S-04-123 staff report.pdf1'?c.1Sc:jv
T ..
F EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: wwwdedmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building - Engineering
fMr;iia 1E:�•i1Z1].
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
To: Higa Burkholder Assoc. LLC
Darla Reese
1721 Hewitt Ave. #401
Everett, WA 98021
Subject: S-2004-122 and S-2004-123
Transmitting Planning Division Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
For Your Information: X
As you requested:
For your file:
Comment:
Mote attachments: X
Cc: Talbot Partners, LLC
Stacy and Eric Heath
Sincerely,
Diane Cunningham, Administrative Assistant
Incorporated Au ' gust 1.1, 1890
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
Date: March 4, 2005
File: S-2004-123
Applicant: Talbot Partners, LLC
04123sr.DOC / January 12,2001 / Staff Report
Section Page
I.
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................2
A. Application...............................................................................................................................................2
B. Decision................................................................................................................................................... 2
II.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................... 3
A. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance........................................................................................... 3
B. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan...............................................................................................4
C. Compliance with the Zoning Code........................................................................................................... 6
D. Compliance with the Flood Plan Management Provisions....................................................................... 6
E. Environmental Assessment: .. ................................................................................................................... 6
F. Critical Areas Review: ............................................................................................................................. 6
G. Comments: ............................................................................................................................................... 7
III.
RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS..........................................................................7
A. Request for Reconsideration.................................................................................................................... 7
B. Appeals.................................................................................................................................................... 7
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals......................................................................................... 7
IV.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL.....................................................................................................7
V.
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR..................................................................................7
VI.
APPENDICES..................................................................................................................... 7
VII.
PARTIES OF RECORD......................................................................................................8
04123sr.DOC / January 12,2001 / Staff Report
Talbot Partners, LLC
File No. S-2004/123
Page 2 of 8
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Application
1. Applicant: Talbot Partners, LLC
2. Site Location: 8022 Cyrus Pl. (see Attachment 1).
3. Request: To divide 1 lot with a total area of approximately 65,587 square feet (1.51 acres)
into 3 lots (see Attachment 2).
4. Review Process: Following the Comment Period, Planning Staff makes an administrative
decision.
5. Major Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.50.020,
site development standards for the Community Business (BC) zone.
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Title 18, public
works requirements.
c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.1513,
Critical Areas.
d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.75,
subdivision requirements.
e. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.95,
staff review requirements.
B. Decision
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Attachments and Exhibits submitted with the
application and during the comment period, the following is the recommendation of the City of
Edmonds Planning Division:
The Subdivision should be APPROVED with the following conditions:
1. Prior to recording the applicant must complete the following requirements:
a) Civil plans must be approved prior to recording. In completing the civil plans you
must address the following:
(1) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required prior to
Recording" on Attachment 4.
(2) A split rail fence or another style acceptable to the City along with signage
shall be installed along the edge of the Critical Area buffer (10 feet north of
the top of the Steep Slope Hazard Area).
b) Submit copies of the recording documents to the City for approval. These documents
shall have the following information included:
(1) Add to the face of the Plat "Conditions of approval must be met and can be
found in the final approval for the short subdivision located in
File S-2004-123."
(2) Include on the plat all required information, including owner's certification,
hold harmless agreement, and staffs approval block.
(3) If setbacks are included in the final plat document, a statement shall be
added to the face of the map which reads "Setbacks shown for reference
only and vest no right."
(4) Retain on the plat map the top of the Steep Slope Hazard Area and its
buffer. Add a statement to the plat that states the Steep Slope Hazard Area
and its buffers shall be reserved as a native growth area subject to
development restrictions as provided for in the City's Critical Areas
Ordinance. Also, any building permit submitted for Lot 3 will require a
04123sr.DOC / January 12,2001 / Staff Report
Talbot Partners, LLC
File No. S-2004/123
Page 3 of 8
geotechnical report that confirms the foundation type and construction
practices that should be used for construction adjacent to a steep slope area.
(Applicants are now responsible for recording their own documents once they have
been approved and signed by the City.)
2. After recording the plat, the applicant must complete the following:
a) Provide the City Planning Division with two copies of the recorded plat, with the
recording number written on them.
b) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required with Building
Permit" on Attachment 4.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance
1. Environmental Resources
a. On this site, the topography and natural vegetation are considered to be environmental
resources. The subdivision chapter states, 20.75.085, that a proposed subdivision should be
designed to minimize significant adverse impacts. It also states that grading should be
minimized by sharing driveways and making sure that road, house and lot placements relate
to the topography.
This subdivision is proposing three lots which will share a driveway with three additional lots
that are being proposed on the adjacent lot to the west. The most sensitive and undisturbed
area of the site is the Perrinville Creek ravine that runs along the south edge of the property.
No development is proposed for this area. In fact, the applicant, consistant with the Critical
Areas ordinance, is proposing to protect this area with a Native Growth Protection Easement.
