06-1302 & 1303 Plan Review Comments6.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 24, 2007
Larry E. Steward, PE
Lesteward@hotmail.com
RE: RESPONSE TO YOUR LETTER DATED 10/17/07
PLAN CHECK # 2006-1302 & 2006-1303 (EMERSON/CULVER)
Dear Mr. Steward:
Here is a response to your letter dated 10/17/07. See below.
SEPA.
1.
a.Adjacent property owners list. The list you provided is not in the
proper format, as I informed you in an e-mail earlier this month.
b.Affidavit. This is different than the adjacent property owners list. A
copy was sent to Michael Painter, since he is the contact for both
permit applications.
Grading Calculations.
2. This is a requirement of the Hearing Examiner’s
decision to allow for the development. I cannot forgo the requirements of the
Hearing Examiner.
Reduced Site Plan.
3.
Site Plan.
4. Please revise the site plan to include the following:
a.Exterior steps. Let me clarify. I think we are referring to two different
things. I believe that you are referring to the walkway along the east
side of the Culver house. I am not concerned about that. I am
referring to is the staircase from the upper level of the deck (along the
east side of the house) down to the ground. It is perpendicular to the
house. You state that the architect will respond to this item. Great. I
will wait for a response from him.
b.Split-rail fence. No response required.
c.Areas on Non-disturbance. See 7a below.
Elevation Views
5.. You stated that the architect will respond. Fine.
Setbacks
6.. Culver lot only.
a.Covered Deck
. The uncovered portion of the deck does need to meet
setbacks. An uncovered deck may encroach into the setback only 4
feet, provided it does not exceed 30 inches above ground level.
b.Steps. You said that the architect will respond to this. As stated
earlier, I am not referring to the walkway along the eastside of the
house, only the staircase running perpendicular to the house.
Critical Areas
.
c.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. It is a requirement of the Hearing
Examiner’s decision, so a response is not optional. I am not
asking you to do it this way, but the Critical Areas Study must
respond to the requirement, i.e. evaluate if it is do-able.
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.
Your written response is useful, but it needs to be addressed in
a revised critical areas study.
Consider the advisability of adding water back to the wetland
between the two houses. Same as above, the revised critical
areas study must be respond to this.
Sincerely,
Development Services Department - Planning Division
Kathleen Taylor, Associate Planner