S-05-09 and SD-05-08 staff report and attachments.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION
To: File S�`-,2005-9 a lSD-2005-8
From:
Bullock, AICP
Planner
Date: April 12, 2006
File: S-2005-9 and SD -2005-8
Applicant: Thuesen Custom Homes
TABLE OF CONTENTS
05009sr.doc / January 12,2001 / Staff Report
Section Page
I.
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................
2
A. Application.......................................................................................................................................2
B. Subdivision Decision........................................................................................................................
2
C. Steep Slope Exemption Decision......................................................................................................3
Il.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................3
A. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................
3
B. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance....................................................................................6
C. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan........................................................................................
8
D. Compliance with the Zoning Code..................................................................................................
10
E. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions.............................................................
10
F. Critical Areas Review: ....................................................................................................................
10
G. Comments: ......................................................................................................................................
12
1I1.
RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS........................................................................14
A. Request for Reconsideration...........................................................................................................
14
B. Appeals...........................................................................................................................................
14
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals................................................................................
14
IV.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL...................................................................................................15
V.
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR................................................................................15
VI.
APPENDICES...................................................................................................................15
VII.
PARTIES OF RECORD....................................................................................................15
05009sr.doc / January 12,2001 / Staff Report
Thuesen Custom Homes
File No. S-2005-9 & SD -2005-8
Page 2 of 15
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Application
1. Applicant: Thuesen Custom Homes
2. Site Location: 509 91h Ave. N. (see Attachment 1).
3. Request: To divide a lot with approximately 1.03 acres into 2 lots in a Single -Family
Residential RS -12 zone (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 16.20.030,
site development standards for the RS -12 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. Subdivision 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) The wetland and its buffer should be protected by a Native Growth
Protection Easement (NGPE) or Tract on the recording documents. No work
is allowed in the NGPE without an approved wetland enhancement plan.
(2) The wetland and the future home should be separated by a 25 foot buffer
and a 15 building setback. No grading is permitted in the 25 foot buffer.
Grading, decks, patios and yard are allowed in the 15 foot building setback.
The south 15 feet of the property is exempt from the buffer provisions to
allow for the construction of the driveway and utilities (see Attachment 14).
(3) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required prior to
Recording" on Attachment 10.
(4) Design of the subdivision detention system and the drains for the home to be
constructed on lot 2 must take into account the need to maintain the
hydrology of the site. The existing "overflow" drain located in the northwest
corner of the site may be repaired or reconstructed as long as approved by
the City's Engineering Division and the hydrology and storm water storage
capacity of the wetland is maintained.
(5) During the construction of the required plat improvements temporary
fencing must be installed around the entire wetland and buffer area. The
Planning Division must approve these protection measures prior to any
clearing or grading.
05009sr.doe / April 11, 2006 / Staff Report
Thuesen Custom Homes
File No. S-2005-9 & SD -2005-8
Page 3 of 15
(6) The access drive shall be designed to minimize grading while meeting the
Engineering Department requirements for slope.
(7) Rockeries or retaining walls higher than four feet tall shall not be allowed. If
additional height is needed, the wall shall be stepped with a minimum of 4
horizontal feet between the faces of the retaining walls or rockeries.
b) The house on lot 2 should be designed to relate to the sloping topography. This can
be accomplished by having different finished floors step down the slope to minimize
excavation.
c) Permanent split rail fencing should encompass the entire Native Growth Protection
Easement.
d) 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-2005-9."
(2) Include on the plat all required information, including owner's certification,
hold harmless agreement, and staff's approval block.
(3) Add a statement to the face of the plat that identifies and protects the
wetland and its buffers as a native growth area. No work is allowed in the
NGPE without an approved wetland enhancement plan.
(Applicants are now responsible for recording their own documents once they have
been approved.)
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 3.
C. Steep Slope Exemption Decision
Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report the Steep Slope Exemption
request meets all of the exemption criteria and is therefore APPROVED subject to the following
condition:
I . The applicant must comply with all of the recommendations of the geotechnical reports written by
Dennis Bruce, P.E., dated January 13 and April 7, 2005, (See Attachments 5 & 7).
2. If piles are determined to be needed for the construction of a home on lot 2 and the applicant
intends to use mechanical means of driving them, a report must be prepared by a professional
engineer that documents what the impact of driving the piles will be on adjacent properties. It must
also propose methods and techniques of installing piles to ensure that no damage happens to
adjacent properties due to pile driving practices.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Introduction
Short Plat Application and Determination of Completeness
In late 2004, Eric Thuesen, of Thuesen Custom Homes, contacted City staff about the possibility of
short platting a property that he was already in the process of building a house on. The property was
just over one acre in size and because it was located in an RS -12 zone, where the minimum lot size is
12,000 sq. ft. per lot, there was more than enough area to divide the property from a lot size
perspective. However, the preliminary Critical Areas determination for the property had identified both
a Steep Slope Hazard area and a potential wetland. Because of those environmental features, City staff
05009sr.doe / April 11, 2006 / Staff Report
Thuesen Custom Homes
File No. 5-2005-9 & SD -2005-8
Page 4 of 15
informed Mr. Thuesen that subdivision of the property would be dependant on the exact classification
and location of the potential wetland and its buffers as well as confirmation by a Geotechnical Engineer
that construction on the steep slope could be performed in a safe manner.
At the same time that Mr. Thuesen and the City staff were discussing his potential subdivision, the City
was in the process of updating its Critical Areas regulations. It had already been determined that new
wetland buffers were likely to be larger than the current regulations. Both City staff and Mr. Thuesen
were very aware of the upcoming changes to the regulations and his need to make a complete
application prior to the effective date of the new regulations if he wanted to be vested under the old
Critical Areas codes.
On January 18, 2005, Mr. Thuesen applied for a 2 lot Short -Plat and a Steep Slope Exemption. Along
with his Subdivision and Steep Slope Exemption applications, he also paid the Critical Areas Study
administration fee authorizing the city to enter into a three party contract between him, the City and a
consultant to classify and delineate the wetland on the property (see Attachment 2). The effective date
of the new Critical Areas ordinance was established as February 15, 2005 (see Attachment 12). Prior to
February 15, staff determined that Mr. Thuesen's application was complete and therefore vested under
the old Critical Areas code. However, although Mr. Thuesen had submitted everything he was required
to submit for his subdivision application and had authorized the City to enter into a Critical areas study
for the wetland which would classify and locate the wetland, until the critical areas study was complete
City staff could not complete it's review of the subdivision proposal and issue a decision.
The time lag created waiting for the wetland study to be completed was problematic in that the City has
a processing deadline of 120 days for land use permits. There are two mechanisms for extending that
timeline, one is to call an application incomplete and not "start the clock". The other is to call the
application complete but put the application on "hold" to allow for additional information to be
submitted or completed. In this case, the letter that city staff sent the applicant, dated February 17,
2005, indicated that although Mr. Thuesen had submitted everything he was required to submit, the
City was considering his application to be "technically incomplete" to allow for the completion of the
Critical Areas study. In hindsight, this letter resulted in confusion. It's intent was to say the application
was complete and vested under the 20.15B Critical Areas codes while at the same time putting the
applicant on notice that the "120 day clock" for reviewing their permit had not started. The application
would be placed on hold until the Critical Areas study was completed and the proposed development
could be analyzed against that study. While the "technically incomplete" language let the applicant
know that the time clock hadn't started it has created confusion in the neighborhood about whether or
not the application was determined to be complete prior to the effective date of the new critical areas
ordinance.
Another reason staff believes the application was deemed to be complete prior to February 15, 2005, is
what the February 17, 2005 letter doesn't say. City staff had been watching pending land use
applications and the effective date of the new Critical Areas ordinance very closely. We knew that if an
application was not deemed to be complete prior to the effective date of the new Critical Areas
ordinance it would not be vested to the old rules. Any letter sent out to pending applications that were
considered incomplete would also have notified an applicant of the new critical areas regulations and
their need to comply with those new regulations. The February 17`h letter did not include this
notification language.
Critical Area Study
The city's critical areas codes require that wetland studies be completed through a three party contract.
This contract allows the city to direct qualified consultants in classifying and locating wetlands while
having the applicant pay for the study. The intent of the three party contract is to eliminate the
appearance that an applicant has gone and "bought" a study that says what the applicant wants it to say.
Pentec Environmental, a well respected wetland consultant, was commissioned by the City to complete
the wetland study for Mr. Thuesen's property. On May 17, 2005, the City received the completed study
which identified the wetland as a forested class 2 wetland estimated at just over 2,500 sq. ft. in area and
05009sr.doe / April 11, 2006 / Staff Report
Thuesen Custom Homes
File No. 5-2005-9 & SD -2005-8
Page 5 of 15
located it with flags (see Attachment 8). The applicant then had their surveyor survey the flags to
determine the actual area of the wetland and the extent of any buffers on the property. A July 7, 2005,
survey of the flags indicates that the actual size of the wetland was 2,291 sq. ft. in area.
Because the surveyed area of the wetland was under 2,500 sq. ft. the City had Pentec review the survey
in an attempt to ensure that it accurately reflected the wetland Pentec had flagged. In their September 8,
2005 letter, Pentec confirmed that the survey appeared to accurately reflect the wetland they had
flagged on the Thuesen property (see Attachment 9). They further described that wetlands under 2,500
sq. ft, in area were not regulated under ECDC 20.15B, the Critical Areas code, which this project was
vested to.
Unregulated Wetland Confusion
Under the old critical areas ordinance, if someone had a wetland that was unregulated and they
requested a grading permit or some other kind of ministerial permit, they could have potentially filled
in the wetland without the city having any ability to say no. Initially this is the direction city staff gave
the applicant. The applicant then went and put together a proposal that both filled the wetland and
proposed three lots on the subject property.
Unfortunately, there were two problems with this. First, Mr. Thuesen's subdivision application was
vested to the old critical areas ordinance with a two lot short -plat application. Changing it to a three lot
short -plat would require a new application which would be subject to the new ordinance. The three lot
short -plat did not, and very likely could not, comply with the new Critical Areas ordinance. Second, a
subdivision is not a ministerial permit. It is a discressionary land use permit that has a number of
criteria associated with its approval. One of those criteria, entitled Environmental Resources, requires
that proposals be designed to minimize significant adverse impacts to resources considered to be
valuable by the City. A subdivision which proposed filling a forested class 2 wetland would not comply
with this criteria. Similarly, a subdivision is required to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan has many statements about preserving and protecting
environmental resources. Again, filling the wetland would not be consistent with these goals and
policies.
With that understanding, city staff notified Mr. Thuesen that if he wanted his short -plat application to
continue to be vested under the old critical areas codes, he would have to revert back to a two lot
arrangement and that he should expect conditions from the City that would require protection of the
wetland.
Final 2 -Lot Subdivision Proposal
Mr. Thuesen returned to his original application for a two -lot short -plat proposal. The layout has
changed slightly in that rather than both lots gaining access from 9`h Ave. N to the east, lot one
continues to gain access to 9`h while lot 2 gains access to 81h Ave. N along the south property line. He
has shown the delineated wetland to be preserved as it was with his original application
(see Attachment 3). Minor changes, like modifying access points, are common during the reviews of
short -plats. In this case, the City considers Mr. Thuesen's proposed change to be similar enough to the
original application that a new application is not required. Therefore, the project continues to be vested
under ECDC 20.15B, the old Critical Areas code.
The following is City staff's Findings of Fact and Conclusions for the project. These Findings of Fact
and Conclusions support the Decision and Conditions of Approval identified above (section I.B of this
report).
05009sr.doc / April 11, 2006 / Staff Report
Thuesen Custom Homes
File No. S-2005-9 & SD -2005-8
Page 6 of 15
B. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance
1. Environmental Resources
a. On this site, the topography, a wetland 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 to environmental
resources. It also states that grading should be minimized by sharing driveways and making
sure that road, house and lot placements relate to the topography.
The subject property has an unregulated class 2 wetland at the northwest corner of the site.
Although the applicant has shown a potential house footprint that doesn't encroach into the
boundary of the delineated wetland it does not appear at this time that he has taken any steps
to protect and preserve the wetland. Also, because the site plan locates the house very close
to the wetland, it seems inevitable that there will be adverse impacts to either the wetland, the
house, or both.
Construction of a house with all the associated construction equipment, grading and other
activities, if not adequately setback from the wetland will create a problem and adverse
impact to the wetland. Similarly, while the wetland study performed by Pentec delineated the
wetland in the northwest corner of the site, this winter virtually the entire lower portion of the
site was inundated with water. Localized flooding of this wetland is beneficial to the wetland
and is part of its function (storm water capacity). However, that flooding the localized
flooding associated with the wetland is not compatible with the construction and continued
use and maintenance of a house that is not properly buffered.
In an effort to minimize adverse impacts from the construction of a house on an adjacent
wetland and also to minimize the adverse impacts of a seasonally flooded wetland on a home,
staff feels a 25 foot buffer around the wetland where no grading is allowed is justified.
Further, to build the home and accommodate whatever grading is necessary for that
construction, a house will need to be setback 15 feet from the edge of the buffer. Grading,
decks, patios and any other yard type features would be allowed to encroach into this building
setback area. Also, 15 feet along the southern property should be exempt from the wetland
buffer and grading provisions so a driveway and any other utilities serving the development
may be installed (see Attachment 14).
To make sure that all future home owners and interested parties understand the limitations
associated with this wetland area, the area of the wetland and its buffers should be identified
in a Native Growth Protection Easement or Tract. Permanent split rail fencing should also be
installed around the entire perimeter of the wetland and its buffer.
Because the topography of the lot is significant it is also considered an environmental
resource. A geotechnical engineer has reviewed the soils and the property and determined
that the slope is suitable for construction. This will be reviewed in greater detail in the
Critical Areas portion of this report relating to the requested Steep Slope Exemption, see
section II.F of this report. However, in an effort to minimize the potential adverse impacts to
this environmental resource that typically happens due to excessive grading and construction
of large retaining walls, conditions should be applied to the final approval. These conditions
should limit heights of retaining walls to 4 feet and require house designs that step up the
slope in order to prohibit excessive grading.
In order for this subdivision to comply more fully with the criteria in the Subdivision
Ordinance and the policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, the following conditions
should be placed on the subdivision:
05009sr.doc / April 11, 2006 / Staff Report
2.
Thuesen Custom Homes
File No. S-2005-9 & SD -2005-8
Page 7 of 15
1. The wetland and the future home should be separated by a 25 foot buffer and a
15 foot building setback. No grading is permitted in the 25 foot buffer. Grading,
decks, patios and yard are allowed in the 15 foot building setback. The south 15 feet
of the property is exempt from the buffer provisions to allow for the construction of
the driveway and utilities.
2. The wetland and its buffer should be protected by a Native Growth Protection
Easement or Tract on the recording documents. No work is allowed in the NGPE
without an approved wetland enhancement plan.
3. Permanent split rail fencing should encompass the entire Native Growth Protection
Easement.
4. House designs on sloping lots should be multi-level to relate to the sloping
topography and minimize the amount of grading.
5. During the construction of the required plat improvements temporary fencing must be
installed around the entire wetland and buffer area. The Planning Division must
approve these protection measures prior to any clearing or grading.
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
two lot short -plat is a reasonable use of the property.
Lot sizes and dimensions:
Required
Proposed
Lot Area
Net sq. ft
Lot 1 12,000
26,401
Lot 2 12,000
18,636
C. Setbacks: Setbacks should be as follows:
Lot l: Side Setbacks (10 feet):
Lot 2: Street Setbacks (25 feet)
Side Setbacks (10 feet):
Rear Setback (25 feet):
Proposed Req, Lot
Proposed
Gross sq, ft Width
Lot Width
Same 80'
110'
Same 80'
110'
From all property lines
From the west property line
From the north and south property lines
From the east property line
Lot 1 is developed with a house and detached garage. Because the house and the garage were
permitted when the property was one large lot and the lot had frontage on 81h Ave. N, the east
property line was considered the rear lot line which required a rear setback, even though the
house gained its vehicular access via an easement from 9`h Ave. N. to the east. The City's
code has a special provision that allows detached structures, including garages, studios or
shops, that are less than 600 sq. ft. in footprint to encroach into their rear setback to within 5
feet of the property line. The detached garage on lot 1 took advantage of this provision and is
5 feet from the east property line.
Now that a two lot subdivision is proposed for the property and lot 1 no longer shares any
property lines with rights-of-way or easements that qualify as streets there are no longer any
street or rear lot lines. Lot 1 is determined to be an interior lot which requires side setbacks
all around. There is no provision that allows detached buildings to project into side setbacks,
so the garage on lot I no longer complies with the new setbacks required on lot 1. However,
since the garage was legally established with issued building permits and the subdivision
does not change anything in regards to the proximity of the garage to its adjacent property
lines the garage is considered to be non -conforming. It will be allowed to continue and to be
maintained, even altered, so long as it complies with the City's non -conforming provisions,
currently ECDC 17.40.
05009sr.doe / April 11, 2006 / Staff Report
Thuesen Custom Homes
File No. S-2005-9 & SD -2005-8
Page 8 of 15
d. Corner Lots: None of the lots are considered Corner Lots
Flag or Interior lot determination: Lot 1 is considered an Interior Lot.
Lot Coverage of Existing Buildings on Proposed Lots:
1.) 35% maximum lot coverage is allowed in the RS -12 zone. Lot 1 will continue to be
developed with an existing house and detached garage. Based on the size of the
proposed lot and the existing house there will be less than 35% lot coverage on lot 1.
2.) Because the remaining lot is new and doesn't have a house, it has a lot coverage of 0%
and is consistent with the limits of the RS -12 zone.
3. Dedications
a. See City Engineer's Report (Attachment 10).
4. Improvements
a. See City Engineer's Report (Attachment 10).
5. Flood Plain Management
a. This project is not in a FEMA designated Flood Plain.
C. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan has the following stated goals and policies for Residential Development
and development within areas of sensitive soils and topography 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.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.5.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.
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:
05009sr.doc / April 11, 2006 / Staff Report
Thuesen Custom Homes
File No. 5-2005-9 & SD -2005-8
Page 9 of 15
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.
Water Resources and Drainage Management
B. Goal, The City should continue to upgrade the public storm drainage system in
order to protect the man-made and natural environment. In the management of
storm drainage and urban runoff, the City should utilize the natural drainage
system where it is possible to do so without significantly altering the natural
drainage ways, in accordance with the following policies:
B.1. The natural drainage system (i.e., streams, ponds, and marshes) shall
not be filled or permanently culverted except where no other alternative
exists....
B.2. Earthmoving equipment shall not cause siltation or deterioration of water
quality....
B.6. Building foundation and footings shall be no closer than 15 feet to a
stream bank and shall be sited to create minimum disruption to the
drainage system.
B. 8. Retention basins and other devices shall be used to encourage on-site
runoff absorption and prevent overloading of existing drainage systems
except in those areas where it is necessary to remove water from the site
quickly due to unstable soil conditions to prevent earth slides and
subsequent danger to life and property.
05009sr.doc / April 11, 2006 / Staff Report
Thuesen Custom Homes
File No. S-2005-9 & SD -2005-8
Page 10 of 15
Vegetation and Wildlife
B. Goal. The city should ensure that its woodlands, marshes and other areas
containing natural vegetation are preserved, in accordance with the following
policies:
B.1. Critical areas will be designated and protected using the best available
science pursuant to RCW 36.70A.172.
B.2. The removal of trees should be minimized particularly when they are
located on steep slopes or hazardous soils. Subdivision layouts, buildings
and roads should be designed so that existing trees are preserved.
B.3. Trees that are diseased, damaged, or unstable should be removed.
13.4. Grading should be restricted to building pads and roads only. Vegetation
outside these areas should be preserved.
2. Compliance with the Residential Development goals and policies: It appears that high quality
homes that fit into the neighborhood will ultimately be constructed on the property. To ensure that
the current proposal address' development on steep slopes City staff has proposed some conditions
on the development of lot 2, see section II.B. La. and section I.B&C. These conditions are
designed to ensure that the development is consistent with policies, B.5.d and B.6.
Compliance with the Soils and Topography, Water Resources and Drainage Management and
Vegetation and Wildlife goals and policies: Because of the sensitive nature of both the slopes
and the wetland on this property, staff has paid particular attention to these policies. In sections
II.B.I and II.F of this report conditions have been proposed that are supported by these policies.
Approval of this subdivision with those conditions will comply with these sections of the Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan.
D. Compliance with the Zoning Code
Staff finds this project to comply with the provisions of the Zoning Code, see section II.B.2.b.
E. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions
The proposed project is not in a Flood Plain.
F. Critical Areas Review:
Critical Areas Review number: CA -2001-67
Results of Critical Areas Review: A Study Required determination was issued to determine the
degree and extent of steep slopes on the property and the class and location of a potential wetland
on the property.
Compliance with Wetland requirements
a. The applicant entered into a three party contract with the city to have the wetland classified
and located. Pentec Environmental, a highly respected environmental firm the City has
worked with before, completed both a wetland classification and flagged the boundary of the
wetland for the City and the applicant. Their report classified the wetland as a class 2 forested
wetland with an estimated area of over 2,500 sq. ft (see Attachment 8).
b. The applicant had their licensed surveyor, Lovell Sauerland & Associates, survey the flagged
wetland boundary. The surveyed area of the wetland is just under 2,300 sq. ft.
C. Neighbors expressed concern over whether the flags locating the wetland had been moved
prior to the survey since there was a delay between when the wetland was flagged and when it
was surveyed. To address this issue, city staff requested Pentec to review the survey and
confirm if it accurately reflected the flags they placed on the site.
05009sr.doc / April 11, 2006 / Staff Report
Thuesen Custom Homes
File No. S-2005-9 & SD -2005-8
Page I I of 15
d. Pentec submitted a letter which stated that the surveyed wetland appeared to accurately
reflect the boundaries of the wetland that they flagged. They went on to say that with the
surveyed area of the wetland resulting in a wetland under 2,500 sq. ft. the wetland was no
longer regulated by the City's Critical Areas codes (see Attachment 9).
e. Based on the studies completed for the wetland on this property and the ordinance under
which this application is vested, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the City's
Critical Areas code for Wetlands.
Compliance with requirements for a Steep Slope Exemption
Section D of ECDC Chapter 20.15B.110 (Development Standards- Geologically Hazardous Areas)
addresses development in Steep Slope Hazard Areas. This section states that no development or
alteration shall be allowed in steep slope hazard areas unless the property qualifies for an
exemption under the provisions of this section.
a. Facts:
1.) ECDC Section 20.15B.110.D.2 establishes a list of criteria that must be met in order for
a development or alteration to qualify for an exemption. These are specifically
addressed in Section 3 below.
2.) ECDC Section 20.15B.110.F states the requirement that all applications for
development proposals within geologically hazardous areas shall be accompanied by a
written site analysis by a geologist or geotechnical engineer licensed by the state of
Washington. Peer review of the technical analysis of site conditions shall be conducted
at the applicant's expense.
3.) The applicant provided a written site analysis by geotechnical engineers licensed by the
state of Washington. This Geotechnical Report, dated January 13, 2005 and further
supplemented April 7, 2005, addresses the project's compliance with the ECDC Section
20.15B.110 requirements for a Steep Slope Exemption as follows (See
Attachments 5 & 7):
(a) The proposed development will not decrease stability on any adjacent property,
and the site following the permitted activity will be stable.
The report states that the proposed short plat will not decrease
stability on the slope as long as certain conditions are complied with.
(b) The development will occur on steep slope areas that either are mapped as one
of the following deposits on the "Geological Map of the Edmonds East and part
of the Edmonds West Quadrangles", by James P. Minard: Till, Advance
Outwash, and/or Olympia Gravel or on steep slope areas comprised of fill placed
under engineered conditions on stable geological deposits of these same soils.
The fill must meet the following conditions: all fill was placed under a legal
grading permit, the grading and fill were designed by a licensed professional
engineer, native soils beneath the fill were prepared in accordance with the
engineering design, and compaction testing confirms that uniform compaction to
the specified percentage is present throughout the entire fill.
The site is mapped as Advance Outwash.
(c) All excavations on steep slopes will not extend below a 35 -degree plane
extended down from the property lines, unless the excavation is retained by
structural shoring. The shoring must be designed by a registered professional
engineer.
The report recommends as a condition of approval that future
development be checked for compliance with this criteria with all
submitted building permits.
(d) All retaining structures on steep slopes shall be engineered structures conforming
to the State Building Code and rockeries greater than four feet in height are not
permitted.
05009sr.doe / April 11, 2006 / Staff Report
Thuesen Custom Homes
File No. S-2005-9 & SD -2005-8
Page 12 of 15
The report recommends that all retaining structures that might be
proposed with future development of the lots be required to be
engineered and no rockeries be permitted over 4 feet in height.