To ensure that this proposal is followed through in the final approval, it is appropriate to add
the following condition on this subdivision:
1. The top of the steep slope area shall be identified on the recorded map. A statement
should be made on the face of the plat that states the Steep Slope Hazard Area and its
buffers shall be reserved as a native growth area subject to development restrictions
as provided for in the City's Critical Areas Ordinance.
2. Lot and Street Layout
a. This criteria requires staff to find that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance and also that the lots would ultimately be
buildable. Based on a review of the project and the analysis in this section staff agrees that a
three lot short -plat is a reasonable use of the property. Because the property is zoned RS -20
all bulk standards referenced in this report will be RS -20 standards.
b. Lot sizes and dimensions:
Required
Proposed
Proposed
Req. Lot
Proposed
Lot Area
Net sq. ft
Gross sq. ft
Width
Lot Width
Lot 1 20,000
20,327 sq. ft.
22,023 sq. ft.
100'
Approx. 100 Feet
Lot 2 20,000
20,031 sq. ft.
22,102 sq. ft.
100'
Approx. 100 Feet
Lot 3 20,000
20,103 sq. ft.
21,462 sq. ft.
100'
Approx. 100 Feet
C. Setbacks:
The RS -20 zone requires street setbacks of 25 feet, side setbacks totaling 35 feet or more
with no side less than 10 feet and a rear setback of 25 feet. Lot 2 will need to comply with
these setbacks. Lot 3 will be considered an interior lot with only side setbacks required.
04123sr.DOC / January 12,2001 / Staff Report
Talbot Partners, LLC
File No. S-2004/123
Page 4 of 8
Corner Lots: Lot I will be considered a corner lot requiring a 25 foot setback from the north
and the east property lines. All remaining setbacks will be considered side setbacks and may
be 10 feet from the property lines.
d. Because the setbacks shown on the proposed plat do not comply with the above described
setbacks, the setbacks should either be elimitated from the final plat or they should be
corrected to reflect above section c. If the applicant chooses to include setback lines with the
plat, the following condition should be added to the decision:
1. A statement shall be added to the face of the map which reads "Setbacks shown for
reference only and vest no right."
3. Dedications
See City Engineer's Report (Attachment 4).
4. Improvements
See City Engineer's Report (Attachment 4).
5. Flood Plain Management
This project is not in a FEMA designated Flood Plain.
B. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
1. The Comprehensive Plan has the following stated goals and policies for Residential Development
and development within areas of sensitive soils and topography, both of which appear to apply to
this project.
Residential Development
B. Goal. High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse
lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options
available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be
approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic consideration, in
accordance with the following policies:
B.1. Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes
with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the
surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability.
B.3 Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or
additions to existing structures.
BA. Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds
whenever it is economically feasible.
B. 5. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful
control of other types of development and expansion based upon the
following principles:
B.S.c Sable property values must not be threatened b view, traffic or
land use encroachments.
B.S.d. Private property must be protected from adverse environmental
impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides,
etc.
B.6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural
constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage.
04123sr.DOC / January 12,2001 / Staff Report
Talbot Partners, LLC
File No. S-2004/123
Page 5 of 8
Soils and Topography
B. Goal. Future development in areas of steep slope and potentially hazardous soil
conditions should be based on site development which preserves,the natural site
characteristics in accordance with the following policies:
B.2. Streets and access ways should be designed to conform to the natural
topography, reduce runoff and minimize grading of the hillside.
C. Goal. Development on steep slopes or hazardous soil conditions should preserve
the natural features of the site, in accordance with the following policies:
C.1. Grading and Filling.
C.1.a. Grading, filling, and tree cutting shall be restricted to building
pads, driveways, access ways and other impervious surfaces.
C.1.b. Grading shall not jeopardize the stability of any slope, or of an
adjacent property.
C.1.c. Only minimal amounts of cut and fill on hillsides exceeding 15%
slope should be permitted so that the natural topography can be
preserved. Fill shall not be used to create a yard on steeply
sloped property.
C.1.d. Fill and excavated dirt shall not be pushed down the slope.
C.2. Building Construction.
C.2.a. Buildings on slopes of 15% or greater shall be designed to cause
minimum disruption to the natural topography.
C.2.a. Retaining walls are discouraged on steep slopes. If they are used
they should be small and should not support construction of
improvements which do not conform to the topography.
C.2.a. Water detention devices shall be used to maintain the velocity of
runoff at predevelopment levels.
C.3. Erosion Control.
C.3.a. Temporary measures shall be taken to reduce erosion during
construction.
C.3.b. Natural vegetation should be preserved wherever possible to
reduce erosion and stabilize slopes, particularly on the downhill
property line.
C.3.c. Slopes should be stabilized with deep rooted vegetation and
mulch, or other materials to prevent erosion and siltation of
drainage ways.
