S-06-146 Staff Report with Attachments.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION
To: File S-2006-146
From:
Jennifer Machu anner
Date: July 3, 2007
File: S-2006-146
Applicant: Carmen and Kimberly Crispeno
Agent: Alpha Subdivision Pro's Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I.
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................2
A. Application.......................................................................................................................................2
B. Decision on Subdivision...................................................................................................................
2
C. Decisions on Modification Requests.................................................................................................4
II.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................4
A. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance....................................................................................4
B. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan........................................................................................7
C. Analysis of the Requested Lot Area Modification............................................................................
8
D. Analysis of the Requested Side Setback Modification......................................................................
9
E. Compliance with the Zoning Code..................................................................................................
10
F. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions.............................................................
10
G. Environmental Assessment.............................................................................................................
10
H. Critical Areas Review.....................................................................................................................
I 1
I. Comments.......................................................................................................................................
11
III.
RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS........................................................................12
A. Request for Reconsideration...........................................................................................................
12
B. Appeals...........................................................................................................................................
12
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals................................................................................
12
IV.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL...................................................................................................13
V.
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR................................................................................13
VI.
ATTACHMENTS: ............................................................................................................
13
VII.
PARTIES OF RECORD....................................................................................................13
Carmen and Kimberly Crispeno
File No. S-2006-146
Page 2 of 13
I. INTRODUCTION
The applicant is proposing to subdivide one lot addressed as 9812 — 235`h Place SW into three lots
(Attachment 1). See the Zoning and Vicinity Map for reference (Attachment 2). The site is located in a
Single -Family Residential (RS -8) zone that allows lots with a minimum area of 8,000 square feet. The
proposed lot layout is shown on the subdivision map (Attachment 3). The existing house is proposed to be
retained on Lot 2. The applicant has submitted a modification request for a reduction in the required
minimum lot area for proposed Lot 1 from 8,000 square feet to 5,688 net square feet. The applicant has also
submitted a modification request for a reduction in the minimum western side setbacks for proposed Lots 1
and 3 from 7.5 feet to 5 feet from the eastern boundary of the access easement (Attachments 5 and 6).
A. Application
1. Applicant: Carmen and Kimberly Crispeno
2. Site Location: 9812 —235h Place SW (see Attachment 2).
3. Request: To divide one lot with a total area of 33,254 square feet into three lots in a Single -
Family Residential (RS -8) zone (see Attachment 3). The applicant has submitted a
modification request for a reduction in the required minimum lot area for proposed Lot 1 from
8,000 square feet to 5,688 net square feet. The applicant has also submitted a modification
request for a reduction in the minimum western side setbacks for proposed Lots I and 3 from
7.5 feet to 5 feet from the eastern boundary of the access easement (see Attachments 7 and 8).
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 -8 zone.
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Title 18, public
works requirements.
c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.85,
criteria for approval of a variance.
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.
f. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Sections 23.40 and
23.80, critical areas requirements.
Note: All code sections referenced in this report can be viewed via the City's website at
www.ci.edmonds.wa.us.
B. Decision on Subdivision
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and Attachments submitted with the application
and during the comment period, the following is the decision of the City of Edmonds Planning
Division:
The subdivision as proposed is APPROVED with the following conditions:
1. Prior to recording, the applicant must complete the following requirements:
a) Civil plans must be approved prior to recording. In completing the civil plans, you
must address the following:
(1) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required prior to
Recording" on Attachment 6.
Carmen and Kimberly Crispeno
File No. S-2006-146
Page 3 of 13
(2) The civil plans must show the locations that vehicular access will be taken
from for each lot.
b) Remove the existing shed located in the southwestern corner of Lot 3. Contact the
Building Division prior to any demolition work to determine if a permit is required.
c) Provide documentation that the 30 -foot wide easement shown on the original
preliminary short plat plans has been relinquished. If this easement has not yet been
relinquished, the applicant must relinquish it as required.
d) All existing and proposed access drives must fall within existing or proposed
ingress/egress easements and must be paved to meet the Engineering Division's
standards. Any existing paved shared drives that do not fall within existing or
proposed easements must be removed.
e) The existing paved access to Lot 2 shown on the plans is not wide enough to access
Lot 2. The applicant must either widen the paved portion of the 15 -foot easement
along the northern side of Lot 1 or obtain an easement from the property owner of the
adjacent property to the north so that there will be sufficient paved access width
located within the access easement(s) serving Lot 2.
I) An access easement must be provided at the northwest corner of Lot 1 for the benefit
of Lots 1, 2, and 3 as well as for the benefit of the existing adjacent lots to the north
(9811 —235 1h Place Southwest) and south (9820 — 236'b Street Southwest) of the
subject development.
g) Make the following revisions to the plat:
(1) Change the street name label from "235"' St SW" to "235`h Pl SW".
(2) Provide the gross and net areas of all three lots.
(3) Show all existing and proposed easements. Note that structures cannot be
located within any existing easements.
(4) If setbacks are to be included on the final plat, correct the setbacks shown to
reflect those shown in Section II.A.4.a of this document, and add the
following statement to the face of the plat: "Setbacks shown are for
reference only and vest no right with the following exception: The western
side setbacks for Lots 1 and 3 have been granted a modification to reduce
the required western side setback to 5 feet for Lots 1 and 3 from the eastern
boundary of the access easement."
(5) If setbacks are not to be shown on the plat, a note should be added to the
face of the Plat stating, "The western side setbacks for Lots I and 3 have
been granted a modification to reduce the required western side setback to 5
feet for Lots I and 3 from the eastern boundary of the access easement."
(6) Correct the length of the northernmost line segment of the property line
separating Lots 1 and 2 from 20 feet to 15 feet.
(7) 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-2006-
146 in the City of Edmonds Planning Division."
(8) Include on the plat all required information, including owner's certification,
hold harmless agreement, and staff's approval block.
h) Make sure all documents to be recorded meet the Snohomish County Auditor's
requirements for recording, including all signatures in black ink.
i) Submit two copies of the documents to be recorded for the Planning Division and
Engineering Division's approval. Once approved, the applicant must record the
documents with Snohomish County Auditor's office.
j) Submit an updated copy of the title report (short plat certificate) with the documents
proposed to be recorded.
Carmen and Kimberly Crispeno
File No. S-2006-146
Page 4 of 13
2. After recording the plat, the applicant must complete the following:
a) Provide the City of Edmonds Planning Division with three copies of the recorded
plat, with the recording number written on them. The City will not consider the
subdivision to have been completed until this is done.
b) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required with Building
Permit" on Attachment 6.
c) Follow the recommendations of the geotechnical report by Geotech Consultants, Inc.
dated October 30, 2006 and any subsequent geotechnical reports.
C. Decisions on Modification Requests
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and Attachments submitted with the application
and during the comment period, the following is the decision of the City of Edmonds Planning
Division:
The Modification Request to reduce the required minimum lot area for proposed Lot 1 from
8,000 square feet to 5,688 net square feet is APPROVED with the following condition. The
Modification Request to reduce the minimum western side setbacks for proposed Lots I and
3 from 7.5 feet to 5 feet from the eastern boundary of the access easement is APPROVED
with the following condition.
1. Any alterations made to the existing and/or proposed ingress/egress easements prior to
recording may not cause the net area of Lot 1 to fall below 5,688 net square feet as
approved in the modification request.
2. A 6 -foot high fence and/or a row of plantings must be established along the western
property line of Lots 1 and 3 to act as a screen between these properties and the properties
located directly west.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance
1. Introduction
Setting:
The subject property at 9812 — 235`h Place SW is located in the Single -Family Residential
(RS -8) zone (Attachment 2). The immediately surrounding properties are also zoned RS -8
and are developed with single-family residences. The surrounding properties to the north and
west are part of a Planned Residential Development (PRD) from 2000.
b. Topography and Vegetation:
The eastern side of the subject property is relatively flat; however, the property slopes
downwards steeply towards the west beginning near the center of the property. The top of the
slope is roughly along the existing fence line. Vegetation on the eastern portion of the site
consists of typical residential landscaping, including lawn, shrubs, and trees. Vegetation on
the western portion of the site is more overgrown and natural, including trees, shrubs, and
blackberries.
C. Lot Layout:
The proposed lot layout is shown on the subdivision map (Attachment 3). The existing house
and pool will remain on proposed Lot 2, Lot I will be created on the northwestern portion of
the subject property and Lot 3 will be created on the southwestern portion of the subject
property. The property line running north to south separating Lot 2 from Lots 1 and 3 will
Carmen and Kimberly Crispeno
File No. S-2006-146
Page 5 of 13
follow the approximate top of the slope on the subject property. Lots 1 and 3 will be
accessed via an existing access easement along the western side of the subject property,
which also currently provides access to the property addressed 9820 — 236th Street SW,
located to the south of the subject property. This easement will be widened to 20 feet where
it serves these three lots and will be reduced to 15 feet where it serves only Lot 3 and the lot
to the south. Lot 2 will be accessed via the existing paved driveway, along an easement on
the northern side of Lot 1. The pavement width throughout this easement must be widened to
meet the Engineering Division's standards unless an easement is obtained from the adjacent
property to the north allowing access to Lot 2 along the currently paved portion of the lot to
the north.
