported and retained to carve a 23 foot width plus shy distance and rockery out of the steep embankment across the street. The existing, approximately seventy five foot long rockery would need to be demolished and reconstructed. The power pole and cable TV standard would need to be relocated and much of the existing gravel parking area on the east side would need to be eliminated. City of Edmonds Appeal February 20, 1996 Page three The last segment, 4+00 through 5+93 (9-15) bends to the east before connecting to the last two driveways and narrows from 15 to I I feet in width. It is bordered by GREENNESS, a few mature trees, including a 36" Douglas Fir, and two water meters on the west and a raised planter, a cable TV standard, two power poles and a couple of mature trees on the east. While the fewest number of houses would ever use much Iess need a 23 foot width plus shy distance and rockery along this last segment of the dead ended street, the greatest volume of earth would need to be excavated, exported and retained here to satisfy the City's requirement. When added to the project's other required costs, the street widening requirement makes the project's financial feasibility very doubtful. While there was enough property to create three new lots, GTI decided it would be aesthetically more desirable to create only two. Given the property's original cost, length and cost of the design and regulatory review process to date, the cost of project financing, the anticipated cost of providing the new 600 foot plus water main and hydrant required by the Fire Marshal, and the development's 320 foot long private driveway, detention pond, and utility infrastructure, compliance with the street widening requirement should almost certainly make the project prohibitively expensive. SECTION 18.80.000 Because ECDC Section 18,80,000, ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS states, "The reconstruction of existing facilities shall conform to the standards as closely as is practical and economically feasible", and does not specifically differentiate or exclude City standards, we believe the Engineering Division already has justifiable grounds to further reduce the street widening requirement more substantially. However, while not specifically defined as such in the code, the Engineering Division says that it was the previous City Council's intent to interpret the word "standards" to mean only State standards and not City as well as State standards. We question the purpose as well as the validity of such a narrow interpretation. If it is considered reasonable and appropriate to hold State standards to the test of practical and economic feasibility when reconstructing existing facilities, why shouldn't City standards be held to the same test? According to the City Engineer, the current City Council is currently revising the ECDC to permit the Planning and Engineering Divisions to exercise more discretion when making technical interpretations of the code. Since the Engineering Division's interpretation of Section 18.80.000 is not literally prescribed by the code, since the current City Council expects the Engineering Division to exercise more discretion when interpreting the code, and since all the neighbors who live on the street are unanimously opposed to having their street widened in accordance with the City's inappropriate standards, we believe the Engineering Division has sufficient grounds to break from its unnecessarily restrictive interpretation of Section 18,80.000 and render a more reasonable judgment based on sound engineering principles. BUSIEST THROUGH STREETS VS. OUR DEAD ENDED STREET After preparing and submitting Options 1 and 2, we discovered that both Meadowdale Beach Road and 76th Avenue W (between Meadowdale Beach Road and North Meadowdale Road), two of our neighborhood's most intensely traveled through streets, are only 20 feet wide and have no curbs and gutters or thickened edges. While we understand that it's generally unacceptable to advocate the perpetuation of non -complying standards, the discovery compels us to question the validity of those standards. If 20 feet works for Meadowdale Beach Road and 76th Avenue W, why must our quiet, dead ended street be 25 feet or even 23 feet anywhere? MORE STREET MEANS MORE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE Because some of our neighborhood's soils can be destabilized by increased infiltration of storm water runoff, the City's Engineering Division is believed to be more concerned with controlling storm run off and limiting the amount of impervious surface added than it is with widening the street. Compared to our current design alternative (Option 3), the City's 25 to 23 foot street widening requirement would significantly increase the added amount of impervious surface by approximately 3,200 square feet. City of