Compliance with the Residential Development goals and policies: Generally, staff feels this
project is consistant with these goals.
3. Compliance with the Soils and Topography goals and policies: City has no major concern over
the ability for a future development to comply with these goals and policies relating to soils and
topography. There is more than enough room left on the lots to allow for appropriate development
without impacting the steep slope areas. Also, the City's Critical Areas ordinance will control
what, if anything, will be allowed in that portion of the site. For these reasons, the condition
proposed in section II.A.1 is further justified.
04123sr.DOC / January 12,2001 / Staff Report
Talbot Partners, LLC
File No. S-2004/123
Page 6 of 8
C. Compliance with the Zoning Code
Staff finds this project to comply with the provisions of the Zoning Code, see section II.A.2.b.
D. Compliance with the Flood Plan Management Provisions
Staff finds this project to comply with the provision of the Zoning Code, see section II.A.5.a.
E. Environmental Assessment:
1. Is an Environmental Checklist Required for this application?
No. A three lot short plat does not exceed any of the thresholds for requiring an Environmental
Checklist and issuing an Environmental Determination. Also, a previous checklist and
determination was completed by the applicant and City for a project that had greater impact than
the proposed subdivision.
F. Critical Areas Review:
Critical Areas Review number: CA -1997-116 and CA -1997-117
2. Results of Critical Areas Review:
A Study Required determination was issued to establish the degree and extent of steep slopes on
the property and precisely locate them. The applicant completed the study requirement by
submitting a surveyed topography map which identifies the top of the steep slope along the
southwest side of the property. A geotechnical report does confirm the area from the top of the
bank and down, as a Steep Slope Hazard Area. It also addresses the required buffer for the slope.
In this case, the geotechnical report supports a reduction of the Critical Areas buffer from 50 feet
down to 10 feet as long as a 15 foot building setback from the edge of the steep slope buffer is
retained. This will provide 25 feet between the top of the steep slope to the nearest house or
structure. However, this recommendation was made based on a site reconasance and hand borings.
A more detailed subsurface report that outlines the foundation design and construction practices
that may be use for lot 3 is justified.
Although there is a stream on the property , the required buffer for a class 2 stream that has
salmonids is not wide enough to reach from the stream bank to the top of the steep slope as shown
on the site survey. Therefore, the steep slope critical area and its buffer provide even greater
protection then it would otherwise get through our code.
Because the applicant has specifically located the edge of the steep slope area and is maintaining a
minimum of 25 feet from the top of that slope, no additional studies are required regarding those
critical areas. However, to ensure that the Native Growth Protection Easment functions as it should
and to comply with the Critical Areas ordinance, fencing and signage should be installed along the
edge of the Critical Area buffer (10 feet north of the top of the Steep Slope Hazard Area).
3. Conditions Required for Critical Areas Compliance: The following things should be
done to ensure compliance with ECDC chapter 20.15B Critical Areas:
a. Retain on the plat map the top of the Steep Slope Hazard Area and its buffer. Add a
statement to the plat that states the Steep Slope Hazard Area and its buffers shall be reserved
as a native growth area subject to development restrictions as provided for in the City's
Critical Areas Ordinance. Also, any building permit submitted for Lot 3 will require a
geotechnical report that confirms the foundation type and construction practices that should
be used for construction adjacent to a steep slope area.
b. A split rail fence or another style acceptable to the City along with signage shall be installed
along the edge of the Critical Area buffer (10 feet north of the top of the Steep Slope Hazard
Area).
04123sr.DOC / January 12,2001 / Staff Report
Talbot Partners, LLC
File No. S-2004/123
Page 7 of 8
G. Comments:
A letter was submitted related to protection of the Perrinville Creek ravine for both trees and the
stream. This concern is addressed in sections II.A, B and F.
III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for fling reconsiderations and appeals. Any
person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department
for further procedural information.
A. Request for Reconsideration
Section 20.95.050.13.2 allows for Staff to reconsider their decision if a written request is fled
within ten (10) working days of the posting of the notice required by this section. The
reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in
the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed.
B. Appeals
Section 20.105.020 and 20.105.030 describes how appeals of a Staff decision shall be made. The
appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name
of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the
decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be
wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within fourteen (14)
calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed.
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals
The time limits for Reconsiderations and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for a
reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time "clock" for
filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the
staff has issued his/her decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal
continued from the point it was stopped. For example, if a request is filed on day 5 of the appeal
period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the staff issues their
decision on the reconsideration request.
IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Section 20.075.100 states, "Approval of a preliminary plat or preliminary short plat shall expire and have
no further validity at the end of five years, unless the applicant has acquired final plat or final short plat
approval within the five-year period."
V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the staff request a change in the valuation of
the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office.