2. Environmental Resources
a. The subdivision chapter, ECDC 20.75.085, states that a proposed subdivision should be
designed to minimize significant adverse impacts where environmental resources exist (such
as trees, streams, ravines, or wildlife habitats). The only apparent environmental resource on
the site is the existing trees. It appears that the trees located along the eastern property line
will be able to be retained with development of the subject property because the existing
house, which is located on the eastern side of the property, is proposed to be retained. It
appears that some of the trees located on the western portion of the property will need to be
removed for the development of proposed Lots 1 and 3.
b. The proposal minimizes grading because proposed Lots 1 and 3 will share access along the
existing access easement on the western side of the subject property and Lot 2 will continue
to use the current access to the existing house. The preliminary grading and drainage plan is
included for reference as Attachment 4. Note that the locations of the property lines and
future residences will be slightly different than what is shown on the preliminary grading and
drainage plan. The applicant has requested a modification to reduce the minimum required
side setbacks for Lots 1 and 3 from 7.5 feet to 5 feet, which will help to keep the future
houses on these lots further away from the steep slope, thus reducing the required grading for
the project.
C. The subject property contains a Landslide Hazard Area, as defined in ECDC 23.80. The
applicant has submitted a geotechnical report from Geotech Consultants, Inc. dated October
30, 2006, which concluded that the proposed lots can be safely developed as long as the
recommendations of the report are followed. Refer to Attachment 5 for a copy of the report.
No other hazardous conditions are known to exist at this site.
d. A drainage plan must be submitted to the Engineering Division when a building permit is
applied for on this site. Any proposed development on the site should be designed to
minimize off-site impacts on drainage. All new impervious surfaces must be connected to a
detention system.
3. 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 that the lots would ultimately be
buildable. Based on a review of the project and the analysis in this section, staff agrees that
a three lot short -plat is a reasonable use of the property.
b. Lot sizes and dimensions:
Lot Area:
Required
Lot Area
Proposed
Gross sq. ft
Proposed
Nets . ft
Lot 1 8,000
8,345
5,696*
Lot 2 8,000
15,133
<15,133**
Lot 3 8,000
9,776
8,054
Carmen and Kimberly Crispeno
File No. S-2006-146
Page 6 of 13
*Note: A modification request was submitted to reduce the minimum required lot area for
Lot 1 from 8,000 square feet to 5,688 net square feet. This request is further discussed in
Section II.0 of this report.
**Note: Lot 2 contains a portion of an ingress/egress easement, which must be deducted
from the net area for Lot 2. However, it is clear that the easement does not cause the net area
of Lot 2 to go below the minimum required 8,000 square foot lot size. A condition has been
added requiring the applicant to provide the net areas of all three lots prior to recording to
ensure that the net area for Lot 2 is in fact over 8,000 square feet.
Lot Width:
The required lot width in the RS -8 zone is 70 feet. All three lots meet this requirement.
4. Setbacks and Lot Coverage
a. In order to approve a subdivision, the proposal must meet all requirements of the zoning
ordinance, or a modification must be approved. Based on the development standards for the
RS -8 zone, setbacks for the lots should be as follows:
Lot 1: Street Setback: 25 feet from the portion of the western property
line adjacent to 235`x' Pl. SW, measured as a radius from
the edge of the right-of-way.
Side Setbacks: 7.5 feet from the southern boundary of the access
easement running along the northern side of the lot, 7.5
feet from the southern property line, and 5 feet (per
modification request) from the portion of the western
property line not impacted by the street setback,
including a 5 -foot radius from the corner in which the
access easement changes from being 20 feet wide to
being 15 feet wide.
Rear Setback: 15 feet from the eastern property line.
Lot 2: Side Setbacks: 7.5 feet from all property lines and from the outer
boundary of any access easements.
Lot 3: Side Setbacks: 5 feet (per modification request) from the eastern
boundary of the access easement running along the
western side of the property and 7.5 feet from all other
property lines.
*Note: Refer to Section II.D of this report for a further discussion of the proposed
modification request to reduce the minimum western side setbacks for Lots 1 and 3
from 7.5 feet to 5 feet.
Existing Structures / Encroachments: The existing house, pool, and pool building are
proposed to be retained on Lot 2. These structures meet the minimum required setback from
the proposed new lot line for Lot 2. There is an existing shed located on the southwest corner
of proposed Lot 3. Since a lot cannot contain an accessory structure without a primary
structure, the existing shed must be removed from Lot 3 prior to recording. The applicant has
submitted a modification request to reduce the minimum required western side setbacks for
future structures on Lots 1 and 3 from 7.5 feet to 5 feet. This modification request is further
discussed in Section II.D of this report.
b. Corner Lots: None of the lots are considered corner lots.
Carmen and Kimberly Crispeno
File No. S-2006-146
Page 7 of 13
Flag or Interior Lot Determination: Lots 2 and 3 are considered to be flag lots.
d. Lot Coverage of Existing Buildings on Proposed Lots:
35% maximum lot coverage is allowed in the RS -8 zone
2.) According to Snohomish County Assessor's records, the existing house and attached
garage cover 1,920 square feet. The existing pool building appears to cover
approximately 200 square feet. These structures would result in approximately 2,120
square feet, or 14%, of coverage on proposed Lot 2. There are currently no structures
on proposed Lot 1. Following removal of the existing shed, there will be no structures
on proposed Lot 3. Therefore, Lots 1 and 3 will have a zero percent lot coverage. Any
future buildings or structures on any of the proposed lots will be permitted to cover no
more than 35% of each lot.
5. Dedications
a. Per the City Engineer's requirements, a street dedication is not required. (Attachment 6).
6. Improvements
a. See Engineering Requirements (Attachment 6).
7. Flood Plain Management
a. This project is not located in a FEMA designated Flood Plain.
B. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
1. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies:
The Comprehensive Plan has the following stated goals and policies for Residential Development
that apply to this project.
Residential Development
B. Goal. High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse
lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options
available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be
approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic consideration, in
accordance with the following policies:
B.1. Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes
with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the
surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability.
B.3. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or
additions to existing structures.
BA. Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds
whenever it is economically feasible.
B.5. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful
control of other types of development and expansion based upon the
following principles:
B.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.
Carmen and Kimberly Crispeno
File No. S-2006-146
Page 8 of 13
2. Compliance with the Residential Development goals and policies: The proposal will retain the
existing house that was constructed in 1969, according to Assessor's records, and will make way
for two additional homes.
C. Analysis of the Requested Lot Area Modification
1. The applicant has requested a modification to reduce the minimum required lot area for Lot 1 from
8,000 square feet to 5,688 net square feet as allowed in ECDC 20.75.075, which requires all
criteria of a variance to be met if the requested modification is to be approved. The criteria are as
follows:
a. Special Circumstances:
That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, 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 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.
b. 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.
C. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance:
That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive
plan, the zoning ordinance and the zoning district in which the property is located.
d. 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 the same zone.
e. 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.
2. The applicant has presented declarations as to the merits of their proposal (see Attachment 7).
3. Conclusions:
a. In their initial submittal dated November 20, 2006, the applicant showed that it would be
possible to subdivide the subject property into three lots that all meet the requirements of the
Edmonds Community Development Code; however, this would require proposed Lots 1 and
3 to be very abnormally shaped. Lot 1 would have contained a narrow strip of property
along the western side of Lot 3 and Lot 3 would have contained a narrow strip of property
along the southern side of Lot 2 (see Attachment 7A). This layout did not take the existing
topography into account and would have created portions of Lots 1 and 3 that would not
have been very useable for their future owners. It is only because the applicant wishes to
design a lot layout that fits in with the existing topography and because the applicant wants
to avoid having unusable portions of each new lot that the minimum required lot size comes
up as an issue. Although the applicant could conceivably design the subdivision to comply
with the City's minimum lot area requirements, this would go against the Comprehensive
Plan policy requiring that new residential development be compatible with the natural
constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage. Therefore, due to the
presence of the steep slope, the applicant has a special circumstance.
Carmen and Kimberly Crispeno
File No. 5-2006-146
Page 9 of 13
The subject property is located directly adjacent to a Planned Residential Development (File
No. PRD -2000-21) where lots of similar sizes (compared to the proposed 5,688 net square
feet for Lot 1) were approved. Therefore, it appears that the approval of this modification
request would not be a grant of special privilege.
C. The proposal will be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan in creating lots
that are compatible with the existing topography and will be consistent with the purposes of
the zoning ordinance.
The modification 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. In
respect to the proposed modification to the lot size of Lot 1, the proposed lot layout does not
impact the location of a future house on Lot 1. Attachment 7A shows that the house would
have been in generally the same location on Lot 1 if a modification request was not made as
it will be located if the modification request is approved. Therefore, the proposal does not
appear to be significantly detrimental.
The proposed modification is the minimum necessary to create three lots that take the
existing topography into account and that do not create unusable portions of the proposed
lots.
D. Analysis of the Requested Side Setback Modification
1. The applicant has requested a modification to reduce the minimum required western side setbacks
for proposed Lots 1 and 3 from 7.5 feet to 5 feet from the eastern boundary of the access
easement as allowed in ECDC 20.75.075, which requires all criteria of a variance to be met if the
requested modification is to be approved. The criteria are as follows:
a. Special Circumstances:
That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, 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 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.
b. 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.
C. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance:
That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive
plan, the zoning ordinance and the zoning district in which the property is located.
d. 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 the same zone.
e. 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.
2. The applicant has presented declarations as to the merits of their proposal (Attachment 8).
Carmen and Kimberly Crispeno
File No, S-2006-146
Page 10 of 13
3. Conclusions:
a. The applicant has requested a side setback modification for Lots 1 and 3 in order to help
keep the new houses as far off of the steep slope as possible. Although the applicant could
conceivably develop Lots 1 and 3 without the need for a setback modification, the proposed
modification would help minimize the impact on the steep slope. Due to the steep slope on
the subject property, the applicant has a special circumstance.
b. The subject property is located directly adjacent to a Planned Residential Development (File
No. PRD -2000-21) where reduced side setbacks of 5 -feet were approved. Therefore, it
appears that the approval of this modification request would not be a grant of special
privilege.
