BLD20151320 Plan Review Comments.pdf
CE
ITY OF DMONDS
th
•1215AN•E,WA98020
VENUE ORTH DMONDS
P: 425.771.0220 • F: 425.771.0221 • W:www.edmondswa.gov
HONEAXEB
DSD:P•E•B
EVELOPMENT ERVICES EPARTMENTLANNING NGINEERING UILDING
November 20, 2015
Mr. Tony Shapiro
A.D. Shapiro Architects
Email: tonys@adshapiro.com
RE: PLAN REVIEW COMMENTSFOR PLANCHECK #BLD20151320
WHITE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCELOCATED AT 8545 TALBOT RD.
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
I have reviewed the above building permit application for the Planning Division, and it was found that the
following information, corrections, or clarifications will need to be addressed before review can continue:
Height Calculations:
1.Please respond to the following comments regarding the height calculations:
a.Your site plan refers to an exhibit from River City Land Services; however, this exhibit was not
included with the applicationmaterials.Please submit the referencedexhibit, or remove this
reference from the site plan since the height calculations are indicated on the site plan.
b.The elevationof Point A of the height rectangle is indicated as being 57.59’; however,the 56’
contour line goes directly through this point. Pleasecorrect the elevation of Point A as necessary to
accurately reflect the original grade at this location.
c.After the elevation of Point A is corrected as discussed above, the average original grade and
maximum allowed height will need to be re-calculated, keeping in mind that the numbers utilized
for the height calculations cannot be rounded up. Therefore, the average original grade and
maximum allowed height must be updated (without rounding) as indicated on both the site plan and
the building elevation views.
d.The site plan indicates that the actual height is 58.18’; however, this is equivalent to the average
grade. Based on the elevation views, it appears that you are proposing for the highest point of the
house to be right at the maximum allowed height. Please correct the proposed height indicated on
the site planas well as on the building elevation views (in response to any changes to the maximum
allowed height based on the re-calculations discussed above), keeping in mind that compliance with
the maximum allowed height must be verified by a surveyor during construction.
Retaining Walls:
2.Please respond to the following comments regarding the proposed retaining walls:
a.Your letter to me dated October 8, 2015 states that a retaining wall is not proposed along the eastern
boundary of the driveway on the eastern side of the site, and that the line along the eastern boundary
of this driveway indicates a concrete curb. However, this line is indicated as a retaining wall on the
civil plans. It appears that a retaining wall may be necessary along at least a portion of the eastern
side of thisdriveway since the site is being cut to allow driveway access to the “open play area”
within the basement. The civilplansand site plan must be consistent with one another.Therefore,
the civil plansand/or site plan must be updated as needed to accurately show the locations of all
proposed retaining walls.
b.In order to clearly indicate compliance with the setback requirements on the site plan, provide top of
wall and original grade elevations along all portions of any proposed retaining walls located within
the minimum required setbacks. If the walls arestepped, then indicate the elevationsof the topsof
the wallsas necessary along each stepped section.Retaining walls shallnot exceed three feet in
height as measured above original grade within the minimum required setbacks.
Page 1of 2
Pool Patio:
3.The location of the western boundary of the pool patio as indicated on the site plan is not
consistent with that shown on the civil plans. All plan sheets, however, must be consistent. Therefore,
please correct the location of the western boundary of the pool patio as indicated on all applicable civil
plan sheets since the patio must comply with the setback requirement of ECDC 16.20.040.C, which
states that “uncovered and unenclosed porches, steps, patios, and decks may project into a required
setback not more than one-third of the required setback, or four feet, whichever is less; provided, that
they are no more than 30 inches above ground level at any point.”Additionally, please correct the label
of the pool patio on the civil plans from “landscape” to “patio.”
Landslide Hazard Area:
4.Please respond to the following comments related to the Landslide Hazard
Area:
a.The entire length of the top of the Landslide Hazard Areamust be indicated on the site plan (i.e. the
eastern and western sides of the“top of slope”line are not indicatedas they extend towards the
adjacent properties to the east and west).
b.The reduced 15’buffer from the top of the slope (as allowed by the geotechnical report) must be
drawn parallel to the entire length of the top of the steep slope. Thus, thereduced 15’Landslide
Hazard Area buffer line must be extended to the east and west consistent with the extended “top of
slope”line, keeping in mind that this buffer line must be 15 feet from the “top of slope”line at all
points (i.e. where there is a bend in the “top of slope”line, the 15’buffer line is less than ten feet
from the “top of slope”line.
c.The standard required 15’critical areas building setback will bemeasured from the reduced 15’
buffer from the top of the slope. Please indicate the 15’critical area building setback measured 15’
from the southern boundary of the 15’buffer.
d.Since the geotechnical report allowed for a reduction below the standard 50-foot buffer requirement
plus the 15-foot critical areas building setback,please remove the standard 50-foot buffer and 15-
foot critical areas setback dimensions from the site plan.Your letter to me dated October 8, 2015
states that it is unnecessary to make this change; however, this request is reasonable in order to
accurately reflect the requirements ofgeotechnical reportspecific to this projectand to avoid
confusion since these lines were inaccurately labeled.
Silt Fence:
5.Thegeotechnical report by Gary A. Flowers, PLLC dated November 16, 2014 with a
revised date of July 30, 2015 recommends that “during site grading activities for new construction no
excavated or imported soils should be placed over the slope face or stockpiled within the buffer area (i.e.
within 15 feet of the top of slope).”The stockpile is indicated on the civil plans as being further than 15
feet from the top of the slope, but the silt fence is indicated as being directly at the top of the slope. In
order to avoid any potential impacts tothe slopeduring construction and to avoid the potential of a
stockpile being placed within the 15-foot buffer, the silt fence should be movedas far as possiblefrom
the top of the slope.If necessary to accommodate utility installation, the western boundary of the silt
fence could have a jog in it. It is preferred that the silt fence is not located directly on top of the City
sewer main; however, it could be located adjacent to the western side of the sewer easement.
Please submit three copies of your revised site plan (includingone reduced copy) and two copies of any
revised building plan sheets to a Development Services Permit Coordinator. Our office hours are Mondays,
Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays between 8:00am and 4:30pm. The Permit Center is closed on Wednesdays.
If you have any questions, feel freeto contact me at (425) 771-0220.
Sincerely,
Development Services Department -Planning Division
JenMachuga
Associate Planner
Page 2of 2