VI. APPENDICES
Attachments:
1. Vicinity / Zoning Map
2. Plat Map
3. Geotechnical Report dated 5/30/01
4. Engineering Requirements
5. Letter from Stacy and Eric Heath, dated 1/25/05
04123sr.DOC / January 12,2001 / Staff Report
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD
Higa Burkholder Assoc. LLC
Darla Reese
1721 Hewitt Ave. #401
Everett, WA 98201
Stacy and Eric Heath
8125 Frederick Pl.
Edmonds, Wa 98026
Talbot Partners, LLC
Matt Howland
19237 Aurora Ave. N.
Shoreline, WA 98133
Talbot Partners, LLC
File No. S-2004/123
Page 8 of 8
Engineering Department
Fire Department
Parks Department
Public Works Department
Planning Department
04123sr.DOC / January 12,2001 / Staff Report
• • • •
1 - :.�
�.;
L
3
a
N
/ s
rc �_
a c( a O c o a kti 3
n
m
s
F -
sus
N
J �5
= uj
cr
D i9
nn 0
'Am ttachment zo"h
S-2004-123
g �
U
�v
LO
B
^
CO
yy R
333 a
w
O
t�
f
/ s
rc �_
a c( a O c o a kti 3
n
m
s
F -
sus
N
J �5
= uj
cr
D i9
nn 0
'Am ttachment zo"h
S-2004-123
° � a
3 3
21 RON
POH
9 g Lam^ oj; m r
u
nag
IOU
him lum
N 3'a sYo3os1 <€i E �y� $
� N
U
N
c
1
LLA -Z
Zoo
{—c_nzU
OL CO 0 F--
i- W
Ra
Q�Q
o
cc ° j;
:
OJ1;A
J Qa
ON; W�
ids!,
LCQ�g i
Off.
AMI
;to
a li
sp!
e
� N
U
N
c
1
LLA -Z
Zoo
{—c_nzU
OL CO 0 F--
i- W
Ra
Q�Q
o
cc ° j;
:
OJ1;A
J Qa
ON; W�
ids!,
LCQ�g i
Off.
AMI
;to
a li
sp!
No
v
co
w J
Zo �
V— N tY
W5 tL
Q Q
Q C Q
ftl
�0
3
v
�— —7-77.-
r�
m
�°3
m
7�
F1�
o
—
I►
N
H
iM
`f'
.�
p
s
C
O:Uas
ui
o chi 11
=WJ
mU<a
C7�®
May 30, 2001
1-91M-14012-0
Howland Homes
19237 Aurora Avenue N.
Shoreline, Washington 98133
Attention: Mr. John Bissell
Subject: Geotechnical Reconnaissance Report
Proposed Edmonds Subdivision—Talbot Commons
8022 Cyrus Place
Edmonds, Washington
Dear John:
JUN 21 2001
PERMIT MUNTER
AMSC Earth & Environmental, Inc. (AMSC) is pleased to submit this report describing our
geotechnical reconnaissance of the above -referenced project site. The purpose of our
reconnaissance was to determine the feasibility of constructing a new, 11 -lot subdivision above
a classified steep slope (greater than 40 percent). Due to the cursory nature of our study, a
geotechnical engineering evaluation of the site will be needed before the design can be
finalized.
As outlined in our proposal dated May 21, 2001, our scope of work was limited to surface
observations, geotechnical research, and report preparation; no subsurface explorations,
laboratory tests, or engineering analyses were included. We received your written authorization
for our reconnaissance on May 22, 2001. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use
of Howland Homes and their consultants, for specific application to this project, in accordance
with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice.
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is currently occupied by one residence on proposed Lot 10. The remainder of
the site is landscaped and virtually clear with the exception of an old barn and a fenced -in
pasture at the site of proposed Lots 1 through 8. The site is located approximately one-half mile
from Puget Sound in Edmonds, Washington, as shown on the enclosed Location Map (Figure
1). It consists of an irregularly shaped parcel that encompasses approximately 5.4 acres. Site
boundaries are generally delineated by Cyprus Place on the northeast, by a ravine on the
west/southwest and by private residences on the northwest and southeast.
AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc.
11335 N.E. 122nd Way, Suite 100
Kirkland, Washington
USA 98034
Tel (425) 820-4669 Attachment 3
Fax (425) 821-3914
www.amec.com SAWoRE S-2004-123
amec.4-Y
Howland Homes 1-91M-14012-0
May 30, 2001 Page 2
We understand that the ravine slope bordering the site's western/southwestern side is classified
as a steep slope under the guidelines of the City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance 20.15B
and, therefore, requires a minimum setback of 65 feet from the top of the slope.