(e) Steep slope areas cannot be altered if one or more of the following conditions
are on or adjacent to the steep slope: impermeable soils interbedded with
granular soils, springs or groundwater seepage, significant visible evidence of
groundwater seepage, previous landsliding or instability, or existing landslide
deposits.
The report states that none of these conditions related to landslides
were observed on or adjacent to the site.
(f) Steep slope areas cannot be altered if the thickness of organics, debris,
weathered soils, collovial soils or soils exhibiting loose conditions on or adjacent
to the steep slope exceed three feet.
The report states the total thickness of topsoil and loose soil on the
slope is less than 3 feet (approximately 6').
(g) A buffer of 15 feet shall be retained in an undisturbed condition from
commercial development to property lines of adjacent residential properties.
There is no commercial development planned for the site.
4.) A peer review of the Geotechnical Report submitted by the applicant was conducted
(Attachment 6). The peer review by Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc., dated March 31,
2005, concludes that the proposed development meets the criteria for a steep slope
exemption as long as conditions are included which require the actual construction plans
for the home on lot 2 to comply with the Geotechnical report.
5.) The Geotechnical reports indicate that that construction of homes can be completed
with conventional spread footings. It does not appear from reviewing the report that
piles were deemed to be necessary or even considered.
6.) Mechanically driven piles may adversely impact adjacent property owners.
b. Conclusion:
1.) Staff has reviewed the materials submitted with the application for a Steep Slope
Exemption including the Geotechnical Evaluation,
2.) The geotechnical evaluation demonstrates that all the characteristics of the property that
must be met to approve a steep slope exemption have been met. This is supported by
the peer review document.
3.) The recommendations of the geotechnical evaluation by Dennis Bruce, P.E., and the
peer review by Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc., will ensure that the project will
ultimately be designed and constructed in compliance with the criteria for a steep slope
exemption. These recommendations along with any other conditions of approval may
be addressed at the stages of project design and approval by the City of Edmonds prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
4.) A Condition should be included with any decision of approval for the Steep Slope
Exemption which requires compliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical
Report in the final design of a home for lot 2.
5.) A condition should be included that requires additional review if piles are determined to
be needed and the applicant intends to use mechanical means of driving them.
05009sr.doc / April 11, 2006 / Staff Report
Thuesen Custom Homes
File No. S-2005-9 & SD -2005-8
Page 13 of 15
G. Comments:
The following comments are from both the first and second comment period.
Letter from Mrs. Olson, received 2/21/06 (see Attachment 15).
This letter states concerns over the number of residents that will gain access from the eastern
easement driveway, construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit and development of wetlands.
First, only one house is proposed to use the eastern driveway, that is the current house under
construction. The detached garage being built in conjunction with that house does not have a
permit to establish an Accessory Dwelling Unit and this subdivision does not permit that. Finally,
the wetland has been protected as a condition of approval of this subdivision.
Eight letters from Mr. and Mrs. McQueen, dated 2/22/06-3/15/06 (see Attachment 16)
These letters document a number of things. First they would like the project reviewed under the
current Critical Areas codes. They dispute the surveyed results of the Pentec wetland delineation
on the grounds that there was ample opportunity to have moved the flags between the staking and
the actual surveying. They state that the applicant hasn't complied with City codes regarding other
permits he has in with the City, They believe the application is incomplete and shouldn't be vested
under the old Critical Areas codes. They believe that fees weren't paid so the application should be
considered incomplete.
City staff has documented in the introduction of this report why we consider this to be a complete
application and why it is vested under the old Critical Areas codes. Regarding the boundary of the
wetland, the City had a credible professional delineate the wetland, a licensed surveyor measured it
and the City had the wetland consultant confirm the survey. The proposed subdivision complies
with our code.
Two letters from Mr. and Mrs. LaNasa, dated 2/27/06 & 3/15/06 (see Attachment 17)
The LaNasa's want the wetland to be protected and are concerned about the delineation and
surveying process. They are concerned that construction on the adjacent property could adversely
impact their property due to the driving of piles. And finally they also have concerns over whether
or not there was a complete application in time for the project to be vested under the old critical
areas ordinance.
Review the introduction to this report for City staff s explanation for why the application is
complete and vested under the old critical areas ordinance. Also note in section II.B.1 where the
City is requiring the wetland to be protected and construction to be setback from its edge. These
conditions will likely move the building up the hill and onto soils that will not require piles.
4. Two letters from Mr. and Mrs. Mallory, dated 2/27/06 & 3/15/06 (see Attachment 18)
The Mallory's want the wetland to be protected and their house protected from construction
associated with driving piles. They also raise the completeness issue
As stated above, see the introduction of this report for a detailed chronology of this application,
why the City considers it to be a complete application and vested under the old Critical Area code.
Also, note however, that the City is requiring the wetland to be preserved and protected. and
protecting both the wetland and the future development, we have required that the house be moved
substantially to the east and up the hill slightly. This should have the added benefit of moving the
house off of soils that might required piles.
Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Baird and Ms. Niven, dated 3/12/06 (see Attachment 19)
The Baird's and Ms. Niven would like to see the wetland and its wildlife protected
The subject decision will protect the wetland while allowing one new building lot.
05009sr.doe / April 11, 2006 / Staff Report
Thuesen Custom Homes
File No. S-2005-9 & SD -2005-8
Page 14 of 15
Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Reidy, dated 3/15/06 (see Attachment 20)
The Reidy's have similar concerns to the Mallory's regarding the protection of the wetland,
protection of their house during construction and the completeness issue
Please see previous responses.
Letter from Mrs. Smith, dated 3/15/06 (see Attachment 21)
Mrs. Smith is concerned about the wetland.
The City is requiring the wetland to be preserved and protected.
Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Bloom, dated 3/15/06 (see Attachment 22)
The Blooms state in their letter that the application is incomplete and therefore not vested under
the old critical areas codes and the wetland delineation is in question and should be redone.
Please see previous responses.
III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing 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 20.100.010.E allows for City staff to reconsider their decision if a written request is filed
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 20.105.040 and 20.105.020 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 fled 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 fling an appeal
continued from the point it was stopped. For example, if a request is fled 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.
05009sr.doc / April 11, 2006 / Staff Report
Thuesen Custom Homes
File No. S-2005-9 & SD -2005-8
Page 15 of 15
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. Application
3. Proposed Subdivision Map
4. Applicant's Declarations
5. Geotechnical Report prepared by Dennis Bruce, dated 1/13/06
6. Peer Geotechnical Review report prepared by Zipper Zeman, dated 3/31/06
7. Geotechnical Response by Dennis Bruce, dated 4/7/06
8. Wetland report by Pentec Environmental, dated 5/17/06
9. Letter from Pentec Environmental confirming surveyed area of wetland, dated 9/8/06
10. Engineering Requirements
11. Excerpts from ECDC 20.15B Critical Area ordinance this project is vested to
12. Cover page and final page of ordinance 3527 (the new Critical Areas code)
13. Storm water plan from adjacent development to the north
14. Wetland buffers and setbacks required by Planning
15. Letter from Ms. Olson, dated 2/21/06
16. Eight Letters from Mr. and Mrs. McQueen, dated 2/22/06 & 3/8,12,14,15/06
17. Two Letters from Mr, and Mrs. LaNasa, dated 2/27/06 & 3/15/06
18. Two Letters from Mr. and Mrs. Mallory, received 2/27/06 & 3/14/06
19. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Baird and Ms. Niven, dated 3/12/06
20. Letter from Mr, and Mrs. Reidy, dated 3/15/06
21. Letter from Ms. Smith, dated 3/15/06
22. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Bloom, dated 3/15/06
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD
Vivian Olsen
Mr. & Mrs. McQueen
Mr. & Mrs. LaNasa
509 9`h Ave. N.
528 8`h Ave. N.
524 81h Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Mr. & Mrs. Mallory
Mr. & Mrs. Baird
Mrs. Niven
520 8`h Ave. N.
850 Daley St
847 Daley St.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Mr. & Mrs. Reidy
Mr. & Mrs. Bloom
Laura Casey
771 Daley St
PO Box 219
Dept of Ecology
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
3190 160`h Ave SE
Bellevue, WA 98008
Eric Thuesen
Parks Department
Engineering Department
18333 85`h Pl. W.
Public Works Department
Fire Department
Edmonds, WA 98026
Planning Department
05009sr.doc / April 11, 2006 / Staff Report
802 zi-8 811
L724
728 731 743 745 818
721 760 719
805 �1,
LO
807 000 00 ��� 7071/2 r_
602 802 657 0
RS -12 0 816 00 z
00
00 804 Q 814 647
W 61:
Subject Property Q
530 for 2 lot subdivision 600 808 810 645 643 [60:4
H
20 524 528 529
530
503
853
DALEY ST
742 750 756 >
418 722 Q 808 818 836 840 844 850 856 910
416
S-6
l.—,- 7%11
21 412
00
71L715 739 25 837 :49L
SPRAGUE ST
316710 734 736 738 315 304 306 830 844 852 856 322 9
M Co 745 751 301909
811 821 827 311
EDMONDS ST z z
�4--F072�—
OV � Zoning and Vicinity Map
r
Attachment 1
File No. S-2005-9 & SD -2006-8
cite of edmonds
land use application
0 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEWIN IN 1 '
0 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT GG
0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # v ��/ ZONE _Y76—IV�
0 HOME OCCUPATIONS DATE'S itf �L7 REC'D BY
0 FORMAL SUBDIVISION Xi no17 j I to E t��6. RECEIPT #
0 SHORT SUBDIVISION 6e -.,6-"1O t
ygA 0 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTGA ��'P 64.6- +5 `HEARING DATE
0 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEV�E�iLw�c.Eft NTI� 0 HE 0 STAFF 0 PB 0 ADB OCC
0 OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMEN kgs
8 STREET VACATION
0 REZONE
0 SHORELINE PERMIT RECEIVED
0 VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION
OTHER6T�'P St-oeC- CXFt 1-noN JAN 1 b
PERMIT COUNTEP
PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 509 9th Ave N., Edmonds
PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) Thuesen Short Plat
PROPERTY OWNERFrir Thnacon rncV— iinmas 'TC PHONE# 425 670-3669
ADDRESS 1,9113 BSth pT av P Ts , Edmonds,Wig 98026
E-MAILADDRESS arirthrtacanidrnmc`ast n t FAX# 425. 776-9940
TAXACCOUNT# 270324002(��fr4C) 2411o52"6(P1DSEC. 24 TWP.27 RNG. 3
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTOR PROPOSED USE Short Plat for new single family residence
6.ie z -7-72-ct 4e i
APPLICANTRri r Thnacon ('nstnm Tlomt+s IT(', (; PHONE # 42.9 670-3669
ADDRESS 18333 85th Place W. Edmonds Wa. 98026
E-MAILADDRESS ericthuesen@eomeast.net FAX# 425 776-9240
CONTACT PERSON/AGENT Eric Thuesen PHONE# 425 670-3669
ADDRESS 18333 85th Place W., Edmonds, Wa, 98026
E-MAIL ADDRESS ericthuesen@comcast.net FAX# 425 776-9240
The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application
agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including
reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in Whole or part upon false, misleading,
inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees.
By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT "� L== DATE 1 I;)-OOV
Property Owner's Authorization
By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use
application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject
property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER (L— L L--&::'. DATE I I 4 -1 -ay
'Phis application form was revised on 1/27/00.
L:\LIBRARYTLANNINGTorns & HandoutsTublic Handoutsllr
Attachment 2
;-2.005-9 & SCS -2005-8
Att
'eq 11 acnment 3
S-2005-9 & SD -2005-8
<
0
01
z
C) D
0 0
Z
rim'?
5i
0
was,
3. 0
Ej
Att
'eq 11 acnment 3
S-2005-9 & SD -2005-8
November 20, 2004
Steve Bullock
Planner
City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue N.
Re: Short Plat Application
Steve;
RJECEIVED
JAN 18 2005
PERMIT COUNTER
Enclosed please find the completed short plat application for the parcel on 5XX 9th Ave. N.
1. Site Location
509 & 5XX 9th Ave N. (see attachement 1 )
2. Request:
Short plat application to to subdivide 45,037 square feet into two lots with a modification request
to reduce the minimum lot area of Lot 1 from 12,000 square feet to 10,458 square feet. A
modification request to reduce the setback requirements on the north and east property lines
from 10 feet to 5 feet.
3. Major issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.20, single
family residential.
b. Compliance with the comprehensive plan.
c. Compliance with ECDC chapter 20.158.
d. Compliance with ECDC Section 20.75.075, Modification Request.
e. Compliance with ECDC Section 20.75.085, Subdivision Requirements.
f. Compliance with ECDC Section 20.156.110, Steep Slope Exemption.
ANALYSIS of DESIGN
1.Lot sizes and dimensions:
a.PropQsed number of lots: 2
Gross Lot Sq. Ft. Net Lot SQ Ft(12,000Req) Lot Width (70 ft Req)
b.Proposed lot area
& width:
Lot 1 10,458 Sq Ft 10,458 Sq Ft 95 Feet (excluding
easement)
Lot 2 34,579 Sq Ft 33,979 Sq Ft 110 Feet
c. Set Backs
Lot 1 25' Front Setbacks
From west property line
10' Side Setbacks
From south property line
5' Side Setbacks
From north and east poperty line
Lot 2 25' Front setbacks
From west and east property line
10' Side Setbacks
From north and south property line
Attachment 4
8Z-
'2005-9 & 8D-2005-8
d. Comer lot: There are no comer lots.
e. Flag lots: Lot 1 is a flag lot.
Lot arrangement to topography: Best use of topograpy
Zonning: The subject property zoning is RS 12,000 (Residential Single Family).The net lot size
of lot 2 is 33,979 Sq Ft. The net lot size of Lot 1 is 10,458 Sq Ft. A modofocation request has
been applied for for lot 1.
Critical Areas Review: CA -01-67
Critical Area Review: the property contains two critcal aareas, Steep Slope and Wetland.
Steep Slope Exepmtion request submitted geotechnical from Dennis Bruce P.E.
A wetland report was prepared by Wetland Resources (see enclosed). The wetland was
categorized and the wetland boudarys were flagged. Lovell Sauerland & Associates surveyed the
site after the fflagging. I have inclided all the documents. The short plat proposal and eventual
NSFR will not enter into the wetland buffer. Hopefully, we can minimize the work needed in the
third party agreement utilizing and verifying the information we have already obtained -Hopefully
an recon visit by the selected wetland biologist to verify category and flagged boundarys will be
adequate.
MODIFICATION REQUEST
A modification request is proposed for lot 1. The request is for a reduction of lot size from
12,OOOsq. ft.to 10,458 sq. ft. Setbacks for the east and north property lines to be reduced from
10ft. to 5ft.This moves the building pads uphill inorder to increase the distance between the
wetlands and the new single family residence.
Special Circumstances: A prelimary lot configuration has been submitted which meets the zoning
requirements. See attachment 2. Although it meets the minimum lot area, it is not preferred
because it increases the building envelope, moves the building envelope further downhill which
increases the grading impact on a steep slope. The building foot print would move further
downhill towards the wetland area which is not preferred. Another option would be to develope
an access from 8th Ave. N. in the 7.5 ft dedicatinganother 7.5 feet to create a 15 foot alley
access but this is less desireable than the proposed short plat.
Special Privilege:Approval of this modification request does not grant special privilege to the
applicant. The applicant has demonstrated that the poperty can be divided into two lots.
Comprehensive Plan: The proposal is consistent with the surrounding zoning and is consistent
with the comprhensive plan and zonning ordinance.
Not Detrimental: The proposed modification is not detrimental. The neighborhood will not
experience any impacts over and above those experienced in a normal subdivision.
Minimum Necessary: The modification request is the minimum necessary to maintain a standard
lot shape, and provide an adequate building envelope.
Conclusion:
The proposed design is more desireable then the other options.
A reduction in setbacks will not adversely impact the existing houses to the north and south of
the property .
a). The distance from the north property line to the building pad will be 15ft (easement road) plus
5ft. sideyard setback.10ft. would be normal for RS 12,000.
b). The distance from the rear yard to the existing house to the east is 45ft.
G. The proposal will be more desireable and have minimum impact on the neighbors. The is the
best available.proposed access will not adversely impact the wetland.
7). An evironmental checklist was not completed. The developement will not require landfill or
grading in excess of 500 cu. yds. All grading will be addressed during the NSFR building permit
application.
9). DRAINAGE PLAN
A preliminary drainage plan is included. The proposal will direct all impervious storm water to a
tight line system. Storm flows from driveways to be directed to a oil seperator system.The
remaining storm flows togethter with the oil seperated flows will be directed to a velocity stop
catch basin and infiltration system at the toe of the slope. There is an existing 12" inlet which was
provided in 1990 by the City of Edmonds during construction of the Storm Diversion System.
A second proposal is to direct the storm water to an existing inlet drain utilizing the 7.5 ft. alley
on the south portion of the parcel at 8th Ave N. This drain inlet is also connected to the City of
Edmonds Storm Diversion System.
Please advise or if you have any questions do not hesitate to call.
Eric B. Thuesen
425-670-3669 ph
425-776-9240 fax
Enclosed drawings:
Attachment 1. Original Short Plat Proposal
Attachment 2. Lot Modification Short Plat Proposal
Attachment 3. Proposed Drainage Plan
a.
M
M
00
L
4 \ \ 00
S 400'26'55" E - 110.00'
---I--------------
� c8th AVENUE N.10,
Z-i-� �}�C
\�
RECEIVED
JAN 18 Mu'j
PERMIT COUNTER
r
\
j
)01
0) JO
j
N
\ /
M
e<
r
�
a
i
#
9
a
w
.10-.10-<
Q
Q
U
� I
S 400'26'55" E - 110.00'
---I--------------
� c8th AVENUE N.10,
Z-i-� �}�C
\�
RECEIVED
JAN 18 Mu'j
PERMIT COUNTER
c
i.
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. JAN 18 2085
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical
January 13, 2005
City of Edmonds
c/o Eric Thuesen Custom Homes
1833385 1h PI. W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Subject: Geotechnical and Drainage Evaluation — Design Criteria
509 9th Ave. N, Edmonds, Washington
Proposed Two New Residences with Access
This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the
property at 509 9th Ave. N, Edmonds, Washington. This evaluation was required due to
owner / contractor concerns, as well as City of Edmonds requirements for steep -slope
development.
REFERENCES:
• Site Plan and Topographic Survey by LSA
• Proposed Two New Residence and Driveway Access Plans (furnished by
developer)
• Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation by D. Bruce, P.E. dated October 24, 2001
• Site photographs
BACKGROUND:
The overall property at 509 9th Ave. N (formerly known as the Wolgamott
property) is approximately 110 feet wide (along 91h Ave. N), and approximately 500 feet
deep.
The existing residence at 503 9th Ave. N (the Wolgamott residence) is to remain.
It is understood that property developer (Eric Thuesen) proposes to construct two
new single-family residences down-slope (westerly) of the existing residence. One new
residence will be constructed in the area currently occupied by the historic tennis court.
The other residence will be located westerly of the first residence.
It is understood that driveway access will be from the north side of existing
residence and allow access to each of the two new homes (see Project Plans).
SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • S/TE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • I Attachment 5
P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, WA 98155 • (206) 546- S -2005-9
r
-Zt305-9 8,SD-200a 8
City of Edmonds
c/o Eric Thuesen Custom Homes
January 13, 2005
Page 2
This engineer evaluated the overall property in 2001. Several prospective
developers have looked at the property since that time.
As stated in the October 24, 2001 preliminary report, the primary geotechnical
feature affecting development are the slopes (see Topographic Map for specific slope
declinations).
Visual observation during 2001 (as well as the past 3-'/2 years) has revealed no
evidence of any geotechnical distress: no slides, no sloughing, no soil tension cracks, or
any evidence of significant erosional degradation.
This engineer understands that the lower portion of the overall property (adjacent
8th Ave. N) has been designated a wetland zone (see Project Site Plan).
EVALUATION:
In order to augment the existing site geotechnical information, 2 soil test pits
were dug by backhoe on September 4, 2002.
Recently, 4 soil test pits were dug by hand in the sloped portion of the property
below proposed house No. 2. The recent test holes were dug to assess the viability of
on-site storm water infiltration.
The September 4, 2002 test pits were dug in the vicinity of House No. 1 (tennis
court house) and revealed similar sub -grade conditions, namely:
0" to 6" Lawn, organics, roots, and organic silt
6" to 4' (bottom of pits) Very dense sands with gravels
No water was encountered in either of these two test pits. All test pit walls
remained vertical and stable. No sloughing or caving occurred.
January 2005 test holes on slope.
Five test holes were hand dug to approximately 3 -foot depths on the slope
below proposed House No. 2. The findings of all 5 test holes revealed similar sub -
grade conditions, namely:
0" to 6" Organics, roots, and forest duff
6" to 40" (bottom of holes) Dense sand. Relatively clean with fines
(soil passing No. 200 sieve) estimated to be
less than 10 percent
City of Edmonds
c/o Eric Thuesen Custom Homes
January 13, 2005
Page 3
No water was encountered in any of the five test holes. All test hole walls
remained vertical and stable. No sloughing or caving occurred.
NOTE: See later section on drainage for results of infiltration test.
CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar sites in
the area, the property at 509 9th Ave. N, Edmonds, Washington is geotechnicaliV
approved for the proposed 2 new residences, subject to the following:
• Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing
pressure: 2,000 p.s.f.
• Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining wall
design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer.
• For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350
p.c.f.
• NOTE: It is understood that the driveway access will require a reinforced
concrete retaining wall to provide support for the driveway. It is essential that
the retaining wall foundation be founded on dense native sub -grade soils as
verified by geotechnical inspections.
• Geotechnical inspections by this engineerrip or to any foundation concrete
placement.
The proposed structures can be supported on conventional continuous and
spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above
native soils. See the later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for
structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individual
spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24)
inches, respectively, and should be bottomed at least eighteen (18) inches below the
lower adjacent finish ground surface.
Depending on the final site grades, some over -excavation may be required below
footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the over
excavated hole, the width of the over -excavation at the bottom must be at least as wide
as the sum of two times the depth of the over -excavation and the footing width. For
example, an over -excavation extending two feet below the bottom of a three-foot wide
footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation.
City of Edmonds
c/o Eric Thuesen Custom Homes
January 13, 2005
Page 4
Footings constructed according to the above recommendations may be designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of two thousand (2,000) pounds per square foot
(p.s.f.). A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when
considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is
anticipated that total post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent,
native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one-half
inch, with differential settlements on the order of one-quarter inch.
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between
the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the
vertical, embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter condition, the foundations
must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill placed around the
outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following
design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading:
Parameter
Design Value
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
Where:
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot.
(2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density.
We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the
foundation's resistance to lateral loading.
SLABS -ON -GRADE:
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils or
on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these soils
can be re -compacted prior to placement of the free -draining sand or gravel underneath
the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4) inches thick. We
also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6 -mil. plastic membrane beneath the
slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes.
PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS:
Retaining walls backfilled on one side only should be designed to resist lateral
earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following
City of Edmonds
c/o Eric Thuesen Custom Homes
January 13, 2005
Page 5
recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height,
which restrain level backfill:
Parameter
Active Earth Pressure*
Passive Earth Pressure
Coefficient of Friction
Soil Unit Weight
Where:
Design Value
35 p.c.f.
350 p.c.f.
0.55
125 p.c.f.
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot
(2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid
densities.
For restrained walls which cannot defect at least 0.002 times the wall
height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be
added to the active equivalent fluid pressure).
The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and
retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the
walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding.
The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures
behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the
walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above
lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will need
to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the
appropriate design earth pressures.
Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and
foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall, unless the walls are
designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. Placement
and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated
equipment.
Retaining Wall Backfill
Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls
should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain
no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles and have no particles greater than
City of Edmonds
c/o Eric Thuesen Custom Homes
January 13, 2005
Page 6
four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should
be between twenty-five (25) and seventy (70) percent. Due to their high silt content, if
the native soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite, such as Mirafi and
Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage composites
should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. The purpose of these
backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wall is not
exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The
subsection entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations
regarding placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation
walls.
EXCAVATION AND SLOPES:
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local,
state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of
four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a
height greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1
(Horizontal: Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Under
specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts may be
modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no
steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 2H:1 V. It is important to note that
sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made aware
of this potential hazard.
Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary
or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an
appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial
layer of soil.
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS:
Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls.
These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of one -inch -minus washed
rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar
material). At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as
the bottom of the footing and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface
water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system.
No groundwater was observed in the September 2002 test pits or the January
2005 test holes. Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and likely if
excavation occurs during winter months, and if encountered should be drained away
from the site by use of drainage ditches, perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping
City of Edmonds
c/o Eric Thuesen Custom Homes
January 13, 2005
Page 7
from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the
excavation.
