07-1302 & 1303 Plan Review Comments4.doc
CE
ITY OF DMONDS
th
• 1215 AN•E,WA98020
VENUE ORTH DMONDS
P: 425.771.0220 • F: 425.771.0221 • W: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
HONEAXEB
DSD: P•E•B
EVELOPMENT ERVICES EPARTMENTLANNING NGINEERING UILDING
March 26, 2007
Michael Painter
MP Construction
FAX: 425.672.4323
RE: PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS (4)
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
note that all of the information I am requesting has already been previously requested by
Senior Planner Meg Gruwell or required of the Hearing Examiner’s decision dated
August 2006. The following information is need to complete review of the applications:
SEPA.
1.Thank you for submitting the SEPA checklist. However, as
previously requested (10/05, 10/06 & 11/06) it must include the following:
a.Adjacent property owners list. Since the SEPA checklist was not
submitted by November 26, 2006, we cannot use the list provided with
your critical areas variance/reasonable use exception. It has expired.
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.
c.SEPA Fee. Submit the $420 fee for SEPA review.
Grading Calculations.
2.
a.The SEPA review cannot be completed until the grading calculations
are accurately represented. Refer to plan review corrections from the
Engineering Division. If the grading calculations are not accurately
represented, the SEPA determination will need to be re-issued, which
will potentially delay review of both building permit applications.
b.Also as required by the Hearing Examiner’s decision, identify the
amount of grading necessary for the wetland creation.
Reduced Site Plan.
3. As previously requested (11/05 & 10/06), please
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 do not
appear to be accurately represented (requested 10/05, 11/05 & 10/06).
b.Areas of non-disturbance. As required by the Hearing Examiner’s
decision (8/06) of V-06-68 & V-06-69, the areas of non-disturbance
must be clearly identified on all versions of the site plan, including the
grading plan, TESC plan, and landscape plan. These areas will need to
fenced or flagged, so clearly identify where the temporary fencing will
be located.
c.Rail fence. As required by the Hearing Examiner’s decision (8/06)
identify the location(s) of the split-rail fence.
d.All structures must meet setback requirements. Refer #6 below.
Height Calculations
5..
a.Actual elevation. On the site plan the actual elevation for each lot is
listed as 1XX.XX. It should read 5XX.XX. Revise accordingly.
b.Maximum elevation. On the site plan the maximum elevation for each
lot is listed as 1XX.XX. It should read 5XX.XX. Revise accordingly.
c.Pergola. Specific to the Emerson lot only. As previously requested
(10/05 & 10/06), enlarge the height calculation rectangle to include the
posts supporting the pergola.
d.Elevation Views. 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)
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 Porch. Please show how the covered 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. This must be clearly shown on
the site plan. (Requested 11/05)
b.Steps. Steps over 30” above ground level must meet setbacks. It is
unclear if this is the case. Please clarify on plans. (Stated 10/05,
11/05 & 10/06)
Critical Areas
7.. The Hearing Examiner’s decision dated August 14, 2006,
issued approval for development within the critical area/buffer area based on
several conditions. I have not included the entire list of conditions, but a copy
of the decision is attached. It was included with plan review comments dated
10/06. 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 shall meet or exceed the planting densities
required in ECDC 20.12.015. The plan does not meet the
requirements. A copy of the code section is attached. The plan shall
also show required fencing location and sign locations. It does not
show either.
d.Landscaping Bid. The bid will need to revise to reflect the changes
required by ECDC 20.12.015 (item c above).
Please make all submittals to a Development Services Permit Coordinator, Monday
through Friday, 9:00 am to noon or 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm. If you have any questions, feel
free to contact me at (425) 771-0220 ext 1330. I am in the office Mondays, Wednesdays,
and until noon on Fridays.
Sincerely,
Development Services Department - Planning Division
Kathleen Taylor, Associate Planner