SLOPE CONDITIONS
The original slope reconnaissance performed for this study was completed by AMEC on
February 17, 2000 for a different developer. Since that time, we understand Howland Homes
has purchased the property and is continuing forward with the project. At that time, we
observed slope conditions and conducted a series of shallow, hand -excavated test holes to
confirm near -surface soil conditions. A second reconnaissance was performed on May 23,
2001 to verify site conditions observed during our February 17, 2000 reconnaissance. No
excavations were performed during our second reconnaissance. The following text sections
present our observations and interpretations regarding surface, soil, and groundwater conditions
along the slope.
Surface Conditions
The old road, shown approximately on the Site Development Plan, Figure 2, in the southwestern
corner of the property, begins at the barn and it continues along the entire slope, well beyond
the subject property. The road is, on average, about 12 to 15 feet wide. It is not maintained
and is moderately to densely overgrown, predominantly with berry vines, stinging nettles, and
Devil's Club. The downslope side of the road is lined with a barbed wire fence. A steep cut
runs along the upslope side, primarily along the western extent of the road.
According to the topographic survey prepared by CG Engineering (dated April 13, 2000), the
vertical relief of the northern ravine slope ranges from 55 feet in Perrinville Creek at the western
corner of the property to as high as approximately 155 feet at the southeastern property corner.
On roughly the southeastern half of the slope (below proposed Lot 11), inclinations as steep as
about 1.2H:1 V are measured, while the slope flattens somewhat to the northwest with slopes on
the order of about 2HAV. Steeper slopes can also be found here locally. Steeper slopes can
also be found below the old road along the entire length of the property.
Existing vegetation along the slope includes light to moderately dense, medium to large sized
trees (up to 24 -inch -diameter), mostly conifers. Groundcover on the western portion of the
slope is dense and is dominated by ferns, Devil's Club, and berry vines. The groundcover on
the steeper, eastern portion of the slope is less dense and consists primarily of ferns, though
stinging nettles grow densely just above, along, and below the road, in addition to sparse
horsetails.
Soil Conditions
According to the Preliminary Surficial Geologic Map of the Edmonds West Quadrangles,
Snohomish and King Counties, Washington (GM -14), soil conditions are generally characterized
by interbedded, nonglacial floodplain deposits of sand, silt, and clay (Whidbey Formation). The
contact with the Vashon Glacial Till (an overconsolidated mixture of sand, silt and gravel) is
shown on the geologic map as being near the eastern margins of the site.
S:\WORDPROC\—Projects\140OOsXI4012 Howland HomeMaMand Homes.doc
Howland Homes
May 30, 2001
1-91M-14012-0
Page 3
The USDA Soil Conservation Survey Map for Snohomish County indicates that the site is
underlain by the Norma clay loam and the Everett gravelly, sandy loam. The Norma clay loam,
mapped at the top of the slope, is characterized as hydrologic group "CID", and is described as
having a moderately high to high potential for runoff with slow to very slow infiltration rates. The
Everett unit, mapped on the ravine slope, is characterized by hydrologic soil group "A" described
as having rapid rates of infiltration and low potential for runoff.
Though we did not encounter glacial till, our surface observations confirmed the existence of the
Whidbey Formation within the ravine. They also revealed that the near -surface soils above the
old road comprise roughly 4 to 6 inches of forest duff and topsoil mantling loose, medium sand
with trace silt and gravel. We observed approximately 8 inches of saturated topsoil overlying
medium -dense to dense, fine sand/silty sand in the road below proposed Lot 11. To the east of
this location, we revealed roughly 2 inches of forest duff over loose, medium sand, which
became medium -dense at a depth of about 6 inches below the surface.
Though we could not access the portion of the slope below the old road due to dense vegetation
and steep slopes, we did observe a significant, nearly vertical outcrop of what appeared to be
interbedded sand and silt on the southern ravine slope. This outcrop was noted below the
northeastern corner of Lot 11 and extends beyond the northeastern property boundary. The
outcrop ranged in height from approximately 5 feet to as high as 20 to 25 feet north of the site.
The elevation of the old road at this location appears to be roughly equivalent to that of the top
of the outcrop. Above the outcrop, the slope flattens slightly, signifying a change in composition
and/or density/consistency, as observed above the road on the northern ravine slope.
Groundwater Conditions
At the time of both our original slope reconnaissance (February 17, 2000) and subsequent site
visit (May 23, 2001), we did not observe groundwater seepage on the face of the slope.
Additional near surface soils above the road appeared to be at or near their optimum moisture
contents. Stinging nettles and horsetails (observed on the slopes) may be indicative of
saturated soil conditions, suggesting that seepage may occur here at certain, wet times of the
year.
CRITICAL AREAS CONSIDERATIONS
Under the guidelines presented in the City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance 20.955, the
slope delineating the property's western/southwestern margin meets. the criteria for classification
as an erosion hazard, landslide hazard, and steep slope. Our site investigation included a
reconnaissance of this slope in an effort to identify features which may indicate past or recent
slope failure or erosion. Figure 2 (Site Development Plan) identifies the lots in relation to the
slope.