The excavation of the site should be graded so that surface water is directed off
the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any
area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed
slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas
adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building,
except where the area adjacent to the building is paved.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL:
The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all
surface vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious material. The stripped or
removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill.
Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind permanent
retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to
support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after excavation
prior to placement of any structural fill.
All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or
near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture
content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill
soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction
process.
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction
equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case should the
lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table presents
recommended relative compaction for structural fill:
Location of Fill Placement
Beneath footings, slabs or walkways
Behind retaining walls
Beneath pavements
Minimum Relative
Compaction
95%
90%
95% for upper 12 inches of
Sub -grade, 90% below that level
City of Edmonds
c/o Eric Thuesen Custom Homes
January 13, 2005
Page 8
Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of
the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in
accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor).
Use of On -Site Soils
If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the sandy, on-site
soils are very wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains
and the potential need to import granular fill. The on-site soils are generally sandy and
thus are not highly moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the
moisture content of these soils greatly exceeds the optimum moisture content.
Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and
"pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than
the optimum moisture content.
Ideally, structural fill, which is to be placed in wet weather, should consist of a
granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles. The percentage
of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil
passing the three -quarter -inch sieve.
The use of "some" on-site soils for fill material may be acceptable if the upper
organic materials are segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering
inspection.
DRAINAGE CONTROLS:
No drainage problems were evident with the existing residence and the overall
site. Surface runoff would flow westerly following the topographic slope. However, the
extremely porous sub -grade sands allow for infiltration.
This engineer performed an on-site infiltration test (complying with King County
Surface Water Drainage Manual standard methodology). The 5 hand dug test holes
were filled with water during saturated winter conditions. All 5 test holes drained very
quickly at maximum infiltration rates.
This maximum infiltration (greater than 24 inches in 20 minutes) is expected due
to the presence relatively clean sands.
Design Infiltration Rate: 15 inches per hour
City of Edmonds
c/o Eric Thuesen Custom Homes
January 13, 2005
Page 10
The access driveway will require a reinforced concrete retaining wall and
approved structural fill. It is understood that this engineer will perform on-site
geotechnical inspections to verify proper placement of approved fill materials.
• None of the following conditions exist on the steep slope area: impermeable soils
inter -bedded with granular soils, springs or groundwater seepage, significant
visible evidence of groundwater seepage, previous land sliding or instability, or
existing land slide deposits.
• The thickness of organics, debris, weathered soils, coiluvial soils or soils
exhibiting loose conditions on or adjacent to the steep slope are less than 3 feet.
• All excavations on the steep slopes will not extend below a 35 degree plane
extended down from the property line.
• All retaining structures on steep slopes shall be engineered structures
conforming to the State Building Code, and subject to on-site geotechnical
inspections by this engineer. No rockeries greater than 4 feet in height are
proposed.
• An undisturbed buffer of 15 feet shall be maintained from the proposed
development to adjacent residential properties.
• The proposed development (2 new residences and access driveway) will not
decrease the stability of any adjacent property, subject to on-site geotechnical
inspections by this engineer.
INSPECTIONS:
The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical
aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction:
• Soil cuts
• Foundation sub -grade verification
• Retaining wall, or rockery placement
• Any fill placement
• Subsurface drainage installation
• Infiltration trench placement
• Temporary and final erosion control
City of Edmonds
c/o Eric Thuesen Custom Homes
January 13, 2005
Page 11
SUMMARY:
The proposed 2 new residences and access driveway at 509 9t" Ave. N,
Edmonds, Washington are geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with
the recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and
requirements, and key geotechnical inspections during construction.
GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF FINAL PLANS:
At the time of this investigation and report, final house plans were not available
for review.
As stated in this report, Eric Thuesen proposes to construct 2 new residences in
accordance with the Site Plan with a north side access driveway. The dense native
sands allow for standard foundation construction in accordance with the
recommendations of this report.
Additionally, the native sands allow for storm water infiltration west of the second
house, subject to inspections.
Prior to final permit issuance, this engineer should review the final house plans to
verify compliance with the recommendations of this report.
Upon satisfactory review, a "Statement Of Minimal Risk" will be issued.
CLOSURE:
The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance
with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other
warranty, either express or implied, is made. The conclusions are based on the results
of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions between explored
locations. If conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be different
than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe the
situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations. _
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
EXPIRES 12123/
Dennis, RE.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/Civil Engineer
October 24, 2001
Mr. & Mrs. Wolgamott
503 9t' Ave. N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation / Wolgamoft Property
503 00 Ave. N, Edmonds, Washington
This engineering report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical
evaluation of the Wolgamott property located at 503 9t` Ave. N, Edmonds, Washington.
This evaluation was made at the request of owners and real estate broker, Dan
Tomasek.
REFERENCES:
Property map and slope study by LSA dated May 23, 2001
Site photographs
BACKGRQUND:
It is understood that the total overall property contains the existing Wolgamott
residence (503 9t' Ave. N) as well as a long, rectangular piece of property that runs
westerly down slope to 8"' Ave. N (see photographs). It is understood that the existing
residence is to remain, with three (3) future single-family residences to be built on the
lower (westdhy) property. The lower piece of property (containing the future 3 new
residenc4i) is approximately 110 feet wide by approximately 400 feet long. Currently,
this lowefr pede of property contains a historic tennis court, small concrete access drive,
and minor landscaping. The remainder of the lower property contains mature trees,
brush acrd grass*s.
The primary geotechnical feature affecting development is slopes. The
southeast corner of the lower property contains a high point (elevation approximately
169). The western edge of the property (abutting 8t' Ave. N) contains a low spot
(approximately elevation 93).
SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE • DESIGN & PERMIT . LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, Washington 98155 • (206) 546-9217 - FAX 546-8442 1
... —7d— waa
October 24, 2001
Page 2
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION:
This engineer performed an initial visual geotechnical evaluation of the property
on August 18, 2001 and subsequent inspection using a hand soil probe on September
27, 2001.
Visual evaluation of the property revealed no evidence of any geotechnical
distress: no slides, no sloughing, no soil tension cracks nor any evidence of significant
erosional degradation.
It is understood that one new proposed residence will occupy the portion of the
property where the current tennis court exists.
The tennis court reveals no evidence of any geotechnical distress (other than
years of non-use and slight slab cracking). Obviously, the tennis court area provides a
relatively flat house location site. The use of a hand soil probe verified relatively
shallow (less than 18 inches) dense, sub grade soils.
It is understood that the remaining two future residences will be accessed
through the bottom (off 8t' Ave. N). Walking I exploring the lower portions of the
property did verify the topographic map indications of less steep topography towards 8"'
Ave. N. The use of a hand soil probe verified the presence of dense, native sub grade
soils capable of providing a minimum of 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity.
CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDA77ONS:
Based on the findings of this engineer's preliminary geotechnical evaluation and
experience with nearby properties, the following are concluded and recommended:
• The proposed 3- future single-family residences on the lower portion of the
Wolgamott property are 4eotechnically viable.
• The slopes present do not pose adverse geotechnical impacts to the
development of the proposed 3 houses.
• Additional specific geotechnical investigations (test pits, soil analysis, foundation
recommendations, etc.) are required to proceed with development of the
proposed 3 houses.
• This engineer observed no adverse drainage or water conditions precluding the
proposed development of 3 new houses.
Zipper Zeman Associates, inc.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting
J-2074
March 31, 2005
City of Edmonds
Community Services Department
250-5 th Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Attention: Star Campbell, Planner
Subject: Peer Review for Steep Slope Exemption
Thuesen Subdivision
509 9th Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington
Task Order # 05-01
Dear Ms. Campbell:
This letter presents our initial conclusions following our geotechnical review of material
submitted for the referenced project. These services were requested with your letter of transmittal
of February 15, 2005 with notice to proceed received on March 14, 2005.
Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. services were limited to geotechnical review for the
referenced project. These review services do not include design, analysis, or engineering
recommendations for the project. These review services were provided for the purpose of
evaluating general conformance of the documents with City of Edmonds development standards
under ECDC 20.15.13.110.1). These services were provided in accordance with accepted
geotechnical engineering practices for the exclusive use of the City of Edmonds and for specific
application to the referenced project and purpose. No other warranty is expressed or implied.
Documents ,provided to us for review included a Geotechnical and Drainage Criteria
report dated January 13, 2005 by Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. and a Preliminaty Subdivision Plan for
Thuesen Custom Homes dated November 22, 2004 by Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. In
addition to reviewing these documents, the undersigned visited the site on March 21, 2005.
The Preliminary Subdivision Plan contains lot lines for two lots, designated Lots 1 and 2.
Lot 1 is located within 50 feet of the top of a steep slope designated as "40% slope area" on the
plan, and Lot 2 is located on the steep slope. Topographic survey on the plan indicates that the
average slope angle within the designated steep slope is slightly steeper than 40 percent. A
wetland is present at the base of the slope, and the plan shows 15 -foot building setback lines
from both the top of the 50 foot steep slope buffer and the 50 foot wetland buffer.
18905 33rd Avenue West #117, Lynnwood, WA 98036 (42 Attachment 6
S-2005-9 &. SD -2005-8
ZZAThuesen Subdivision, 509 9th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington
W W �Mlg
-2074
�Wft
March 31, 2005
Page 2
During a site visit, we observed that a retaining wall was under construction along the
eastern section of the north property line of the adjacent lot to the east of Lot 1 and the Lot 1
access easement, and an excavation had been made in the central portion of Lot 1. Soils exposed
in the excavation consisted of medium dense sand. We also observed that the steep slope on Lot
2 was undisturbed by the recent access easement construction activities, and was heavily
vegetated with blackberries and scattered trees.
We traversed the southern portion of the slope and observed no evidence of groundwater
seepage or previous landslide activity. During this site reconnaissance, we observed a hand -
excavated test pit (interpreted to be one of the test pits described in the Geotechnical and
Drainage Criteria report) located roughly 40 feet northwest of the southeast top of slope.
The Geotechnical and Drainage Criteria report contains descriptions of soil and
groundwater conditions disclosed by a number of test holes completed on Lots 1 and 2 by Mr.
Bruce. The locations of the test holes are not specified in the report. The soil conditions in the
test holes on the slope are described in the report as dense sand to the bottom of the test holes at
40 inches. No groundwater was disclosed by the test holes.
The Geotechnical and Drainage Criteria report concludes that the site meets the
standards in ECDC 20.15.B. I 10.1) for exemption of this slope from Steep Slope Development
Standards. However, in our opinion the information submitted is not sufficient to provide
confirmation that the slope conforms to all of the requirements for exemption should from the
steep slope development standards, based on the documents. In particular, we recommend that
the following additional information be submitted as confirmation of the conditions described in
the report:
1. The geotechnical report does not contain a site plan or specific description of the
test pit locations on the steep slope. We recommend that the applicant be
requested to provide the locations of the test pits, so the applicability of the
reported conditions to the slope condition can be reviewed.
2. In order to be exempted from steep slope development standards, the site must be
mapped as one of the following deposits on the "Geologic Map of the Edmonds
East and part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles", by James P. Minard
(Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, 1983, Map MF -
1541): Till, Advance Outwash, and/or Olympia Gravel. From our review of the
soils report and geologic maps, it appears that this condition is met. We
recommend that the engineer provide confirmation that this condition is met.
3. The geotechnical report submittal is apparently for subdivision approval only, and
may not be sufficient for foundation design on Lot 2 due to the limited depth of
the test pits. We recommend that the applicant be required to provide geotechnical
explorations extending to depths greater than the planned foundation or
excavation depths on the slope. It may be necessary to wait until building plans
are further along to provide this data.
J-2074,033105
Thuesen Subdivision, 509 9th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington
-2074
March 31, 2005
Page 3
4. The geotechnical report contains a recommended design rate for infiltration of
surface runoff. We recommend that the infiltration system design be based on
deeper geotechnical explorations extended at least five feet deeper than the
planned invert of the infiltration system, located at the specific location of the
planned infiltration facility, and laboratory data referenced in the 2001
Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western
Washington if surface water infiltration is proposed. The engineering assessment
for infiltration should also contain analysis of potential affects on the neighboring
properties and subject property.
In summary, we recommend that Items 1 and 2 listed above be submitted and reviewed in
order to determine if the site slope should be exempted from development standards for steep
slopes under ECDC 20.15.13.110.D. Items 3 and 4 above may be required as a part of a building
or grading permit submittal on Lot 2, depending on the specific building plans.
We appreciate the opportunity to have been of service on this project and would be
pleased to discuss the contents of this report or other aspects of this project with you at your
convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
ZIPPER ZEMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
674-)-z'M 6
John E. Zipper, P.E.
President
J-2074,033105
1 /241 07
Dennis M. Bruce, RE.
M.S.C. E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/Civil Engineer
April 7, 2005
City of Edmonds'
121 5th Ave. N
Edmonds, WA 98020 PERMIT COUNTER
Subject: Geotechnical Response — April 5, 2005 City of Edmonds Request
Thuesen Custom Homes Protect
509 91h Ave. N, Edmonds, Washington
This engineering report presents the geotechnical engineering responses to City
of Edmonds (Star Campbell) request for additional geotechnical criteria regarding the
Eric Thuesen project (two new homes) at 509 9th Ave. N, Edmonds, Washington.
REFERENCES:
• Geotechnical Report by D. Bruce, P.E. dated January 13, 2005
• Property Survey Map by LSA
• Peer -Review Report by Zipper Zeman dated March 31, 2005
• April 5, 2005 request from Star Campbell, City of Edmonds
RESPONSE TO MARCH 31, 2005 PEER -REVIEW COMMENTS:
1) Location of soil test holes: The previously submitted infiltration test logs (January
13, 2005) contain the location of five (5) hand -dug soil test holes. Site Plan with
test hole locations is re -submitted.
The January 13, 2005 soils report referenced test pits dug on September 4,
2002. The location of these 2002 soil test pits is also submitted.
2) Categorization of soil sub -grade: The underlying dense sands with gravels qualify
this site as "advance outwash", per the 1983 USGS map designations.
This engineer agrees that the condition for exemption from steep slope
development standards is met.
3) Specific house foundation design: No specific building plans for the proposed
new residence on Lot No. 2 has been furnished this engineer. It is understood
that Eric Thuesen will supply such house plans when available for geotechnical
review.
SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • S/TE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION
P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, WA 98155 • (206) 54 S-2005-9 & SD -2005--8
City of Edmonds
Re: Eric Thuesen Custom Homes
April 7, 2005
Page 2
At that time, this engineer will determine if additional geotechnical investigation is
required.
4) Infiltration criteria: The on-site sub -grade sands extend more than sufficient depth
to accommodate the proposed infiltration design. If required by City of Edmonds,
a deeper test hole could be dug in conjunction with the installation of the
infiltration trench. This engineer recommends against imposing heavy track hoe
loads on the slope prior to construction of the infiltration trench.
This engineer is confused by what "laboratory data referenced..." means.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
�xs 12/23/
p.�
/DMB:abj
V cc: Eric Thuesen Custom Homes
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
o TENNIS
COU
+
llp 1po
CO,
Nj
00'01 l' M`'�„JZ,Z�.00 N
C
lsls 101 �lo
0
00
Le
N3
Me t4 C-5
11
5c: > w
- _ I I
I-, -R, P- o
c E .E.
U) 0
rn rn
o
Z
N II l -
'N jnN]AV q16
os -
M.S.C.E., M.B.A.
April 7, 2005
City of Edmonds
121 5th Ave. N
Edmonds, WA 98020
im
Geotechnical/Civil Engineer
Subject: Field Reports — Special Geotechnical Inspections
uesen Two New Single -Family Residences Project
509 9th Ave. N, Edmonds, Washington
This engineering report presents the results of ongoing geotechnical inspections
for the access road and two new residences at 509 9th Ave. N, Edmonds, Washington.
These inspections are required by City of Edmonds as a condition of permit issuance.
REFERENCES:
• Geotechnical Reports by D. Bruce, P.E.
• City of Edmonds approved Project Plans
• Photographs
INSPECTIONS:
This engineer continues to provide daily on-site inspections during periods of
active grading and foundation work.
• Excavation: As stated in the February 18, 2005 Inspection Report, excavation
encountered the dense, native sub -grade sands. All excavation for the access
driveway (on the north side of the property) was stable and is geotechnicaliv
approved.
• Sub -Grade Verification: This engineer verified dense, native sands easily
providing 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity.
Contractor properly established driveway retaining wall footing formwork,
reinforcing steel and concrete, as well as the retaining wall stem wall (see
photographs).
• Slope Stability: Excavation and foundation work has not adversely impacted the
project slopes. No adverse impacts have affected the adjacent, neighboring
properties. All slopes (the Thuesen property and adjoining properties) are stable.
SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DAA/NAGE • DESIGN & PERMIT • LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, WA 98155 • (206) 546-9217 • FAX (206) 546-8442
City of Edmonds
Re: Eric Thuesen Custom Homes
April 7, 2005
Page 2
• Rockery Placement: Not yet.
• New Home Excavation and Foundations: Not yet.
• Subsurface Drainage: Not yet.
• Infiltration Trench Construction: Not yet.
• Temporary Erosion Control Measures: Contractor continues to properly maintain
the rocked construction entrance off 9`h Ave. N, as well as siltation fencing and
diligent project cleanup.
All temporary erosion control measures are approved through this date (April 7,
2005).
SUMMARY:
• Ongoing geotechnical inspections have verified proper compliance with project
plans and good geotechnical practices. All completed aspects through this date
(April 7, 2005) are approved.
• Inspections are ongoing.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
D(PIR6s 13113/ OO
P.
I
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
DMB:abj
cc: Eric Thuesen Custom Homes
Wetland Delineation
Wolgamott Property
Edmonds, Washington
Prepared for
City of Edmonds
May 17, 2005
12130-16
Attachment 8
De/;
S--2005-9 & SD -2005-8
V))
. MRONMENTAL
Delivering smarter solutions
Wetland Delineation
Wolgamott Property
Edmonds, Washington
Prepared for
City of Edmonds
May 17, 2005
12130-16
Prepared by
Pentec Environmental
A Division of Hart Crowser, Inc.
120 Third Avenue South, Suite 110
Edmonds, Washington 98020-8411
Fax 425-778-9417
Tel 425-775-4682
Anchorage
Boston
Denver
Edmonds
Philadelphia
Portland
Sea t he
CONTENTS
METHODS
Delineation
RESULTS
Site Conditions
Wetland
Uplands
WETLAND SUMMARY
REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS
LIMITATIONS
REFERENCES
FIGURE
1 Wetland Boundary Map
APPENDIX A
WETLAND DELINEATION METHODS
APPENDIX B
WETLAND DATA SHEETS
Page
1
1
2
2
2
3
4
4
4
5
Pentec Environmental Page i
12130-16 May 17, 2005
WETLAND DELINEATION
WOLGAMOTT PROPERTY
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
Delineation
We conducted a wetland delineation on May 11, 2005, at a site located at 509
9th Avenue North in Edmonds for the City of Edmonds. The site is in
Township 27 North, Range 3 East, Section 24. This report documents the work
we performed, describes identified wetland location and boundaries, and
characterizes the wetland.
We delineate wetlands based on our best professional judgment, existing site
conditions during field analysis, and information provided by the client. Our
representative biologist conducted a wetland reconnaissance and delineation of
the study area on May 11, 2005.
We delineated the wetland boundaries using the Routine Determinations
method described by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) in
the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology
1997) to comply with City of Edmonds, state, and federal regulations. Positive
wetland indicators must be present with few exceptions for the following three
parameters for an area to be identified as a jurisdictional wetland:
(1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soil, and (3) wetland hydrology. The
methods used to determine whether the criteria are met for each of the
parameters are described in Appendix A.
We marked wetland boundaries with sequentially numbered markers made
using orange "wetland boundary" flagging tape, and the sample plot locations
were marked with blue flagging. The wetland boundaries are preliminary and
subject to verification by regulatory agencies, including the City of Edmonds, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and Ecology.
Pentec Environmental Page 1
12130-16 May 17, 2005
RESULTS
Site Conditions
Wetland
The site is approximately 0.9 acre in area and is surrounded by single-family
residences to the north, east, and south. A large school playground is across 8th
Avenue to the west. The property owner is proposing to subdivide the property
into two separate lots.
Topography and Drainage
The property slopes up steeply toward the southeast. The highest elevation at
the easternmost section of the property is at approximately 170 feet. The site
slopes down toward small level area on western section of the property at
approximately 95 feet. A large section of the property has an approximately
40 percent slope. The wetland lies in a relatively level area on the west side of
the property (Figure 1).
Vegetation
Vegetation on the undeveloped open sections of the property consists primarily
of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) and stinging nettle (Urtica dioica). The
dominant trees on the property are red alder (A/nus rubra), big -leaf maple (Acer
macrophyl/um), Pacific crabapple (Ma/us fusca), and Pacific willow (Salix
lasiandra). Other plants observed on the property include water parsley
(Oenanthe sarmentosa), giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia var. braunii), and
red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa). Three sample plots were set up in the
study area; the locations of these sample plots are shown on Figure 1.
A wetland was delineated on the western section of the property. We
established one sample plot (SP -1) in the wetland. The wetland boundary is
shown on Figure 1.
Wetland Determination
Conditions in SP -1 met wetland criteria for the three required parameters
(vegetation, soil, and hydrology). A summary of the wetland indicators identified
in the wetland follows; complete data sheets are in Appendix B.
■ Vegetation. The majority of the wetland had a dense tree and shrub layer.
SP -1 had 60 percent cover of Pacific crabapple (FAC+) and 40 percent cover
Pentec Environmental Page 2
12130-16 May 17, 2005
Uplands
of Pacific willow (FACW+). The herbaceous layer was dominated by
90 percent cover of water parsley (OBL) and 20 percent cover of creeping
buttercup (Ranunculus repens; FACW). Some stinging nettle and blackberry
were in the sample plot, but were not dominant species.
■ Soil. The soil at SP -1 is black (1 OYR 2/1) silt loam in the top 12 inches. It
was not possible to dig deeper at this location. Soil with chroma 1 is a
hydric soil indicator.
■ Hydrology. At SP -1, the soil was saturated to the surface and there was free
water in the pit at 9 inches. These conditions are positive indicators of
wetland hydrology.
Wetland Classification
The majority of the wetland is palustrine forested with persistent vegetation and a
seasonally flooded hydrologic regime (PFO).
We determined that two of the sample plots (SP -2 and SP -3) are in upland areas.
Although some wetland indicators were present at SP -2, neither of the sample
plots had positive indicators for the three wetland parameters. Therefore, the
sample plots and associated plant communities are considered uplands. SP -2
was located in the open area just east of the wetland. SP -3 was located just
outside the wetland boundary to the west. A summary of the collected data is
shown below; complete data sheets are in Appendix B.
■ Vegetation. The dominant plants in SP -2 were Himalayan blackberry
(FACU) and stinging nettle (FAC+). This open section of the property had
significantly less tree cover than the westernmost section. The upland areas
closer to 8th Avenue had other invasive species such as Japanese knotweed
(Polygonum cuspidatum) and butterfly bush (Buddleia davidii). SP -3
between the wetland boundary and the road also had 50 percent cover of
red alder (FAC) and a willow species in addition to the blackberry. At both
of these sample plots the proportion of dominant plants being FAC or FACW
did not exceed 50 percent, so these locations did not have positive
indicators of wetland vegetation.
■ Soils. The soil in the upland areas near SP -2 is a black (10YR 2/1) silt loam.
This dark soil with a low-chroma matrix is a positive indicator of wetland soil.
Although wetland hydrology was not observed (see below), this indicates
that this area may have been wetter in the recent past. Hydric soils were not
Pentec Environmental Page 3
12130-16 May 17, 2005
observed at SP -3. Here the soil is dark brown (10YR 3/3) sandy loam in the
top 10 inches, with a dark yellowish brown (IOYR 4/6) sandy loam matrix
beneath it.
■ Hydrology. Wetland hydrology was not present at either of the upland
sample plots. Soils were moist at both pits but not saturated. At SP -2, the
depth to saturation was at 18 inches. Saturation to the surface for at least
12.5 percent of the growing season must be present to be a positive
indicator of wetland hydrology. No soil saturation was observed at SP -3.
Because groundwater was so deep at these sample plots, we assume that
the soil is not saturated to the surface earlier in the growing season.
WETLAND SUMMARY
We identified and delineated one wetland within the study area. The
jurisdictional determinations are preliminary and subject to verification by the
City of Edmonds, Corps, and Ecology. Because the wetland is greater than
2,500 square feet, but less than one acre, with a forested wetland class, this
wetland is rated as a Category 2 as per the wetland classification system in the
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC 20.156.060).
REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS
LIMITATIONS
The Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC 20.15B.130) requires
buffers of 50 feet for Category 2 wetlands.