Edmonds Appeal February 20, 1996 Page four NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION As indicated in the attached January 15, 1996 letter by President Drew Wojtanik, The Meadowdale Beach Community Council, a group representing fourteen neighboring property owners, voted unanimously to oppose the Engineering Division's street widening requirement and to support GREENNESS and our alternative plan to widen the street. While individual neighbors have different reasons for their positions, we all share the conviction that the City's street widening requirement would be inappropriate, unnecessary, unreasonable, and ultimately wrong for our neighborhood. We are also convinced that the large sum of money which would otherwise be wasted on street widening would be better invested improving the quality of GREENNESS and thereby the neighborhood itself ! OPTION 3 After discovering that both Meadowdale Beach Road and 76th Avenue W (between Meadowdale Beach Road and North Meadowdale Road), two of our neighborhood's most intensely traveled through streets, are only 20 feet wide and have no curbs and gutters or thickened edges, we decided to reduce the first 125 feet of our previously preferred option (Option 2) from 25 to 20 feet including thickened edges. The existing eastern edge of this segment of the street would be thickened and approximately 2 feet of additional width, including a thickened edge, would be added to the street's west side. From station 1+25 to station 2+00, where the street will serves nine or less lots, the street's new western edge would angle back to the existing edge. From this point the street would maintain a 16 foot overall width including thickened edges until north of the steep driveways. By adding to its west side, the street would be widened to an 18 foot overall width, including thickened edges, north of station 3+25. GTI is currently preparing a plan, profile and cross sections of Option 3 which we plan to submit for your consideration within. the next two weeks. Thank. you for your thoughtful consideration of this appeal. . Respectfully, Phillip Lehn, Architect cc: Paul Mar, Director of Community Services, James Walker, City Engineer, John Bissell, AICP - Associate Planner, Drew Wojtanik, President MBCC, Rich Haag, Fellow ASLA, David Dougherty, P.E., Max Meyring GREEN TARA INCORPORATED 16202 - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, WA 99026 Telephone and Facsimile: 206-742-6813 a MEADOWDALE BEACH COMMUNITY COUNCIL January 15, 1996 RECEIVED FED L 0 199G PERMIT COUNTER James C. Walker, P.E. City Engineer, City of Edmonds Community Services Department, Engineering Division 250 - 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Proposed widening of 72nd Avenue West, north of its intersection with 164th Street SW as a result of a proposed lot subdivision and development by Mr. Phillip L.ehn Dear Mr. Walker: This letter is being submitted on behalf of the Meadowdale Beach Community Council (MBCC). The MBCC wishes to voice it's support for Mr. L.ehn, and Green Tara Incorporates (GTI) proposed subdivision of the site located at 16202 72nd Ave. West in Edmonds, and, further, to voice our strg opposition to the potential street widening requirement for 72nd Ave. West north of the intersection o€164th St. SW. On January 9th, 1996, the MBCC met to hear a presentation by Mr. Phillp L,ehn, who was representing GTI, regarding their proposal to further subdivide the subject site area to a total of four lots. Immediately subsequent to our meeting, MBCC members had received the City of Edmonds Notice of Public Hearing announcement for the Planning Division"s scheduled public hearing January 19, 1996 (file no. S-95-163). During this meeting Mr. L,ehn made a very professional presentation to Council members, complete with a "to scale" mock-up model of the site location itself, architectural drawings of his proposed "Option 1" and "Option 2" dealing with the proposed street widening, and copies of his written correspondence between he and the City of Edmonds Community Services Department regarding the street issue itself. Based on the information as he presented it before the MBCC, we wish to make it known that we, as a council, offer our unanimous support for the proposed subdivision and building project. However, we stand united as well in our opposition to the City ordered street widening modifications being imposed on the project. In our opinion, Option 1, to widen the street to a full 25" was/is a totally inappropriate and impractical expectation. This opinion is based on the existing (and even potential increased) traffic volume on the street and the extremely undesirable modifications which would result to our existing neighborhood not to mention the incredible cost which would have to be borne by GTL 1:. (\(/ We understand from your letter of November 