Loading...
Resubmittal Cover Letter recd 10-29-15.pdfOctober 29, 2015 Jen Machuga City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Submittal of Revised Edmonds Short Plat 18227 80th Avenue West City of Edmonds File No. PLN20150031 / Our Job No. 15370 Dear Jen: Wilson & Neal, PLLC Attorneys at Law RECEIVED DEVELOPMENT SERVICES We have revised the plans and technical documents for the above -referenced project in accordance with comments we have received from City of Edmonds staff. Enclosed are the following documents for your review and approval: 1. Five full-size copies of the revised preliminary short plat map 2. One 11x17 -inch copy of the revised preliminary short plat map 3„ Three full-size copies of the revised civil engineering plans 4. One 11x17 -inch copy of the revised civil engineering plans 5. Three copies of the Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan Report dated October 20, 2015 prepared by Taylor Engineering Consultants 6. Three copies of the Geotechnical Engineering Study dated August 11, 2015 prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. 7. Three copies of the Infiltration Considerations Letter dated March 11, 2015 prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. 8. Three copies of the Driveway Access Safety Assessment Update dated October 28, 2015 prepared by William Popp Associates 9. Three copies of Taylor Engineering Consultants' comment/response memorandum dated October 20, 2015 The following outline provides each of the comments in your letter dated July 30, 2015 in italics exactly as written, along with a narrative response describing how each comment was addressed: 1. The critical areas reconnaissance conducted for the subject site (File No. CRA20150069) found that Erosion Hazard and Landslide Hazard Areas are located on and/or adjacent to the subject site. Due to the presence of slopes that are steep enough to qualify as a Landslide Hazard Area on/adjacent to the subject site, a geotechnical report is required. Please submit a geotechnical report prepared by a qualified geotechnical engineer addressing the PO Box 158 Kent, WA 98035 (206) 805-6238 Office (206) 550-3189 Mobile Terry@WilsonNeal.com Jen Machuga City of Edmonds October 29, 2015 Page 2 proposal's compliance with the applicable critical areas code requirements of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 23.40 and 23.80. As part of the geotechnical report, your geotechnical engineer must include 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, future building location, etc. The location of the Landslide Hazard Area must also be indicated on the project plans. Response: As noted in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared dated August 11, 2015 prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc., the steep slope is located off site. The study describes how the proposed project will comply with ECDC design standards. 2. Inconsistencies were noted throughout the application materials regarding the access locations for the proposed lots. For example, the "Statement of Compliance" letter states that all three lots will gain access at a shared location, but the "Driveway Access Safety Assessment" states that Lots 1 and 3 would utilize shared access on the northern side of the site and that Lot 2 would gain access on the southern side of the lot. This is also inconsistent with what is represented on the preliminary plans. Additionally, the preliminary plans indicate a shared driveway extending along the majority of the northern side of the site, but only the first 20' by 30' of this shared driveway is shown to be located within an access easement. All shared access drives must be located within vehicular access easements. Please revise all plan sheets, the "Statement of Compliance", the Driveway Access Safety Assessment'; and all other applicable submittal items in order for all submittal materials to consistently reflect the locations of the proposed access, areas of access easements, etc. Response: As noted in the enclosed Driveway Access Safety Assessment Update dated October 28, 2015 prepared by William Popp Associates, the lots will gain access via three separate driveway stems that come together in a 20- by 30 -foot easement located in the northwest corner of the property connecting to 80th Avenue West. The enclosed revised short plat map and engineering plans reflect this layout. No changes were required to the Statement of Compliance. 3. Your plans indicate that the existing asphalt driveway is to be relocated in part and removed in part, but the plans do not indicate which portions will be relocated (and where they will be relocated to) and which portions will be removed. Please clarify. Response: Sheet 0.2 of the revised engineering plans indicates which portions of the existing asphalt driveway are to be removed. 