Work for this project was performed, and this report prepared, in accordance
with generally accepted professional practices for the nature and conditions of
the work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was
performed. It is intended for the exclusive use of the City of Edmonds for
specific application to the referenced site. This report is not meant to represent
a legal opinion. No other warranty, express or implied, is made.
Pentec Environmental Page 4
12130-16 May 17, 2005
REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Office of Biological Services, Publication FWS/OBS-79/31, Washington,
D.C.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology), 1997. Washington State
Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Ecology, Publication
No. 96-94, Olympia, Washington.
001 30\016\Wetland Delineation Report 05-17-2005\Wetiand_Edmonds_R.doc
Pentec Environmental Page 5
12130-16 May 17, 2005
Wetland Boundary Map
Wolgamott Property
•, x
C•a+4z JLC 2 X A-1�
A A-1 a6v-3.. i
* Not to Scale - 00130\016\Wetland Delineation Report 05-17-2005\Figure l.doc
1351
m
12130-16 5/05
Figure 1
APPENDIX A
METHODS OF DETERMINING WETLAND
CHARACTERISTICS AND CLASSIFICATION
WETLAND CHARACTERISTICS
In most cases, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1987) requires that the
following three characteristics be present for an area to be identified as a
wetland: (1) hydrophytic vegetation; (2) hydric soil; and (3) wetland hydrology.
There are a few exceptions to requiring presence of all three of these
parameters, such as for atypical situations or problem areas. There were no
atypical situations or problem areas encountered during this investigation. The
following subsections summarize the Routine Determinations methods used to
determine whether these characteristics are present on site.
Hydrophytic Vegetation
To determine whether an area has hydrophytic vegetation, the dominant plant
species,are identified. Dominant plants typically are those with greater than 20
percent cover. Reed (1988) has evaluated many plant species common in the
Alaska region and assigned a wetland indicator status to each based on the
species' probability of occurring in wetland (Table A-1). A plant community
dominated (>50 percent) by species with a status of OBL, FACW, or FAC is
considered hydrophytic.
Plants are identified in this report by their common and scientific names as
found in Flora of Alaska and Neighboring Territories (Hulten 1968).
Table A-1 - Key to Wetland Indicator Status
Code
Wetland Indicator Status
Probability of Occurrence
in Wetland
OBL
Obligate wetland species
> 99 percent
FACW
Facultative wet
67 to 99 percent
FAC
Facultative
34 to 66 percent
FACU
Facultative upland
1 to 33 percent
UPL
Obligate upland
< 1 percent
Pentec Environmental Page A-1
12130-16 May 17, 2005
Hydric Soil
To determine whether an area has hydric soil, test pits are dug to a depth of at
least 12 inches and the soil color and other characteristics described. Some of
the positive indicators of hydric soils include the following:
■ Low chroma. Soil with a low chroma (gray soil) typically develops when
mineral soil is inundated; lack of oxygen reduces magnesium and iron
compounds in the soil to a gray color. Soil colors are determined using a
Munsell color chart (Kollmorgen Corp. 1994), which uses abbreviations to
describe colors, e.g., 10YR 2/1. In the abbreviation, the last number
indicates the chroma; a chroma of 1 or 0 is considered low.
■ Mottles. In seasonally saturated wetlands, fluctuating water levels can trap
air bubbles in the soil. The air pockets allow magnesium and iron
compounds in the soil to oxidize, forming rust -colored mottles (spots or
blotches). Mottles found in soil with a chroma of 2 or less indicate the soil is
hydric.
■ High organic content. Deep organic soils form if inundation prevents
decomposition and organic debris accumulates. Organic content is
considered high if the soil is composed of more than half organic material
(by weight) in the upper 32 inches of the soil profile.
Wetland Hydrology
To determine whether an area has wetland hydrology, the area is examined for
inundation, soil saturation, or shallow groundwater tables, or for hydrologic
indicators. An area in which soils are saturated to the surface for at least one
continuous week during the growing season meets the criteria for wetland
hydrology; however, seasonal changes in water levels and immediacy of
precipitation events must be considered when an area's hydrology is evaluated.
When wetland hydrology is not present at the time of the site visit, it can be
inferred from the presence of any of the following hydrologic indicators:
watermarks on vegetation, drift lines, sediment deposits, water -stained leaves,
surface -scoured areas, wetland drainage patterns, or oxidized root channels.
Pentec Environmental Page A-2
12130-16 May 17, 2005
CLASSIFICATION
Wetlands are classified according to Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1979). Under the Cowardin
classification scheme, wetlands and deepwater habitats are grouped into
systems based on shared hydrologic factors. The systems described in Cowardin
et al. (1979) are palustrine, marine, estuarine, riverine, and lacustrine.
The palustrine system includes all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs,
persistent emergents, mosses, and lichens, and all such wetlands that occur in
tidal areas where the salinity due to ocean -derived salts is below S parts per
thousand. Wetlands included in the palustrine system are commonly referred to
as marshes, swamps, bogs, fens, prairies, seeps, and intermittent ponds.
Palustrine wetlands are divided into classes by the dominant vegetation:
forested wetlands are dominated by trees greater than approximately 20 feet tall
with 30 percent cover, scrub -shrub wetlands are dominated by woody shrubs,
and emergent wetlands are dominated by nonwoody plants.
0013=161Wetland Delineation Report 05-17-2005Wppendix AWpp-A.doe
Pentec Environmental Page A-3
12130-16 May 17, 2005
Pentee EnyirOnrnental;, ;
`.12130-16,' May 1,7; 2005
Delivering smarter solutions
Routine Wetland Determination
DATA FORM 1 (Revised)
(WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Wolgamott Property
Date: May 11, 2005
Applicant/owner: City of Edmonds
County: Snohomish
Investigator(s): Michael Muscari, Cory Ruedebusch
State: WA
S/T/R: 24/27N/3 E
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No
Community ID:Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No
Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No
Plot ID: SP -1
Explanation of atypical or problem area:
VEGETATION (For *strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine)
Dominant Plant Species *Stratum % cover Indicator Other Plant Species *Stratum % cover Indicator
Malus fusca
T
60
FAC+
Rubus discolor
S
10
FACU
Salix lasiandra
S
40
FACW+
Urtica dioica
H
15
FAC+
Oenanthe sarmentosa
H
90
OBL
Athyrium fifix-femina
H
5
FAC
Ranunculus repens
H
20
FACW
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS:
% of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 100%
Check all indicators that apply and explain below:
❑ Visual observation of plant species growing in ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations
areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ❑ Wetland plant database
❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities
❑ Technical Literature ❑ Other (explain)
Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Percentage of dominant plants FAC or wetter exceeds 50%.
HYDROLOGY
Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No
on
Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No
® Other (explain) Date
Depth of inundation: none
Oxidized Root (live roots)
Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No
Channels <12i: ❑ Yes ® No
FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No
Water -stained Leaves:
Depth to free water in pit: 9 inches
❑ Yes ® No
Depth to saturated soil: surface
Check all that apply & explain below:
Other (explain): Plot ID: SP -1
❑ Stream, lake or gage data
❑ Aerial photographs
❑ Other
Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No
Rationale for decision/remarks: Saturation to soil surface is positive indicator of wetland hydrology.
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Drainage Class
Field observations confirm mapped type? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Taxonomy (subgroup)
Profile Description
Depth
Matrix color
Mottle colors
Mottle abundance
Texture, concretions,
Drawing of soil profile
inches
Horizon
Munsell moist
Munsell moist
size and contrast
structure, etc.
(match description)
0-12
10 YR 2/1
Silt loam
black
Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma <_ 2 with mottles
❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions
❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks
Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Low chroma soil is hydric soil indicator. (Note: could not dig below 12 inches.)
Wetland Determination
Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No
Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No
Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No
Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ® Yes ❑ No
Rationale/Remarks: Positive indicators for all three wetland parameters were observed.
NOTES:
Revised 4/9
WTE-CBMRONAWNTAL
Delivering smarter solutions
Routine Wetland Determination
DATA FORM 1 (Revised)
(WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Wolgamott Property
Date: May 11, 2005
Applicant/owner: City of Edmonds
County: Snohomish
Investigator(s): Michael Muscari, Cory Ruedebusch
State: WA
S/T/R: 24/27N/3E
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No
Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No
Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No
Plot ID: SP -2
Explanation of atypical or 2roblem area:
VEGETATION (For *strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine)
Dominant Plant Species *Stratum % cover Indicator Other Plant Species *Stratum % cover Indicator
Rubus discolor
S
90
FACU
Urtica dioica
H
60
FAC+
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS:
% of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 50%
Check all indicators that apply and explain below:
❑ Visual observation of plant species growing in ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations
areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ❑ Wetland plant database
❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities
❑ Technical Literature ❑ Other (explain)
Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Percentage of dominant plants FAC or wetter does not exceed 50%.
HYDROLOGY
Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No
on
Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No
® Other (explain) Date
Depth of inundation: none
Oxidized Root (live roots)
Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No
Channels <12 in.: ❑ Yes ® No
FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No
Water -stained Leaves:
❑ Yes ® No
Depth to free water in pit: none
Depth to saturated soil: 18 inches
Check all that apply & explain below:
Other (explain): Plot ID: SP -2
❑ Stream, lake or gage data
❑ Aerial photographs
❑ Other
Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No
Rationale for decision/remarks: Saturation must be in the upper 12 inches to be considered a positive indicator of wetland
hydrology.
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Drainage Class
Field observations confirm mapped type? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Taxonomy (subgroup)
Profile Description
Depth
Matrix color
Mottle colors
Mottle abundance
Texture, concretions,
Drawing of soil profile
inches
Horizon
Munsell moist
Munsell moist
size and contrast
structure, etc.
(match description)
0-16
10 YR 2/1
Silt loam
black
Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma <_ 2 with mottles
❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions
❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks
Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Low chroma soil is a hydric soil indicator.
Wetland Determination
Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No
Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No
Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ❑ Yes ® No
Rationale/Remarks: Did not have positive indicators for all three wetland parameters.
NOTES:
Revised 4/9
Detiveringsmarter solutions Routine Wetland Determination
DATA FORM 1 (Revised)
(WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Wolgamott Property
Date: May 11, 2005
Applicant/owner: City of Edmonds
County: Snohomish
Investigator(s): Michael Muscari, Cory Ruedebusch
State: WA
SfT/R: 24/27N/3E
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No
Community ID:Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No
Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No
Plot ID: SP -3
Explanation of atypical or problem area:
VEGETATION (For *strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine)
Dominant Plant Species `Stratum % cover Indicator Other Plant Species *Stratum % cover Indicator
Rubus discolor
S
75
FACU
Alnus rubra
T
50
FAC
Salix sp.
T
100
NI
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS:
% of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 50%
Check all indicators that apply and explain below:
❑ Visual observation of plant species growing in ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations
areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ❑ Wetland plant database
❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities
❑ Technical Literature ❑ Other (explain)
Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Percentage of dominant plants FAC or wetter does not exceed 50%.
HYDROLOGY
Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No
Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No
Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No
on
Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp)
Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No
Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No
® Other (explain) Date
Depth of inundation: none
Oxidized Root (live roots)
Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No
Channels <12 in.: ❑ Yes ® No
FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No
Water -stained Leaves:
❑ Yes ® No
Depth to free water in pit: none
Depth to saturated soil: none
Check all that apply & explain below:
Other (explain): Plot ID: SP -1
❑ Stream, lake or gage data
❑ Aerial photographs
❑ Other
Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No
Rationale for decision/remarks: No positive indicators of wetland hydrology were observed.
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Drainage Class
Field observations confirm mapped type? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Taxonomy (subgroup)
Profile Description
Depth
Matrix color
Mottle colors
Mottle abundance
Texture, concretions,
Drawing of soil profile
inches
Horizon
Munsell moist
Munsell moist
size and contrast
structure, etc.
(match description)
0-10
10YR 3/3 dark
Sandy loam
brown
10-16
10YR 4/6 dark
Sandy loam
yellowish
brown
Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma _< 2 with mottles
❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions
❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks
Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No
Rationale for decision/Remarks: No positive indicators for hydric soil were observed.
Wetland Determination
Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No
Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No
Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the sampling point within a wetland? ❑ Yes ® No
Rationale/Remarks: Did not have positive indicators for any of the three wetland parameters.
NOTES:
Revised 4/9
UN
www.
r r . a
Delivering smarter solutions
September 8, 2005
Mr. Steve Bullock
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Review of Survey Map for
Wolgamott/Thuesen Property
Edmonds, Washington
12130-16
Dear Steve:
We are pleased to provide our review of the Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. (LSA) survey
map (file number 4288-1-01). The map is based on the July 7, 2005 LSA survey of the
wetland flags we used to delineate the wetland boundaries on the Wolgarnott property on
May 11, 2005. The wetland boundary on the LSA map appears to accurately represent the
wetland boundaries that we delineated on May 11, although it is not possible for us to
confirm every point on the map.
The size, shape, and location of the wetland shown on the LSA map resembles the sketch
map we provided in the May 17, 2005 wetland delineation report. The sketch map was not
drawn to scale and no measurements were taken in the field, so our sketch map does not
show the precise location of the wetland boundaries. It is reasonable to conclude that the
LSA survey accurately located the flagged wetland boundary, because all of the wetland
flags were located and the LSA map shows the same general wetland size and shape as on
our wetland map.
The LSA map shows the size of the wetland to be about 2,291 square feet (st). In our May
17, 2005 wetland delineation report we estimated the size of the wetland to be greater than
2,500 sf. Our estimate was not based on any on-site measurements and was approximate
only. The area of the wetland as reported on the LSA map is a more accurate measure of
the wetland size, assuming all of the wetland boundary flags were accurately located. if this
project is to be reviewed under the old Edmonds Community Development Code
(20.15B.020) then it would be exempt from City of Edmonds regulation because it is less
than 2,500 sf in size. Washington State Department of Ecology and the Army Corps of
Anchorage
Boston
Denver
Edmonds
Philadelphia
Portland
Seattle
A Division of Hart Crowser, Inc.
120 Third Avenue South, Suite 110
Edmonds, Washington 98020-8411 Attachment 9
Fax 425-778-9417
TO 425-775-4682 S_221005_9 & SD -2005--8
City of Edmonds 12130-16
September 8, 2005 Page 2
Engineers would still have jurisdiction over any activities planned for the area within the
wetland boundaries.
If we may provide any additional information or clarification regarding this project, please
do not hesitate to contact Wayne Adams at (425) 329-1158.
Sincerely,
PENTEC ENVIRONMENTAL — HART CROWSER, INC.
MICHAEL J. MUSCARI
Wetland Ecologist
michael.muscari@pentecenv.com
00130\01 Molgamott_L.doc
NE C. ADAMS, E.G.
Principal - Operations
wca@hartcrowser.com
CITY OF EDMONDS
ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS FOR SHORT PLATS
Name: THUESEN CUSTOM HOMES File No.: S-05-9
Approved by: L vj Vicinity: 509 9`n AVE N
Engineering Program Manager date
V:\dvrw\sp\05-9 thuesen plt.doc
S-2005-0- & SD -2005-.8
Req'd
Req'd w/bldg.
Bond posted
Complete
prior to
Permit
recording
1. Rights-of-way for public streets:
X
2. Easements (City utilities, private access, other utilities):
Provide all easements as needed.
X
Total access easement width shall be 15.00'
X
3. Street improvements (ACP with curb and gutter):
Slope of proposed private access driveway shall not exceed
X
14%.
Provide 1 common shared access driveway for lots land 2.
X
Access driveway shall be paved an minimum of 12.0' 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 9t' Ave N.
X
4. Street turnaround:
Provide an on-site tum around to City Stds. For lot 2
X
5. Sidewalks and/or walkways:.
N/A
X
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.
Storm detentions stem shall drain to the wetland.
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\05-9 thuesen plt.doc
S-2005-0- & SD -2005-.8
Z ( 9.44-+q.,
ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER, CITY OF EDMONDS DATE
ie �rigneeriri requireme#ts=have been.compi`e%,d an'd tlisubdivsion can be.record�
Authorized for recording by:
V:\dvnv�sp\05-9 thuesen plt.doc __ _
Req'd prior to
Req'd w/bldg.
Bond
Complete
recording
Permit
posted
14. Signage (per City Engineer):
All signs shall be vinyl letters and to City Stds. No silk screen
X
signs will be permitted
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 ( N/A )
b) Storm drainage connection charge per lot (S 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: ($860.
X
f) Traffic mitigation: $1681.44)
X
Z ( 9.44-+q.,
ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER, CITY OF EDMONDS DATE
ie �rigneeriri requireme#ts=have been.compi`e%,d an'd tlisubdivsion can be.record�
Authorized for recording by:
V:\dvnv�sp\05-9 thuesen plt.doc __ _
Edmonds Community Development Code
checklist or issues a waiver from further study
as outlined in ECDC 20.15B.140;
C. If critical areas are determined to be
present then there will be a requirement for
critical areas study per ECDC 20.15B.140.
The development permit application will not
be considered complete until the completed
critical areas study is submitted;
D. City staff will review the critical area
study and the development proposal within
two weeks of receipt;
E. The development permit application
shall be conditioned to meet the provisions of
this chapter; or, if it is determined that adverse
critical area impacts will be authorized to pro-
vide for reasonable use of a property, then the
applicant shall submit the design of a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan per the stan-
dards of ECDC 20.15B.150; and
F. City staff shall review the proposed com-
pensatory mitigation plan to determine accep-
tance/denial of the proposed compensation.
City staff may request review of the proposal
by resource agency staff or a technical consult-
ant. of their choosing per ECDC 20.15B.140
(E). [Ord. 3087 § 2, 19961.
20.15B.060 Classification.
A. Critical Areas. The following areas, as
defined in ECDC 20.1513.020, are classified as
critical areas: fish and wildlife habitat conser-
vation areas, frequently flooded areas, geolog-
ically hazardous areas, streams, and wetlands.
1. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conserva-
tion Areas. Fish and wildlife habitat conserva-
tion areas .are those areas within the city of
Edmonds which provide habitat for state or
federally listed rare, endangered, threatened,
or sensitive species; for species of local impor-
tance as identified in the administrative rules;
or for habitat communities of exceptional hab-
itat value inventoried and mapped within the
city. Aquatic habitats and dependent species
such as salmonids are also regulated under
ECDC 20.1513.120, relating to streams, and
ECDC 20.15B.130, relating to wetlands. Wild-
life habitat conservation areas may be classi-
20.1511.060
bed into the following two classes based on the
criteria provided:_
a_ Critical Habitats_
i_ Known or documented habitat
for any species listed by the state or federal pro-
cess as rare, endangered, threatened, or sensi-
tive. Approximate locations of such habitats
will be available for city staff review on maps
located at City Hall and provided by the Wash-
ington State Department of Wildlife. Mapped
locations of habitat for known listed species
shall not be made available for public disclo-
sure.
ii. Streams, rivers, and wetlands
used by salmonids. Refer to ECDC 20.15B_ 120
and 20.15B.130 for further detail.
b. Significant Habitats_
i. Inventoried and mapped habitat
for species identified as having local signifi-
cance within the city of Edmonds. Areas may
include, for example, specific areas known to
be utilized by large numbers of migratory
waterfowl; or
ii. Habitats of significance within
the city of Edmonds as inventoried and
mapped during the city's critical area mapping
process.
c. Habitats and Species of Local
Importance. To be determined and defined in
locally adopted administrative procedures.
2. Frequently Flooded Areas_ Those
lands in the floodplain subject to a one percent
or greater chance of flooding in any given
year. These areas include, but are not limited
to: streams, rivers, lakes, coastal areas, wet-
lands, and the like. These ,lands are regulated
under Chapter 19.97 ECDC.
3. Geologically Hazardous Areas.
Those areas subject to potential erosion, land-
slide, and/or potential seismic instabilities,
including the following:
a. Erosion Hazard Areas. Erosion
hazard areas are those areas of the city of
Edmonds containing soils that may experience
severe to very severe erosion hazard. This
group of soils includes, but is not limited to, the
20-31 Attachment 'I
5-2005-9 & SD -2005-5
20 A511.060
following when they occur on slopes of 15 per-
cent or greater:
i. Alderwood soils (15 to 25 per-
cent slopes);
ii. Alderwood/Everett Series (25
to 70 percent slopes);
iii. Everett Series (15 to 25 per-
cent slopes).
b. Landslide Hazard Areas. Land-
slide hazard areas are those areas of the city of
Edmonds which, by reason of excessively
steep slopes, unsatisfactory foundation sup-
port, stability or topography, have a risk of
earth subsidence and landslide hazard in
excess of normal allowances. The 1979 report
of Roger Lowe Associates, as amended by the
1985 report of Geoengineers, Inc., and the
landslide hazard maps established as apart of
said reports, are incorporated by this reference
and made a part of this chapter as fully as if
herein set forth. Areas designated on said
maps, or areas which match the criteria as geo-
logical hazard areas as defined by this chapter
shall be subject to the requirements of this
chapter. Field criteria for identifying landslide
hazard areas include the following:
i. Any area with slopes of 15 per-
cent or greater and impermeable soils (typi-
cally silt and clay) frequently interbedded with
granular soils (predominantly sand and gravel)
and springs or groundwater seepage;
ii. Any area which includes areas
with significant visible evidence of groundwa-
ter seepage, and which also includes existing
landslide deposits regardless of slope;
iii. Any area which has shown
movement during the Holocene epoch (from
10,000 years ago to present) or which is under-
lain by mass wastage debris of that epoch as
determined by a qualified geologist or geo-
technical engineer;
iv. Any area potentially unstable
as a result of rapid stream incision or stream
bank erosion; or
v. Any area located on an alluvial
fan, presently subject to, or potentially subject
(Revised 8/96) 20-32
to, inundation by debris flow or deposition of
stream -transported sediments.
c. Steep Slope Hazard Areas_ "Steep
slope hazard areas" means any ground that
rises at an inclination of 40 percent or more
within a vertical elevation change of at least 20
feet (a vertical rise of 10 feet or more for every
25 feet of horizontal distance). A slope is
delineated by establishing its toe and top and
measured by averaging the inclination over at
least 20 feet of vertical relief.
d. Seismic Hazard Areas. Seismic
hazard areas are those areas subject to severe
risk of earthquake damage as a result of seis-
mically induced landslides, earth adjustments,
settlement or soil liquefaction.
4. Streams. "Streams" means any area
where surface waters produce a defined Chan-
nel or bed which demonstrates clear evidence,
such as the sorting of sediments, of the passage
of water. The channel or bed need not contain
water year-round. Streams are further classi-
fied into Categories 1, 2 and 3 as follows:
a. Category i Streams. "Category 1
streams" means those streams where the mean
annual flow is greater than 20 cubic feet per
second and the stream meets the criteria for a
"shorelines of the state" under the Edmonds
Shoreline Master Program pursuant to Chapter
90.58 RCW.
b. Category 2 Streams. "Category 2
streams" means those streams smaller than
Category i streams and which are perennial; or
those that are perennial or ephemeral and are
used by salmonids.
c. Category 3 Streams. "Category 3
streams" means those streams that are inter-
mittent or ephemeral during years of normal
rainfall and are not used by salmonids.
:> 5. Wetlands. Wetlands are classified
according to the following criteria. Note that
the term "class or wetland class" as defined in
ECDC 20.1513.020 refers to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service classification of wetlands
based on vegetative communities. The rating
of a wetland is determined by evaluating the
Edmonds Community Development Code
entire wetland in question, not just that portion
located on the property in question
a. Category t Wetlands. "Category 1
wetlands" means wetlands which meet any of
the following criteria:
i. The presence of species listed
by the federal government or state as endan-
gered or threatened, or the presence of critical
or outstanding habitat for those species; or
it- Wetlands having 40 percent to
60 percent permanent open water in dispersed
patches with two or more classes of vegeta-
tion; or
iii. Wetlands equal to or greater
than five acres in size and having three or more
wetland classes, one of which is open water; or
iv. The presence of plant associa-
tions of infrequent occurrence. These include,
but are not limited to, mature forested commu-
nities and bog systems.
b. Category 2 Wetlands. "Category 2
wetlands" are wetlands that do not qualify as
Category 1 wetlands and that meet any of the
following criteria:
i. Wetlands greater than one acre
in size; or
ii. Wetlands equal to or less than
one acre and greater than 2,500 square feet and
having two or more wetland classes; or
iii. Wetlands equal to or less than
one acre and greater than 2,500 square feet that
have a forested wetland class; or
iv. The presence of heron rooker-
ies or raptor nesting trees.
c. Category 3 Wetlands. "Category 3
wetlands" means wetlands that are equal to or
less than I acre and greater than 2,500 square
feet •and that have one wetland class. [Ord.
3087 § 2, 19961.
2015B.070 Standards of approval.