Evidence of Historic and On -Going Slope Failures: We identified surficial features that could be
indicative of past or ongoing slope instability. Two relic landslides measuring roughly 50 and
130 feet long were observed on the northwestern half of the slope, and one, small, recent
landslide was observed on the southeastern half. The relic landslides appeared to have been
S:IWORDPROCI Projects\74000s114072 HoWand HomesWoWand Homes.doc 53
Howland Homes
May 30, 2001
amec�
1-91M-14012-0
Page 4
slump failures with vertical movement on the order of 10 to 15 feet. Both have distinctive scarps
that are now overgrown. The vegetation, including mature trees up to 2 feet in diameter, was
observed growing on the landslide debris, and they did not appear to be disturbed due to
recurrent downslope movement. Downslope of the head -scarp of the larger landslide was
hummocky topography that extended to approximately mid -slope. A discontinuous, back -
sloping bench has formed along the top of the larger slump block.
The condition of the mature trees on these landforms is evidence of their present stability. First,
these trees grow relatively straight, as opposed to growing at odd angles to one another in a
"jackstraw" fashion, which would indicate past earth movements. Thus, these trees have not
been disturbed in a subsequent landslide event. Second, these trees do not show a bend at the
bottom, which would indicate slow, downslope soil creep.
Overall, we encountered relatively few indications of soil creep along the entire slope face, and
we observed no stands of trees with bent trunks (indicative of a slope experiencing creep).
Where encountered, bent trees were generally surrounded by straight trees of equal size. The
one observed area of bent trees is situated near the upper -middle portion of the slope, roughly
40 to 50 feet long, and located at approximately elevation 140 feet. The bent trees were
dominated by 12- to 24 -inch -diameter conifers.
On the steeper, southeastern portion of the slope, we observed an area with signs indicating
small-scale, active mass wasting. It was downslope and slightly east of the area of bent trees
described above. The scarp was about 3 feet wide at the head, which had propagated up into
the old road. Below the road, it widened to roughly 10 to 15 feet across and extended down to
the base of the slope. Tension cracks, exhibiting up to about 6 inches of vertical displacement
and spaced roughly 3 feet apart, were visible in the road here.
Across the remainder of the slope, we observed little, if any, evidence of historic slope
instability. The features described above are shown approximately on Figure 2.
Evidence of Historic Erosion: We attempted to identify surficial evidence of past or ongoing
erosion of site soils by flowing water. Our slope assessment did not yield any significant
evidence of erosion activity, past or present. We attribute this to the free -draining nature of the
soils as having low susceptibility to runoff due to the inherently high rate of infiltration. We did
not observe any surface water flow on or over the slope at the time of our site reconnaissance.
Erosions Hazard Classification: The steep ravine slopes are considered an erosion hazard
based on 20.15B.060.A3a of the City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance since they are
underlain by the Everett gravelly, sandy loam (USDA).
In our opinion, based on our surface observations and geotechnical research, the glacial till and
underlying sands would be well suited for support of conventional single-family residences
S:IWOROPROC\ Projects\14000s114012 Howland Homes\Howland Homes.doc 5-V
ameO
Howland Homes 1-91 M-14012-0
May 30, 2001 Page 5
contingent on the implementation of certain recommendations provided in the following text
section. The site soils are also capable of sustaining steep slope angles, provided that loading
conditions are minimal near the top of the slope and that no water is infiltrated near the top of
the slope nor allowed to discharge over the top of the slope. Natural processes will serve to
move the top of the slope farther into the lot. These natural processes result from weathering,
storm events, and the freeze/thaw cycle.
The effectiveness of any construction or maintenance methodology used to improve slope
stability, or reduce the likelihood of future instability, depends on proper construction procedures
and effectiveness in controlling those factors which might affect hillside stability. The owner
should be aware that there are latent risks in owning a hillside home that the owner must
assume. The homeowner typically has the responsibility of maintaining slopes and drainage in
this type of environment.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We offer the following geotechnical recommendations concerning the 11 -lot subdivision above
the Critical Areas slope.
Geologically Hazardous Area Buffer: Based on our geologic research and site
observations, it is our opinion that the 50 -foot minimum required buffer can be
reduced to 10 feet for the proposed development on Lots 3, 4, and 11 adjacent to
the steep slope.
Setbacks for Buildings and Ancillary Structures: In our opinion, the minimum
required building setback of 15 feet is adequate for Lots 3, 4, and 11. For
development on Lot 11, we further recommend that the bottom of all footings be
extended down to intersect a hypothetical line projected from the toe of the slope
at the Perrinville Creek elevation inclined upward at 2HAV. This would
correspond to a minimum footing embedment.of 4.feet. Ancillary structures such
as decks, walkways, patios, etc. should not extend outward from a residence
itself toward the steep slope into the buffer zone.