C. The proposal will be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan in preserving the
natural topography and minimizing the impact on the steep slope as much as possible and
will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance.
d. The modification 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. Since
the western side setbacks for Lots 1 and 3 are taken from the eastern boundary of the access
easement, the future homes on Lots 1 and 3 would still be a minimum of 20 to 25 feet (the
width of the 15- to 20 -foot easement plus the 5 -foot setback) from the western boundary of
the subject site. Therefore, the houses would be further away from the adjacent properties
to the west than they would be if the site was developed without the easement and with
standard setbacks. In order to mitigate any potential impacts to the neighboring properties
to the west of the subject property, a condition of approval has been added requiring a 6 -
foot fence or a row of plantings to be established along the western property lines of Lots 1
and 3 as a way to provide a screen between Lots I and 3 and the neighboring properties to
the west.
e. The proposed modification is the minimum necessary to move the proposed residences
further away from the steep slope.
E. Compliance with the Zoning Code
1. If the proposed modifications are approved, the proposed subdivision will comply with the
provisions of the Zoning Code. See sections II.A.3 and II.A.4 of this document.
F. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions
The proposed project is not located in a Flood Plain.
G. Environmental Assessment
Is this site within a shoreline area (within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Puget
Sound)? No.
2. Is an Environmental Checklist Required for this application? No. If more than 500 cubic yards of
grading will be required, an Environmental Checklist is required. At this point in time, the total
amount of grading for the subdivision improvements is not anticipated to exceed 500 cubic yards. If
through the review of the civil plans, it is determined that more than 500 cubic yards of grading will
be required, the City will require an Environmental Checklist to be submitted and will issue an
Environmental Determination.
Carmen and Kimberly Crispeno
File No. S-2006-146
Page 11 of 13
H. Critical Areas Review
1. Critical Areas Review numbers: CA -2005-157.
Results of Critical Areas Reviews: The subject property contains a Landslide Hazard Area as
defined by ECDC 23.40 and ECDC 23.80. As a result, a "study required" determination was
issued. The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report by Geotech Consultants, Inc., dated
October 30, 2006, which concluded that the proposed lots a buildable as long as the
recommendations in the report are followed. This report is included as Attachment 5.
I. Comments
Four public comment letters were received during review of this proposal and are included as
Attachments 9 through 12.
A letter was received from Jonathan and Kimberly Prinz, which addressed their concerns over two
new houses being constructed on the steep slope. Additionally, Mr. and Mrs. Prinz addressed
concerns over the access easement being utilized during an emergency, as they had observed an
instance where emergency vehicles had a difficult time maneuvering to the house located south of
the subject property. They also addressed concern that the types of homes proposed on the new
lots would not be subject to the standard height limit. This letter is included as Attachment 9.
Staff Response: Since the subject property is located within a Landslide Hazard Area, the
applicant was required to submit a report from a geotechnical engineer. This report is
included as Attachment 5 and concluded that the proposed lots could be safely developed
without compromising the stability of the slope or surrounding properties. Additional
geotechnical reports will be required to be submitted with the building permit applications
for the new lots. These reports will be more detailed than the initial report and will need to
address the building plans for each lot to ensure that the specific homes that are to be built
will be constructed safely. The access easement along the western side of the subject
property will be required to meet all Engineering Division requirements during review of
civil plans. Unless a variance is approved, the maximum height allowed in all single family
zones is 25 feet. This height is measured from the average original grade of the four corners
of the smallest rectangle that fits around each house, not from the height of the building
foundation. During building permit review, the applicant will need to show that the
proposed residences are less than 25 feet in height over the average original grade.
A letter was received from Karen Milnor, which addressed her comments against the proposed
subdivision due to concerns over the increased density decreasing her property value. Ms. Milnor
also commented that the proposed residences would be looking straight onto her residence. This
letter is included as Attachment 10.
Staff Response: The applicant has indicated plans to retain the existing residence and pool
on Lot 2, which runs the length of the entire eastern property line of the subject property.
The proposed new residences would be located on the western side of the subject property
and on the opposite side of the original lot from Ms. Milnor's property. The property is
located within the RS -8 zone, which allows lots with a minimum of 8,000 square feet. All
three proposed lots will be over 8,000 gross square feet in size. The proposed subdivision is
not resulting in more density than what is allowed by the underlying zoning.
A letter was received from Judith and Richard Cook, Jason Mckie and Elizabeth Pfau, and Karen
Milnor stating that they are against the proposal and feel that it would negatively impact their
property values and detract from the naturalistic setting that attracted them to their neighborhood.
This letter is included as Attachment 11.
Staff Response: The subject property is located within the RS -8 zone, which allows lots with
a minimum of 8,000 square feet. The proposed subdivision is not resulting in more density
than what is allowed by the underlying zoning. City staff cannot deny an applicant from
utilizing their property as long as the proposal meets the requirements of the Edmonds
Community Development Code.
Carmen and Kimberly Crispeno
File No. S-2006-146
Page 12 of 13
A letter was received from Rapheus and Marci Villanueva, which addressed several concerns over
the presence of the Landslide Hazard and Erosion Hazard Areas on the subject property. Mr. and
Mrs. Villanueva feel that the geotechnical report submitted with the subdivision application did not
adequately address safety concerns associated with building on the steep slope. Additionally, Mr.
and Mrs. Villanueva wrote in opposition to the modification request to reduce the minimum
required side setback due to concerns over providing ample room for planting vegetation, creating
a crowded feel, and causing hazards for access along the easement during emergencies. The
Villanuevas also provided a list of requirements that should be made, including requiring
inspections during development, limiting parking for construction vehicles and limiting
construction lighting, requiring the daily removal of construction debris, providing vegetation as a
screen between the properties, and notifying neighbors in advance of tree removal. This letter is
included as Attachment 12,
Staff Response: Updated geotechnical reports will be required with any future building
permit applications for Lots 1 and 3. These reports must provide a more detailed analysis of
potential impacts to the slope by the proposed residences. The reports must show that the
proposed residences will not be detrimental to the stability of the slope and that they will be
safely constructed. The Fire Department reviewed the subject proposal for emergency
access, and did not provide any additional conditions. A condition of approval has been
added requiring either a 6 -foot fence and/or a row of plantings along the western property
lines of Lots I and 3 to provide a screen between the proposed lots and the existing
neighboring residences. Best management practices will be required during construction.
Typical inspections will be required with the building permit applications for the new lots.
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 reconsideration or appeal should contact the Planning Division for
further procedural information.
A. Request for Reconsideration
Section 20.100.010.G 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 filed with the Community Development Director within fourteen (14)
calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed.
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals
The time limits for reconsiderations and appeals run concurrently. If a request for a
reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time "clock" for
filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once staff
has issued his/her decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal
continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a request is filed on day 5 of the appeal
period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the staff issues their
decision on the reconsideration request.
Carmen and Kimberly Crispeno
File No. S-2006-146
Page 13 of 13
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. ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application
2. Vicinity and Zoning Map
3. Preliminary Subdivision Map
4. Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan
5. Geotechnical Report by Geotech Consultants, Inc., dated October 30, 2006
6. Engineering Requirements
7, Modification Request for Lot Area
8. Modification Request for Side Setbacks
9. Comment Letter from Jonathan and Kimberly Prinz
10. Comment Letter from Karen Milnor
11. Comment Letter from Judith and Richard Cook, Jason Mckie and Elizabeth Pfau, and Karen Milnor
12. Comment Letter from Rapheus and Marci Villanueva
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD
Engineering Department
Planning Department
Carmen and Kimberly Crispeno
9812 — 235`h Place SW
Edmonds, WA 98020
Judith and Richard Cook
23521 — 97`h Place W
Edmonds, WA 98020
Jason McKie and Elizabeth Pfau
23512 — 97`h Place W
Edmonds, WA 98020
Leah White
4727-A Evergreen Way
Everett, WA 98203
Rapheus and Marci Villanueva
23507 — 991h Place W
Edmonds, WA 98020
Jonathan and Kimberly Prinz
23511 — 99`h Place W
Edmonds, WA 98020
Karen Milnor
23520 — 97`h Place W
Edmonds, WA 98020
city of edmonds
land use application
❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
❑ HOME OCCUPATION
❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION NOV 2 0 2006
Z SHORT SUBDIVISION
❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PERMIT COUNTER
❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT
❑ STREET VACATION
❑ REZONE
FOR OFFICIAL USE ON
FiLE: PL�J'40Viv' 0I� P ZONE: 5
DATE: 11 LO 2ootO
FEE: OD
HEARING DATE:
REC'D BY:—Cl, /, ��
P;E�L —
RECEiPT #: 043 120
❑ HE STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC
❑ SHORELINE PERMIT t 0 — 9i \ P p sfi� nq f a $ g — Shor+-
❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION t 5 5 J Ptu+-
❑ OTHER: � 15' SI.t V Ltn U ✓9 e -L
`, q-zo - Sr,-p%k (> ETD D cyst � 5bG' -rnodrfi'W
regvts+
PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION: 9812 23.5T" PLACE SOUTHWEST EDMONDS WA 98020
PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE): CARMEN CRISPENO SHORT PLAT
PROPERTY OWNER: CARMEN & KIMBERLY CRiSPENO PHONE #: 206.261.2068
ADDRESS: 9812 235T" PLACE SOUTHWEST EDMONDS, WA 98020
E-MAIL ADDRESS: CRISPENO(aiJUNO.COM FAX #: 425.487.3759
TAX ACCOUNT #: 00 5548 00109.106 SEC.: 36 Twp.:17N RNG.: 3E
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE: THE PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE AN APPROXIMATELY 33,254
S UARE FOOT PARCEL ZONED R-8 INTO THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING
TWO ADDITIONAL RESIDENCES ON PROPOSED LOTS 2 AND 3. THE EXISTING HOUSE ON LOT 1 WILL REMAIN
AS PART OF THE PROJECT.