No alteration of critical areas or their buffers
shall be permitted unless the city grants an
exemption or an exception pursuant to ECDC
20.1513.040 or a variance pursuant to ECDC
20.15B.170(A). In addition, the project must
follow the prescribed sequencing of mitigation
20.1513.070
as outlined within ECDC 20.15B. t50. Any
permitted alteration of critical areas or their
buffers shall comply with the requirements of
this title.
A. Regulated Activities. Any development
proposal, as defined by this chapter, which may
impact critical areas or their buffers shall be
subject to the conditions and requirements of
this chapter_ Such regulated activities shall be
undertaken following the sequence of mitiga-
tion established within ECDC 20.15.13.150.
The following activities within critical areas or
their buffers shall be regulated pursuant to this
chapter:
1. The removal, excavation, grading, or
dredging of soil, sand, gravel, minerals,
organic matter, or material of any kind;
2. The dumping, discharging, or filling
with any material;
3. The draining, flooding, or disturbing
of the water level or water table;
4. The driving of pilings;
5. The placing of obstructions;
6. The construction, reconstruction,
demolition, or expansion of any structure;
7. The destruction or alteration of the
vegetation of wetlands, wildlife habitat areas,
streams, or their buffers through clearing, har-
vesting, spraying of herbicides, shading, inten-
tional burning, or planting of vegetation that
would alter the character of a critical area; pro-
vided, that these activities are not part of a for-
est practice governed under Chapter 76.09
RCW and its rules;
8. Activities that result in a significant
change of water temperature, a significant
change of physical or chemical characteristics
of water sources, including quantity, or the
introduction of pollutants including chemical
herbicides, fungicides, pesticides, or excess
nutrients; and
9. Activities which bring critical areas
which are not currently in existing or ongoing
agricultural use into agricultural use. [Ord.
3087 § 2, 19961.
20-33 (Revised 8/96)
Edmonds Community Development Code
4. Requiring additional building set-
backs or the establishment of critical areas
tracts and/or native growth protection ease-
ments pursuant to ECDC 20.1513.160;
5. Limiting or reducing the types or den-
sities of particular uses;
6. Requiring the preparation of specific
site management plans for temporary sedimen-
tation, erosion control, or other purposes; or
7. Requiring site restoration. [Ord. 3087
§ 2, 19961-
20.15B.130
996].
20.15B.130 Development standards –
Wetlands.
Alteration to wetlands and their buffers
.shall only be allowed pursuant to the provi-
sions of ECDC 20.1513.040 or as provided
below. Any authorized alteration of a wetland
must follow the prescribed sequencing of mit-
igation as outlined in ECDC 20.1513.150.
Impacts to wetlands or their buffers shall be
compensated for at the replacement ratios
specified in ECDC 20.15B.130(D), and pursu-
ant to compensatory mitigation plan as
required within ECDC 20.15B.150.
A. Alterations.
1. Category 1 Wetlands. No alteration to
Category 1 wetlands shall be authorized unless
the city grants an exemption or exception pur-
suant to ECDC 20.1513.040 ora variance is
granted pursuant to ECDC 20.1513.170. Cate-
gory I wetlands or their buffers shall not be
used for stormwater management purposes
including engineered retention/detention or
constructed biofiltration features such as -bio-
swales. Conveyance of pretreated stormwater
may be allowed to pass through the buffer into
the Category 1 wetland if the manner of con-
veyance mimics that found in the natural buffer
condition, i.e., infiltration and/or sheet flow.
2. Category 2 Wetlands. No alteration to
Category 2 wetlands shall be authorized unless
the city grants an exemption or exception pur-
suant to ECDC 20. 1513.040 or a variance is
granted pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.170(A).
Category 2 wetlands shall not be used for
stormwater management purposes including
20.156.130
retention/detention unless such use is part of a
publicly designed and funded program to con-
trol identified stormwater problems for the
greater public good or a program installed pur-
suant to a private development permit which is
constricted to public standard, consistent with
city policy such as a basin study and dedicated
to and accepted for public use.
When use of Category 2 wetlands for reten-
tion/detention purposes is authorized, all
requirements of the Stormwater Management
Manual shall be met, and the proposal and
design is in compliance with the latest findings
of the Puget Sound Wetlands Research
Project, and the applicant demonstrates to the
satisfaction of city planning staff that no
adverse impacts will occur to the functional
values of the wetland.
Treatment of stormwater for water quality
concerns shall not be allowed within the buff-
ers of Category 2 wetlands. Conveyance of
stormwater may be allowed through the buffer
if, upon review of the project design, staff
determines that the proposed conveyance
method poses a minimum risk to the function
and value of the buffer and no adverse impacts
are posed to the wetland itself.
3. Category 3 Wetlands. The following
use of Category 3 wetlands for stormwater
management and conveyance shall apply: veg-
etation -lined swaies designed for stormwater
management may be placed within the outer
25 percent of the buffer when topographic con-
straints determine there are no other upland
alternative locations. Swales used for convey-
ance of stormwater may be placed through the
buffer only if that is shown to be the most
effective and norumpacting manner to convey
pretreated stormwater into the wetland. Cate-
gory 3 wetlands shall not be used for the treat-
ment of stormwater for water quality.
—� B. Wetland Edge Delineation. The -Federal
Manual for Identifying and Delineating Juris-
dictional Wetlands (1987) shall be used for
conducting wetland delineations for the
requirements of this title. Data collected dur-
ing a delineation study shall be included as part
20-39
(Revised 8/96)
20.158.140
of the wetland study requirements for ECDC
20.15B.140(C).
C_ Required Buffers. The following buffers
shall be required for wetlands based on the cat-
egory of wetland as outlined in ECDC
20. 15 B.060(A)(5). The city may allow buffer
averaging per the requirements and limitations
within ECDC 20.15B.080(B)(2).
Buffer conditions shall prohibit or limit the
removal or alteration of existing vegetation in
the buffer areas as necessary to preserve the
functions of the wetland. Any disturbance of
the buffer areas shall be replanted with a
diverse plant community of native vegetation
appropriate for the site approved by the city.
Category I — 100 -foot;
Category 2 — 50 -foot;
Category 3 — 25 -foot.
D. Replacement Ratios. Any person who
alters or proposes to alter a wetland or its buff-
ers shall restore or create equivalent or greater
areas of wetland or buffer than those altered in
order to compensate for wetland or buffer
losses. The following ratios apply to creation
or restoration which is. in-kind, on-site, and
timed prior to or concurrent with alteration.
These ratios do not apply to remedial actions
resulting from illegal alterations. The first
number specifies the acreage of wetlands
which are required to be replaced (created) and
the second specifies the acreage of wetlands
altered (lost).
Category l: 6:1
Category 2:
forested 3:1
shrub 2:1
emergent 1.5:1
Category 3: 1.25:1
[Ord. 3087 § 2, 19961.
20.1513.140 Critical areas studies.
A. Required. When an application for a
development proposal on a site that includes,
is adjacent to, or could significantly impact
critical areas is proposed, city staff shall
require the submission of a critical areas study,
prepared by a qualified consultant, pursuant to
(Revised 8/96) 20-40
the requirements of this section. Staff shall
make a determination whether the develop-
ment proposal site includes, is adjacent to, or
faces potentially significant impacts to critical
areas or their buffers. That determination shall
be rebuttable and the decision of the director
that any area lies within critical areas or their
buffers shall be appealable as a staff decision
in accordance with provisions of ECDC
20.105.010(A)(3).
B. Waivers. When staff determines, based
on review of the critical areas checklist, a pre-
liminary field investigation, and the review of
technical information available to staff, that:
1. There will be no alteration of the crit-
ical areas or its required buffers pursuant to the
requirements of this chapter;
2. The development proposal will not
impact the critical areas in a manner contrary
to the goals, purposes, objectives and require-
ments of this chapter; and
3. The development proposal meets the
minimum standards of this chapter; then
4. Staff may waive the requirement for a
more detailed critical areas study.
In no case may staff waive the need for a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan if criti-
cal areas impacts are identified, unless the
applicant is proposing to use a plan already
reviewed and approved by staff which meets
the criteria and standards of this chapter.
C. Critical Areas Studies — Contents. When
it is determined by the staff of the city that a
critical areas study is required for a develop-
ment activity proposal, the minimum criteria
for study content specific to each critical areas
type will be required. Detailed criteria will be
provided within the administrative procedures
for this chapter. When proposing compensa-
tory mitigation designs, additional detailed
studies will be required.
D_ City -Approved Critical Areas Consult-
ant. Promptly following the effective date of
the ordinance codified in this chapter, and at
the beginning of every calendar year thereaf-
ter, the city shall issue a request for qualifica-
tions and proposals from qualified critical
0006.90000
WSS/gjz
11/18/04
R:11 /24:/ 04gj z
ORDINANCE NO. 3527
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE BY REPEALING CHAPTER 20.15(B)
ECDC RELATING TO CRITICAL AREAS AND ENACTING IN
ITS PLACE TITLE 23 CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
REQUESTING THE MAYOR AND STAFF TO MAKE
REPORTS EVERY SIX MONTHS IN PLANNING YEAR 2005
AND ANNUALLY THEREAFTER REGARDING THE
APPLICATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE CRITICAL
AREAS ORDINANCE AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the City Council has received a report from its consultant entitled
Best Available Science Report, 2004, prepared by EDAW, Inc., the findings, conclusions and
recommendations of which are incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held public hearings, received the
recommendation of its Planning Board, and considered the information obtained by the Planning
Board through a series of public meetings, forums and hearings, and
WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges an ongoing revision to the provisions
of ECDC 19.05 relating to landslide hazard areas, and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it appropriate to make certain deviations
from the standard recommendations relating to or developed by the Washington State
Department of Ecology and CTED, based upon the unique characteristics of the City of
Edinonds referenced in said Best Available Science Report, as well as the provisions of the
City's Comprehensive Plan, including, but not limited to, V "" '
{WSS586229.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 - 1 - -S-20 5-9 Qty ,1D.-2005-8
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITYCLERK, SANDR�SCHASE��
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF E TY AT ORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PI TBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO. 3527
MAY R G HAAKENSON
11/19/2004
11/23/2004
02/10/2005
02/15/2005
{WSS586229.DOC;1/00006.900000/} -77-
R - Z5• �---- \60'h
IE 9k.5
604
SIE 9544
Z0 0'609
`B
u1,YP') I ' \
t� 4"PV6°h-Z.0%
DRAIN
0
m
�R=25' 1�A 93.1/ IE�10.211
Ga�9 %tkbf b'Pdt 4.0
RE 135
E 90.69
S5" W-110,
TEMP. R06K WEANOE,
4"-6" QUARRY 9PALL4, D" I H16K-
683\ \ \
�54Ef, IS"NDPE(5MDO1N),5L0%
— 5\PELAGE
(hEE DE1AIl,) \
—G" PV6 (11tH (EIW, 9.100
6821 �
� RE 93.5
E 91.35/ W4 \
RE 14.00
Z
w6, �,-4.02 \
I03tF,Z4"HDPE(9MOO1HJ9 0%
(4YyfEM
X116
63 #V, (W 150uD lAV ER)�95\
RE '13.93
IE `10,19
� JZ°PV6 9V0 M KAIN(E Za �� �, PV6, h 0�
68CEX>
RE 9395
S--2005.0 & SD --2005--8
V TH16KENE0
Z
EE9I�9Z
95
GARAGE
FF El --1h.9
I
4"PVG, 9.2.0%
i
9 2I5
k
94.8(EX)-
IE 91.64
I
60
1Eg40
I
hLollE 6REAK 94°%
I03
DRAIN
0
m
�R=25' 1�A 93.1/ IE�10.211
Ga�9 %tkbf b'Pdt 4.0
RE 135
E 90.69
S5" W-110,
TEMP. R06K WEANOE,
4"-6" QUARRY 9PALL4, D" I H16K-
683\ \ \
�54Ef, IS"NDPE(5MDO1N),5L0%
— 5\PELAGE
(hEE DE1AIl,) \
—G" PV6 (11tH (EIW, 9.100
6821 �
� RE 93.5
E 91.35/ W4 \
RE 14.00
Z
w6, �,-4.02 \
I03tF,Z4"HDPE(9MOO1HJ9 0%
(4YyfEM
X116
63 #V, (W 150uD lAV ER)�95\
RE '13.93
IE `10,19
� JZ°PV6 9V0 M KAIN(E Za �� �, PV6, h 0�
68CEX>
RE 9395
S--2005.0 & SD --2005--8
5-200-0-0 & SD -2005-8
`w
ld
v'
co,c v> :R\,
5-200-0-0 & SD -2005-8
February 21, 2006
FEB 2 2 _
X006
Re: File # 5-05-9/SD-05-8
To Whom It May Concern at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department,
As the owners of the driveway easement in use by the home at 509 9" Ave N, we object
to the subdivision of the lot if the new residence added will be using our driveway
easement. When we bought the home at 503 9' Ave N, the easement was to service a
single-family home under construction (which the plans said would have unfinished
storage over the garage). Since then, the "unfinished storage" has become an apartment,
increasing the likely traffic on that easement to a level in excess of that we had
anticipated. Add another single-family home (which may or may not end up with an
additional apartment), and we have a minor ROAD at our side yard instead of a
driveway.
In addition to the issue of access, it was our understanding that the lower lot was
considered natural wetlands and was, as an environmental issue, protected from further
development. Have these lands been reclassified? If so, by what agency?
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Lan-
�n_
S-2005--9 8, SD -12005-8
528 8th Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
February 22, 2006
City of Edmonds Planning Dept
Dear City of Edmonds Planning Dept,
ERMI`sr 0t`atAfl___I",
Subject: 5-05-8/SD-05-08 Proposal to Build on Wetlands and/ or Wetlands Buffer
9thAve N Edmonds, WA
Mr. Thuesen proposes to build a house on the wetlands and wetlands buffer on
this site.
A current City rule requires the City to regulate wetlands if the area is greater than
500 square feet. A 100 ft buffer is required. This rule was adopted November 2004. Prior
to then the city was required to regulate wetlands only if the wetlands area was greater
than 2500 square feet.
The original study that Mr. Wolgamott (previous owner) financed showed that the
wetlands was a category 2 wetlands larger than 10,000 square feet. Copy of drawing
showing the outline of the study is attached.
The recent Pentec Study completed in May 2005 stated the area of the wetlands
was larger than 2500 square feet.
A survey of the site two months after the Pentec Study indicated the area within
the remaining flags was less than 2300 square feet. When questioned about the
discrepancy Pentec could only note that area in question had a similar outline!!
Per Pentec—"the LSA map shows the size of the wetlands to be about 2291 square feet.
In our May 17, 2005 wetland delineation report we estimated the size of the wetland to be
greater to be greater than 2500 square feet. Our estimate was not based on any on-site
measurement and was approximate only. The area of the wetland as reported on the LSA
map is a more accurate measure of the wetland size, assuming all of the wetland
boundary flags were accurately located."
The surveyor was only given instructions to measure the area inside the flags at
the time of the survey. No one from the City or Pentec was at the site to confirm that all
the flags were still in their correct location.
These flags could have been removed and /or moved by anyone. To complicate
matters even more shortly after the survey Mr. Thuesen removed the wetlands vegetation
and many of the flags. A very suspicious action! ! !
5-2005-9 & SD -2005-8
Based on the two professional studies and visual inspection of the site it is
obvious the size of the wetland is greater than 2500square feet.
Mr. Thuesen has a history of doing whatever it takes to accomplish his goals. He
built a non -code retaining wall on my property line without a permit. After the fact he
submitted inaccurate drawing suggesting that there was an existing retaining wall on the
property line. On his existing construction site he built an accessory dwelling (small
second house) with out a permit. His permit specified a garage with storage. He has
ignored the City's Site Management Regulations that requires erosion control
management of the construction site. Consequently tons of mud and water have been
dumped on my site twice, on my neighbor's site and the wetlands. He makes promises
that he does not keep. When he built the property line retaining wall over 8 month ago he
advised that he would clean up my site and add some plants. To date remediation of my
site has not been completed. He does not always tell the full truth. Prior to the start of his
construction project he advised he was only going to build one house at the site at the
same time he was applying for a short plat to build other houses on the site.
The city must regulate this wetlands site per their code. The surveyor's data is
inaccurate since the flag locations were not controlled for two months and have been
removed so they cannot be confirmed. In addition, no one from Pentec or the city was at
the site to confirm the surveying process correctly identified and measured the wetlands
area. Consequently they cannot be used as the basis for not regulating this wetlands site.
Note that under even the previous rules the city could regulate wetlands that are less than
2500 square feet. As a minimum the City should have Pentec re flag the site and have the
site resurveyed.
Sincerely,
J,arrme McQueen, Ptand Barbara McQueen
r,
LAttachments: Wetlands plots and Wetlands photo 2006.
,erM
a�- `�' 2-.8i F +•'- f`�-"{r• e
Ot
MW
gg
FK
ji
I UP
� !U0
..z-yzte
' ee
z 9t -� ~ F
X
MOM -
i
41 s d
KF�
` 1
n + F
Xi
g x* c pisIA
I -
-
-A-
17,
ONE'r"
4 �!/-.�
-3 '-''4 Ate-
c3re t fs-,. �'.
'^
5a
-rM—;,fi 3 }
<i - t-_.••.,-x� Lj=,., u! 't i� ic�xti a gr- j S 35'.: �3
— tt
}rr.Of
1 1
{ s _
Q ; k•T * fLT
'2 # r --ti f ii, -;fa ,z3 i --,
Yg ,z t
r sr �`a• B ` !` 1 a c �' >�, n '
tg au£ _;�' / :., t �.. .•'� ?:. may$ 5 �,.. _ �'t § - R
Yl
e t i3 f� if{
t • c `"' { ..�.` d'!' t mss' a �� ,�,�' 'z n„ E`3" i s€.
Al
YY,- /v
-", "_
471,
d
# FTg rg
I�
'AM
'Sf 99SLl 'ON 'j'd 836N(1 03080:)38 I
SONONO3 i0 .1110 3H1 01 030AN00 N
S 'N 3nN3Ad y�8 PPm
,00'014 3 „SS,9Z-00 S y
I 1 �yF
I ami, 9r9, J, .',.J'
L' D 5
oz:j ' /)1 A N
Ikj N IN,9Q, 3 O
< y�Q
O
` V A
u'I' V
IA ,LZ.Zf.00 N
N
o
;I z
z
�m
N.
Ln
I�
D
N
i ,00'511 ,
I
II ,
i
Iv
JND sA
'�
\/,1
I\\
\
C
\ \
z
W
I
m
K: W
>>Z
-
I
a
\\ s
v
P
\
s\
O
{/,
-.I
ca
m \ Flo;
N
I
\ yrs•
N
N
\
I
tP
N :a!
V:
ti
v
m
` V A
u'I' V
IA ,LZ.Zf.00 N
N
o
;I z
z
�m
N.
Ln
I�
D
N
i ,00'511 ,
I
II ,
i
Iv
Jp
gFP
�a z
m
z
Ulu z z z
LL 2
9 - A
i
W Q=
" n
Y 8s. 100:j
;^ c"o
$ SN R jaN
Z Z
Aa' O
� � m
ii
-= ---Vo-___-
--' -
-N 311N3AV 410
:i�
tlq
R:
.N 311N3AV 416
$F jvgx
` u sxY "gg3
g� �: A a� V
r s R 6Q 4 _31 z ¢� >go
>i
.; SH 'aun
�agF o
ao n 1p z 9QQ EQ 5 sYRECEIVE
x $ MAR _
2005
n
Z PERMIT COUNTER
�p
:i�
tlq
R:
o
>E
.N 311N3AV 416
$F jvgx
` u sxY "gg3
g� �: A a� V
r s R 6Q 4 _31 z ¢� >go
>i
.; SH 'aun
�agF o
ao n 1p z 9QQ EQ 5 sYRECEIVE
x $ MAR _
2005
n
Z PERMIT COUNTER
�p
:i�
tlq
R:
.N 311N3AV 416
$F jvgx
` u sxY "gg3
g� �: A a� V
r s R 6Q 4 _31 z ¢� >go
>i
.; SH 'aun
�agF o
ao n 1p z 9QQ EQ 5 sYRECEIVE
x $ MAR _
2005
n
Z PERMIT COUNTER
VIC
C>
v
rr.
7b
tr
E
E
528 8th Ave N -a
Edmonds, WA. 98020
February 22,2006;„=?bi
City of Edmonds Planning Dept.,
Subject: S-05-8/SD-05-08 Proposal to Built on Wetlands and/or Buffer
— 509 9th Ave. N,
Edmonds, WA.
The application submitted by Mr. Thuesen and viewed from the Planning Department's
file shows several revisions including plot plans changes. No one was able to say what
the current plan was based on what was present in the file. How can this application be
considered under/before Nov 2004 Wetlands Code when it is still incomplete in February
2006. i
r' im I n, PE and Barbara McQueen
528 81h Ave N
Edmonds, WA. 98020
February 22,2006
City of Edmonds Planning Dept.,
Subject: S-05-8/SD-05-08 Proposal to Built on Wetlands and/or Buffer — 509 9th Ave. N,
Edmonds, WA.
Non -Payment of Application Fees.
The City of Edmonds file did not show a receipt for payment of Fees. Therefore
this application must be considered incomplete and must meet current Wetland
Regulations.
J m cQue n, PE and Barbara McQueen
3- , -
4
528 8h Ave N
Edmonds, WA. 98020
February 22,2006
City of Edmonds Planning Dept.,
Subject: S-05-8/SD-05-08 Proposal to Built on Wetlands and/or Buffer — 509 9th Ave. N,
Edmonds, WA.
Incomplete Short Plat Application
Mr. Thuesen's application was incomplete. Data required by the City of Edmonds was
not on file . When requested the Planning Dept. has not been able to produce data
showing a complete file. Therefore this application must be considered incomplete and
subject to curren .,NN' v 2004' Wetlands R ulatons
'Vr %0"
T6wcQuee , E and Barbara McQueen
528 8th Ave N RECEIVED
Edmonds, WA 98020
March 8, 2006
Edmonds Development Services Department
121 5th Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Dear Edmonds Development Services Department,
Subject: S-05-9/SD-05-8 Short Plat 509 9th Ave N
This proposal is in conflict with the intent of the City of Edmonds Council.
This proposal has a confusing and extended time line
MAR 0 9 2006
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
On November 23, 2004, the Edmonds Council voted over -whelming, 6-1 to revise the
regulated wetlands threshold to 500 square feet from 2500 square feet. It was clear from the minutes of
the meeting and the vote that the Council's intent was to regulate all significant wetlands. The Planning
Department needs to follow the directives of Council and regulate this property.
My understanding of the Critical Areas Ordinance is that the purpose of the Ordinance was to
protect natural resources. Further, the language in the Ordinance indicates the Ordinance is to be
liberally construed to carry out the purpose and intent of the Ordinance.
Timeline and questions and comments
Edmonds Council approves new wetlands regulations ---November 23, 2004
Date of Application— January 18, 2005.
Application Complete --- January 13, 2005
How can he complete an application prior to submittal? In addition, the data in Mr. Thuesen's
short plat file is confusing and inconsistent.
New wetlands regulations are effective--- February 15. 2005 (how come it was almost 3
months after the council voted to change the regulations?)
Letter from Edmonds Development Services Department dated February 17, 2005 advises Mr.
Thuesen his application is technically incomplete. (this application is acknowledged to be incomplete
almost 3 months after the new rules were voted in by the Council and 2 days after the web site notation
of effective date.)
Letter from Mr. Thuesen on a three -lot subdivision is submitted to the city on September 1,
2005. (Mr. Thuesen dated it 11-20-04)
February 15, 2006 City posts a Notice of Development Application for a two -lot subdivision—
with a proposal to build a house on the wetlands and /or the wetlands buffer. (15 months after new
wetlands regulations were enacted by the City Council)
This timeline clearly shows that there was never a timely "complete application" filed on this
project that should give Mr. Thuesen grandfather rights. Therefore, the current wetlands rules that the
Council voted in on 11-23-04 should apply.
3
James McQueen and Barbara McQueen
3
� 1.
528 8th Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
March 12, 2006
City of Edmonds Development Services Department
121 5th Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Dear City of Edmonds Development Services Department,
Subject: # 5-05-9/SD-05-8 Two lot Subdivision
The wetland is larger than 2500 square feet.
The wetland on this site is at least 5000- 6000 square feet. This estimate is based on a site inspection.
The drawing submitted by Mr Thuesen, when he applied for a building permit for the construction in at
5099 th Ave N represents the wetland area quite well (a copy is attached). This conclusion is consistent
with the May 2005 report that stated the wetlands were greater than 2500 square feet.
The LSA survey made in July 2005 showing a 2291 square feet wetland is apparently incorrect. The
wetland delineation flags must have been moved.
I would also like to note that Mr. Thuesen removed the flags and wetlands vegetation shortly after the
survey was completed.