22, 1995, to Mr. Lehi, that. you, have "relaxed" your enforcement a€ these, rigid standards to 23' for'that area of the street north of the first 200' immediately north of the intersection with 164th Street SW. This hardly seems like much of a relaxation at all and will not relieve the neighborhood of the extensive engineering modifications (i.e., removal of existing trees, excavation of huge amounts of a bank,. rebuilding of - a rockery, etc.). We find this expectation totally unacceptable, unwanted, and seemingly unnecessary. We understand from our January 9th meeting that Mr. Lehn may further modify his "Option 2" to reduce the first 2W to 29 (vs 251) and retain the 16 for the remaining distance north on the road, therefore we will comment on his anticipated change. MBCC strona supports this approach and appeals to the City to use its good judgment in granting this request. Even with the additional. traffic resulting from Mr. Lehn's lot development, the volume just doesn't justify the need to meet imposed street widening standards that were obviously developed with situations other than this in mind. Therefore, the MBCC request the City Planning Department to research the historic development of the existing Edmonds CommunityDevelopment Code 18.80.000 to understand the actual reasons for.adoption of the existing code standards to see if this situation address the intent of those criteria and question whether the code truly is applicable and appropriate. Finally, members of the MBCC will attend the January 19th Public Hearing. MBCC reserves the right to withdraw this letter of support/objeciion based on information presented differing from what we currently understand are the facts in this case. Sincerely, � EADO?` A2 E BEACO CO�hI�MI'ZtJ1�.�` Y C4�i1, GI.� ' ;. 2. Wilie.Wellington * 7109164th St SW 743-3641 I Rub yy Wellington Jim Nagai * 16318 71 PI W 787-6161 ' 4, Dianne Briggs Arthur <4c Martha Haig * 16222 71 PI W 742-7707 John 8c Pam Connors ' * 16220 70 PL W 743-6817 6. John & d'Elaine Johnson 16122 72 Ave W 743-2902 7.. 'Phil & Mariam Lehn * 16202 72 Ave W 742-6813 8. 9. ` (Lot) Phil Iehn Michael &Linda Duffy * 16238 72 Ave W 742-0804 Ifl: -Drew &Linda Wojtanik * 16306 72 Ave W 742-9287 11. Dave &Kathy WeIis * : 16330 72 Ave W 742-0242 12. Rita Stiilings * 1634272 Ave W 743-3576 13,'cau &Joyce Wright * 721i 164th St SW 745-9440 * COMMUNITY COUNCIL MTTEES 1114/96 ..:::..::::::::: 6 +13a _ii. 9 7 14 12 72nd Ave i�D 8 lat W st R PERMIT COUNTER December 5, 1995 James C. Walker, P.E. City Engineer, City of Edmonds Community Services Department, Engineering. Division 250 - 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Proposed modification of the City's requirement to widen 72nd Avenue West north of its intersection with 164th Street SW. Dear Jim: While I personally appreciate your decision to permit us to reduce our overall street width from 25 to 23 feet north of station 2+00, the modification is too small to either win the neighbors support or have much effect on the condition's harmfully high cost. Since Section 18.80.000, titled "ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS", does not specifically exclude the street standards of Section 18.80.010, why should they be interpreted differently? if it is considered reasonable and appropriate to hold the standards of Section 18.80.000 to the test of practical and economic feasibility when reconstructing existing facilities, why shouldn't the standards of Section 1"8.80.010 be held to the same test? It is now apparent that there is a discrepancy between the City's 5-20-93 illustrated handout titled "Street Standards" which lists the required pavement width for 3' - 9 potential lots at 16' - 20' and the ECDC's 6-30-89 "TASTE OF STREET. STANDARDS" which lists the required pavement width for 5 - 9 lots at 20'. While this discrepancy cost us over a month of time and several thousands of dollars, it did prompt us to evolve a more meaningful and appropriate design for our quiet, dead ended street. Given the limited traffic ever to be served by the street, we continue to believe that a 16 foot width, including thickened edges, north of 2+00 would not only be safe, but also much less intrusive and allow us to spend more of our limited resources where they're really needed to improve the quality of the development. Jim Walker December 5, 1995 Page two When I originally asked for your guidance in resolving the conflicts posed by the street's meandering alignments, high embankments and steep driveways, you told me it wasn't your responsibility to the design the street. You said the street had to be 25 feet wide and the only way you could permit us to deviate from that standard was for us to document a "technical justification" which would demonstrate how one standard (street width) would violate another (20% maximum grade for a