APPLICANT: SAME AS OWNER PHONE
ADDRES
E-MAIL ADDRESS:
AX #:
AGENT: LEE A. MICHAELIS AICP A.S.P.i. PHONE #: 425.252.1884
ADDRESS: 4727-A EVERGREEN WAY EVERETT, WA 98203
E-MAIL ADDRESS:LEE(t1�ALPHASUB CObt FAX 4:425.339.0269
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:
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 ' spe t n and posting attendant to this application.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER:
DATE. t I
This application form was revised on 10/04/2005. To verify whether it is still current, call (425) 771-0220. I 'Attachment
• • / /r �� i// /%% �,
rrii '
//////r/ �j
228TH PL SW
j
/ (%'iiioiai
/% /irrl/r iiil'fffi
,i/�/4/�Mi// /jb% a 4� 9 O/ ♦ 9 �O 4 fJ# ///O 9/�0 ♦ 4 ®.
Af
ffIll" In
232ND $T SW
sv
232ND ST SW
F
RS -8
�ySubject
Property:
231ST PL SW
$,
�J
/I /rr�i
232ND $T SW
232ND ST SW
�ySubject
Property:
�J
�Me9812
- 235th Place SW
w
¢
233RD ST SW61,
_.
ITonds
Woodway
a
is
School
s
a�234TH
�
rn
PRD -2000- 1
0
235TH PL
235TH ST SW
�J, L
W
>y�
236TH PL _....
235TH PL '
236TH ST SW
... _...
236TH PL SW W
��.. .J
236TH PL
Woodwy
237TH PL SW
Elementary
.... .238TH
ST SW e
3
Ma(
w' N 238TH ST SW
a0
o
Zoning 1 1 1t
RS -20 RS -6 RM -3 BP C G 2
RS -12 L RSW-12 RM -2.4 BNS CW MU
RS -10 RS -MP F,////Q RM -1.5 BC.,°,.., MP1 P
RS -8 CG MP2 ;., OS
/ rf'
Rezones
PRD �. is
0 325 650 File S-2006-116
''ee` Attachment 2
z
a:
I
\ vrt vut
srt
LIM
I �Q
8 v
-- � M OtK Wit` rntaZt,,
_ w i
F a
9i7y
��-Fgmm taom
w a
U I
�z I z
W
w�
D
---------- �1
Ox$
Z
N �4¢'�YC
a U
rn
I
�
I
I
\ vrt vut
srt
LIM
I �Q
8 v
-- � M OtK Wit` rntaZt,,
_ w i
F a
9i7y
��-Fgmm taom
w a
U I
�z I z
W
Np .1
o
�z
r-6 s8� �-
as
ca
M -j< z.
< CL -J �5
ry w a.
ry Z w
o
z ry z t3
w -,
n- 0
U) E
W Z E '.
ry < L)
0
-J
�
w
Lu
Call
Z
0-
-XtL
0
- -- -----
g
ZN
LLI
0
zl�
cy
Z
bs
z
z
%
NfV
�a
CD
j
M
ALL
Hz
HE
U) �yuin�i
as
ca
M -j< z.
< CL -J �5
ry w a.
ry Z w
o
z ry z t3
w -,
n- 0
U) E
W Z E '.
ry < L)
0
-J
I
uwLL
vo
E
cs ci
�
w
Lu
Call
Ev
-XtL
0
- -- -----
LLI
0
W
cy
Z
bs
z
NfV
�a
CD
I
uwLL
vo
E
cs ci
6 6 6
�2 �2 7:
Ev
U)
cy
z
�a
CD
j
o
Jy
Ev
S
M
HE
I t
o
Jy
CONSULTANTS, INC.
13256 Northeast 20th Street, Suite 16
Bellevue, Washington 98005
(425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561
October 30, 2006
JN 05413
Carmen Crispeno
22232 — 17th Avenue Southeast
Bothell, Washington 98021
Subject: Transmittal Letter — Geotechnical Engineering Study
Proposed Residential Short -Plat NOV 2 0 2006
98XX — 235th Place Southwest
Edmonds, Washington PERMIT COUNTER
Dear Mr. Crispeno:
We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the two proposed residences to
be constructed in Edmonds, Washington. The scope of our services consisted of exploring site
surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide recommendations for
general earthwork and design criteria for foundations and retaining walls. This work was
authorized by your acceptance of our proposal, P-6880, dated October 12, 2005.
The attached report contains a discussion of the study and our recommendations. Please contact
us if there are any questions regarding this report, or for further assistance during the design and
construction phases of this project.
ZJM/DRW: jyb
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
D. Robert Ward, P.E.
Principal
Attachment 5
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Two Proposed Residences
98XX — 235th Place Southwest
Edmonds, Washington
This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnical engineering study for
the site of the two proposed residences to be located in Edmonds, Washington.
We were initially provided with a topographic map of the site. Recently we were provided with a
"Frontage Improvement Plan", which was prepared by DVG Enterprises. Based on the topographic
map and the plan, we understand that the existing residential lot will be separated into three lots,
with the existing residence and pool on the eastern side of the property remaining in one lot. The
western portion of the site is currently undeveloped, and it will be platted into two residential lots.
The residences will be located on the western side of the new lots, located as close as 5 feet from
the western property line. Both residences will have a lower level garage, and will be set back the
minimum required setback distance of 5 feet. A main and upper level will be located above the
garage. The main floor will be the lowest floor on the eastern, upslope sides of the two residences.
Cuts of up to 12 feet of are proposed on the eastern side of the garage, while cuts of approximately
6 feet are proposed on the eastern side of the main level.
If the scope of the project changes from what we have described above, we should be provided
with revised plans in order to determine if modifications to the recommendations and conclusions of
this report are warranted.
SITE CONDITIONS
SURFACE
The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the existing residential site in Edmonds.
The residential property is rectangular in shape, located on the southern side of the right-of-way of
235th Place Southwest. The site is relatively flat on the eastern side, but slopes down on the
western slope. At the top of the slope are an existing two-story residence and a pool. The
residence and pool will remain after the lot is short -platted. The western portion of the site is
generally undeveloped, and the vegetation is relatively light. The slope in the middle of the
property nearest the flat portion is very steep, with an inclination of approximately 64 percent slope
on the northern side and a 71 percent slope on the southern side. This very steep slope is about
25 feet tall. Although the slope is steep, we did not observe indications of soil instability. The slope
then flattens on the western side of the property to approximately 25 to 30 percent. An existing
paved driveway is located on the western edge of the property that provides access to a residence
to the south.
SUBSURFACE
The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating four test pits and two test borings at the
approximate locations shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. Our exploration program was
based on the proposed construction, anticipated subsurface conditions and those encountered
during exploration, and the scope of work outlined in our proposal.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Carmen Crispeno JN 05413
October 30, 2006 Page 2
The test pits were excavated on November 1, 2005 with a rubber -tired backhoe. A geotechnical
engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits, and obtained
representative samples of the soil encountered. "Grab" samples of selected subsurface soil were
collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs are attached to this report as Plates 3 and 4.
Test Boring 1 was drilled on October 27, 200,1rusing a track -mounted, hollow -stem auger drill.
While Test Boring 2 was drilled on November 10, 2005 using a portable Acker drill. This drill
system utilizes a small, gasoline -powered engine to advance a hollow -stem auger to the sampling
depth. Samples were taken at 5 -foot intervals with a standard penetration sampler. This split -
spoon sampler, which has a 2 -inch outside diameter, is driven into the soil with a 140 -pound
hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler a given distance
is an indication of the soil density or consistency. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed
the drilling process, logged the test borings, and obtained representative samples of the soil
encountered. The Test Boring Logs are attached as Plates 5 and 6.
Soil Conditions
The two test borings were drilled on the top of the slope, west of the existing single-family
residence. Four test pits were excavated on the lower, flatter portion of the site. The test
borings encountered approximately 5 to 8 feet of loose to medium -dense, silty sand and
gravel. Most of this soil is likely native, but a small portion at the ground surface may be fill
soil. Below these depths, the silty sand with gravel became dense to very dense to the
maximum explored depth of 20.5 feet. The dense to very dense soil is known as glacial till.
Test Pit 1 encountered 2 feet of loose fill overlying medium -dense silt, while weathered,
relatively loose, silty sand with gravel was revealed in the other test pits near the ground
surface. Dense to very dense glacial till was revealed in the test pits at depths ranging from
approximately 1 to 4 feet below the ground surface.
No obstructions were revealed by our explorations. However, debris and buried utilities will
probably be encountered in the soil that has been placed on the site during the development
of the surrounding properties. Although our explorations did not encounter cobbles or
boulders, they are often found in soils that have been deposited by glaciers.
Groundwater Conditions
No groundwater seepage was observed during our explorations. The test pits and borings
were left open for only a short time period. Therefore, the seepage levels on the logs
represent the location of transient water seepage and may not indicate the static
groundwater level. Groundwater levels encountered during drilling can be deceptive,
because seepage into the boring can be blocked or slowed by the auger itself.
It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors,
and wet zones were encountered near 25 feet in Boring 1. During the normally wet winter
and spring months, we anticipate that groundwater could be found in more permeable soil
layers within the glacial till and/or between the near -surface weathered soil and the
underlying glacial till.