This wetland should be regulated. It is 10 times the minimum size in the current regulation and 2 times
the minimum size of the old regulations.
JMcQueen P and Barbara McQueen
Attachment
��A"
ii
!I
-
----- r-_----_--_-_-_----r-'N
-- -►
3nN:tAv 440
I
Z
IN
,
1 it 3
io�4
f
!
a
1 -[I
, ucm•. ,w
N 3NN31Y Vl6
nz 1 E3'Y. cA i@�� o
a ., oz BFx g�x
if m 4 Q i
FIX
m
A R Fa 5 Q gRpe t�'vR A c$k q
m4yp
64 a &j �q4t 0' 29 �$
n rs�
IECEIVE
V1
z
MAR -7 2005
z
PERWT COUNTER
Z
IN
,
1 it 3
io�4
f
��\j'`
r• ; _.. may,
.. ,g.....
�Ez
!
a
1 -[I
, ucm•. ,w
N 3NN31Y Vl6
nz 1 E3'Y. cA i@�� o
a ., oz BFx g�x
if m 4 Q i
FIX
m
A R Fa 5 Q gRpe t�'vR A c$k q
m4yp
64 a &j �q4t 0' 29 �$
n rs�
IECEIVE
V1
z
MAR -7 2005
z
PERWT COUNTER
observed at SP -3. Here the soil is dark brown (IOYR 3/3) sandy loam in the
top 10 inches, with a dark yellowish brown (1 OYR 4/6) sandy loam matrix
beneath it.
® Hydrology. Wetland hydrology was not present at either of the upland
sample plots. Soils were moist at both pits but not saturated., At SP -2, the
depth to saturation was at 18 inches. Saturation to the surface for at least
12.5 percent of the growing season must be present to be a positive
indicator of wetland hydrology. No soil saturation was observed at SP -3.
Because groundwater was so deep at these sample plots, we assume that
the soil is not saturated to the surface earlier in the growing season.
WETLAND SUMMARY
We identified and delineated one wetland within the study area. The
jurisdictional determinations are preliminary and subject to verification by the
City of Edmonds, Corps, and Ecology. Because the wetland is greater than
2L500 square fee. but, ie5s than one, acre, with a forested wetland class, this
wetland is rated as a Category 2 as per the wetland classification system in the
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC 20.7 56.060).
REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS
LIMITATIONS
The Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC 20.15B.130) requires
buffers of 50 feet for Category 2 wetlands.
Work for this project was performed, and this report prepared, in accordance
with generally accepted professional practices for the nature and conditions of
the work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was
performed. it is intended for the exclusive use of the City of Edmonds for
specific application to the referenced site. This report is not meant to represent
a legal opinion. No other warranty, express or implied, is made.
reiaec; rn+aronmentai
12130-16 May 17, 2005 Page 4
N
0
z
z
0
N
` S 00'26'55" E 110.00'
8th AVENUE N.
o
o,
--
` S 00'26'55" E 110.00'
8th AVENUE N.
o
o,
528 8th Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
March 14, 2006 RECEIVED
Edmonds Development Services Department MAR 1 2006
121 5th Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Dear Edmonds Development Services Department,
Subject: S-05-9/SD-05-8 Short Plat 509 9th Ave N
Significant changes have made to the proposed application after February 15, 2005
On January 18, 2005 Mr Thuesen submitted an incomplete application to build a new single-family
residence on the steep slope of the site with access to the site from 9"' Ave N.
Apparently this application was submitted just to try to avoid the wetlands rules voted in by the City
Council on 11-23-04.
Mr Thuesen then changed his proposal to a three lot short plat. One new house would be built on the
steep slope. A second new house would be built on the wetlands.
Mr Thuesen submitted another proposal, which is the current plan, to build one new house on the
wetlands/wetlands buffer. The access to this site is from 8th Ave N.
Since these significant changes have been made after 2-15-05, the current wetlands rules should
apply.
The wetlands on this site has been classified as "category 2". The buffer for a "category 2" wetland is
100 feet, as I understand the rules. Therefore the plot plan needs be revised to meet these
requirements.
The new plot plan would also have to meefthe City's steep slope requirements.
528 8th Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
March 15, 2006
RECEIVED
MAR 1 5 Lb
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
City of Edmonds Development Services Department /C-
121 5th Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Dear City of Edmonds Development Services Department,
Subject: 5-05-9/SD-05-8 509 9th Ave N Short Plat
The gararge/illegalaccessory dwelling under construction at 509 91h N will have an illegal non -code
setback if this short plat is approved.
Mr. Thuesen apparently always was planning to subdivide this site.
If this short plat is approved, a condition of the approval should require that he move or remove this
building
k� W"�McQueen a arbara McQueen
February 27, 2006
524 Eighth Avenue North PERMIT 01,C)UNTE
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Steve Bullock
City of Edmonds Development Services Department
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Re: Notice of Development Application, File # 5-05-9/SD-05-8, Thuesen Custom Homes
Dear Mr. Bullock:
In my opinion, the proposed project will have a negative impact to adjacent property
owners and the environment, and the application for this project should not be approved.
The Project Description in the Notice of Development Application says it well: this
application seeks to build in a steep slope hazard area. Indeed, significant dangers will
arise from the proposed structure and its construction.
1. This property is an isolated wetland, supportin1l diverse animal and plant life.
I understand that current City rules require regulation of the wetland if its area exceeds 500
square feet, and, accordingly, a 100 foot buffer zone is required. The previous owner, Mr.
Wolgamott, had a study in which the wetlands were shown to be greater than 10,000
square feet. A subsequent Pentec study shows that the area is greater than 2,500 square
feet. Later, Pentec amended its study to show an area of about 2,291 square feet,
conveniently under the previous threshold of regulation, which was 2,500 square feet.
The drop in the number of square feet in Pentec's report is suspicious, to say the least.
Pentec gives a disclaimer that their estimate assumes that the boundary flags were
"accurately placed." Given the accessibility of the property, the stakes could have been
moved by children who go by there frequently on their way to school at Holy Rosary, by
the operators of the heavy equipment which Mr. Thuesen had taking samples in the area, or
by other parties. One has to question the integrity of the measurement process, given these
factors.
Notwithstanding these "letter of the law" machinations, the fact is that this is a wetland.
There is standing water on the land much of the time (this despite a drain someone
installed that apparently can't be found on city maps). This is corroborated by the soupy
muck that Mr. Thuesen's excavator slogged up during his test -taking. Most importantly is
the evidential animal and plant life. If necessary, I can even produce photographs of
swimming ducks on the property!
2. The construction process will threaten the neighboring properties.
My home at 524, and my neighbor's at 520 Eighth Avenue North, are built on substantial
pilings. One can only assume that, given the undeniable sogginess of the neighboring soil,
S-2005-9 & SD -200,5-8
that pilings will also be required on the subject project. Mr. Thuesen's excavator produced
dramatic vibrations from hitting tree trunks during his sampling. This shook our home,
despite being many feet away. Driving of these pilings and other constriction activities
will produce substantial vibrations, which could result in dramatic settling of the soil. This
could be similar to the liquefaction produced by earthquakes, and could result in lateral and
vertical stresses not anticipated by the engineers for my property. At the very least, Mr.
Thuesen should provide an engineering study to prove that his construction will not impact
the neighboring homes.
Obviously, removing surface area from the site will affect the pattern of groundwater
percolation substantially. The effect of the new flows will necessarily alter the balance of
underground water concentrations, and a complete study of this is necessary to assure that
neighboring structures are not affected.
The Preliminary Development Plan map for the project shows that Mr. Thuessen intends to
dig into the hill behind my home to the extent of five gradient lines. Therefore, a
significant amount of water run-off area is being altered. The redirected water must go
somewhere. It won't be able to percolate in the area of the construction as in the past;
therefore it must go around the new development, to the immediate and detrimental impact
of the neighboring properties. Perhaps that is why the City of Edmonds refers this project
as being in a steep slope hazard area!
3. The application beim evaluated may be invalid.
My neighbor says that he notes substantial revisions to the application; if the project is
substantially different, you should consider requiring a new application. My neighbor also
says that the City of Edmonds showed no evidence that the fees for the permit were paid; if
so, you should consider requiring a new application.
The Washington State Department of Labor and Industries says that the applicant's
contractor's license is suspended, that it has no workers compensation insurance in place,
and that its general liability insurance expired eleven months ago. The apparent
incomplete legal standing leads one to believe that a new permit should be considered.
Mr. Bullock, this is a project which should not be built, due to significant environmental
and structural hazards. Please subject the application to intense scrutiny to assure that the
safety of the surrounding citizens and their property is preserved.
Your r ,
Charles A. LaNasa, CPA, General Engineering Contractor
�V_y,J/ J
March 15, 2006 1 n
524 Eighth Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Mr. Steve Bullock
City of Edmonds Development Services Department
_:
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Re: Notice of Development Application, File #S-05-9/SD-05-8, Thuesen Custom Homes
Dear Mr. Bullock:
We submitted a letter on February 27, 2006, in which we outlined problems with the above -referenced
application, including comments regarding wetlands concerns, construction issues, and application
irregularities. We continue to believe in the opinions contained therein. In reviewing the application
further, additional concerns arise.
The application of which we were given a copy, which is dated January 18 without a year indicated (could
be 2005 or 2006, based on the signature dated 2004) indicates that the application is for a "Short Plat for
new single family residence" — note the singular "residence." The Notice we were sent indicates that the
project description is an "Application to divide one lot into a two -lot subdivision..." The Notice does not
appear to describe the permit we were given to review. Based on what we see here, we question whether
there is a valid existing permit to do the subdivision.
On your "Short Subdivision Submittal Requirements" checklist, the first requirement is a copy of a
"Critical Areas Determination." We were given a copy of such a determination letter preferred for Fred
Wolgamott dated October 22, 2002. In this letter, the city references a study done September 17, 2002
which identifies the property as a wetland. Further, the letter indicates concern that the property is a "Steep
Slope Hazard Area." Then there is an incomplete and confusing paper trail in which the ultimate
supposition is that there is no problem with wetlands, after all. We remain unconvinced.
The Zipper Zeman letter of March 31, 2005 to Star Campbell of the City of Edmonds confirms that this is a
"Steep Slope" areas, and is composed of sand. The fate of buildings built on sand is proverbial; common
sense throws a flag of caution here. Their study showed no groundwater at forty inches (40") and no
groundwater found in test holes dug by Mr. Bruce (we are unsure who "Mr. Bruce" is). Perhaps there is
some place on the property that condition exists, but we see standing water in a lot of areas, and we know
that some test holes dug produced very muddy sludge. Zipper Zeman says that they recommend
engineering studies, geotechnical explorations (partly because the building plans are not far enough to
provide the data) and engineering assessment for infiltration (with a designed infiltration system). We
would like copies of these reports, if they were performed.
We are not geotechnical engineers, but common sense indicates that there may be problems here. As active
and involved citizens of Edmonds, we are pleased to be involved in this process, and request that all
available information be made available to all affected parties. We appreciate your attention to these
critical matters.
.3` j s February 27, 2006
Mr. Steve Bullock
Planner
City of Edmonds, Planning Division
121 5th Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Subdivision Application 5-05-9/ SD -05-08 at 509 9th Ave. N., Edmonds, WA
Thuesen Custom Homes, Inc. — Applicant
Dear Mr. Bullock:
In addition to our concerns regarding the above referenced property (the "Property")
outlined in our letter to the City of Edmonds (City) dated July 21, 2005, we want to ensure that in
addition to City regulations, that all applicable state and federal regulations are also complied with
as set forth in the letter submitted to your office by the Department of Ecology (DOE) dated August
22, 2005 regarding the Property. Per the regulations, the applicant is responsible for notifying the
applicable state (DOE) and federal (Corp. of Engineers) agencies of its intent to develop the
Property (with critical areas) so the proposal may be reviewed for state and federal compliance. We
request applicant Thuesen make such notification, before moving forward with this project with the
City. We also request that the existing wetland border on this Property be well marked to ensure
compliance to City, state, and federal requirements for buffer zones and avoid further damage to the
wetlands.
Because the Property includes an isolated wetland, we are concerned about water drainage
onto our adjacent property from the above hillside. During the wet season, there is substantial
standing water on the Property. Altering this property (soil excavation and tree/vegetation removal)
could result in additional drainage and land settling problems on both properties. We are also
concerned about the stability of the hillside, which support several homes above on Daley Street.
The general area has a history of significant problems with unstable soil, high water table, and
drainage, the most recent example being at the Holy Rosary Church in 2000. The Holy Rosary
Church is adjacent to our property and the Thuesen property. In the year 2000 time frame, Holy
Rosary suffered significant settling problems, related to and arising out of the water table/drainage
in that area, which necessitated major, and costly, repairs to the church. Insurance did not cover the
bulk of the repair costs, and as a result, the church (through its parishioners) footed the bill.
Our concerns with the stability of the soil arose, in part, out of what we witnessed on July
15, 2005, when the applicant used a backhoe to remove soil samples from the Property. Each time
the backhoe struck the bucket on a cedar log to clear the soil from it, our house (built
on pilings) started shaking. Our home is about 50 feet from the above-described log. If the simple
action of the backhoe striking its bucket on a log could cause our house to shake, what would be the
effect/damage on our home if a more invasive, and vibrating type activity were performed for
5-2005-9 & SD -2005-8
Page 2
several days or weeks in duration, such as excavating a building site or installing several pilings
underground on a new home?
As stated in the City code, applications are not to be approved if they could potentially have
negative impact to adjacent property owners and the environment. For these reasons, we
request the City reject the Thuesen application to build a home on the steep slope hazard area above
the wetland. The Property should remain in its current state to continue to serve as the required
watershed for this critical area on 8d' Ave. N. at the base of Edmonds Bowl. This action is
necessary to avoid damage to several adjacent property owners during both the construction phase
(vibration) and post construction phase (drainage/soil) of the proposed home site.
Very truly yours,
r
Scott and Maria Mallory (520 8't' Ave. N.)
cc: Charlie and Carolyn LaNasa (524 8' Ave. N.)
Gary and Joan Bloom ( 600 8h Ave. N.)
Jim and Barbra McQueen (528 8th Ave. N.)
Ken and Vera Reidy ( 731 Daley St.)
Laura Casey, WA Department of Ecology
John Pell, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
Duane Bowman, City of Edmonds -Planning Div.
Gary Haakenson, City of Edmonds - Mayor
Enclosures:
K
e
9
.;
E
C
S
a
.�
Q
I
A
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office. • 3190 160th Avenue SE • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 e (425) 649-7000
August 22, 2005
Mr. Steve Bullock, Planner
City of Edmonds Planning Division
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds WA 98020
Dear Mr. Bullock:
RE: Subdivision Application S-05-09, Thuesen Custom Homes, Inc.
Ecology has been contacted by citizens of Edmonds concerned about the potential impact of the
subject Thuesen Custom Homes subdivision application on wetlands. I understand that there is a
wetland on the property that is proposed for subdivision. The wetland boundary delineation and
its verification can make a significant difference as to whether or not a small wetland is regulated
by the City of Edmonds' critical areas ordinance..
Wetlands are also regulated under the Federal Clean Water Act and State Water Pollution
Control Act. Please notify the applicant that they are responsible for notifying the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to request a jurisdictional determination regarding these wetlands, and of
their intent regarding filling the wetlands. The Corps will determine whether the wetlands are in
their jurisdiction or are hydrologically -isolated, if the proposal can be approved. under a
Nationwide Permit, and what compensatory mitigation is necessary for the wetland fill. If the
Corps approves a Nationwide Permit, Ecology will also review the proposal to determine
whether the project complies with the State's Nationwide Permit conditions.
While the Corps of Engineers no longer has regulatory oversight of isolated wetlands that do not
have an interstate commerce connection, isolated wetlands in Washington are still subject to
regulation under State law. The Department of Ecology is responsible for administering the
State Water Pollution Control Act (RCW 90.48). Under this State law, wetlands are "waters of
the state" including wetlands considered "isolated" by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Discharges to waters of the state, including the placement of fill in a wetland, are regulated by
Ecology under RCW Chapter 90.48. Projects that will have impacts to isolated wetlands, as
determined by the Corps, need to obtain an administrative order from Ecology.
K91
Steve Bullock, Planner
RE: Subdivision Application 5-05-09, Thuesen Custom Homes, Inc.
August 22, 2005
Page 2 of 2
Once the Corps of Engineers has made their determination, then the'applicant should contact me
at Ecology for further information. If I can be of assistance to the City with this project, or if you
would like to discuss my comments, please give me a call at (425) 649-7148 or send email to
cala461@ecy.wa.gov.
Sincere y,
Laura C. Case
Wetland Specialist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program
LCC:rc
cc: Rebekah Padgett, 401 Coordinator, SEA Program
Erik Stockdale, Interim 401/Wetlands Supervisor
Geoff Tallent, Interim Section Manager
July 21, 2005
Mr. Steve Bullock
Planner
City of Edmonds, Planning Division
121 5th Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Mr. Eric Thuesen
Eric Thuesen Custom Homes, LLC
18333 85"' Place West
Edmonds, WA 98026
Re: Subdivision Application 5-05--9 at 509 9th Ave. N., Edmonds, WA
Thuesen Custom Homes, Inc. — Applicant
Dear Messrs. Bullock and Thuesen:
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me and the other home owners who own property
adjacent to or in the vicinity of Mr. Thuesen's current construction project and proposed subdivision
at the above address on July 20, 2005 at the City Office. As indicated, my wife and I own the home
located at 520 8th Ave. N, Edmonds. The purpose for requesting the meeting was to discuss the
concerns we have regarding the development of the Thuesen property (including subdivision plans
for two lower lots). Our concerns center on the stability of the soil in general, and the redesignation
of an area, which for more than 15 years, has been designated as wetlands.
With regard to the stability of the soil, this concern arose out of what we witnessed on July
15, 2005, when an operator of a backhoe was taking soils samples in what we had understood to be
the wetland area on the subject property. Each time the backhoe driver struck the bucket on a cedar
log to clear the soil from it, our house (built on pilings) started shaking. Our home is about 50 feet
from the above described log. Our concern is that if the backhoe simply striking its bucket on a log
could cause the house to shake, what would be the effect on the home if a more invasive, and
vibrating type activity were performed, such as excavating a building site or installing several
pilings underground on a new home?
We subsequently learned that Eric Thuesen Custom Homes, LLC's license as registered
contractor was suspended on March 22, 2005 due to the expiration of its liability insurance. We
understand that neither a person building his own home nor subdivision applicant/developer needs
to be a licensed contractor. This apprehension, naturally, flowed from wondering what recourse we
would have should Mr. Thuesen's activities cause accidental damage to our home.
In response to our concerns regarding the current and possible future construction, Mr.
Thuesen explained he let his companies' contractor's registrations lapse because of the expense to
maintain the insurance and so forth, since it wasn't necessary for him to have to build his own house
July 21, 2005
Page 2
on the upper hill portion of the lot. Mr. Thuesen stated his homeowner's insurance would cover any
damage occurring as a result of his construction activities (including but not limited to the
installation of the storm/sewer drainage lines) and that he would renew his contractor's registration
and insurance when it was time to develop the proposed subdivision. In light of this response, we
would request a copy of the portion of the homeowner's insurance policy that describes this
coverage.
With regard to the wetland issue, the lower part of the lot has been designated a wetland for
more than 15 years. The Pentec Environmental Report dated May 17, 2005 concluded there was
wetland area greater than 2,500 square feet but less than 1 acre, and classified the area (which is on
the lower, level end of the lot) as a Category 2 Wetland. The Pentec report also indicated the
wetland boundaries were marked with sequentially numbered markers made using orange wetland
tape and the sample plot locations were marked with blue flagging.
Despite the previous wetland designation of 10,000 square feet prepared by Wetland
Resources in June 2002 and Pentec's recent determination that more than 2,500 square feet of the
area was wetland, Lovell Sauerland and Associates ("LSA") apparently performed a survey on or
around July 7, 2005 and determined the area in question was only 2,291 square feet, resulting in a
non regulated wetland. We are concerned that LSA properly completed the survey and/or used the
wetland flag markings as established by Pentec since approximately 2 months lapsed between the
time of the wetland study and actual survey, during which time the location of the tape could have
been compromised by a variety of factors.
With respect to the Wetlands' designation, Mr. Bullock indicated the City would not accept
another third -party study/survey of the area in question, as requested by the adjacent property
owners. However, the City will confer with Pentec to verify LSA used the correct flag placement in
the Pentec specified locations to perform the survey. We understand this verification will occur
within the next few weeks. We would like to receive a copy of what documents are generated as a
result of the verification.
Based on the meeting, this will be an ongoing project, between Mr. Thuesen completing his
own home, and developing plans for two additional homes on the lower part of the lot. As adjacent
property owners, we would like to be included in the process as required. As such, we request
copies of all public documents related to the subject application, as well as notices of any hearings
related to the applications or subsequent permits per the standard process.
Mr. Thuesen offered to walk with adjacent property owners on the site to discuss what trees
we would like to see remain, if possible to provide natural barriers for both existing and new homes.
Mr. Thuesen also agreed to review the related designs with the adjacent property owners to confirm
which trees will remain once the preliminary design is complete.
July 21, 2005
Page 3
Again, we thank you for attending the meeting.
Very truly yours,
Scott Mallory
cc: Carolyn LaNasa (524 e Ave. N.)
Joan Bloom ( 600 8h Ave. N.)
Jim McQueen (528 Otth Ave. N.)
Ken Reidy ( 731 Daley St.)
March 14, 2006
Mr. Steve Bullock
Planner
City of Edmonds, Planning Division
121 5th Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
- - - W 1
Re: Subdivision Application S-05-91 SD -05-08 at 509 9th Ave. N., Edmonds, WA
Thuesen Custom Homes, Inc. — Applicant
Dear Mr. Bullock:
In addition to our concerns regarding the above referenced property (the "Property")
outlined in our letters to the City of Edmonds (City) dated July 21, 2005 and February 27, 2006, we
want to also express our concerns regarding the application submitted on January 18, 2005.
In review of the applicant's file documents it appears that he has not submitted the required
items as per the City of Edmonds Short Subdivision Submittal Requirements. Specifically, the
required Critical Areas Study for the subject property was not included at the time of the original
application. As per the requirements "A copy of this Determination must be submitted with the
application, along with any required Critical Areas Study for the subject property".
Therefore, due to the incompleteness of this application submitted on January 18, 2005 the
application should be denied.
Very truly yours,
Scott and Maria Mallory (520 8t1' Ave. N.)
March 12, 2006
TO: Edmonds City Planners
FROM. DALEY STREET RESIDENTS
SUBJECT: 509 9th Ave North
006
We are writing to share our concerns and objections to the proposed new house.
Since we have lived on Daley Street (9 years), the proposed area has been zoned as
wetland. The area supports both native wildlife and plants. We frequently see ducks
swimming in the several ponds. It has been a protected area for generations. This area must
not be destroyed by development.
We are also very concerned about the probability of resulting land shifts and slides. Besides
its beauty, this area protects established structures with its intricate root systems. Why would
anyone consider building even a tree house on a "sloping hazardous" site?
We are all homeowners on Daley Street (no renters), and we take great pride in our block
and community.
Please do not even consider endangering the area. As tax paying, responsible long-term
residences of Edmonds, pleas deny this and any future attempts to destroy our
neighborhood.
Bill and Kathy Baird Cif
850 Daley Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
Laurie Niven
847 Daley Street��-fits
Edmonds, WA 98020
5--2005--9 & SD -2005--8
Illi I v G U V U A C . T f 1 1. ♦ v a . - J — —. a — a —U .. v v — . - — - — — . — — — — — — — -
Kenneth E. Reidy
Vera H. Reidy
771 Daley Street
Edmonds, Washington 98020
March 15, 2006
Steve Bullock
City of Edmonds Dove oprnent Services Department
121 Fifth Avenue No
Edmonds, Washington, 98020
MAR i 5 2006
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Re: Notice of Development Application, File # 5.05-9/SD•05.8, Thuesen Custom Homes
Dear Mr. Bullock:
In our opinion, the proposed project will have a negative impact to adjacent property
owners and the envim ' ant, and the application for this project should not be approved.
The Project Descriptio in the Notice of Development Application says it well: this
application seeks to in a steep slope hazard area. Indeed, significant dangers will
arise from the proposed structure and the construction could cause damage to homes
bordering the property
We understand that cuh� ant City rules require regulation of the wetland if its area exceeds
500 square feet, and, a rdingly, a 100 foot buffer zone is requited. The previous owner,
Mr, Wolgamott, had a tudy in which the wetlands were shown to be greater than 10,000
square feet. A subsea t Pentec study shows that the area is greater than 2,500 square
feet, Later, Pentec am ded its study to show an area of about 2,291 square feet,
conveniently under the previous threshold of regulation, which was 2,500 square feet.
