PLN20120021 Request for Additional Info 10-24-12.pdf
th
/LhC 9 5ahb5{Θ1215A VENUE N ORTH ΘE DMONDS,WA98020
P HONE:425.771.0220ΘF AX:425.771.0221ΘW EB:www.edmondswa.gov
D EVELOPMENT S ERVICES D EPARTMENT:P LANNING ΘB UILDING
DATE: October 24, 2012
TO: Mr. Carl Clapp
nd
8415 – 192 St SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
FROM:Jennifer Machuga, Associate Planner – Development Services Department
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager – Public Works Department
RE: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR PROPOSED SHORT
PLAT FILE NO. PLN20120021
Dear Mr. Clapp,
th
Thank you for your September 6 resubmittal in response to staff’s request for additional
information for your land use application for a three-lot subdivision located at 8364 Olympic
View Drive (File No. PLN20120021). During staff’s review of your resubmittal items, it was
found that additional information/clarification is necessary. Please provide responses to the
following items at your earliest convenience so that staff’s review of the proposal can continue:
1.October 24, 2012 – Thank you for responding to the items noted in Jeanie McConnell’s
memorandum. Additional clarifying comments are provided throughout this letter.
Please respond to the items below and resubmit the preliminary site development plan
with revisions as necessary.
7/11/12 comment - Refer to the enclosed memorandum from Jeanie McConnell, Engineering
Program Manager, dated June 5, 2012. The items listed in Ms. McConnell’s memo will need
to be addressed before review by the Engineering Division can continue.
2.October 24, 2012 – Thank you for providing clarification from your surveyor.
7/11/12 comment – The legal description of the subject site as provided on the survey, site
development plan, and within the title report references three “parcels”; however, two of
these “parcels” appear to be access easements located on/adjacent to the eastern side of the
subject site. Please explain why these easements are referred to as “parcels”, and why the
legal description gives the impression that these easements are located on property owned by
Mr. Ritter in their entirety, while the survey map gives the impression that one of these
easements is located on property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Falk and the other easement is only
in part located on the subject site owned by Mr. Ritter.
3.October 24, 2012 – A response letter was prepared by Mercado & Hartung, PLLC on
July 26, 2012 and submitted to the City on September 6, 2012. The letter attempts to
provide clarification of the legal access rights to certain easements for Lot B. Reference
to a 20-foot wide easement per AFN #91012500053 is made, with a comment in review
of the easement stating: “sufficient evidence exists that Lot B will have proper in and
out access to Lot B”. However, the limits of the southern line of this easement end in
alignment with the northeastern corner of Lot B. Therefore, the referenced easement
provides access up to the northeastern corner of Lot B, but not adjacent to the eastern
1|Page
boundary of Lot B, which would be needed to provide proper access to the lot. There is
an additional easement (AFN #1614380) that may or may not benefit Lot B with
regards to access, but the legal access rights provided by this easement were not
discussed in Mr. Mercado’s letter. Please have Mr. Mercado provide sufficient
evidence that access to Lot B as depicted in the preliminary site development plan can
legally be provided, unless the proposed access to Lot B is revised such that access via
these easements is not necessary.
7/11/12 comment - A letter was received during the public comment period for the proposed
short plat indicating that permission has not been granted for the new lots to utilize the
existing access easements. Access to Lot A is proposed to be directly from Olympic View
Drive; however, access to Lot B is proposed to be via the existing access easements near the
eastern side of the project site. As such, please submit sufficient evidence that proposed Lot
B will have legal rights to utilize the existing access easements or that a new easement has
been granted for the benefit of Lot B.
4.October 24, 2012 – Thank you for submitting a letter from Liu & Associates dated July
27, 2012. Mr. Liu’s letter references the September 26, 2005 geotechnical report that he
prepared for the expired short plat on the subject site (File No. PLN20060044). That
report will be added to the file for the current short plat proposal; however, that report
did not reference how the proposal complies specifically with the development
standards of ECDC 23.80.070. Therefore, please have Mr. Liu prepare an addendum to
his September 26, 2005 report providing sufficient evidence as to how the design
standards of ECDC 23.80.070.A.3 will be met through the proposal, or if an alternative
design would be more compliant with these requirements. Design alternatives to
consider include, but are not limited to, lot layout, vehicular access (i.e. potential shared
access for Lots A and B), future building location, etc.
7/11/12 comment - Due to the presence of slopes that are steep enough to qualify as a
Landslide Hazard Area on and adjacent to the subject site, a geotechnical report is required.
Although a geotechnical report was provided as part of the application for the preliminary
approval that recently expired for the subject site (File No. PLN20060044), one will need to
be provided for the current application taking into account any changes in the development
plans that have been made between the original proposal and now. Additionally, the
geotechnical report will need to be updated to ensure that all current code requirements are
addressed. As such, please submit a geotechnical report prepared by a qualified geotechnical
engineer addressing the current proposal’s compliance with all applicable requirements of the
critical areas code contained within Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
Chapters 23.40 and 23.80. As part of addressing the critical areas code requirements,
particular attention must be paid in the geotechnical report to ECDC Section 23.80.070. As
part of your response, please provide sufficient evidence as to how the design standards of
ECDC 23.80.070.A.3 will be met through the proposal, or if an alternative design would be
more compliant with these requirements. Design alternatives to consider include, but are not
limited to, lot layout, vehicular access (i.e. potential shared access for Lots A and B), future
building location, etc.