The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the
exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface
conditions can vary between exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface
information only at the locations tested. If a transition in soil type occurred between samples in the
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Carmen Crispeno JN 05413
October 30, 2006 Page 3
borings, the depth of the transition was interpreted. The relative densities and moisture
descriptions indicated on the test pit and boring logs are interpretive descriptions based on the
conditions observed during excavation and drilling.
The compaction of backfill was not in the scope of our services. Loose soil will therefore be found
in the area of the test pits. If this presents a problem, the backfill will need to be removed and
replaced with structural fill during construction.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL
THIS SECTION CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF OUR STUDY AND FINDINGS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A
GENERAL OVERVIEW ONLY. MORE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE
CONTAINED IN THE REMAINDER OF THIS REPORT. ANY PARTY RELYING ON THIS REPORT SHOULD
READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT.
The test pits and borings conducted for this study encountered dense to very dense glacial till
underlying loose to medium -dense weathered and fill soils at depths ranging from approximately 1
to 8 feet below the ground surface. The glacial till appears to generally exist at depths less than 4
feet in the two residence areas. Based on the soil conditions encountered in our explorations, it is
our opinion that the new proposed residences can be supported on conventional continuous and
spread footings bearing on the dense to very dense glacial till. Depending on final site grades
some overexcavation may be required to expose the competent, native glacial till. Prior to pouring
the footings a geotechnical engineer from our firm should observe the footing subgrade conditions
to ensure that suitable bearing soils have been exposed. The glacial till soil is silty and thus is
moisture sensitive. It may be necessary to hand clean bearing surfaces during periods of wet
weather or protect them with a mat of imported, granular fill.
Per the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) section 23.80.020, the steep portion of
the site, which is on the eastern side of the two proposed residential lots, is designated as a
Landslide Hazard Area because its inclination is greater than 40 percent over a height of greater
than 10 feet. Even though it is designated as such, we did not observe any indications of soil
instability of this slope. In addition, due to the silty nature of the site soil, any portion of the site that
is inclined steeper than 15 percent is an Erosion Hazard Area.
Per the development standards of the ECDC, no building on Erosion Hazard Areas is
recommended. If this recommendation were strictly followed, very little if any of the two residences
would be possible. For Landslide Hazard Areas, a minimum buffer of 50 feet from the steep slope
is first recommended, but can be reduced to 10 feet. However, even the use of a minimum buffer
of 10 feet, and a minimal required building setback from the western property lines of 5 feet, the
width of the proposed residences would be unreasonable. The two residences are proposed in
Erosion Hazard Areas of the site, in the buffers, and also slightly into the Landslide Hazard Area on
the sites; we believe this is very feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint because the
core soils of the site is dense to very dense glacial till provided recommendations in this study are
followed. An Alteration of an Erosion Hazard Area and Landslide Hazard Area and/or buffers can
occur per the ECDC is a hazards analysis is submitted. The following requirements must be met
for an Alteration to be allowed (our comments regarding these requirements are shown in italics):
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Carmen Crispeno
October 30, 2006
JN 05413
Page 4
a) The development will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent
properties beyond pre -development conditions. A stormwater drainage system will be
designed for all impervious surfaces on the site, and the sites will be landscaped.
Therefore, this requirement is met in our professional opinion.
b) The development will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties. The foundations
of the residences will be designed as retaining walls that will support the hillside above.
Therefore, the residences will somewhat increase the stability of the property above. The
development will have no impact on slope stability of the north and south adjacent
properties because excavations will not be close to the adjoining property lines. The
development will have no impact on slope stability of the property to the west because that
property is below the residences and well away from the residences.
c) Such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas. It appears that the only
adjacent critical areas are Erosion Hazard Areas to the north and south. As noted in b) no
excavations will be made near the north and south property lines, therefore the adjacent
critical areas will not be adversely impacted.
Development standards are also discussed in the ECDC. Seven standards need to be followed.
The standard and our comments regarding how we believe the standards are being maintained are
as follows:
a) The proposed development shall not decrease the factor of safety for landslide occurrence
below the limit of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. The core of the
site is comprised of dense to very dense glacial till. These soils have an existing factor of
safety against landslide occurrence of well over these limits. In addition, foundation and
retaining walls on the site will be designed to meet these standards once our
recommendations given in this study are followed.
b) Structures and improvements shall be clustered to avoid geologically hazardous areas and
other critical areas. The residences are located as far west as is required, which is on the
flattest portion of the site. The residences are located as close to each other as allowed by
land use setbacks.
c) Structures and improvements shall minimize alteration to the natural contour of the slope,
and
d) Foundation shall be tiered where possible to preserve the most critical portions of the site
and its natural landforms and vegetation. Most of the residences will be located in the
flatter portion of the site. A minimum length garage is proposed for the lower level of the
residences; the main level steps up above the eastern side of the garage. Thus, the
residences are being tiered as much as possible. Although the western portion of the steep
slope will be built on, the eastern upper portion will not.
e) The proposed development shall not result in a greater risk or need for increased buffers on
neighboring properties. The steep slope is basically contained on the site, therefore we
cannot see any reason the neighboring properties will be affected in this way.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Carmen Crispeno
October 30, 2006
JN 05413
Page 5
f) The use of retaining walls that allow the maintenance of existing natural slope areas is
preferred over graded artificial slopes. The foundation walls will be used to support the
steep eastern slope; that slope will not be artificially graded.
g) Development shall be designed to minimize impervious lot coverage. The residences have
minimal driveways and the residence size is consistent with those in the neighborhood.
The erosion control measures needed during the site development will depend heavily on the
weather conditions that are encountered. We anticipate that a silt fence will be needed around the
downslope sides of any cleared areas. Rocked construction access roads should be extended into
the site to reduce the amount of soil or mud carried off the property by trucks and equipment.
Wherever possible, these roads should follow the alignment of planned pavements, and trucks
should not be allowed to drive off of the rock -covered areas. Existing catch basins in, and
immediately downslope of, the planned work areas should be protected with pre -manufactured silt
socks. Cut slopes and soil stockpiles should be covered with plastic during wet weather. Following
rough grading, it may be necessary to mulch or hydroseed bare areas that will not be immediately
covered with landscaping or an impervious surface. Other measures may be needed that are in
accordance with Best Management Practices.
The drainage and/or waterproofing recommendations presented in this report are intended only to
prevent active seepage from flowing through concrete walls or slabs. Even in the absence of active
seepage into and beneath structures, water vapor can migrate through walls, slabs, and floors from
the surrounding soil, and can even be transmitted from slabs and foundation walls due to the
concrete curing process. Water vapor also results from occupant uses, such as cooking and
bathing. Excessive water vapor trapped within structures can result in a variety of undesirable
conditions, including, but not limited to, moisture problems with flooring systems, excessively moist
air within occupied areas, and the growth of molds, fungi, and other biological organisms that may
be harmful to the health of the occupants. The designer or architect must consider the potential
vapor sources and likely occupant uses, and provide sufficient ventilation, either passive or
mechanical, to prevent a build up of excessive water vapor within the planned structure.
Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the
recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan
review would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include
revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical
constraints that become more evident during the review process.
We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents. This report
should also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and
recommendations.
SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
In accordance with Table 1615.1.1 of the 2003 International Building Code (IBC), the site soil pro-
file within 100 feet of the ground surface is best represented by Soil Profile Type C (Very Dense
Soil). The site soils are not susceptible to seismic liquefaction because of their dense nature and
the absence of near -surface groundwater.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Carmen Crispeno
October 30, 2006
CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS
JN 05413
Page 6
The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing
on undisturbed, dense to very dense, native glacial till. Depending on the final site grades,
overexcavation may be required below the footings to expose this soil. We recommend that
continuous and individual spread footings have minimum widths of 12 and 16 inches, respectively.
Exterior footings should also be bottomed at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finish
ground surface for protection against frost and erosion. The local building codes should be
reviewed to determine if different footing widths or embedment depths are required. Footing
subgrades must be cleaned of loose or disturbed soil prior to pouring concrete. Depending upon
site and equipment constraints, this may require removing the disturbed soil by hand.
An allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (pso is appropriate for footings
supported on dense to very dense glacial till soil. 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 the total post -construction settlement of footings founded on dense to
very dense glacial till soil will be approximately one-half inch, with differential settlements on the
order of less than half an inch in a distance of 50 feet along a continuous footing with a uniform
load.
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and
the bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the
foundation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively
level, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level structural fill. We recommend using the following
ultimate values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading:
71r.11 It
Coefficient of Friction 0.50
Passive Earth Pressure 300 pcf
Where: (i) pcf is pounds per cubic foot, and (ii) passive earth
pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density.
If the ground in front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will
not be appropriate. We recommend maintaining a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's
resistance to lateral loading, when using the above ultimate values.
PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Retaining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures
imposed by the soil they retain. The following recommended parameters are for walls that restrain
backfill:
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Carmen Crispeno
October 30, 2006
Where: (i) pcf is pounds per cubic foot, and (ii) active and
passive earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid
pressures.
* For a restrained wall that cannot deflect at least 0.002 times its
height, a uniform lateral pressure equal to 10 psf times the height
of the wall should be added to the above active equivalent fluid
pressure.
JN 05413
Page 7
The values given above are to be used to design permanent foundation and retaining walls only. It
is not appropriate to back -calculate soil strength parameters from the earth pressures and soil unit
weights presented in the table. The passive pressure given is appropriate for the depth of level
structural fill placed in front of a retaining or foundation wall only. The values for friction and
passive resistance are ultimate values and do not include a safety factor. We recommend a safety
factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding, when using the above values to design the walls.
Restrained wall soil parameters should be utilized for a distance of 1.5 times the wall height from
corners or bends in the walls. This is intended to reduce the amount of cracking that can occur
where a wall is restrained by a corner.
