06-1302 & 1303 Plan Review Comments5.pdf
CE
ITY OF DMONDS
th
• 1215 AN•E,WA98020
VENUEORTHDMONDS
P: 425.771.0220 • F: 425.771.0221 • W:www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
HONEAXEB
DSD: P•E•B
EVELOPMENT ERVICES EPARTMENTLANNINGNGINEERING UILDING
October 12, 2007
Michael Painter
MP Construction
FAX: 425.672.4323
RE: PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS (5)
PLAN CHECK # 2006-1302 & 2006-1303
EMERSON RESIDENCE AT 7211 MEADOWDALE BEACH RD &
CULVER RESIDENCE AT 7217 MEADOWDALE BEACH RD
Dear Mr. Painter:
I have reviewed the above building permit applications for the Planning Division. Please
respond in writing to the items below. State in your response where the answer for each
can be found. Submit the following information to complete review of the applications:
SEPA.
1.As previously requested (10/05, 10/06, 11/06 & 3/07) submit the
following:
a.Adjacent property owners list. The list provided with your critical
areas variance/reasonable use exception has expired. Submit an
updated list. Refer to the attached handout.
b.Affidavit. With the adjacent property owners list, you must submit a
signed affidavit stating that the list accurately represents all properties
within 300 feet of 7211 & 7217 Meadowdale Beach Rd. Also refer to
the attachment.
c.SEPA Fee. Submit the $420 fee for SEPA review. The SEPA
determination will not be issued, until the fee has been paid.
Grading Calculations.
2. As required by the Hearing Examiner’s decision,
identify the amount of grading necessary for the wetland creation. If for some
reason I have missed this on the plans, please state where in the plans the
information is located.
Reduced Site Plan.
3. As previously requested (10/05, 10/06 & 3/07), provide
a reduced copy – letter or legal-sized of the site plan.It must be to scale.
Site Plan.
4. Please revise the site plan to include the following:
a.Exterior steps
. Specific to the Culver lot only. The stairs still do not
appear to be accurately represented on the site plan. In reviewing the
elevation views, the stairs appear to be perpendicular to the house, but
the site plan suggests that the stairs run parallel to the house. I need to
confirm that the stairs meet the setback requirements. I cannot do that
unless they are placed correctly on the site plan. (Requested 10/05,
11/05, 10/06 & 3/07).
b.Split-rail fence. It is unclear on the site plan where the split rail fence
will be located. Please indicate on the site plan if it will follow the
boundaries for the ‘Non-Disturbance Areas’. All structures must meet
setback requirements. Refer #6 below.
c.Areas on Non-disturbance. Although the areas of non-disturbance
have been added to the site plan, I will not formally approve the
locations until the Wetland Biologist a formally responded in writing
to items 7a and 7b (below).
Elevation Views
5.. Update the building elevation view for each lot to show the
average grade, maximum elevation, and actual elevation. Use decimals, as
shown on the site plan. (Requested 10/05, 10/06 & 3/07)
Setbacks
6.. Culver lot only. All structures must meet setbacks. As previously
requested, please show how the following will maintain the required setback:
a.Covered Deck. Please show how the covered deck/porch meets the
required side setback of minimum 10 feet, but must total 35 feet
together. Label the number of feet that the house is located within the
BOTH the west and east side setbacks. Label where it is the closest to
the property line, which appears to be at the SE corner of the deck.
This must be clearly shown on the site plan. (Requested 11/05 & 3/07)
b.Steps. Steps over 30” above ground level must meet setbacks. It is
unclear if this is the case. Please clarify on the site plan by stating the
existing elevation of undisturbed soil versus the grade of the top of the
step. Please do so at two-foot intervals. Stating on the elevation view
that the steps will meet setbacks is not enough for me to determine that
the setback requirements will be met. (Stated 10/05, 11/05 & 10/06)
Critical Areas
7.. Unfortunately, the Revised Final Mitigation Plan (8/8/07)
does not respond to most of the items requested in March 2007. The wetland
biologist must revise his report to specifically address in writing the items
listed below.
The Hearing Examiner’s decision dated August 14, 2006, issued approval for
development within the critical area/buffer area based on several conditions.
Please respond to the following:
a.Revise Critical Areas Study to address the following:
Consider routing utilities to the house on lot 1 (7217
Meadowdale Beach Road) in a way to minimize disturbance to
the existing wetlands. The revised Critical Areas Study
completed by AC Roth Environmental Services dated
December 2006 does not include any information regarding
routing the utilities elsewhere. The site plan remains
unchanged showing the utility easement cutting right through
the area of non-disturbance.
Design the tight line from the interceptor drain to add water in
a level spreader trench or other method to the area between
the house and driveway on lot 1 and Meadowdale Beach Road.
The civil plans indicate that the storm drainage system will
deposit water to the wetland, rather than the interceptor drain
depositing to the wetland. Doing so makes the amount of
water going to the wetland somewhat dependent upon the
weather. It might be more beneficial to have the interceptor
drain depositing water to the wetland. This needs to be
addressed in a revised critical areas study.
Consider the advisability of adding water back to the wetland
between the two houses. As mentioned above, the revised
critical areas study must be respond to this.
b.Revise the interceptor drain plan as needed based on the above.This
may or may not be necessary depending on the outcome of above.
c.Planting Plan. The plan has been reduced in size and I am unable to
determine what type of scale can be used to measure distances: neither
and engineer’s or architect’s scale appear to work. Provide a scale that
is measurable, such as 1 inch = 20 feet or 1 inch = 10 feet.
According to the Hearing Examiner’s decision, the plan shall meet or
exceed the planting densities required in ECDC 20.12.015. Since I
cannot scale on the plan, it is difficult to determine if this requirement
has been met.
d.Landscaping Bid. The revised costs are no longer broken down by
individual lot, as provided in an earlier plan. Revise so that the
landscape improvement bonds can be set individually for each lot.
Please make all submittals to a Development Services Permit Coordinator, Monday,
Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, 8:00 am to 4:30 pm. If you have any questions, feel free
to contact me at (425) 771-0220 ext 1223. I work a part-time schedule, and am typically
in the office Wednesdays and every other Friday.
Sincerely,
Development Services Department - Planning Division
Kathleen Taylor, Associate Planner