PLN20150052_LetterCompleteness_requestAdditionalInfo.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS
121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
/) c. I S9"
November 13, 2015
Kent Dietz
8006 South Lake Stevens Road
Lake Stevens, WA 98258
Subject: Letter of Completeness/Request for Additional Information
Critical Area Variance
File Number PLN20150052
Dear Mr. Dietz,
On behalf of the City of Edmonds Planning Division, I have reviewed the request for a critical areas
reasonable use variance for the property located at 742 Daley Street for completeness pursuant to
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.02.002. The City has determined that the
application meets the procedural submission requirements and therefore is complete. Please accept this
letter as the City's notice to applicant of determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003. In
accordance with ECDC 20.03.002.13, the notice of application will be issued for the subject application
within two weeks.
While the application is procedurally complete, additional information and clarifications are needed for
continued review of the application. Please provide the following information:
1. In order to evaluate the determination of the minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under
applicable state and federal constitutional provisions and investment backed expectations please
provide the following:
a. Title report and all associated documents.
b. Purchase and sale agreement for the subject property.
c. How does the purchase price of this property compare to the price of an unencumbered building
lot in the same general neighborhood?
d. The Snohomish County Assessor's office has the property value assessed at $2,400. Were you
aware of the assessed value of the property at the time of purchase?
e. A critical area variance was recently denied on this property. Since the submittal of the previous
application, the City's definition of reasonable economic use was modified eliminating the
specific reference to single family residences as a reasonable economic use. Were you aware of
the critical area encumbrances, the previous denial, and change to the critical area definition
regarding reasonable economic use at time of purchase?
2. Please demonstrate that no other reasonable economic use has less impact on the critical area.
a. Have you considered selling the property to a neighboring land owner?
b. Have you considered selling the property to organizations, such as Forterra, that purchase
property to preserve habitat?
3. Please demonstrate that the proposed layout and impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary
to allow for reasonable economic use of the property. Have any of following been considered:
a. Have you considered a narrower driveway?
b. Have you considered applying for setback to reduce the footprint of development within the
critical area buffer?
c. Have you considered constructing a smaller home?
d. Have there been any other design considerations to minimize the impact on the critical area and
critical area buffer?
4. Please demonstrate the inability to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of
actions by the applicant or previous owners?
a. If the property was purchased knowing about the critical area encumbrances and the previous
critical area variance denial, why is the decision to purchase the property with this knowledge not
an action by the•applicant?
b. Has the subject property been in common ownership with adjacent property owner since 1992?
5. Please demonstrate the proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or
welfare on or off the development proposal site.
a. The analysis in the application materials does not address the impact to the critical area. Why
does the impact to the critical area not pose an unreasonable threat?
b. If variances such as the current request are granted on all properties encumbered by critical areas,
would the cumulative impact of such development pose an unreasonable threat?
6. Please demonstrate why approving a critical area variance would not confer a special privilege.
a. The critical area regulations provide prohibitions against developing within a critical area or
critical area buffer. Please articulate why granting a variance on the subject property would not
be considered the granting of a special privilege.
7. The site plan shows the proposed buffer extending up to the edge of the house. The narrative in the
critical area report notes a 10-foot setback from the edge of the buffer as delineated with a split rail
fence. Please clarify what portions of the property will remain an intact buffer and what the intended
use is on the inside of the split rail fence (i.e. will vegetation on the inside of the fence be replaced
with lawn or other landscaped area?) If the vegetation on the inside of the fence is to be replaced, has
that been taken into consideration in the critical area report and mitigation plan? Please ensure all site
plans for the proposal are consistent.
8. The Growth Management Act and the City's critical area regulations requires that special
consideration to preserve or enhance anadromous fish habitat. ECDC 23.90.040.13 contains specific
development standards for anadromous fish habitat. Please supplement the critical areas report to
address the provisions of ECDC 23.90.040.B.
9. The largest area identified for mitigation is on the opposite side of the stream from the proposed
development. Please elaborate on how the mitigation on the east side of the stream will compensate
for the impacts of the development on the west side of the stream.
10. A geotechnical report prepared by Dennis Bruce dated October 21, 2015 was submitted in support of
building the proposed residence within the landslide hazard area of the property. This report and the
referenced report dated July 28, 2006 are not consistent with the report requirements of ECDC
23.80.050. Neither of these geotechnical reports address the requirements of ECDC 23.80.060.A or
ECDC 23.80.070.A.1 — A.4. Please submit a geotechnical report consistent with the requirements of
ECDC 23.80.050 that also addresses ECDC 23.80.060.A and ECDC 23.80.070.A.1 — A.4.
11. Please provide an estimate of the quantities of fill and grade for question B. Le of the SEPA checklist.
Please note the Planning Division has not received comments from all of the Departments/Divisions with
review responsibility so additional requests for information may be forthcoming.
Please note that the application will be placed on hold until a response is received regarding the above
items. According to ECDC 20.02.003.1), the above requested information must be submitted within 90
days (or by February 11, 2016) or the application will expire.
Finally, the geotechnical report and critical area report and mitigation plan may be subject to peer review
at your expense in accordance with ECDC 23.40.090. Once the responses to the above requested
information is provided, a determination of whether the reports will be subject to independent review will
be made.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 425-771-0220 or via email at
kernen.lien(a-,)edmon_dswa.2ov.
Since'rel),
Je'rnen Lien
nior Planner