The design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the
walls and assume that no surcharges, such as those caused by slopes, vehicles, or adjacent
foundations will be exerted on the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added
to the above lateral soil pressures. Where sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will need
to be given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate
design earth pressures. The surcharge due to traffic loads behind a wall can typically be
accounted for by adding a uniform pressure equal to 2 feet multiplied by the above active fluid
density.
Wall Pressures Due to Seismic Forces
A dynamic analysis of the structure and retaining walls should be conducted. To model the
surcharge wall loads that could be imposed by the design earthquake, we recommend
adding a uniform lateral pressure to the above -recommended active pressure. The
recommended surcharge pressure is 8H pounds per square foot (pso, where H is the
design retention height of the wall. Using this increased pressure, the safety factor against
sliding and overturning can be reduced to 1.2 for the seismic analysis.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Active Earth Pressure * 35 pcf
- level backslo e
Active Earth Pressure *
50 pcf
- backslope inclined between
2:1 (H:V) and 3:1 H:V
Passive Earth Pressure
300 pcf
Coefficient of Friction
0.50
Soil Unit Weight
135 pcf
Where: (i) pcf is pounds per cubic foot, and (ii) active and
passive earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid
pressures.
* For a restrained wall that cannot deflect at least 0.002 times its
height, a uniform lateral pressure equal to 10 psf times the height
of the wall should be added to the above active equivalent fluid
pressure.
JN 05413
Page 7
The values given above are to be used to design permanent foundation and retaining walls only. It
is not appropriate to back -calculate soil strength parameters from the earth pressures and soil unit
weights presented in the table. The passive pressure given is appropriate for the depth of level
structural fill placed in front of a retaining or foundation wall only. The values for friction and
passive resistance are ultimate values and do not include a safety factor. We recommend a safety
factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding, when using the above values to design the walls.
Restrained wall soil parameters should be utilized for a distance of 1.5 times the wall height from
corners or bends in the walls. This is intended to reduce the amount of cracking that can occur
where a wall is restrained by a corner.
The design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the
walls and assume that no surcharges, such as those caused by slopes, vehicles, or adjacent
foundations will be exerted on the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added
to the above lateral soil pressures. Where sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will need
to be given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate
design earth pressures. The surcharge due to traffic loads behind a wall can typically be
accounted for by adding a uniform pressure equal to 2 feet multiplied by the above active fluid
density.
Wall Pressures Due to Seismic Forces
A dynamic analysis of the structure and retaining walls should be conducted. To model the
surcharge wall loads that could be imposed by the design earthquake, we recommend
adding a uniform lateral pressure to the above -recommended active pressure. The
recommended surcharge pressure is 8H pounds per square foot (pso, where H is the
design retention height of the wall. Using this increased pressure, the safety factor against
sliding and overturning can be reduced to 1.2 for the seismic analysis.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Carmen Crispeno JN 05413
October 30, 2006 Page 8
Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within
a distance equal to the height of a wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral
pressures resulting from the equipment. The wall design criteria assume that the backfill will be
well -compacted in lifts no thicker than 12 inches. The compaction of backfill near the walls should
be accomplished with hand -operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the
higher soil forces that occur during compaction.
Retaining Wall Backfill and Waterproofing
Backfill placed behind retaining or foundation walls should be coarse, free -draining
structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt
or clay particles and have no gravel greater than 4 inches in diameter. The percentage of
particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. If the on-site soil is
used as backfill, a minimum 12 -inch width of free -draining gravel and a drainage composite
similar to Miradrain 6000 should be placed against the backfilled retaining walls. The
drainage composites should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system.
Free -draining backfill or gravel should be used for the entire width of the backfill where
seepage is encountered. For increased protection, drainage composites should be placed
along cut slope faces, and the walls should be backfilled entirely with free -draining soil. The
later section entitled Drainage Considerations should also be reviewed for
recommendations related to subsurface drainage behind foundation and retaining walls.
The purpose of these backfill requirements is to ensure that the design criteria for a
retaining wall are not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the
wall. The top 12 to 18 inches of the backfill should consist of a compacted, relatively
impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved. The ground surface must also
slope away from backfilled walls to reduce the potential for surface water to percolate into
the backfill. The section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains
recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining
and foundation walls.
The above recommendations are not intended to waterproof below -grade walls, or to
prevent the formation of mold, mildew or fungi in interior spaces. Over time, the
performance of subsurface drainage systems can degrade, subsurface groundwater flow
patterns can change, and utilities can break or develop leaks. Therefore, waterproofing
should be provided where future seepage through the walls is not acceptable. This typically
includes limiting cold -joints and wall penetrations, and using bentonite panels or
membranes on the outside of the walls. There are a variety of different waterproofing
materials and systems, which should be installed by an experienced contractor familiar with
the anticipated construction and subsurface conditions. Applying a thin coat of asphalt
emulsion to the outside face of a wall is not considered waterproofing, and will only help to
reduce moisture generated from water vapor or capillary action from seeping through the
concrete. As with any project, adequate ventilation of basement and crawl space areas is
important to prevent a build up of water vapor that is commonly transmitted through
concrete walls from the surrounding soil, even when seepage is not present. This is
appropriate even when waterproofing is applied to the outside of foundation and retaining
walls. We recommend that you contact a specialty consultant if detailed recommendations
or specifications related to waterproofing design, or minimizing the potential for infestations
of mold and mildew are desired.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Carmen Crispeno
October 30, 2006
JN 05413
Page 9
The General, Slabs -On -Grade, and Drainage Considerations sections should be
reviewed for additional recommendations related to the control of groundwater and excess
water vapor for the anticipated construction.
SLABS -ON -GRADE
The building floors can be constructed as slabs -on -grade atop native glacial till, or on structural fill.
The subgrade soil must be in a firm, non -yielding condition at the time of slab construction or
underslab fill placement. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and replaced with
select, imported structural fill.
Even where the exposed soils appear dry, water vapor will tend to naturally migrate upward through
the soil to the new constructed space above it. All interior slabs -on -grade must be underlain by a
capillary break or drainage layer consisting of a minimum 4 -inch thickness of gravel or crushed
rock that has a fines content (percent passing the No. 200 sieve) of less than 3 percent and a sand
content (percent passing the No. 4 sieve) of no more than 10 percent. As noted by the American
Concrete Institute (ACI) in the Guides for Concrete Floor and Slab Structures, proper moisture
protection is desirable immediately below any on -grade slab that will be covered by tile, wood,
carpet, impermeable floor coverings, or any moisture -sensitive equipment or products. ACI also
notes that vapor retarders, such as 6 -mil plastic sheeting, are typically used. A vapor retarder is
defined as a material with a permeance of less than 0.3 US perms per square foot (psf) per hour,
as determined by ASTM E 96. It is possible that concrete admixtures may meet this specification,
although the manufacturers of the admixtures should be consulted. Where plastic sheeting is used
under slabs, joints should overlap by at least 6 inches and be sealed with adhesive tape. The
sheeting should extend to the foundation walls for maximum vapor protection. If no potential for
vapor passage through the slab is desired, a vapor barrier should be used. A vapor barrier, as
defined by ACI, is a product with a water transmission rate of 0.00 perms per square foot per hour
when tested in accordance with ASTM E 96. Reinforced membranes having sealed overlaps can
meet this requirement.
In the recent past, ACI (Section 4.1.5) recommended that a minimum of 4 inches of well -graded
compactable granular material, such as a 5/8 inch minus crushed rock pavement base, should be
placed over the vapor retarder or barrier for protection of the retarder or barrier and as a "blotter" to
aid in the curing of the concrete slab. Sand was not recommended by ACI for this purpose.
However, the use of material over the vapor retarder is controversial as noted in current ACI
literature because of the potential that the protection/blotter material can become wet between the
time of its placement and the installation of the slab. If the material is wet prior to slab placement,
which is always possible in the Puget Sound area, it could cause vapor transmission to occur up
through the slab in the future, essentially destroying the purpose of the vapor barrier/retarder.
Therefore, if there is a potential that the protection/blotter material will become wet before the slab
is installed, ACI now recommends that no protection/blotter material be used. However, ACI then
recommends that, because there is a potential for slab cure due to the loss of the blotter material,
joint spacing in the slab be reduced, a low shrinkage concrete mixture be used, and 'other
measures" (steel reinforcing, etc.) be used. ASTM E-1643-98 "Standard Practice for Installation of
Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs"
generally agrees with the recent ACI literature.
We recommend that the contractor, the project materials engineer, and the owner discuss these
issues and review recent ACI literature and ASTM E-1643 for installation guidelines and guidance
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Carmen Crispeno JN 05413
October 30, 2006 Page 10
on the use of the protection/blotter material. Our opinion is that with impervious surfaces that all
means should be undertaken to reduce water vapor transmission.
The General, Permanent Foundation and Retaining Walls, and Drainage Considerations
sections should be reviewed for additional recommendations related to the control of groundwater
and excess water vapor for the anticipated construction.
EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES
Excavation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national government
safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted vertically in
unsaturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. However, vertical cuts should not be
made near property boundaries, or existing utilities and structures. Based upon Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the dense to very dense glacial till soil at the subject site
would generally be classified as Type A. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet in
height in this soil should not be excavated at an inclination steeper than 0.75:1 (Horizontal:Vertical),
extending continuously between the top and the bottom of a cut. The upper, looser weathered till
and fill soils at the site would generally be classified as Type B. Thus, temporary cut slopes greater
than 4 feet in height in this soil should not be excavated steeper than 1:1 (H:V), extending
continuously between the top and the bottom of a cut.