The drop in the numbs# of square feet in Penteo's report is suspicious, to say the least.
Incredibly, almost two dull months passed between the time the flags were placed by
Pentec on May 11, 200 and the survey finally revised by Lovell-Sauerland and Associates
on July 7, 2005. We believe it is a leap of faith to assume the flags remained in their
original positions this period of time. Pentec will not provide positive assurance
that the flags were, not ved because they cannot do so. Instead they state that it is
reasonable to assumeey weae not moved. This is unacceptable considering the highly
suspicious nature of th massive reduction in wetland's size from the prior study. divan
the accessibility of the perty, the stakes could have been moved by children who go by
there frequently on the
way to school at Holy Rosary, by the operators of the heavy
equipment which Mr. uesen had taking samples in the area, or by other parties. One has
to question the integrity of the measurement process, given these factors.
S-=2005-9 & SD -2005-3
PIa3f iJ cuuo is;nir i V-J11C--J X3U11u1n6 If , .oma- ..,-1-----
Notwithstanding these 'letter of the law" machinations, the fact is that this is a wetland,
There is standing wate on the land much of the time (this despite a drain someone
installed that apparently► can't be found on city maps). This is corroborated by the soupy
muck that Mr. Thueser�'s excavator slogged up during his test -taking. Most importantly is
the evidential annual a6d plant life. Amazingly, a pink wetland's flag placed by the
company that datermino the wetlands measured 10,000 square feet still sits at the corner
of the wetlands that Peotec cut off and standing water sits underneath the old flag.
Our home at 771 Dale3 Street was subject to intense vibration during the "soil tamping"
process on the oonstnu tion of the new home Mr. Thuesen is currently constructing. I work
at home and at timesvibration was so bothersome that I could not work. Imagine
working in your home)f8oe and every other minute or so, your whole office starts to
vibrate intensely as die soil is tamped. One can only assume that, given the proposed
project is in a steep sloe hazard area, considerable soil tamping will be required. The
related vibrations will impair my ability to work at home: More importantly, the vibrations
may cause damage to home and the large rockery we have on our property. If Pilings
will be required on the subject project, the impact will be even worse. Mr. Thuesen's
excavator produced dn matic vibrations from hitting tree trunks during his sampling. This
shook our home, despi being many feet away. Driving of these pilings and other
construction activities Yill produce substantial vibrations, which could result in dramatic
settling of the soil. Tho could be similar to the liquefaction produced by earthquakes, and
could result in lateral d vertical stresses not anticipated by the engineers for my property.
At the very least, Mr. Thuesen should provide an engineering study to prove that his
construction will not impact the neighboring homes.
Obviously, removing st rface area from the site will affect the pattern of groundwater
percolation substantial) , The effect of the new flows will necessarily alter the balance of
underground water con trations, and a complete study of this is necessary to assure that
neighboring structures not a not affected,
i
The Preliminary Develeat Plan map for the project shows that Mr. Thuessen intends to
dig into the hill behind ny home to the extent of five gradient lines. Therefore, a
significant amount of A ater run-off area is being altered. The redirected water must go
somewhere. It won't br, able to percolate in the area of the construction as in the past;
therefore it must go around the new development, to the immediate and detrimental impact
of the neighboring prooerties. Perhaps that is why the City of Edmonds refers this project
as being in a s ep slop hazard areal
Our neighbor says that �e notes substantial revisions to the application; if the project is
substantially different, you should consider requiring a new application. My neighbor also
says that the City of Edmonds showed no evidence that the fees for the permit were paid; if
so, you should eonside, requiring a new application.
Mar 1b ZUUb 1e: 9IrM val ie!j Uul lainG 1"Id LC('1d15 0'T.7 J.7 U. G71
The Washington State Papartmont of Labor and Industries says that the applicant's
contractor's license is Ouspended, that it has no workers compensation insurance in place,
and that its general lioility insurance expired eleven months ago. The apparent
inoomplete legal standing leads one to believe that a new permit should be considered.
Mr. Bullock, this is a ject which should not be built, due to significant environmental
and structural hazards. In addition, we highly question Fentec's study and think at a
minimum they should able to provide positive assurance that it is correct as opposed to
the ridiculous statemem that it is reasonable to assume it is correct. Please disallow this
project as it has the potential to harm the neighboring citizens of Edmonds.
Sincerely,
L +
Kenneth E. Reidy
Vora H. Reidy
i
r
R )EEC E I V
MA i (b 2 (11,56
Bt-. ILOING DEPT
X",
C
..'tom
�t
A
I
%f)
-! _z
/Attachment 21
` t S-2005-9 & SU -2905-8
JOAN BLOOM
P0I3 219 • EDNIONDS • WA ® 08020 • 425.775.4899 ® JOAN@ED\[ONDSFOR.0\-I.COiNI
To: City of Edmonds Planning Department MAR 15 2006
Re: File # S-05-9/SD-05-8
Date: March 15, 2005 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
Submitted by: Joan Bloom and Gary Bloom
I am responding to the notice of Development Application of Thuesen Custom
Homes, File # S-05-9/SD-05-8. My comments will focus on the fact that the appli-
cation is incomplete, there are inconsistencies in the application, and that the wetland
delineation is in question.
The Application is Incomplete
Thuesen applied for a short division of his property. The City of Edmonds SHORT
SUBDIVISION SUBN41TTAL REQUIREMENTS (see attachment A) list as submittal
requirements:
"Copy of Critical Areas Determination and/or Critical Areas Study for the subject
property"
At the bottom of the first page it explains further:
"Critical Areas Checklist: Prior to submittal, an applicant must have a Critical Areas
Determination issued by the Planning Division. (Please allow a minimum of two weeks
to receive this determination after the Critical Areas Checklist has been submitted.) A
copy of this Determination must be submitted with the application, along with any re-
quired Critical Areas Study for the subject property."
The Critical Areas Determination referred to above was completed by the City of Ed-
monds on the subject property on October 22, 2002 for the former property owner, Fred
A. Wolgomatt, (see attachment B) and stated that the studies required were (1) Steep
Slope Hazard Area and (2) Wetland.
The required Wetland Study was not submitted at the time of application, January 18,
2005. On February 17, 2005, Star Campbell, Planner, sent a letter to Eric Thuesen of
Eric Thuesen Custom Homes (see attachment C) stating: "we need to consider the ap-
plication technically incomplete until the critical areas study through 3 -party review for
the wetland and the peer review for the geotechnical report have been completed."
On February 15, 2005, prior to this letter of February 17, 2005 stating that Thuesen's
application was incomplete, the new City of Edmonds Critical Ordinance went into ef-
fect.
Comments on Application o Attachment 22
CS -2005-0 & SCS -2005-8
The Pentac (the third party referred to and approved by the City of Edmonds Planning
Department) study of the wetlands was not completed until TMay 17, 2005. Lovell-
Sauerland & Associates, Inc, surveyed the property on July 7, 2005. (This will be dis-
cussed further under the delineation of the wetlands.) So the final required study of the
wetlands was not completed until July 7, 2005, well beyond the short plat application
date of January 18, 2005 and well beyond the date that the new critical areas ordinance
went into effect, February 15, 2005.
Also on the required checklist: the Preliminary Drainage Plan. The plan submitted on
January 18, 2005, (see attachment D) is based on the original short subdivision applica-
tion (this will be discussed further in inconsistencies of the application) which places the
applied for home much further up the hill and thus further from the wetlands than the
final map of the proposed home. (see attachment E) The only mention made of drainage
on this submission (again attachment D) is a hand written question: "Infiltration area?"
This is hardly a plan for drainage.
It is clear from the above that the application of Thuesen Custom Homes submitted on
January 18, 2005, was incomplete.
Inconsistencies in the Application
Thuesen's original Land Use Application was signed and dated by him on November 20,
2004. (This date is important because it appears several tunes in the application materi-
als.) However, the application was received on January 18, 2005. (see attachment F)
Please note that in addition, the file number is written as SD -05-8. Above the "For Offi-
cial Use Only" section is written 5-05-9. I have no idea if this is relevant but am com-
pelled to state it for the record.
A letter from Thuesen addressed to Steve Bullock was also dated November 20, 2004,
but received on January 18, 2005.(see attachment G) This letter made reference to the
Wetland Resources report, and a survey of the flagging of the wetland by Lovell Sauer -
land & Associates on 11-22-04, as delineated. (see attachment H) There is no indication
on the survey reap as to when it was received by the Planning Department. How could
Thuesen have referenced a survey completed on November 22, 2004 in a letter dated
November 20, 2004?
A third letter from Thuesen (see attachment I) was dated November 20, 2004, received
on September 14, 2005, and made reference to the Pentac study that was not completed
until May 17, 2005.
Also in the third letter, Thuesen revised his short -plat application to include an addi-
tional home. This was apparently in response to a letter received from the city which
stated that "for the purposes of this subdivision application and review, the wetland on
site is not regulated." (see attachment J) The City subsequently gave Thuesen a choice
between subdividing to add one home, based on the old Critical Ordinances study, or
Comments on Application of Thuesen Custom Homes - Page 2 of 5
two homes, based on the new Critical Ordinances Study. He withdrew his request to
subdivide to add two homes and went for one, as in his original application of January
18, 2005.
The November 20, 2004 date is interesting because it was before the City Council voted
on November 23, 2004, to adopt the new Critical Areas Ordinance. The ordinance was
passed by City Council on November 23, 2004, but for some reason did not go into effect
until February 15, 2005. The new Critical Areas ordinance describes anything over 500
square feet as a wetland. The previous ordinance described anything over 2,500 square
feet as a wetland.
The Wetland Delineation is in Question
On June 26, 2002, Wetland Resources, Inc, submitted a letter to Allen Nicholson (see
attachment K). In it, the wetland on the subject property was described as being ap-
proximately 10,000 square feet. This is the same study referenced by Thuesen in his first
letter to the planning department dated November 20, 2004. The study was originally
commissioned by Wolgamott, the former property owner, and thus was not a third party
study and unacceptable per City of Edmonds guidelines.
As a result of the letter to Thuesen on February 17, 2005 (again, attachment C), two
days after the new Critical Ordinance went into effect on February 15, 2005, the city
contracted on Thuesen's behalf with Pentec Environmental and a study was completed
on May 17, 2005. (see attachment L. I have only included two relevant pages of the
study) In the study the Wetland Summary states as follows:
"We identified and delineated one wetland within the study area. The jurisdictional de-
terminations are preliminary and subject to verification by the City of Edmonds, Corps,
and Ecology. Because the wetland is greater than 2,500 square feet, but less than one
acre, with a forested wetland class, this wetland is rated as a Category 2 as per the wet-
land classification system in the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC
20.15B.060)."
And under Regulatory Implications:
"The Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC 20.15B.130) requires buffers of
50 feet for Category 2 wetlands."
Almost two months later, on July 7, 2005, Lovell- S auerland & Associates, Inc. surveyed
the flags that had been placed on the property on May 11, 2005. The map showed the
wetland had shrunk to 2,291 square feet.
On July 14, 2005, Star Campbell wrote the aforementioned letter (attachment J) saying
the wetland was not regulated. The next day, July 15, one of Thuesen's employees came
down the hill in a back hoe, supposedly to obtain a "soil sample", and damaged a sig-
nificant amount of wetland vegetation. On July 20, 2005, my neighbors and I met with
Comments on Application of Thuesen Custom Homes - Page 3 of 5
Eric Thuesen and Steve Bullock. This meeting is referenced in a, letter from Scott Mal-
lory dated July 21, 2005, which is included in his public comment packet.
At the request of my neighbors and I, the planning department asked Pentac to review
LSA's survey map. Pentac stated in a letter dated September 8, 2005 (see attachment
M): "The wetland boundary on the LSA map appears to accurately represent the wet-
land boundaries that we delineated on May 11, although it is not possible for us to con-
firm every point on the map."
In the Wetland Delineation of May 17, 2005 there was no equivocation. Pentac simply
stated "the wetland is greater than 2,500 square feet." In the letter of September 8,
2005, there was equivocation. They stated "it is not possible for us to confirm every
point on the map."
My question remains: How could the wetland have shrunk from 10,000 square feet to
2,291 square feet? It is my understanding in speaking with a wetland biologist that any
change in the size of a wetland would be insignificant over the period of time between
the first study, by Wetland Resources, and the second study, by Pentac.
In an email dated February 18, 2006 (see attachment N), Jim McQueen questioned
Steve Bullock as to the LSA survey. Steve's reply was "The city's position on surveys is
that: a survey completed by a licensed surveyor using standard industry practices as re-
quired by their license is considered to be accurate."
Is it standard industry practice to wait almost two months to read the flags on the
property? Is it standard industry practice to assume that the flags were accurately
placed even though a raccoon, a child, or other mischievous person could have inadver-
tently altered them? Remember that even Pentac, said "it is not possible for us to con-
firm every point on the map."
Finally
In light of all of the above, I request that Thuesen Custom Homes be required to file a
new Short Subdivision application, with the proposed development clearly subject to the
new Critical Areas ordinance. Further, I request that a new wetland study be commis-
sioned, and that the survey of the flagging of the wetland be done promptly and under
the supervision of the planning department.
Respectfully submitted by Joan and Gary Bloom
600 8th Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020 > �;
Comments on Application of Thuesen Custom Homes - Page 4 of 5
Attachments
RECEIVED
MAR 15 2006
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
Attachment A: SHORT SUBDIVISION SUBA41TTAL REQUIREMENTS
Attachment B: City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination
Attachment C: February 17, 2005 letter from Star Campbell to Eric Thuesen
Attachment D: Map submitted for Preliminary Drainage Plan
Attachment E: Map of proposed development
Attachment F: City of Edmonds land use application
Attachment G: Letter from Eric Thuesen to Steve Bullock, dated November 20, 2004,
received January 18, 2005
Attachment H: Map of LSA 11-22-04 survey of the wetland
Attachment I: Letter from Eric Thuesen to Steve Bullock, dated November 20, 2004, re-
ceived September 14, 2005
Attachment J: July 14, 2005 memo from Star Campbell to Eric Thuesen
Attachment K: June 26, 2002 letter from Wetland Resources to Allen Nicholson
Attachment L: Pentac Environmental Wetland Delineation
Attachment M: September 8, 2005 letter from Pentac Environmental
Attachment N: Email from Steve Bullock to Jim McQueen
Comments on Application of Thuesen Custom Homes - Page 5 of 5
/�4�k Y' ') V\+- A -
city Of e mons k _
development information -
lnC. 1890
SHORT SUBDIVISION
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
This summary outlines the procedure for filing a short subdivision application in the City of Edmonds. All
short subdivisions are subject to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.75. All
proposed short subdivisions are to be submitted to the Planning Division for approval.
DEFINITION: A short subdivision is a division of land into four or fewer lots of any size for the purpose
of sale.
FEES: Refer to fee schedule for Short Subdivision and Environmental Review (where applicable)
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST:
❑ Copy of Critical Areas Determination and/or Critical Areas Study for the subject property
❑ Completed and signed application form
❑ Filing fee (see box above)
❑ Adjacent Property Owner List on our label format, and notarized form
❑ Title report or Plat Certificate (done within 30 days)
❑ Legal descriptions of existing lots and legal descriptions of proposed lots
❑ Environmental Checklist if applicable
❑ Preliminary Plat:
O Six copies of the full size preliminary plat
O One 8.5 by 11 inch reduced copy RECEIVED
❑ Preliminary Drainage Plan
❑ Modification Request, if any are requested MAR 1 5 2006
❑ Completed Edmonds Utilities Consortium Contact Form DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
1. CRITICAL AREAS CHECKLIST:
Prior to submittal, an applicant must have a Critical Areas Determination issued by the Planning Division. (Please
allow a minimum of two weeks to receive this determination after the Critical Areas Checklist has been submitted.) A
copy of this Determination must be submitted with the application, along with any required Critical Areas Study for the
subject property.
2. APPLICATION FORM
Submit a completed and signed Land Use Application Form.
�h rn�nfi A
Page] of 4 L\LIBPARY\PLANNINC,Woms & Ha doucsYPublic Handou[s\Shon Subdivisiomdoc •_ - ,_ Revised 02/09/04
3. FILING FEE
Refer to fee schedule. Some subdivisions will also require fees for Environmental Review.
4. ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER LIST
Applicants must submit the names and addresses of owners, as shown on the records of the Snohomish County
Assessor, and street addresses of property within 300 feet of any point of all properties involved in the short
subdivision. See the city's handout on how to prepare this list, which must be typed or printed out in the required
label format, and must be accompanied by the required notarized form.
5. TITLE REPORT
Submit a title report or plat certificate that has been prepared within the last 30 days.
6. LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
Submit accurate legal descriptions of the existing lots and legal descriptions for the proposed lots. The legal
descriptions must be prepared, stamped and signed by a professional land surveyor registered in the State of
Washington or certified by a title insurance company doing business in Snohomish County. If the plat is to be
recorded on an 18 by 24 -inch sheet, the legal descriptions may be shown on that map as distances and bearings, as
required by WAC 332-130-030 through 050.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
An Environmental Checklist is required if the site is designated as an Environmentally Sensitive Area on the
Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map, or if the short subdivision requires landfill or excavation of more than 500 cubic
yards of material. A review fee is also charged (see required fees).
8. PRELIMINARY PLAT
Provide six copies of the preliminary plat (size: 8.5 by 11 inches up to 18 by 24 inches) and one reduced copy on an
8.5 by 11 inch sheet. A preliminary plat is a drawing to scale of a proposed division of land, showing the existing
conditions and the general proposed layouts of streets, lots and other information needed to properly review the
proposal. A professional land surveyor registered in the State of Washington must prepare a preliminary plat. The
scale used must be sufficient to show clearly all details of the proposal. A scale of 50 feet to the inch is preferred;
other engineering scales may be used if necessary. The following information must be shown on the plat:
(1) The name, if any, of the proposed subdivision.
(2) Name, address, seal and signature of the land surveyor who prepared the map.
(3) Date prepared or revised, scale, north point, quarter section, section, township and range
number.
(4) Total acreage of the land to be divided, and area in square feet of each proposed lot.
(5) Existing zoning.
(6) Lot dimensions and numbers.
(7) Setback lines required by the existing zoning, if the proposed lot has an unusual shape, steep
topography, or other unusual limitations on its building site.
(8) Any existing property lines within, or adjacent to, the proposed subdivision, and the names of the
owners of adjacent property.
(9) Contour lines in areas to be developed shall be at five foot intervals, or as specified by the
Community Development Director. Ten foot intervals may be used in areas not to be developed.
All contour lines shall be extended into adjacent property a sufficient distance to show the
topographical relationship of adjacent property to the proposed subdivision.
Page 2 of 4 LALIBRARYTLANNINGWorms & Handouu\Public HandoutsMort Subdivision.doc Revised 01/09/04
(10) The location, name and width of all existing and proposed street right-of-ways, or easements
within or adjacent to the proposed subdivision, the grade of proposed streets and the pavement
location of existing and proposed streets.
(11) The location of all existing structures within the proposed subdivision.
(12) Public area or areas to be owned in common by the lot owners, if any.
(13) A preliminary grading plan or profile of proposed roads if more than 500 cubic yards of earth is to
be moved or removed.
(14) The location of known or suspected soil or geological hazard areas, water bodies, creeks and
areas subject to flooding.
(15) Location of existing and proposed underground utility lines, sewer and water mains adjacent to or
within the proposed subdivision.
(16) Any existing or proposed restrictions on the use of the land.
(17) The location of tree -covered areas. Planning staff may request the location of individual trees
over eight inches in diameter.
(18) Other information that may be required by the Planning Division in order to properly review the
proposed subdivision.
(19) Appropriate margins and any other requirements to enable the plat to be recorded with
Snohomish County: please check with the Snohomish County Auditor's Recording Department for
their requirements.
9. DRAINAGE PLAN
Submit a preliminary Drainage Plan prepared to the standards required by the City Engineering Division, unless
waived by the Engineering Division.
10. MODIFICATION REQUEST
If the proposed short plat contains a modification request pursuant to ECDC Section 20.75.075, provide written
responses to the variance criteria found in Section 20.85.010 (see the following).
Short Subdivision Modification Criteria
1. Special Circumstances. That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, the strict
enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to
other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property,
public necessity as to public structures and uses and environmental factors such as vegetation,
streams, ponds and wildlife habitats.
Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or
disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to
secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting
from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property.
2. Special Privilege. That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the
property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
3. Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
4. Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning
ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located.
5. Not Detrimental. That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the
vicinity and same zone.
6. Minimum Variance. That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the
rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
11. EUC CONTACT FORM
Submit the Edmonds Utilities Consortium (EUC) Customer-EUC Contact Form with all of the confirmation numbers
from the utility providers written in, demonstrating that you have informed them of your project.
REVIEW CRITERIA
Subdivision proposals are reviewed pursuant to the criteria found in Section 20.75.085 of the ECDC. The criteria
include the environment, lot layout, street layout, required dedications, public improvements and flood plain
management. It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate compliance with the criteria.
REVIEW PROCESS
After determination of a complete application, staff prepares a tentative processing schedule. If a SEPA
determination is required, it will be done and mailed out together with the notice of application, which starts a two-
week comment period. Planning Division staff makes a preliminary plat decision after the comment period has ended
and after a detailed review of all information submitted. Approval of a preliminary plat shall expire and have no
validity at the end five years unless the applicant has acquired final plat approval.
Note: This information should not be used as a substitute for City codes and regulations. You should review all
the details of your project with the Planning Division at 121 Fifth Avenue North, telephone (425) 771-0220,
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
PaoP 4 oro Lll.tBRARyT ANMNG\F0r & Hudouts\Public Handouts\Short Subdivision.doc
Revised 02/04/04
:CITY o>= ED oNDS
CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION
Site Location: Lot directly west of 503 9'h Ave. N. Tax Acct. Number: 2427-032-206-00
Determination: Study Required
Determination #: CA -01-67
annfirant: N/A — Owner: Fred A. Wolgomatt
Previously, a Critical Areas Determination of "Study Required" was issued for the site
(see above —lot directly w. of 503 9t" Ave. NThe
determination
proposai for the s to that a rbecause
itical
areas study would be required prior to any development
the site may contain a steep slope hazard area. Recently, information that was made
available to the City that provides that there may be another type of critical area in the
form of a wetland on the property. Please see the attached portion of a survey by
Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc., dated 9-17-02 that delineates a wetland near the
western property line. Having considered this information, and having further examined
the site, Staff now finds that it is necessary to issue a revised critical areas
determination for the site. The following provides information on what is required to
complete the critical areas study requirements for the steep slopes and wetland on the
property.
CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION- STUDY REQUIRED (CA -01-79
During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site may con rIT j '
areas, including a Steep Slope Hazard Area and a Wetland pursuant to Chapter 2 �3 f + s
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). MAR 15 200
STUDY REQUIREMENT — STEEP SLOPE HAZARD AREA DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
S CTR.
To determine if a Steep Slope Hazard Area does exist, prior to submissionAreaChapter development c p eting
permit, you will be required satisfy the requirements of the Critical p
the following Steep Slope Hazard Area Delineation Requirements:
• A topographic survey must be completed that delineates any Steep Slope Hazard Areas
prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor.
[A steep slope hazard areas is defined by the Edmonds Community Development Code
as ground that rises at an inclination of 40% or greater within at least 20 feet of
elevation change. In order to delineate a steep slope hazard area, it is necessary to
locate the top and toe of the slope. The inclination of the slope is established by
averaging the inclination over at least 20 feet of vertical relief. A steep slope hazard
area is bordered by a 50 foot wide bufferrthere s a 15 feettop and the wide building e of the
steep slope hazard area. Adjacent to he buffer
setback.]
• In order to complete this Study Requirement, this map must be submitted to the
Planning Division for review and approval.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ON A SITE WITH STEEP SLOPE HALAKU
Development is restricted within the Steep Slope Hazard Area, its buffer, and/or building certn
setback. If development must occur within these areas, the applicant may pursue
processes provided in the Critical Areas Chapter of the Edmonds Community Development
! 41 -ii l /\ vv, o �- B
Code. The applicable proues, epends on the specific development f !osal and site but may
include one of the following:
o For development proposals within 65 -feet (50 -foot buffer plus 15 -foot building
setback), but no closer than 25 feet (10 -foot buffer plus a 15 -foot building
setback) from the top or toe of the slope, the 50 -foot buffer requirement may be
reduced to 10 feet if a study is completed by a licensed geologist or geotechnical
engineer which clearly demonstrates that the proposed buffer alteration will have
no adverse impact upon the site, the public or any private party. This is a
process through which development could be allowed as close as 25' from the
top or toe of the slope (the 15 -foot building setback always applies no matter
how much the buffer is reduced).
o Development proposals closer than 25' from the top or toe of the slope may be
allowed through the approval of a Steep Slope Exemption, Critical Areas
Variance, or Reasonable Use Exception. These are Land Use Permits that must
be obtained through the Planning Division. if you think your specific
development proposal may require one of these processes, contact a Planner for
more information.