driveway). Since the grades of two driveways on the street's east side (now 8.3% and 10%) would not exceed the City's 20% maximum allowable grade if the 23 foot street width you now feel compelled to impose is measured from the existing edge of the two steepest driveways (now 17% and 27%) on the streets west side, compliance with the City's standard is not impossible, at least not technically. I presume you have therefore concluded that the technical justification you feel is needed to modify the requirement does not exist and, since the Department does not ordinarily apply the test of practical or economic feasibility to its street standards, you feel you must impose them, at least at this juncture, regardless of how unreasonable and inappropriate they may be. Since an appeal of your position, which will be long and costly for the City as well as for us, may be unavoidable, we would like to know first, if you can support our appeal and second, if you and Paul Mar, Director of Community Services, are willing to review the circumstances with me and our Civil Engineer, David Dougherty, to see if it is possible for us to agree upon a plan which permits us to avoid the appeal process altogether? During our November 17 meeting you said you didn't like rockeries or the curving alignment of our 25 foot wide option but stopped short of prohibiting them altogether. Since, your position on these matters directly affects our ultimate cost, the amount of excavation and the length and height of all required rockeries or retaining walls, we and our neighbors would life to know your position on these matters as soon as possible. While saying "The Street Standards have always been intended to apply to dead end street sections," you don't explain why. Do you really believe dead ended streets experience the same amount and type of traffic as thru streets or, are you following the dictates of an inadequately conceived code which falls to make the critical distinction? Since our dead ended street will never be a thru street and will always experience significantly less traffic than a thru street of the same length and number of lots, don't you think it's reasonable and appropriate to apply a different standard? In walking around the neighborhood during the past few days, I've measured a few street widths and have discovered that both Meadowdale Beach Road and 76th Avenue West, clearly two of our busiest thru streets, are only twenty feet wide near our neighborhood and have no curbs and gutters or even thickened edges. While I understand that it's generally unacceptable to advocate the perpetuation of non- complying standards, my discovery compels me to question the validity of those standards. If 20 feet works on Meadowdale Beach Road and 78th Avenue West, why must our quiet, dead ended road be 25 feet or even 23 feet anywhere? is it possible that we've allowed ourselves to be fooled into believing that a critical safety need exists when it in fact doesn't? Is it really so desirable or even necessary to have so much of our land covered with asphalt? Phillip Lehn, Architect cc: Paul Mar, Director of Community Services Department Gordon Hyde, Engineering Coordinator John Bissell; AICP - Associate Planner, City of Edmonds David Alskog; Livengood, Carter, Tjossem, Fitzgerald and Alskog David Dougherty; Site Development Services Max Meyring; Meyring and Associates GREEN TARA INCORPORATED • 16202.72nd Avenue West * Edmonds, WA 98026 • 206-742-6813 CITE" OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771.0220 • FAX (206) 771.0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Pubic Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering 890."94- November 22,1995 Phil Lehn 16202 - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Dear Phil: LAURA M. HALL MAYOR FEB 2 0 1996 ERMIT COUNTER The section of code you reference in your November 17,1995 letter has not been interpreted to allow staff the authority to waive street standards. The statement in the ECDC 18,80.000 ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPFCIFICATIONS " The reconstruction of existing facilities shall conform to the standards as closely as is practical and economically feasible." applies to the standards in the documents listed in section 18.80.000 (Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction, General Special Provisions, Washington State "City Design Standards", etc.) and not the Street Standards found in section 18.80.010. As mentioned at our meeting on November 17, 1995, the standard width for the street changes to twenty feet and not sixteen feet when less than ten lots access the road. The City policy has always been to avoid the narrowing of a roadway along its length. However, in this case, we could agree to an eleven foot wide lane northbound and a nine foot lane nouthbound, which changes to eleven feet near station 2+00 on your preliminary plan. Any further street width reduction would need to be based on conflicting code requirements, such as not being able to maintain driveways at less than 20% at the required road width. The Street Standards have always been intended to apply to dead end street sections. Streets may be required to meet higher standards than those listed in the ECDC section 18.80.010, but developers are not required to bear the costs. Please call me or Gordy Hyde at 771-0220 if you have any questions. Sincerely, �e.