The above -recommended temporary slope inclinations are based on the conditions exposed in our
explorations, and on what has been successful at other sites with similar soil conditions. It is
possible that variations in soil and groundwater conditions will require modifications to the
inclination at which temporary slopes can stand. Temporary cuts are those that will remain
unsupported for a relatively short duration to allow for the construction of foundations, retaining
walls, or utilities. Temporary cut slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting during wet
weather. It is also important that surface water be directed away from temporary slope cuts. The
cut slopes should also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for
instability. Please note that loose soil can cave suddenly and without warning. Excavation,
foundation, and utility contractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. These
recommendations may need to be modified if the area near the potential cuts has been disturbed in
the past by utility installation, or if settlement -sensitive utilities are located nearby.
All permanent cuts into native soil should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Compacted fill
slopes should also not be constructed with an inclination greater than 2:1 (H:V). To reduce the
potential for shallow sloughing, fill must be compacted to the face of these slopes. This can be
accomplished by overbuilding the compacted fill and then trimming it back to its final inclination.
Adequate compaction of the slope face is important for long-term stability and is necessary to
prevent excessive settlement of patios, slabs, foundations, or other improvements that may be
placed near the edge of the slope.
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 the stability of the surficial layer of soil. Topsoil is often placed on
regraded slopes to promote growth of vegetation. Proper preparation of the regraded surface, and
use of appropriate topsoil is necessary to prevent the topsoil from sliding off the slope. This is
most likely to occur following extended wet weather if a silty topsoil is used. On steeper slopes, it
may be necessary to "track walk" the slope or cut small grooves across the slope prior to placing
the topsoil.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Carmen Crispeno
October 30, 2006
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
JN 05413
Page 11
Foundation drains should be used where (1) crawl spaces or basements will be below a structure,
(2) a slab is below the outside grade, (3) the outside grade does not slope downward from a
building, or where an interior foundation exists between two floor levels. Drains should also be
placed at the base of all earth -retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least 6
inches of 1 -inch -minus, washed rock and then wrapped in non -woven, geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi
140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At its highest point, a perforated pipe invert should be at
least 6 inches below the bottom of a slab floor or the level of a crawl space, and it should be sloped
for drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain
system. A typical drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 7. For the best long-term
performance, perforated PVC pipe is recommended for all subsurface drains.
As a minimum, a vapor retarder, as defined in the Slabs -On -Grade section, should be provided in
any crawl space area to limit the transmission of water vapor from the underlying soils. Also, an
outlet drain is recommended for all crawl spaces to prevent a build up of any water that may
bypass the footing drains.
No groundwater was observed during our field work, however, wet zones were encountered during
drilling. If seepage is encountered in an excavation, it should be drained from the site by directing
it through drainage ditches, perforated pipe, or French drains, or by pumping it from sumps
interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation.
The excavation and 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. Final site grading in areas adjacent to buildings should
slope away at least 2 percent, except where the area is paved. Surface drains should be provided
where necessary to prevent ponding of water behind foundation or retaining walls. Additionally, a
drainage Swale should be provided upslope of the buildings to intercept surface run-off and direct it
into the storm drains. Water from roof, storm water, and foundation drains should not be
discharged onto slopes; it should be tightlined to a suitable outfall located away from any slopes.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL
All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and
other deleterious material. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any
materials to be used as structural fill, but they could be used in non-structural areas, such as
landscape beds.
Structural fill is defined as any fill, including utility backfill, placed under, or close to, a building,
behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soil needs
to support loads. 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 that
results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and
must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process.
Fills placed on sloping ground should be keyed into the native soils. This is typically accomplished
by placing and compacting the structural fill on level benches that are cut into the competent soils.
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction
equipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Carmen Crispeno JN 05413
October 30, 2006 Page 12
should not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fill is not
sufficiently compacted, it can be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the
need to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents
recommended relative compactions for structural fill:
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 1557-91 (Modified Proctor).
Use of On -Site Soil
If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the silty, on-site soil is wet, site
preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rain and the potential need to
import granular fill. The on-site soil is generally silty and therefore moisture sensitive.
Grading operations will be difficult during wet weather, or when the moisture content of this
soil exceeds the optimum moisture content.
The moisture content of the silty, on-site soil must be at, or near, the optimum moisture
content, as the soil cannot be consistently compacted to the required density when the
moisture content is significantly greater than optimum. The moisture content of the on-site
soil was generally above the estimated optimum moisture content at the time of our
explorations. The on-site glacial till underlying the topsoil could be used as structural fill, if
grading operations are conducted during hot, dry weather, when drying the wetter soil by
aeration is possible. During excessively dry weather, however, it may be necessary to add
water to achieve the optimum moisture content.
Moisture -sensitive soil may also be susceptible to excessive softening and "pumping" from
construction equipment, or even foot traffic, when the moisture content is greater than the
optimum moisture content. It may be beneficial to protect subgrades with a layer of
imported sand or crushed rock to limit disturbance from traffic.
Structural fill that will be placed in wet weather should consist of a coarse, granular soil with a silt or
clay content of no more than 5 percent. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve
should be measured from that portion of soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve.
I fMfraTInnf4
The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as
they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil and groundwater conditions
encountered in the test pits and borings are representative of subsurface conditions on the site. If
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Carmen Crispeno JN 05413
October 30, 2006 Page 13
the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those
observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions
and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are
commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil
samples in test pits and borings. Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration
locations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain
a properly constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency
fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for
all projects.
The recommendations presented in this report are directed toward the protection of only the
proposed residences from damage due to slope movement. Predicting the future behavior of steep
slopes and the potential effects of development on their stability is an inexact and imperfect
science that is currently based mostly on the past behavior of slopes with similar characteristics.
Landslides and soil movement can occur on steep slopes before, during, or after the development
of property. The owner must ultimately accept the possibility that some slope movement could
occur on the steep slope outside of site development areas.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Carmen Crispeno and his representatives
for specific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based
on observed site materials, and selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses. Our
conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current
standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No
warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to
construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the
contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in
our report for consideration in design. Our services also do not include assessing or minimizing the
potential for biological hazards, such as mold, bacteria, mildew and fungi in either the existing or
proposed site development.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
In addition to reviewing the final plans, Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide
geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm
that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate
whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the general intent of the
recommendations presented in this report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the
event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction.
However, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the
contractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements,
will be the responsibility of the contractor.
During the construction phase, we will provide geotechnical observation and testing services when
requested by you or your representatives. Please be aware that we can only document site work
we actually observe. It is still the responsibility of your contractor or on-site construction team to
verify that our recommendations are being followed, whether we are present at the site or not.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Carmen Crispeno
October 30, 2006
JN 05413
Page 14
The following plates are attached to complete this report:
Plate 1 Vicinity Map
Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan
Plates 3 - 6 Test Pit and Boring Logs
Plate 7 Typical Footing Drain Detail
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, or if we
may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us.
ZJM/DRW: jyb
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Zachary J. Munstermann
Geotechnical Engineer
F
ONAL "�v43 old6
D. Robert Ward, P.E.
Principal
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
(Source: The Thomas Guide, Snohomish County, Washington, 1998)
VICINITY MAP
98xx - 235th Place Southwest
Edmonds, Washington
Job No: Date: Ptate:
05413 Oct. 200E 1
1 I
B-1 I
1
j
1 I
Existing
Proposed
House j
Residence °
j
TP -1
j 1
TP -4
approximate toe of steep slope
: (designated as landslide hazard per ECDC Chapter 23) j
j
i
j Proposed B-2 Existing 1
j Residence Pool j
1
TP -2
1 I
j TP -3 1
1 � I
Existing 1
Shed N
j
Al
Legend:
Test boring location
Test pit location
GEOTECH
CONSULTANT'S, INC.
SITE EXPLORATION PLAN
98xx - 235th Place Southwest
Edmonds, Washington
Job No: Date: Plate:
05413 Oct. 2006 No Scale :2]
61
10
im
Irl
15
�e1G0�
TEST PIT1
Description
FILL I Brown, silty SAND with gravel, medium- to fine-grained, moist, loose (FILL)
o' Light blue -gray, mottled with orange SILT, non -plastic, bedded, moist, dense
SM Gray, silty SAND with gravel, medium- to fine-grained, moist, very dense
* Test Pit was terminated at 4 feet on November 1, 2005.
* No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation.
* No caving was observed during excavation.
Description
ray, silty SAND with gravel, medium- to fine-grained, moist, very dense
* Test Pit was terminated at 4 feet on November 1, 2005.
* No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation.
* No caving was observed during excavation.
E TEC
CONSULTANTS, INC.
TEST PIT LOG
98xx - 235th Place Southwest
Edmonds, Washington
Job Date: Logged by: Plate:
05413 December 20051 ZJM 1 3
10
15
E1
M
1i M
I� c
Description
To soil
Brown, silty SAND and gravel, medium- to fine-grained, moist, loose to medium -
dense
Fs -ml: - becomes light brown, dense with SAND and SILT pockets
- becomes gray and very dense
Test Pit was terminated at 6 feet on November 1, 2005.
* No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation.
* No caving was observed during excavation.
�0j���Go���
Description
Gray, silty SAND with gravel, medium- to fine-grained, moist, dense
becomes orangish-brown with organics, medium -dense
SM - no organics
j - becomes gray, very dense
* Test Pit was terminated at 4.5 feet on November 1, 2005.
* No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation.
* No caving was observed during excavation.