Building Drains: All foundation and roof drains should be tightlined to an
appropriate disposal point at the northeastern end of the property. It is our
opinion that directing roof and footing drain discharge points away from the high
bank portion of the property will significantly reduce the likelihood of accelerated
future slope degradation.
Site Grading: Minimize grading adjacent to, or on, the steeply sloping portion of
the property.
Site Maintenance: Plumbing should be kept in good repair and all leaks should
be fixed promptly. Lawn watering and irrigation along the slope should be
.55'
S:\WORDPROC\_Projeds\14000s\14012 HaMand Homes\Howland Homes.doc
ameO
Howland Homes 1-91M-14012--0
May 30, 2001 Page 6
minimized. Landscaping debris should not be disposed on, or adjacent to, the
steep slopes.
Periodic Slope Monitoring: An examination should be made periodically for
evidence of movement along the slope and/or distress in any structures located
on or adjacent to the steep slopes.
® Erosion Control: We recommend that no stripping or grading work should be
done on the ravine slopes. We understand that all grading work is proposed for
the area above the slopes.
S:\WORDPROC\ P-iects114000s\14012 Hovland Homes\Howland Homes.doc
AM A11111111111h
ameO
Howland Homes 1-91M-140120
May 30, 2001 Page 7
CLOSURE
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based, in part, on our
interpretations and assumptions regarding subsurface conditions; therefore, if variations in the
subgrade conditions are observed at a later time, we may need to modify this report to reflect
those changes. AMEC is available to perform a geotechnical engineering evaluation of the
project site, and to provide geotechnical monitoring, soils and concrete testing, steel and
masonry inspection, and other services throughout construction.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions
regarding this report or any aspects of the project, please feel free to contact our office.
Sincerely,
AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc.
Ana L. Pierson
Senior Staff Geologist %i A. S
lk'5?�'G�"
L
Stephen A. Siebert, P.E.
Senior Project Engineer ExPjR�s
ALP/KSS/kms
Enclosures: Figure 1 — Location Map
Figure 2 — Site Development Plan
Distribution: Mr. John Bissell, Howland Homes (3)
.5%
S:\WORDPROC\—Projects\14000s\14012 Howland Homes\Howland Homes.doc
7
AK
ST
IBM
<1 Iwo!
sr -T
Z
-A. A IV
19
W Z DR
rS
I -am In
MAT PL)GE1
;r
tt 5T
e"-nsASP ST
--two4w
LTW d M -X
24
i&'; 'g -k
GLVv
OIL
4,U
IN, ST
IL
a.
ST
.. A123 '3C
I ALDE4
�7
ST
Sr
cc
s Lw
EA
cLYI JVzV
V- ilk
7M Si SW
t
N
.51
Reproduced with permission by THOMAS BROS. MAPS. This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS. It is
at T. S. unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resole, without permission.
LOCATION MAP
AMEC EARN AND ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. HOWLAND HOMES
11335 N.E. 1122nd Way, Suite 100
Kirkland, WA, U.S.A. 98034-6918 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
'v I?.
ST FS S
L
FIGURE
58
41-1\
n.
w
'•\ w
�'\t9Y tL
o ? \'.... .\bra c0
w U
UJ 0
*11 tq
ou
Si + •ru `_ tti 1 \ y C 3SV8
W
yr• \. \6 N O ys�• \ + o �ry
'i
\o
s ui3
X11" �� �f • ,\� \ \\ '�. \�pj 2i��C
0 as
En
Ix
C ' \?• O W �\`` \\ O' z
J '� {101, � •' , � /,• `'�• ♦ y y f.7
90
Im
..y/. ,;;q .YI;�%fog ``� � • � i \ -/ vii
..011 •/ Q ::J'.j `�*;r/ •lJ \ i e � Q
V,
' a
+;+� d, ki •. Vo ; p i�L 1 14 /•3- bey!%� ri y�'.�^ p yy� �' y\y `� � O
o iv
\� � / rrr.: Ai Vii.`, :�:� , • �� � / %�¢`'�' / +
OKI 1141P
CITY OF EDMONDS
ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS FOR SHORT PLATS
Name: TALBOT PARTNERS File No.: S-04-122 and S-04-123
Approved by�� Vicinity: 8026 CYRUS PL
Engineering Program MananPr rinfP
V:\dvrw\sp\04-122-123 talbot partners plt.doe S-2004-123
Req'd
Req'd w/bldg.
Bond posted
Complete
prior to
Permit
recording
1. Rights-of-way for public streets:
N/A- Access road shall be private
X
2. Easements (City utilities, private access, other utilities):
Provide all easements as needed.
X
Total access easement width shall be 30.00'
X
3. Street improvements (ACP with curb and gutter):
Slope of proposed private access road shall not exceed 12%.