STUDY REQUIREMENT —WETLAND
The site investigation has shown that the site may contain a wetland near the western boundary
of the lot. Based on the above finding, a Critical Areas Study is required to determine the class
of the wetland and locate the wetland on the property.
Wetland Classification and Delineation: A critical areas consultant shall perform the
following:
o Classification of the wetland pursuant to the criteria established in ECDC Section
20.15B.060(A)(5).
o Delineate the boundaries of the wetland on the site.
o State any mitigating measures appropriate to preserving and protecting the
wetland.
This part of the study shall be performed as a three party contract with the city selecting
the consultant and the property owner or applicant paying the fees. When you are
ready to proceed, please contact a Planner.
Wetland Mapping: After the critical areas consultant has classified the wetland and
delineated the wetland boundary, a surveyor licensed by the State of Washington must
perform the following:
o Survey and map the wetland, the buffer and the building setback (refer to ECDC
20.15B.130. (C) for the required buffer widths).
In order to complete this Study Re uirement this map must be submitted to the
Planning Division for review and approval.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ON A SITE WITH A WETLAND
Development proposals that encroach into the wetland buffers or building setbacks may be
allowed through the approval of certain processes. The specific process depends on the
individual site and development proposal but may include Buffer Averaging, Wetland
Replacement Ratios a Critical Areas
and/or l
Areas Variance or Use Exception. If you thinkha you have a proposaltht mayrequie one of these processes,
please contact a Planner for more information.
PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONAL WAIVERS 2
If the property owner wishes y for a specific development permit which y
feel would not impact
the Critical Areas located on the site, they may submit their proposal to the Planning Department for
review. If the Planning Department finds that the proposed development permit will not adversely impact
a Critical Area or its buffers, a conditional waiver may be issued on a project by project basis.
EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
Certain development proposals may be exempt from Critical Areas Requirements (ECDC 20.15B.040). If
you think that a specific development proposal may be exempt, contact a Planner for more information.
Date
Name
❑ Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found on the
City of Edmonds website at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us.
3
121 STH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www o-edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning • Building • Engineering
February 17, 2005
Eric Thuesen
Eric Thuesen Custom Homes, LLC
1833385 1h PI. W_
Edmonds, WA 98026
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
Subject: INCOMPLETE LETTER FOR SUBDIVISION / STEEP SLOPE EXEMPTION
APPLICATION (FILE NUMBER SD -05-8/S-05-9) AT 509 9TH AVE. N.
Dear Eric,
The preliminary completeness review for your Subdivision / Steep Slope Exemption application
at 509 9th Ave. N. has been done. Although you have submitted all the basic elements that are
required for your application, we need to nsider the application to be tgchnically incomplete
until the critical areas study through 3 -party review for the wetlan -and the peer review for e
geotechnical report have been completed. I'm currently in the process of setting up the
contracts for these reviews and will let you know as soon as I have obtained bids.
In addition, although not things required for technical completeness, at this point I noticed that
the following items will need to be addressed:
Your application letter referred to the submittal of a lot configuration that meets the
zoning requirements. I did not see this in your submittal materials. Can you please
submit a copy?
• The modification request for setbacks that you are requesting appears to be for lot 1.
Also, although you state that it is to reduce the north and east setbacks from 10' to 5', 1
think you mean the north and west setbacks. Finally, the way you list your proposed
setbacks on the first page of your submittal letter for lot 1 is inaccurate. This is actually
an interior lot with 10' side setbacks from all property lines. Please clarify the setback
modification request.
Additionally, the Fire Department has requested the following information for their continued
review:
• The distance to the closest fire hydrant from lot 2.
• The proposed driveway grade.
Steve Bullock and i will both be working with you through this process. Please contact one of
us at (425) 771-0220 if you have any questions. Thank you!
Sincerely,
Star Campbell, Planner
0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 0
MAR 15 2006
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
0
W1
v
I
MAR 15 2006
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
Ca)
UJI
a.
Ail
f
"331
9th AVENUE N
I
MAR 15 2006
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
Ca)
UJI
a.
I
MAR 15 2006
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
i
MAR 15 2006
rd DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
i�-t`4 -G-ch
city of edmonds 1� vol ploy
-oe A&
land use application v
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
r'n1.AA0PUPXTQ1\1rZP1 AM ATAPUr)xAvijr
8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. FILE # ZONE
A HOME OCCUPATION� 'DATErr-,� RECD BY .�
0 FORMAL SUBDIVISION )Ct f (01� i I i o "E t�"ro , r' RECEIPT #
6 SHORT SUBDIVISION '6e -'e, r7 O t
0 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTCA ��D 5 � +S -(HEARING DATE
0 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVEt,L,�,E� 0 HE 0 STAFF 0 PB 0 ADB 0 CC
8 OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMEN EN
0 STREET VACATION
0 REZONE
8 SHORELINE PERMIT RECEIVED
0 VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION
OTHER.-'6%-� QXet'lYTloN
PERMIT COUNTED
PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 509 9th Ave N . , Edmonds
PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) Thuesen Short Flat
PROPERTY OWNER F, i r Th11Psen (—r—n 14-- TIC PHONE # 425 670-3669
ADDRESS 18111 81stli n7 TJ Edmonds Ida 98026
E-MAILADDRESS P-rJrfh11P.9Pnnt�o@t,,1-nast.ner _ FAX# 425 776-9240
TAXACCOUNT# 270324002AbA0124270j-u(.,D soEC, 24 TWD. 27 RNG. 3
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTOR PROPOSED USE Short Plat for new single family W91.L1*W-L2
�.. G, 1 X G, D
MAR 15 2006
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
Z'72 Cttid1
APPLICANTFric ThuPson Custom Hnmes_LLC__ PHONE# 425 670-3669
ADDRESS 18333 85th Place W. Edmonds Wa. 98026
E-MAILADDRESS ericthuesen@comcast.net FAX# 425 776-9240
CONTACT PERSON/AGENT Eric Thuesen PHONE# 425 670-3669
ADDRESS 18333 85th Place W., Edmonds, Wa. 98026
E-MAIL ADDRESS erictliuesen@comcast.net FAX# 425776-9240
The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application
agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including
reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading,
inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees.
By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT -- DATE 1 .20 `O
Property Owner's Authorization
By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use
application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject
property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this applieaticl I.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER L 0 -----. _(IDT It /i , / A`\
This application fonn was revised on 1/27/00, To verify whether it is still current, call7°}I-022D:-
L,\L1BRARY\PLANNING\F0mu & HandoutsTublic HandoutsUt nd Use Application.doc
4 T—^
November 20, 2004
Steve Bullock
Planner
City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue N.
Re: Short Plat Application
RECEIVED
JAN 18 2005
PERMIT COUNTER
Steve;
Enclosed please find the completed short plat application for the parcel on 5XX 9th Ave. N.
1. Site Location
509 & 5XX 9th Ave N. (see attachement 1 )
2. Request:
45,037 square feet into two lots with a modification request
Short plat application to to subdivide00 square feet to 10,458 square feet.
m diff reduce
requnimum lot area of Lot 1 from est to reduce the setback requirements nts on the north and east property lines
modification q
from 10 feet to 5 feet.
3. Major issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16 20, single
family residential.
b. Compliance with the comprehensive plan.
c. Compliance with ECDC chapter 20.15B.
d_ Compliance with ECDC Section 20.75.075, Modification Request.
e. Compliance with ECDC Section 20.75.085, Subdivision Requirements.
f. Compliance with ECDC Section 20.156.110, Steep Slope Exemption.
ANALYSIS of DESIGN
1.Lot sizes and dimensions:
a.Proposed number of lots : 2
Gross Lot Sq. Ft. Net Lot SQ Ft(12,000Req) Lot Width (70 ft Req)
b_Proposed lot area
& width:
Lot 1 10,458 Sq Ft
Lot 2 34,579 Sq Ft
c.Set Backs
Lot 1 25' Front Setbacks
10' Side Setbacks
5' Side Setbacks
Lot 2 25' Front setbacks
10' Side Setbacks
10,458 Sq Ft 95 Feet (excluding
easement)
33,979 Sq Ft 110 Feet
From west property line
CIVp
From south property line MAR 5 ZQ��
From north and east poperty line
T SERVICES
From west and east property line ®EV CITY OF EDMONDS CTR.
From north and south property line
A++:&tA/-� ter- G-
d. Corner lot: There are no comer lots.
e. Flag lots: Lot 1 is a flag lot_
Lot arrangement to topography: Best use of topograpy
Zonning: The subject property zoning is RS 12,000 (Residential Single Family).The net lot size
of lot 2 is 33,979 Sq Ft. The net lot size of Lot 1 is 10,458 Sq Ft. A modofocation request has
been applied for for lot 1.
Critical Areas Review: CA -01-67
Critical Area Review: the property contains two critcal aareas, Steep Slope and Wetland.
Steep Slope Exepmtion request submitted geotechnical from Dennis Bruce P.E_
A wetland report was prepared by Wetland Resources (see enclosed). The wetland was
categorized and the wetland boudarys were flagged. Lovell Sauerland & Associates surveyed the
site after the fflagging. I have inclided all the documents. The short plat proposal and eventual
NSFR will not enter into the wetland buffer. Hopefully, we can minimize the work needed in the
third party agreement utilizing and verifying the information we have already obtained. Hopefully
an recon visit by the selected wetland biologist to verify category and flagged boundarys will be
adequate.
MODIFICATION REQUEST
A modification request is proposed for lot 1. The request is for a reduction of lot size from
12,OOOsq. ft.to 10,458 sq. ft. Setbacks for the east and north property lines to be reduced from
10ft. to 5ft.This moves the building pads uphill inorder to increase the distance between the
wetlands and the new single family residence.
Special Circumstances: A prelimary lot configuration has been submitted which meets the zoning
requirements. See attachment 2. Although it meets the minimum lot area, it is not preferred
because it increases the building envelope, moves the building envelope further downhill which
increases the grading impact on a steep slope. The building foot print would move further
downhill towards the wetland area which is not preferred. Another option would be to develope
an access from 8th Ave. N. in the 7.5 ft dedicatinganother 7.5 feet to create a 15 foot alley
access but this is less desireable than the proposed short plat_
Special Pnvilege:Approval of this modification request does not grant special privilege to the
applicant_ The applicant has demonstrated that the poperty can be divided into two lots.
Comprehensive Plan: The proposal is consistent with the surrounding zoning and is consistent
with the comprhensive plan and zonning ordinance.
Not Detrimental: The proposed modification is not detrimental. The neighborhood will not
experience any impacts over and above those experienced in a normal subdivision.
Minimum Necessary: The modification request is the minimum necessary to maintain a standard
lot shape, and provide an adequate building envelope.
Conclusion:
The proposed design is more desireable then the other options.
A reduction in setbacks will not adversely impact the existing houses to the north and south of
the property .
a). The distance from the north property line to the building pad will be 15ft (easement road) plus
5ft. sideyard setback.10ft. would be normal for RS 12,000.
b). The distance from the rear yard to the existing house to the east is 45ft.
c. The proposal will be more desireable and have minimum impact on the neighbors. The is the
best available. proposed access will not adversely impact the wetland.
7). An evironmental checklist was not completed. The developement will not require landfill or
grading in excess of 500 cu. yds_ All grading will be addressed during the NSFR building permit
application.
9). DRAINAGE PLAN
A preliminary drainage plan is included. The proposal will direct all impervious storm water to a
tight line system. Storm flows from driveways to be directed to a oil seperator system.The
remaining storm flows togethter with the oil seperated flows will be directed to a velocity stop
catch basin and infiltration system at the toe of the slope. There is an existing 12" inlet which was
provided in 1990 by the City of Edmonds during construction of the Storm Diversion System.
A second proposal is to direct the storm water to an existing inlet drain utilizing the 7.5 ft. alley
on the south portion of the parcel at 8th Ave N. This drain inlet is also connected to the City of
Edmonds Storm Diversion System_
Please advise or if you have any questions do not hesitate to call.
Eric S. Thuesen
425-670-3669 ph
425-776-9240 fax
Enclosed drawings:
Attachment 1. Original Short Plat Proposal
Attachment 2. Lot Modification Short Plat Proposal
Attachment 3. Proposed Drainage Plan
WI
0
I Z II
i z II
O
I
N I
1500' N 00'32'21' v!
U
BE
I LL
W \ I \
\ 0
\ I '
3 s� 6Z \
"60
,9F r2 N 9.0'32'.21" w
-
v
—
�
i/ z g � I
` W o
04
o
is Z po \ \ \ •.
O IN\ \ \ \-_—
>Q N \ \
J U (
i \ jEEE9- n I
-
�NZI
iV,
If I \ \ I
i \
o
�---_
i z
o Iv
o i U
O X
J J O ✓ \ I
Ta �a
vQ i -
O
,1
U I
I
S 00'26'55" E 110.00'
8th AVENUE N. -
I
i"- ._
CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS
RECEIVED
MAR 15 2006
'DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTO.
CITY OF EDMONDS
� � OVAAY �4
P I � Me,,T,
November 20, 2004
Steve Bullock
Planner
City of Edmonds
121 5`h Avenue N.
Re: Short Plat Application
Enclosed please find the completed short plat application for the parcel @ 509 9"' Ave. N.
1. Site location
509 91h Ave N. & 5xx 8th Ave N.
2. Request:
Short Plat application to subdivide 45,037 square feet into three lots.
3. Major Issues:
a.Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.20, single
family residential.
b.Compliance with the comprehensive plan.
c.Compliance with ECDC chapter 20.15B.
d. Compliance with ECDC Section 20.75.075 Modification Request.
e. Compliance with ECDC Section 20.75.085 , Subdivison Requirements.
f. Compliance with ECDC Section 20.1513110, Steep Slope Exemption. R 9 C 5 I V F.D
ANALYSIS of DESIGN MAR 15 2006
1. Lot sizes and dimensions: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR,
Circ OF EDMONDS
a. Proposed number of lots: 3
Gross Lot Sq. Ft. Net Lot Sq. (12,000 Req.) Lot Width (70 Req)
b. Proposed lot area & width
Lot 1 20,095 Sq. Ft.
Lot 2 12,921 Sq. Ft.
Lot 3 12,095 Sq. Ft.
20,095 Sq. Ft. 110 Feet
12,921 Sq. Ft. 109.33 Feet
12,095 Sq. Ft. 110. Feet
c. Set Backs
Lot 1 10' Front Setbacks
10' Side Setbacks
5' Rear Setbacks
Lot 2 10' Side Setbacks
From west and east property line
From south property line
From East property line
Lot 3 25' Front and Rear Setbacks From South and North property line
10' Side Setbacks From East and West property line
d. Corner Lots: There are no corner lots.
e. Flag Lots : Lot 2 is a flag lot.
Lot arrangement to topography; Best use of topography.
Zoning: The subject property is RS 12,000 (Residential Single Family). The net lot size of lot 1
is 20,095 Sq. Ft. The net lot size of lot 2 is 12,921 Sq. Ft. The net lot size of lot 3 is 12,095 Sq.
Ft.
Critical Areas Review: CA -01-67
Critical areas Determination: The property contains a steep slope and wetland. A wetland study
was provided by Pentec and the wetland was determined to be less than 2500 Sq. Ft. The wetland
is not regulated by the City of Edmonds. Steep Slope Exemption request was submitted by
Dennis Bruce P. E.
Special Circumstances: A preliminary lot configuration has been submitted which meets the
zoning requirements.
Special Privilege: Approval of the of the short plat request does not grant special privilege to the
applicant. The applicant has demonstrated the property can be divided into 3 lots.
Comprehensive Plan: The proposal is consistent with the surrounding zoning and is consistent
with the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance.
Not Detrimental: The proposed short plat is not detrimental. The neighborhood will not
experience and impacts over and above those experienced in a short plat.
The development will not require more than 500 yds of grading.
Drainage Plan: A preliminary drainage plan will direct impervious storm water to a detention
system with an outflow connected to the city diversion system in 8`' Ave. There is an existing 12"
inlet located on lot 1.
Please Advise if you have any questions
Eric B. Thuesen
425-670 3669 ph
425-776 9240 fax
Enclose drawings:
Attachment 1. Original Short Plat Proposal
Attachment 2. Sort Plat Proposal Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
A-�+(L C' " N y1r) e^/,\ -� Is
July 14, 2005
Eric Thuesen, Project Applicant for S-05-9
Star Campbell, Planner,
Wetland Survey, 509 91h Ave. N.
Staff has had a chance to review the survey revised on 7-7-05 by Jeffrey T.
Treiber of Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. recently submitted by you in
conjunction with your application for a subdivision at 509 91h Ave. N. This survey
delineates the boundaries of the wetland on the property as flagged by Pentec
Environmental (refer to their May 17, 2005, Wetland Delineation Report). The
survey indicates that the total area of the wetland is 2,291 square feet.
The Critical Areas regulations that were in effect prior to February 15, 2005, did
not regulate wetlands less than 2,500 square feet in area (ECDC
20.15.B.020.TT). Your pending subdivision application (S-05-9) was submitted
when these regulations were in effect and is vested for its review under these
regulations. For the purposes of this subdivision application and review, the
wetland on site is not regulated.
C.C. File S-05-9
w
MAR 15 2006
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
A-� �' C" i'"O"& J -
City of Edmonds (zR Planning Division
E
M-07471137-1
DAT& JUNE 26, 2002
• A •q
206-328-0216
FROk LOUIS-9MENHISW
i
/#a qj-�a-av Me�i- �-,
AwWwwo
Ce e.
1.
1.
Fax
t, K i
i
HERE IS THE APPROXIMATE FLAG LOCATORMAP FOR THE WOLOAMOTT
PROPERTY_ THE AREA OFE WETLAND APPEARS To BE APPROXIMATELY
10,000 SWARE FEET; THIS WELL OVER MiE CITY OF EDMONDS EXENE91ON
UMIT OF 2.500. IF YOU HAYS jANY QUESTIONS PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO
CALL W AT THE ABOVE NUNi4ER.
Y
t.am
WETLAND ECOLOGIST
Number of Pages including coiner sheet: 2
i
w
RECEIVED
MAR 1 5 2006
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
.4+Aw-AA 4<,
,'-}-mac l� vel 0, �.
..: s Delineation
Wolgamott Property
Edmonds, Washington
Prepared for
a IIif,rf . !'
May 1 % 2 05
12130-16
130-16
w
MAR 15 2006
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR,
CITY OF EDMONDS
Delnrering smar'ei so!ufions
LIMITATIONS
observed at SP -3. Here the soil is dark brown (IOYR 3/3) sandy loam in the
top 10 inches, with a dark yellowish brown (1 OYR 4/6) sandy loam matrix
beneath it.
Hydrology. Wetland hydrology was not present at either of the upland
sample plots. Soils were moist at both pits but not saturated. At`SP-2, the
depth to saturation was at 18 inches. Saturation to the surface for at least
12.5 percent of the growing season must be present to be a positive
indicator of wetland hydrology. No soil saturation was observed at SP -3 -
Because groundwater was so deep at these sample plots, we assume that
the soil is not saturated to the surface earlier in the growing season.
We identified and delineated one wetland within the study area. The
jurisdictional determinations are preliminary and subject to verification by the
City of Edmonds, Corps, and Ecology. Because the wetland is greater than
2,.500 square feet, but less than one acre, with a forested wetland class, this
wetland is rated as a Category 2 as per the wetland classification system in the
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC 2O.15B.O6O).
The Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC 20.15B.130) requires
buffers of 50 feet for Category 2 wetlands.
Work for this project was performed, and this report prepared, in accordance
with generally accepted professional practices for the nature and conditions of
the work completed in the sane or similar localities, at the time the work was
performed. it is intended for the exclusive use of the City of Edmonds for
specific application to the referenced site. This report is not meant to represent
a legal opinion. No other warranty, express or implied, is made.
Pentec Environmental Page 4
12130-16 Mav 17, 2005
AAS .- In vin "vV M
IFwww, p en tecen v. corn
PENTECE-AMRONMEWAL
Delivering smarter solutions
September 8, 2005
Mr. Steve Bullock
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
44+a_C'0 vyvc�f -
Anchorage
Boston
Re: Review of Survey Map for R FC: 5 I V 5
Wolgamott%Thuesen Property
Edmonds, Washington MAR 15 2006
12130-16
DEVELOPMENT
CTR-
CITY EDMONDS
Dear Steve: Denver
We are pleased to provide our review of the Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. (LSA) survey
map (file number 4288-1-01). The map is based on the July 7, 2005 LSA survey of the
wetland flags we used to delineate the wetland boundaries on the Wolgamott property on
May 11, 2005. The wetland boundary on the LSA map appears to accurately represent the
wetland boundaries that we delineated on May 11, although it is not possible for us to Edmonds
confirm every point on the map_
The size, shape, and location of the wetland shown on the LSA map resembles the sketch
map we provided in the May 17, 2005 wetland delineation report. The sketch map was not
drawn to scale and no measurements were taken in the field, so our sketch map does not
show the precise location of the wetland boundaries. It is reasonable to conclude that the Philadelphia
LSA survey accurately located the flagged wetland boundary, because all of the wetland
flags were located and the LSA map shows the same general wetland size and shape as on
our wetland map.
The LSA map shows the size of the wetland to be about 2,291 square feet (so. In our May
17, 2005 wetland delineation report we estimated the size of the wetland to be greater than Portland
2,500 sf. -Our estimate was not based on any on-site measurements and was approximate
only. The area of the wetland as reported on the LSA map is a more accurate measure of
the wetland size, assuming all of the wetland boundary flags were accurately located. If this
project is to be reviewed under the old Edmonds Community Development Code
(20.15B.020) then it would be exempt from City of Edmonds regulation because it is less
than 2,500 sf in size. Washington State Department of Ecology and the Army Corps of Seattle
A Division of Hart Crowser, Inc.
120 Third Avenue South, Suite 110
Edmonds, Washington 98020-8411
Fax 425-778-9417
Tel 425-775-4682
4�&c-h tm4,.'t W1
City of Edmonds 12130-16
September 8, 2005 Page 2
Engineers would still have jurisdiction over any activities planned for the area within the
wetland boundaries.
If we may provide any additional information or clarification regarding this project, please
do not hesitate to contact Wayne Adams at (425) 329-1158.
Sincerely,
PENTEC ENVIRONMENTAL — HART CROWSER, INC.
MICHAEL J. MUSCARI
Wetland Ecologist
michael.muscari@pentecenv.com
00130\01 MoIgamott_Ldoc
V�V NE C. ADAMS, E.G.
rincipal - Operations
wca@hartcrowser.com
Page 1 of 2
Jim Mcqueen
-
From: "Bullock, Steve" <BUIIOCk@ci.edmonds-wa.us>
To: "Jim Mcqueen" <mcqueenjp@msn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 2:50 PM
Subject: RE: s-05-9 and sd-05-08 wetlands area suvey of thuesen property
Mr. McQueen,
No specific instructions were given to the surveyorotherthen to survey the flagged wetland.
Surveyorsare licensed by the State and required to be bonded. Their license to work as a
surveyor is in jeopardy if they do not perform accurate work. There -maybe some state laws
related to their accuracy too, a surveyor- would beableto-give. you. that information more readily
than I. The city's position on survey, is that: a surrey completed by a licensed surveyor using
standard industry practices as required -by their license is considered -to be accurate.
No one from the City was on site while the survey was performed.
Because the -neighborhood was concerned about the accuracy of the survey, I sent a copy of it to
Pentac for.their review. I have a letter back from Pentac that indicates that the survey appears to
reflect -the -wetland they flagged.
In your -previous email you also had a question zbout the -submitted -site _plans and the location of
the potential horne_for the western lot. At this time, Mr. Thuesen has proposed what you've seen.
Assuming the City approves the subdivision, it is likely thatwewould place a conditipn of
approval -on- the project- t#at requires a greater -setback from the wetland which will shove the
potential home up the hill somewhat. At -this point that is not his proposal, but again, would likely
be a City requirement. But that explains why -you- doWt necessarily see a site plan that depicts
that at this time.
I hope that helps.
Steve Bullock, AICD
SenTOT _Planner
Cty of Edmonds
-----original Message----- MAR 15 2006
From: Jim Mcqueen [mailto:mcqueenap@msn.comj
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 6:08 AM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
To: Bullock, Steve CITY OF EDMONDS
Subject: s-05-9 and sd-05-08 wetlands area suvey of thuesen property
what were the specific contract instructions given to the contract surveyor who measured
theareawithin the wetlands flags placed by Pentec?
who was at the site from the -city .and pentec when the survey was made? are their notes
available?
what process did youuseto analyze and confirm the,data devQloped-by .the surveyor?
thanks for your help,
jim mcqueen