4. The minimum required lot area within the RS -12 zone is 12,000 net square feet (gross area excluding the area of any vehicular access easements). If you are proposing for any of the lots to be less than 12,000 net square feet, then you will need to submit the necessary modification request(s) together with associated $795 fee(s). Please note that pursuant to ECDC 20.75.075.C, a modification request may only be approved if all of the required findings set forth in Chapter 20.85 ECDC (Variances) can be made. Thus, your submittal for a modification request would also need to include a written statement of how each of these criteria are met by the proposal. Response: All three lots exceed the minimum 12,000 SF threshold as shown on the revised short plat map and engineering plans. No modification is being requested. Both gross Jen Machuga City of Edmonds October 29, 2015 Page 3 square footage and net square footage for each lot are shown on Sheet 1.1 of the revised engineering plans. All existing structures that are to be retained must comply with the minimum required setbacks of the RS -12 zone. It was noted that the existing upper floor deck extends into the minimum required 25 foot rear setback. The deck cannot extend into this setback, and the patio may only extend into the setback by four feet pursuant to ECDC 16.20.040. C. Please either revise the plans such that all existing structures comply with the minimum required setbacks, or indicate which portions of the existing structures are to be removed. Where vehicular access easements are proposed, minimum required setbacks are taken from the edge of such easements. Response: The upper deck on the existing house will be removed, and the concrete patio will be cut back to comply with the required setbacks as shown on Sheet 0.2 of the revised engineering plans. 6. Due to the use of similar line styles, it is difficult to distinguish the location of the proposed native vegetation area required pursuant to ECDC 23.90.040.C. Please clarify. Additionally, 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 by area requirement and plans for how this area will be established and maintained in accordance with the requirements of ECDC 23.90.040. C. Response: The proposed native vegetation area has been clearly delineated and its area calculated on Sheet 1.1 of the revised engineering plans and depicted on Sheet 2 of the revised short plat map. 7. Please note that review by the Engineering Division is pending, and additional comments regarding the proposal may be sent at a future date. Response: Acknowledged. Please see responses to engineering comments below, The following outline provides each of the comments in JoAnne Zulauf's memo dated August 3, 2015 in italics exactly as written, along with a narrative response describing how each comment was addressed: 1. Cover sheet block map incorrectly identifies 76th Ave W as "Meadowdale Edmonds Road". Please revise map. Response: Completed in the BLOCK MAP on Sheet 0.1 of the revised engineering plans. 2. The lots are referred to as Lot 1 through 3 on the cover sheet but on sheet 1.1 are labeled 7, 8, and 9. Please revise to be consistent throughout plan sheets. Response: The lot numbering has been corrected on Sheet 1.1 of the revised engineering plans. 3. Indicate whether the existing residence will be retained or if it will be demolished. If demolished show proposed structure and impervious surface. Jen Machuga City of Edmonds October 29, 2015 Page 4 Response: The existing house on Lot 1 will be retained as indicated on Sheets 0.2 and 1.1 of the revised engineering plans. 4. Please revise the drainage / utility plan to show the feasibility of the proposed stormwater system and other proposed utilities. This plan should show the outline of all proposed impervious surfaces (proposed houses (including eves), d/ways, patios, etc) on each lot with the square footage of each area called out. The storm system(s) shall be sized to include the total impervious surfaces shown, Response: This proposal is a land use action only; no houses are proposed under this permit. The drainage facilities have been sized based on the maximum allowable impervious surface area. A summary of impervious areas used is included on Sheet 3.1 of the revised engineering plans. 5. The storm systems shown appear to be shared though it is unclear. The access road and the impervious surface total from each lot shall be connected to a storm system. Lot 1 existing impervious surface will only need to be connected to a storm system if the existing house was constructed after 1977 or the existing house will be demolished. If the existing home is demolished, all impervious surface on that lot will need to be connected to a storm system as well. Response: The calculations for infiltration sizing are for a single shared facility large enough for the maximum allowable imperious surfaces on the site, and alternatively for smaller individual lot facilities, using the same maximum allowable impervious surface areas. We recognize that the existing house does not need to be connected because it was built in 1966; however, since the new lots will be downhill of the existing house, and there is no drainage system to connect to, the infiltration facility(ies) was(were) conservatively sized for the maximum allowed for the whole short plat. This also provides for future redevelopment of Lot 1 under a future permit, and allows for connection of the existing house at any time it is deemed convenient or appropriate. 