�� JAMES C. WALKER, P.E. City Engineer JCW/sf c: Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator 72WIDTH.DOC Incorporated August 11, 1890 f�?,�5 Sister Cities. International — Hekinan, Japan '�f/ � James C. Walker; P.E. City Engineer, City of Edmonds Community Services Department, 250 - 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 November 17, 1995 Engineering Division PERMIT COUNTED Re: Proposed waiver of the City's requirement to widen 72nd Avenue West to 25 feet north of its intersection with 164th Street SW. L As you know Green Tara Incorporated (GTI) hopes to• subdivide two existing lots to create just two new lots. Because the dead ended street to our property already serves eleven lots and the City's standard width for commercial as well as residential streets serving 10 to 15 lots is. 25 feet, the City is requiring GTI to widen approximately 600 feet of 72nd Avenue West to a uniform width of 25 feet. Because two existing, driveways, which already exceed the City's maximum allowed grade, are only sixteen feet away from an 8 foot high embankment and rockery on the other side of the street, it will be impossible to comply with the City's street widening requirement without suffering prohibitively high costs. Added to the Fire Marshal's requirement to provide a new hydrant and water main (over 600 feet of 8 inch ductile pipe), the costs associated the the City's requirement to widen the street to 25 feet clearly jeopardizes the projects economic feasibility. In accordance with section 18.80.000 of the Cky's Community Development Code which states, "The reconstruction of existing facilities shall conform to the standards as closely as is practical and economically feasible", we believe the City has justifiable cause to revise if not waive Its' street widening requirement altogether. To help us find an economically feasible way to satisfy the City's conflicting standards governing the width of streets and the maximum grade for private driveways, GTI is submitting along with this letter, full and half scale plans and sections of two different options for widening 72nd Avenue West. In accordance with the, City's conditions, Option 1 maintains a constant width of 22 feet plus 3 feet for thickened edges (25 feet total) from the streets intersection with 164th St. SW to its' termination at the entrance to "GREENNESS;" our proposed subdivision. Option 2 maintains the 25 foot width for that initial part of the dead ended street which will experience traffic resulting from ten or more lots. At the point where the street will serve nine or less lots, Option 2 would widen the existing street to 16 feet. Option 1: The most obvious, characteristic of Option 1 is its' high cost and the massive amounts of dirt which would need to be excavated, exported and retained. Centered within the right of way, Option 1's first 200 feet would require the removal of several trees (including 8",1 W,12" and 18" Douglas Firs) which beautify and buffer a private yard from the street, the relocation of a power pole and television cable pedestal and the construction of a 175 foot tong rockery approximately 8 feet high. To avoid the two driveways, which already exceed the City's maximum grade, Option 1 would cut approximately 16 feet into a 10 foot high embankment, relocate another power pole and television pedestal, remove an existing rockery and build. another, approximately 125 feet long and 10 feet high. The last 200 feet of Option 1 would cut another 15 feet into a 5 foot high embankment only to serve just three existing and two new lots. November 17, 1995 Page two Option 2: While complying with the intent of the City's standard governing street widths, Option 2 respects the. special circumstances effecting dead ended streets. Only that part of the street which would experience traffic generated by 10 or more lots would be 26 feet wide. By aligning this part of the street to the west of the right of way's.centerline and by reducing the street's width to 16 feet where It serves 9 or less lots, much of Option 1's soil excavation, export, and retaining can be eliminated, two power poles and television pedestals can remain where they are, and several trees can be saved without increasing the grades of the steep driveways. While the City's standard governing street widths