X
Provide 1 common shared access road for lots 1-3 (S=04-122)
and 1-3 (S-04-123). Access road shall be paved 20.0' wide plus
18" asphalt thickened edge. Concrete extruded curb or curb and
gutter may also be used.
Access for the above lots shall be off Cyrus PL
X
Construct 18" concrete curb and gutter along the property
X
frontages on Cyrus PL
4. Street turnaround:
Provide a shared on-site turn around to City Stds.
X
5. Sidewalks and/or walkways:.
Construct 5' wide concrete sidewalk along property frontages on
X
Cyrus PL.
6. Street lights:
N/A
X
7. Planting strip:
N/A
X
8. Water system improvements (pipelines, fire hydrants, etc)
Provide service to each lot.
X
Connect to public water system.
X
X
9. Sanitary sewer system improvements (pipelines, pump
stations etc)
Provide new service to each lot
X
Connect to public sewers stem
X
X
10. Storm sewer system improvements (pipelines, DOE,
fisheries, etc.):
Provide storm sewer service to all proposed lots.
X
Construct storm detention system sized to provide adequate
X
capacity for proposed single family dwellings and access
improvements in accordance with ECDC 18.30.
Connect to Public Storms stem
X
11. On-site drainage (plan per Ord. 3013):
Connect all new impervious surfaces to detentions stem.
X
X
12. Underground wiring (per Ord. 1387):
Required for all new services
X
X
13. Excavation and grading (per UBC, Chapter 70):
Submit a grading plan as part of engineered site plan.
X
X
V:\dvrw\sp\04-122-123 talbot partners plt.doe S-2004-123
PROGRAM MANAGER, CITY OF EDMONDS DATE
the tg n�ercng rE uirem nfs have been om lete l >ri fhe subr iv soon �car� bene ordei4
Authorized for recording by: Date:
V:\dvrw\sp\04-122-123 talbot partners plt.doc
Req'd prior to
Req'd w/bldg.
Bond
Complete
recordin
Permit
osted
14. Signage (per City Engineer):
All signs shall be vinyl letters and to City Stds. No silk screen
X
signs will be permitted
Install high intensity sign at the entrance
X
Provide "Private Access road Ends"
X
Provide fire and aid address signage
X
15. Survey monumentation (per Ord., Section 12.10.120):
N/A
X
16. As -built drawings (per City Engineer):
Required for all utility construction.
X
X
17. Other requirements:
a) Plat showing lots, easements, legals, survey information
X
X
b) Legal documents for each lot
X
c) Field stake lot corners (by professional engineer)
X
d) Clustered mailbox location per Postmaster
X
e Maintenance agreements
X
18. Engineering fees:
a) Storm drainage connection charge for plat road ( $ 799.50)
X
b) Storm drainage connection charge per lot ($ 428 )
X
c) Sewer connection fee per SFR ($ 730)
X
d) Sewer connection charge/LID fees to be paid in full.
X
e) Water connection fee per SFR (based on meter size)
X
d) Plat inspection fee: 2.2% of improvement costs $
X
e) Plan review fee: ($1720.
X
Traffic mitigation: total for both short plats $ 5,444.32
X
PROGRAM MANAGER, CITY OF EDMONDS DATE
the tg n�ercng rE uirem nfs have been om lete l >ri fhe subr iv soon �car� bene ordei4
Authorized for recording by: Date:
V:\dvrw\sp\04-122-123 talbot partners plt.doc
JAN 2 ro 2005
City of Edmonds Development Services Department DEVELOPMENT CERVICES
1215"' Ave. North
Edmonds, WA 98020 1/25/05
To whom it may concern,
We have reviewed the plans for the development of 8026 and 8028 Cyrus Pl., Edmonds
(File # S-04-122 and File # S-04-123)
Our concerns revolve around the areas labeled "NGPA/E Forested" and the Perrinville
Creek. These are considered "critical areas" and should be protected and left untouched.
According to City Code - Subdivisions 20.75.060, Requirements for the preliminary plats
can include N: "The location of tree -covered areas, with the location of individual trees
over eight inches in diameter in areas as requested by the planning director.
There were no trees labeled on the plans that we viewed. We are hoping that this can
be interpreted as meaning that no trees are going to be touched, cut-down or trimmed
with regards to this development. In either case, we are formally requesting that the
planning director require this information for the record and so that it may be further
reviewed, in relation to U: "Other Information needed to determine the environmental
impact of the proposal." If it would be helpful, we have photographs of the area showing
its current condition.
As per 20.1513.050, the applicant is required to submit a critical areas checklist for
review. We would like to confirm that this has been followed and that any necessary
studies have been done.
The trees and the creek are part of what makes this, such a wonderful place to live.
We would appreciate your help in protecting them.
Thank you for your time, and we look forward to hearing back from you soon in regards
to our concerns.
Sincerely,
Stacy nd Eric Heath
8125 Frederick Pl.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Lot #82
S-2004-123