2|Page
5.October 24, 2012 – Thank you for submitting your preliminary house plans for Lot A.
As requested in the July 11, 2012 comment below, please also submit a review of how
the proposed home locations on both Lots A and B take into account the existing
topography and how the design of the subdivision and placement of the future homes
meets the design standards of ECDC 23.80.070.A.3.
7/11/12 comment - The building envelope indicated on proposed Lot A based on applicable
setback requirements is very narrow. Although the preliminary development plans indicate
the footprint of a potential home on Lot A, this footprint is not in compliance with the 25-
foot street setback. As such, please provide evidence that a home can reasonably be
constructed on proposed Lot A while complying with the applicable setback requirements.
Additionally, in addressing this item, please include a review of how the proposed home
locations on both Lots A and B take into account the existing topography and how the design
of the subdivision and placement of the future homes meets the design standards of ECDC
23.80.070.A.3 discussed above.
6.October 24, 2012 – A copy of the Special Use Permit invoice was submitted on
September 6, 2012 noting the permit is now in effect until July 31, 2016. In a closer
read of the General Terms and Conditions of the Special Use Permit, it has become
unclear how a renewable permit satisfies the need for permanent access for the subject
development. The County requires the Special Use Permit to be reexamined during the
“Five Year Reassessment Period” to determine the continuing compatibility of the
permitted use with the policies and objectives of the Park, etc. At any point in time
(with 30 days notice), the County could terminate the permit. As noted in the City’s
July 11, 2012 comment below, obtaining ownership of the Snohomish County property
(Parcel No. 27040700403500) would provide better options for site development. The
City would be happy to participate in any conversations you may have with the County
to gain feedback on the possibility of the County transferring ownership of this parcel
to you. If this option is not viable, then you will need to explore other options of gaining
a permanent easement or options for an alternate access configuration for Lot B, such
as a shared access easement to Lot B via the proposed access drive on Lot A.
7/11/12 comment - The Special Use Permit issued by Snohomish County
(AFN200607310183) states that the permit is to be reexamined every five years. The Special
Use Permit is dated July 31, 2006, so there should have been a five year reexamination in
July of 2011. Please submit the results from the County’s reexamination of this permit. In
looking at the design and access to proposed Lots A and B as discussed above, did you
consider contacting Snohomish County regarding potentially purchasing the small triangle of
property that they own adjacent to the northeast corner of the site in order to have more
flexibility with access and avoiding impact to the slopes?
7.October 24, 2012 – Thank you for providing a revised preliminary short plat map and
site development plan to address the corrections in this item.
7/11/12 comment - Please have your surveyor make the following corrections to the
preliminary short plat map as well as to the preliminary development plan (where
applicable), and submit two large-format copies and one reduced copy (no larger than 11” by
17”) of all revised sheets:(Items 7.a through 7.i have been removed from this letter since all
were addressed with the September 6, 2012 resubmittal)
3|Page
8.October 24, 2012 – Thank you for submitting a Vegetation Management Plan prepared
by Wetland Resources, Inc. with a revision date of November 2, 2011 and for indicating
the proposed native vegetation areas on the preliminary site development plan. If any
changes to the proposed lot layout/development are made in response to the comments
above, please modify the locations of the native vegetation areas as necessary. As part
of the preliminary short plat review process, it needs to be shown that the requirement
of ECDC 23.90.040.C can be met; however, the Vegetation Management Plan will be
reviewed and approved as part of the civil review process.
7/11/12 comment - ECDC 23.90.040.C requires retention and/or establishment of 30 percent
of native vegetation on subdividable properties located within the RS-12 and RS-20 zones,
which includes the requirement for submittal of a vegetation management plan. Please
submit a plan to satisfy this requirement, including an indication of which portions of the site
will be retained/established as native vegetation to account for the 30 percent area
requirement and plans for how this area will be established and maintained in accordance
with the requirements of ECDC 23.90.040.C. This area is not required to be set aside as a
Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA), so please change the label on your preliminary
development plan if you do not intend for this area to be set aside as an NGPA. Additionally,
measures must be taken to try to retain as many existing trees as possible located both within
and outside of the proposed native vegetation area. Please indicate those trees that would be
impacted by the installation of the subdivision improvements and indicate how the trees to be
retained will be protected during development in accordance with ECDC 18.45.050. It
should be noted that any trees located within future building footprint areas that would not be
impacted by the installation of the subdivision improvements would not be able to be
removed until the time of building permit application review and approval for future
structures on the site, unless the trees are found to be hazardous or if removal is found to be
consistent with the requirements of ECDC 18.45.050.
Please submit the above information to a Planner, Monday through Friday between 8:00 AM and
4:30 PM.Please keep in mind that a complete response to this information request must be
received within 90 days or the application will lapse for lack of information (ECDC
20.02.003.D). Thus, your application will expire if the requested information is not received
by January 22, 2013.
Feel free to contact Jennifer Machuga or Jeanie McConnell at 425-771-0220 or by e-mail at
Jen.machuga@edmondswa.gov or Jeanie.mcconnell@edmondswa.gov if you have specific
questions regarding the above requested information.
Cc: File No. PLN20120021
Mr. William Ritter
8364 Olympic View Drive
Edmonds, WA 98026
Mr. Erich Tietze
th
Lane
1714 NW 200
Shoreline, WA 98177
4|Page