makes no distinction between "thru" and "dead end" streets, we all know the traffic experienced by the two types is significantly different. A "thru" street serving at least ten lots (the minimum requiring a 25 foot wide street) not only serves the traffic generated by each of the ten lots moving in both directions, it also serves to connect many more lots -in both directions beyond the original ten. Normal vehicular demands on a "dead ended" street Is significantly less. Only those few ipts at its' end use most of the street to travel in both directions and no lots beyond those already located on the street ever use a dead ended street to get anywhere else. Because all incoming traffic must inevitably stop, speeds' are generally slower and safety higher, particularly on relatively short; dead ended streets such as 72nd Avenue West. Since the street will not experience the regular intensity of traffic upon which the Cky's "thru street" standards were based (i.e. thru streets serving commercial as well as residential districts with 10 to 15 or even more lots), our dead ended part of 72nd Avenue West can continue to be adequately served by a much narrower street. Respectfully, Phillip Lehn, Architect CC., John Bissell; AICP - Associate Planner, City of Edmonds David Alskog; Uvengood, Carter, TJossem, Fitzgerald and Alskog Dave Dougherty; Site Development Services Max Meyring; Meyring and Associates , GREEN'TARA INCORPORATED - 16202. 72nd Avenue West • Edmonds, WA 98026 • 206-742.6813 Im CITY OF EDMONDS LAURA M. HALL MAYOR 250 - STN AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • 1206) 771.0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT I O Public Works a Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering 8go. 1`9C) r CEIVED January 16,1995 F E B 2 0 1996 PEW COUNTER Allard Russell and Grace LaRose 3868 Prairie Dunes Drive Sarasota, FL 34238 Re: Short Platt Requirements for S-94-139 (16202 - 72nd Ave W) Road Width Dear Mr Russell, We were recently approached by Phil Lehn, a potential purchaser of your property, regarding the subject short plat requirement to widen 72nd Ave. W. to twenty-five feet north of 164th St. We also discussed his letter over the telephone. Since you are the recorded owner of the subject property, we want to inform you of our position regarding the requirements. Based on the number of houses 72nd Ave will serve with the development of the plat, the road must be widened to twenty-five feet (22 feet of roadway and 3 feet of curb/gutter) to meet the City Development Code. Before we would consider any deviation to the roadway width requirement, we will require a technical justification, using sound engineering practices, demonstrating how the impact on the neighbors would violate the City Development Code (for example, driveway slope increased above 20%). To keep the neighborhood's rural look, we will allow an asphalt thickened edge in lieu of concrete curb and gutters, but all other requirements stand per plat requirements. 1f you have any questions, please call me at 771-0220. ;;Z� e, *tAt FAMES C. WALKER, P E. Acting City Engineer ALC/JCW/sf cc: Phil Lehn r John Bissell., Associate Planner S-94-139.DOC 0-Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International -- Hekinan, Japan :: SZ3Z-00.0-052-0305 5131-000-053-007 5131-000-051-0108 John Johnson John nson Greg & Jeanine Cas Per 16`122 72nd.Ave t9 1612 72nd Ave W 16100 N Meadowdale Rd' Edmonds, 'WA 98026 Edm nds, VIA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 5131-000-051-0148 5131-000-066-0002 5131-000-065-000 Source One Mtg Carol Walker C1iff.Lawson Farmington Rd 16209 75th P1 W 16221 75th P1 W _27.555 Farmington Hills, 'MI Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 48334 5131-000-064-0004 5131-000-068-0109 .5131-000-068-0208 Donald Iverson erson :DonalXretk, Rita Stillings 2018 150th-P1 SE 2018.h Pl SE 16342 72nd Ave W Mill Creek, WA 98012 Mill WA 98012 Edmonds, WA 98026 5131-000-068-0307 Drew & Linda-Wojtanik 16306 72nd Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 5131-000-068-0505 Scott & Joyce Wright 7211 164th St' SW Edmonds, WA 98026 513i-000-067-0209 Michael &.Linda Duffy 16238 72nd Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 6495-000-003-0006. John & Pam Commors 16220 70th Pl W Edmonds, WA 98026 6495-000-006-0003. Prudential Home Mtg PO Box 4157 Frederick, MD 21701 6363-000-005-0003 Mildred Larsen 16232 70th Pl W Edmonds, WA 98026 5131-000-06a-0406 David & Kathryn Wells 16330 72nd Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 5131-000-067-0308 Phillip & Mariam Lehn 16202 72nd Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 6495-000-001-0008 Randal & Alyson Harwood 16228 70th Pl W Edmonds, WA 98026 6495-000-004-00005 Rolf & Marilyn Toberer 16209 70th Pl W Edmonds, WA 98026 6495-000-006-0003 Eric & Pam Daviscourt 16211 70th Pl W