6. To show feasibility of the proposed storm system(s), show connections from each house to the storm system, including rim and invert information for each connection. Include the length and size of all pipe to verify that a minimum .5% slope can be attained. Response: This proposal is a land use action only; no houses are proposed under this permit. However, to address this comment, minimum building pad elevations and storm drain stub elevations have been added to the Sheet 3.1 of the revised engineering plans. To show feasibility of the sewer system, provide rim and invert elevations from proposed structures on each lot to a clean out at the property line and then on to a connection to the public sewer main. Please include length and size of all pipe to verify a minimum of 2% slope can be attained. Response: This proposal is a land use action only; no houses are proposed under this permit. However, to address this comment, minimum building pad elevations and sanitary sewer stub elevations have been added to the Sheet 2.1 of the revised engineering plans. Jen Machuga City of Edmonds October 29, 2015 Page 5 8. Please provide an infiltration stormwater report including testing information using one of the approved testing methods found in the City of Edmonds Stormwater Supplement Appendix C. The Supplement can be found on our website under Handouts. Response: Please refer to the enclosed Infiltration Considerations Letter dated March 11, 2015 prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. 9. The intention and arrangement of the access road(s) is unclear. a. The proposed access along with the the existing driveway and the driveway adjacent to the east will create a 50' expanse of asphalt with only a small area of vegetation between them. Please revise reducing the excessive access entry to the lots. An option would be to demo the driveway access from the east to the existing house and use only the west entrance. Then the access road to the other two lots could be reduced to a 15'Access easement with 12' paved. Response: The lot access plan has been revised, and the proposed demolition has been clarified. Much of the existing asphalt driveway on Lot 1 will be demolished. b. There is a label stating that a 30 x 20 area adjacent to the road is an Access/Utility easement. It appears that the road will be on both lot 2 and 3 property and that the utilities will also be on both properties through the road. If this is the case then the entire access road would be the Access/Utility easement. Please clarify. Response: The lot access plan has been revised, and the only shared vehicular easement is the 30- by 20 -foot area. Utilities are grouped for ease of construction in utility easements. c. On the current plan, there is a portion of the existing house driveway that falls within the new proposed property of Lot 2. Please show the private access easement allowing Lot 1 to use the property of Lot 2 for access or show a proposed change in location of the existing driveway. Response: The proposed demolition of the existing Lot 1 driveway is now clarified. 10. Show each lot's driveway as paved or concrete Response: Completed on Sheet 2.1 of the revised engineering plans. The following outline provides each of the comments in your email dated August 6, 2015 in italics, along with a narrative response describing how each comment was addressed: Verify that all required information within ECIC 20,75. 060 is indicated on the preliminary plans. Response: We believe all information required by ECDC 20.75.060 is now shown on the revised short plat and/or engineering plans. When indicating the square footage of the proposed lots, both gross and net areas will need to be indicated. Jen Machuga City of Edmonds October 29, 2015 Page 6 Response: Both gross square footage and net square footage for each lot are shown on Sheet 1.1 of the revised engineering plans. Net area is the gross (total) area excluding the area of any vehicular access easements. Response: Acknowledged. Indicate compliance with the minimum required lot width of 80 feet (measured with a circle that is 80 feet in diameter). Response: To indicate compliance with lot width requirements, an 80 -foot circle has been depicted on Lots 2 and 3 on Sheet 2 of the revised short plat map. We believe that the above responses, together with the enclosed revised plans and technical documents, address all of the comments we have received. Please review and approve the enclosed at your earliest convenience. If you have questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at this office. Thank you. Respectfully, Terrance Randall Wilson Attorney at Law 15370C002.doc enc: As Noted cc: Phong Le, Clear Vision Homes, Inc. Trevor Lanktree, Lanktree Land Surveying, Inc.