Edmonds, WA 98026 6363-000-009-00009 Seattle Fed Credit Union PO Box 780 Seattle, WA 98111 5131-000-068-0505 Bank of America/SPNB 10600 Valley View St Cypress, CA 90630 5131-000-067-0100 Green Tara Inc 16202 72nd Ave W Edmonds, VIA 98026 6495-000-002-0007 Howard Landsverk 16224 70th Pl W Edmonds, WA 98026 6495-0 0-005-0004 i Rolf & ilyn Toberer 16209 7 h P1 W Edmond , 7A 98026 6495-000-007-0002 Max & Lar. Englesberg 16215 70th Pl W Edmonds, WA 98026 6363-000-009-0009 Howard McEwen 16318 71st Pl W Edmonds, WA 98026 6363-000-010-0006 6363-000-011-0005 6363-000-012-004 Arthur & Martha Haig James T. Nagai Citicorp Mtg Inc 16222 71st Pl W 16318 71st P1 W PO Box 790009 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 St. Louis, MO ~' 633 aQ0 ail 004 � 79a4-ao0-0o5-oao? 7904 ooQ o06,-QOQ6 f Ws l'ze :Weiia rigton gan III Chun & a 7I0`9 i64th St SW .; , NEiiotkhiiv 382430Q4a7ti8. . Edmonds'', WA `98Q26 EdMonds�,'`.WA 98,Q2aSeattle, WA.'98125 79Q4 Q00 a07 0005 "7904:-000-008-a04 7904-00ti-009 0003 Mary K °:Nears ng Stephen & . Joan Johnson Robert & ; 3oann Andersc', 1.6121 74th Fi W '; i6i2i 74th Pl; .W. 16410 73rd. Pl -W Edmonds', WA'>98026 ;.. Edmonds, .WA" 9802& Edn►ontls, WA 98Q26 fe � i iY'ti r~��tv ` � � {ftlTru3 .. b .�•• 1 t r 4 «jj,'+�`r {}y��,�' ({({([�� AAA yt[w•�� -�•tfb � _6� -•v#hCT} �'I• � }��w+'tV��Slr�� t' "ll j 1b 1� �G,ln 2 F�,1�^h t7 •� � a �,� '~ aurERN TY SAM WISH \i //� � w�tr1�'T/ MAP j�(� fy+/'�' E. A. t�f '` Aft Y/`X a}r.�t'fi::i �' S.T 1+J• � dk� Terrace , .T I ml1,F, •ptT .n— T', tU .rr!., h M ��tt� c La err rT Ia74xI i "t•iE '#�f;�2t•«'t T A�, w I{h ...�'�!`,, "'��^ + ldi+oaT STATE HIGHWAY MARKER,�;u�cq}S?r{rZ�t t �t i4 ssssywri ;4s R/h t>aN ^} 'T*prr{' { �t• ath`c�5s^! 'h`61 •, 4 '''• prA. �,t- SUTx $; s *s J' N }{ N�^tr; ! }dt Yp,`}7I+STn >A 3lAEAE NTERSTATE HIGHWAY MARKER giry��f'~fx y';; S NTsense�s S7� wAr i ;f•K �` L �! Y 140TX ST Sw Dw tv 14DM dw � yi�f yy z I41578 O 1t13T ST $w # r S D 0 z f { n �`' y 3j>�}V? j� tr{�7. yyl: ,.mD h 3W •. . l4 s1 Sw :!• YW { •r'%rJ+'«J a!W w• "j: R :t 6 yfNiL Sw s .Ar trJr OTF ER s` 3 = # NiN di h ! s ds rrN # • �',. 1 , �' ; �ttdt'I � s N51x � # �`. '7 K �> t- 31 F4;{"''^:•..' . }:"'`..;, i (yA NaAMA OEACH PD r L ^ HDWtAA OEACH RO N a,`y,+,.�Y„ ASP .`i3EA!C$•�rr r� E I.ttX rc sw s Y b-s.` V + 1 Jt b•F t15ntx AD # r+f'i uYtn z a i.• iT�i,i l> t v.. w.i g t5a,n z st' s .....Gti7t= sw t3 A. yea': rl?;, t:,,.•'! �:(3 c EWj71'iS4 !� e3 ,� rtswz #r=# 8 2MIieS t ." + !y � tfitd y't '�. +« # e s. p®muwni#a Yr'..,,a �,},fL,y,•S�4•:k tsila Sw r T ,saTx or •-� JX•4 1 c,. ra v };irF, { 1 5 xM n ;` 1%TX sT •.4/ m T FAO ,531X ^ A # YS 101" ^ r `l - i y rff 3 ( ,'� rx? i n lh�.r s> X red /✓. tS{T« �� '59TH q > a h Fc 1 }.ny r.a.� a • is ,boix sriw s Y sw tsatX t 4 d oM t .1r I pa . -:.. i'1'}'t �11 � • �j �n f .. T.t S 1�� .L:�� '�7'3' Sw .: ,a CN a .#t . 7 vN .1... T t1YD 'b # • A4w L r ��...fff...i �* ` 1 Da sw MLADOWDALE •, \J ldiw hswlNTNdT I� h SW If5Tx r s a s •. 0 SwrL (gyp s = (� 4. a wS d t6aTH M SW is KEELER'S !' rSY� - # �x2"" Imxhsw Irai`x R CORNER . ''T• =•BROWAS BAY A' S s,F Rr ,. ` K # Nlsl � � � i 11745 sw � 5 a # • a d ^ ISm° s* SW gg 'no a ' r`r vao s �+sx'tha sr air ¢ i " ,TS«D ri ° i t - - SS:XD h Sw I Sw 114rX Sw A h t73AD t i ^ v3eD, fD • r uax s1 sw"' 3° � IraD ^ I 1uDs"cs ^ 'nsx sT sw lilyX R i ' # s R R .• 110Tx 51 Sw ' Iriix ss sw I .. • Dy to r „_^, #4 f. Y ,77Tx sl Sw =r 117M 11STN fl. 3 ...:: „ FUNTY ARK tf tplm" a o9A 4r �� tn,x sr—� —• � tt TmN er a. s�> I its f mX h Y LYN OOD t XS . w ^ ibDTX S1 5w '4 '" •tsr .A .�, <'d tpTN 51 Sw h i zg = unr h Sw 3 n trw v Itm ,tits iT ArtnT IitXO 7 Suss ^ fw� ty m � h R pep » , ,i gFp +NT« sT i y ; •a w t ft IX 1" INix ,t5t« d. p5'n d!.' h 7 Nt h '« > < h Id51« h $i 6 r �• L•i A, Irr1« n r � is`+5 t'tn zt ,pl. aw uM t: s1 [ RRINVILLE tpsn , i g `! w . 1/6tX S• tw • # „ i Qr R g - t n tYNN W000 1{TIN ^ tOdTN ST OCl �1 'Gy JC"� ks s s N % h z d • CITY : nx". ,"i PARK "� # tNIX •w #� I.q• C140�i% Sw.', 40r�•, lY « I}`y.a '�..--y 'Itaix rya ilh t 1Wt« II's 51 w n s' M 'f S.st F r AR Sl Sw �•r �' lni w,e t'q t � �.•i'Sw #J PARI ,f•Si $1 J1 J Sw It151 r IfISiN #:• r' tNst i _ t ` t97X[ S' Slt • 4Q79r}. '. . LY.J .. ;4M4 d f Si C t37ftl# � ` A• I # 1t.3. + .. h sw Nt. wa. • a_ INtr ISM. R # .fllta h a ` IIYID SS 4. ♦ tf810 h E V h N # .. •/// �0a h #S St S• t. tN,« S• {w 0 au I •.t `r N�s _ w.l. ,Ni« ra tw • L EDMON ix : P. 11 A,4C.t3a m • • ! LA.4 «UGET � +I'. MTN sI Sw 2 S24 R . 0 .1• �� r i�r ! t r. # '.� f `IS* 13 # sCh # ftk- 4A t' �� p • # •«s m £ .... •r _�J'l--.iW r:1 4- 0 j' t.f . p:' r . c•it ,».. a• dx s ; tee•,. 5• sw rA# d'y� t �n•a : .'1(77i C`• �� wn•"• r t' s.- a'c 1' .y•! r r R • r F a bt � 4'c�, ;,��•-:, �l�<. '�T-� � � •6;` ' �. a�3tr� �� 3 k ra: a '�- �,; tw, � ti` w at �Yr �� TC7F060ZA?"IC, aUFVS"r OF VICIU17Y r t" = zoo D 1. LOOV iW(,r �1DE 14 01. 7ZW17 AVM.W. L. i3OOUNGT ON -72- 3. (.00v-1 w6r ow 1&4,TU 4T. IVY �. c ook-14 w-.-Ir vVc-�T all cry ;,� �, s �=r 'f is e r ,i � i a <� �' .;� �A � ,.. j., .'.� ,. ,, �? a eb�.+i K �j � �� 3"� v «-�. �"?? .�*FSY �^ � � iw- 'rtir� `'Ji'-(LJ��V�1 ��-�,�' ��G�CI�-� � iL/ ,4'"_� • �� +�'-f �i r 44'/ � �" =�l �- V't r�`tr-.�,/�1�'.�i �^ ''� �ii YYCJ� ��H.�I 1 •' � " � r 4 G' F � ' i �T • 'VMWPOINT' ............... . . N POND PROPOSED STIR PLAN 0 Lei 4 p. ' • a '+-TV 6i�a� . < < �] 7mn . wbd Ossr+i4 " I aittM � H S aet Ends Shim 4' x rama.. (ramaw) iwtw+ 3 10' DF {rw�aw}4' DF OPFo( �- t:(tq / �• il/�G/� �4u�%�/ /Jf §treat Si I Q° { O {esawsy+ } *. ; •'•!:3• ra�eCA� i 18" DF 12• OF z� r Sand Board Fonts ug- ---_ - ----_ -_ _ _ --_ - --_ _ _ __ -_ -_ _ _ _------- ------- t„D -- -------- ------ ------- --- ---_- ------ -------- _--_-_ -_-_ -_ _ -_ _ =5 ._ ... _--- - - -- - - -------- -_.._---_ _ ------ _._ --- -- -- - -__ _- t 320 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 315 ------ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ......____-- -------- -------- ,,,-_----- N N 25' Street Flan $ P '--- tr or �! I =20) —•w---Slaa-___" sx��',----- s -335 ------------------------------------ ----mT*m 33---- ^--335 -L27.2% ----_ M _. --___ _-- - f F..--ry--------- ----------^---_ - ' '3�p _ 320.7-. __3�270 ^ _ T,S. _-^ -^ -- _-------^ ------, Curb ' 0 + 30. � ML2 lr _ r tr - r r I& •wr-aww.• Too te• try I — JX7 1 + 75 571- J31.e ----- -----MY --------'� --- _ _ �____325.8 000MBT 3234 EBT �__-Wy _--325 maat0 2 + 67 to.t mm fsnai0t50 FH 2 + 0D i -- +www { A _- ___ -- -- -_.. - _- _ ..!{!i_ i }-tr a ♦ tr w --�� JJT. _ .----------- __•• 302o 1 -----•••• `-•• 3 326.7 - •-•-33D 331.7 Jt2t IDT sJss ---335 ` 324.7 EBT EBT T.S _ -- --^ ---- -__ sn7 tar - -------- ------ -----� ------- ---325 tot ®t �G 330 sre.a yM ma r�iwr 2 + 19 w 1 + 00 etch0" - ----------------- 330 2 + 91 ------- --------- ---------------- --3- 323.E 323.9 curb EDT 323.7 EBT--^�_ 326.2 9� edge -------- - _ _ - _ --323 _. -_ __-______ -___, ---------------- ------ -- / _ - ---335 2 + 32 325.8 328.8 T.S. - ---------Z WOtl MATT -^_330 - brk.7 ----------------- 31 toe --- - ___325 - +/-16% ------------ -___-� 3J67 79.4X Jtae s sa ' die t+ 28 sJe a 340 - _-^__ •---------- 320.4 ----------------- ---320 o..r 3 t 00 tYeoea v►-I.E T.i drwy 328.5 J<N.IG -_^335 2 + 31 toe of / JJu .. -____'•__ 7.5%- _ teT ---330 _ 3233(i} -__....__BrTc 323.3 E -- �5 _____-_--�-------- --tgT•_ o L2;&71% 17% -______________ ------------- ---325 - ------------ ----- 323.t------- ---320 _ toe ____________ 311, _____8.9(i) t 7+50 drwy 2+50 3+12 Cross Section 0' S' t0' 20' tSF 36* OF -� e -9 INUM ated O v: Lod nt •ag ,rrrrrr/TJ'�� m�rTjy��i7��j^,,rr/Tiin rr .rrmrr' JT///,,/r/�� jam%/// /f a � s5+111 p JJ//J " b p �u1lLl/ �.lJllCCrt e" o d16• ilambdc b vn.wnwu+r � R'�� •PP� Wg pnee _� 24' Mapls r _ _--------------- _---- -----. _ _---__ -----_-_----- _-----------_ _ _ -- 335 ------ ----- -- -- ----- -------- ------ ---- -- ----_ -_ ----_ -------- 330 ----- - --- - -- ---- --- ---- - -- ------- -- - 325, —_.,—-------------- --__._—._.. J _—••---------------- ______-_ __—___—_320 ._._-_---------------- --------------- --- RECEIVED treet Plan & Profile F F B i 0 1996 N w 40' ,1a' PERMIT COATER utun . r"WY staff MuM---325 ----------------------------------- --- ---- uExr- --®i--------- ---J25 an d uaa usn h ---32q - --------------------._---- jr 1s -_ ---325 ---------------------------�T----- ---320 ------- ------ 1 �YLa 2+55 _ t 4+50 ___--------_-- -'__- iT--------- ---320 ua3 3 + 28 w1tl1 32" uu L2_;... --�--- �/ ---325 � _�"��Jf>ir j�-5------------- >er MmT324,2 3.i - ---------- ---- --- ---'�VZ'4------ ---525 `��/l1/1.i by rrw ama - 11 -- ---320 us4 ---------------- --_---------_ ---- ---320 Eat Ron ESltf •• 1Y t9 4 + 75 3+ 53 - r 3r # — =�--- / � ---325 - __ _-"-__"-._"_"___--._ _-'-J 5 _--- --- 2 rcd uaaq _`"_-` or ,-----ioa "--�- ---3z5 .� ------- - raf - m,--------- ---320 , _ -_'..- � _ _______________ _320 '----.W-------- ---323 -------------=---------- ---315 ------------ -- -- �---7i L------- ---315 3 + 59 `"` 2 + 91 - SSSE-------- �0......_-�t. -. « --- . _ �{ 325 5 + 00 --------------- 1: — ---330 _---------s---------.------ X� �*r -_-325 3 + 79 - -- ----- i.T---"'na4 ----_ ---320 ' Jti� T EbT ------- -----:uf --- -_- -_ __ 320 t ° -- --- a� w p' w S25 --- �w __ _ 315 ------------- - - -- --_-- --_ ----._..--_ _- ____ - '_r�_ ms 1.•n 3 + 00 335 - _-_-_--_-�_--_-_-- "----'i91---------- ---520 5 + 25 1 4 + 00 3-M.7 --------------ts --- of 330 ----------3}j- ----------------- ---320 E81 sw - 7j ---- -- ®f - ---325 - -- ------------- ----..------------ ---325 - ---- r•• ------------ ---MS -------- -----' -°--------- ---320 ----------------------------------- ---320 ------------------ ------------ ---- ---310 to. 4+25 5+50 3 + 12 cross Sections 1a' zo' Jd 40' s/• !)• 1,57