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
TEST PIT LOG
98xx - 235th Place Southwest
Edmonds, Washington
Job Date: Logged by: Plate: 4
05413 December 2005 ZJM
5
15
d
25
30
35
40
INC, o� %
BORING1
-'5' -(� ' a\0 tio�� {�o �5
Goy `01,10 e 4 �a�" ��O Description
Orangish-tan, silty SAND with gravel, medium- to fine-grained, moist, loose
10 1 1
50/5" 1 3
50/3"1 4
50/5" 1 5 f
50/6" 1 6
- becomes gray, dense
U1 (- becomes very dense
SM
" Test boring was terminated at 30.5 feet during drilling on October 27, 2005.
* No groundwater seepage was encountered during drilling.
E TEC
CONSULTANTS, INC.
BORING LOG
98xx - 235th Place Southwest
Edmonds, Washington
Job Vecember20051
ate: Logged by. Plate:
05413 ZJM 5
0
`�aa•�ti�g�o�.� {��a��ti� �D5 Description
Brown, silty SAND with gravel, slightly moist
14 11 jj:j;j:j;j:j:j:II Brown to gray, silty SAND, slightly moist, medum-dense
5 ( 156# (2 jj(SM ,II Gray, sandy SILT with gravel, slightly moist, very dense
MCI
15
ME
1WR
1W
35
58# 13
* Test boring was terminated at 10 feet during drilling on November 10, 2005.
* Groundwater seepage was not encountered during drilling.
# Blows may be overstated due to rocks.
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
BORING LOG
98xx - 235th Place Southwest
Edmonds, Washington
JobI Date:Logged by: Plate:
05413 Nov.2005 DLB 6
CITY OF EDMONDS
ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS FOR SHORT PLATS (in OVWSD)
Name: CRISPENO File No.: PLN 2006-146
Reviewed by: A. L. Chri sman Vicinity: 9812 235`h PL SW
tri meerm I)ivtston nate
Req'd prior
Req'd
Bond
Complete
to
w/bldg.
posted
recording
Permit
1. Rights-of-way for public streets:
No street dedication is required
.................._._-_._..........._...__..._............._.__...............................................-q........_._.................................................._.__---_._............._..__.._................._....__._--___.............._._..__._._.._..........._........_..........._........_._......._....._.._..__...__.._._........._................................................_...._..........__._....._....----...................._.
X
2. Easements (City utilities, private access, other
utilities):
Provide all easements as needed.
X
....................................................._................................................._.........._................................................................._—._............-�_..............._...__.—...
All lots shall access from 235` PL SW.
—.._.._......................................._.............._..--
X
--.......... .---...
.... _..................... ............ ...............
............. .......... _........ - -- ...................
............................................ __........._._.............................................. __..._...........................................................__-..-.............._......................_...__..... - .........._
A 20' wide access easement will be required along the west side
_......................................................._....-----..........._._........_......................................................................__._....----..................-
X
of lot l beginning at the N.W. corner of lot 3 to 235`h PL SW.
--..........- ---........._.........._.._.__............---.....
_.__.................................
.... ._........ ...... _....
... __.................... .......................
................. ................ ._.. _ .......
X
3. Street improvements ACP with curb and utter
The private access road along the west side of lot 1, beginning at
X
the N.W. corner of lot 3 to 235`h PL SW, shall be paved a
minimum of 16.0' in width, plus 18" asphalt thickened edge. 6"
......... ............._._._._..._._._._......_.__........._........_..... ......_................. .................... _..---............... ...._._._........................ __..... ........ .._
............... __....... .._........_..... _....... ..._..---.
-.... --.......................................
...... _._ ........... _.... .............. -
............. __................................ __........ .....
Slope of private access road/driveway shall not exceed 14%
._.......P........_...._...--...._._._............................_......---............................................................................_._..._..................__............................_..................
X
_._................_......................._...__......--- --
---... _.......... ................ ...........
_..... __.......... _- ... _......... --
............ _._................................. _..... .........
4. Street turnaround:
Provideon-site turn around ._on...privat. access road to City_Stds.................................................
X ... ---._.............
................................. -..............
........... --... -............. _... ........
._....._..._.... _...... .................... .. ----............
5. Sidewalks and/or walkways:.
N/A
6. Street lights:
N/A
7. Planting strip:
N/A
8. Water system improvements (pipelines, fire hydrants,
pump stations, etc
Developer must enter into an Extension agreement with Olympic X
View Water and Sewer District
_...._................._......_.....__........._.._...._.._..........................._._._.._......................._...__........._..................._....................._..._..._...._........__............-_ .... _._..... _.._.............................. _........... ._......._._.__._....._....... _......... ......._...._..... -............... ._.................................... _._...._..... ..._..... _.
Provide new water service to each lot. X
Connect to public water system. X X
http://edmondspmtweb/permittrax/PermitTraxMain/Attachments/Live/PERMIT/PMT_ 56624/1272006134033987.doc form revised: tt
http://cdmondspmtweb/permittrax/PermitTraxMain/Attachments/Live/PERMIT/PMT_56624/1272006134033987.doc form revised: 11/15/05
Req'd prior
Req'd
Bond
Complete
to
w/bldg.
posted
recording
Permit
9. Sanitary sewer system improvements (pipelines, pump
stations, etc.
Developer must enter into an Extension agreement with Olympic
X
View Water and Sewer District.
._.................................................... ... -.........................
........... ..... ............................. ..-............ ...............__._._._................. _...... ............... ...----..................._....
Provide new sewer service to each lot
......................... _.--_......... _.........................
X
............. __........... _..... _........ _.
................ .......................... _........
....................... _----- _............ _......... .-_.
.................--l.-I..............................................................................._........---........_... _._...................__.._ ..
Connect to public sewer system _ .................__........... __....__..........................................._.....__..................................-............::...__............_..__.................................................._..................................._..---....._........._............_
X
X
....... .... _. _.........
.... _.......... ---........ -
10. Storm sewer system improvements (pipelines, pump
stations, etc).
Provide new storm sewer service to all proposed lots, including
X
front lot. ..................................... _..................................... _..__.... _......... ------._....................... __
........ .............
.................. ........................ __...... _.................................
Construct storm detention system sized to provide adequate
..................................... __....... ---....................
X
........... ..................... _.._............
........ _..... _.................. _......
....... .....---- ---............ _-...... _...... ....
capacity for all proposed single family dwellings and access
im rovements in accordance with ECDC 18.30.
P..................................................................................................._.----._.._.__..............._......-_-.._....................--......................__..._..._.._....................................................._......_...............__........................................................_....__........_........-
-....................__................
----..................._....__.........
Connect, to Public Storm system _...._..._..._.........___.
X
11. On-site drainage Ian per Ord. 3013):
Connect all new impervious surfaces to detentions stem.
...........................................................-......_..............................p............................._..._..._..__......................................-....................__...............__._._................_..................................._....
X
............_.....................................__.................._.._........._................._....................._........................
X
._..__................_......._...........
12. Underground wiring (per Ord. 1387
Required for all new services
9..........---............................................................................-----....................._................---....................__.................._................__..................................---._........._......................................_...._.................._.........................._.......................-_...................._..._....._._..............._......._._.........
X
X
13. Excavation and grading (per IBC, appendix j (2003
edition
Submit.a rad.inPPlan as art of engineered site plan.
__...-....................---._........._.._...-...... —....._�....._.........._
X
X ._....
__........
......... ._.... _
..............................
Gradin for foundations to be included with buildin ermit onl
...................................�....................................__....---........................... _._..__._..__._... _._._.................__...._ ...... y.................................--........
_........._..............................._............_.
.
X_..........
.................... - ....
.........__..__......._
14. Signage(per City Engineer):
Install fire and aid address signage at the intersection of 235th PL
X
SW and 99`h PL W
............................. ........................__.._._........................................ .._____..._....tfi.............. _..................... ------........................
Install "Street Ends at the intersection of 235 PL SW and 99
....................................... _....... ----..................
X
.............. _............... .... -......... _.
X
..................................... ....... _........
........... _.._...... _........................._...........
PL W"
15. Survey monumentation(per Ord., Section 12.10.120):
N/A
X
16. As-built drawings(per City Engineer):
Re uired for all utility construction.
... .......... .... _.__..-�l._...--........................................................................................---............................................._-..._---.
X
........................ ...... ................. ..._.._...............
X
............. _...... _...........
......... ................................... __......
........... __..... _.--- .............. ........_...._.._.
17. Other requirements:
a) Plat showing lots, easements, legals, survey information
X
X
_..._.._._..__._—._..-.__.............�..........................__.....-_-..._.._._._._..............................................._._-..Y.............__-.-...................--__.-_._..........._._..._....__..._......................_............................._._._..................._..........--..........................................................._.__........__................._......_.._......
b)Legal documents for each
. ........................................................ ................. ...........................----...---...............------
c) Field stake lot corners (by professional surve or)
...
._...-........................................
X
....... ......_............ _.......... -.........
.......................................................
.............. _._.........__.......................... _._.......
..._.....-._....-----....----._................_.................._..._........_.__ ........_ ............._.....- -._. _y......__.__ ......-._._... -
d) Field stake utility stubs at property lines.
......_._...-._.._..._..._.__..................___._.............
X
._ _.........................................
..... __....
-....
........................ ............ ................
.......... ._.......... _. _._ ..
_ ...__..._..._.....
. ...._.. ............
e) Clustered mailbox location per Postmaster
.....
.....------...................................................._...-..__............_..._............._......................................_.._............_....._...........
_.....
-- _.._
f) Maintenance agreements
X
http://cdmondspmtweb/permittrax/PermitTraxMain/Attachments/Live/PERMIT/PMT_56624/1272006134033987.doc form revised: 11/15/05
A. L. Chrisman
ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER, CITY OF EDMONDS DATE
The Engineering requirements have been completed and the subdivision can be recorded.
Authorized for recording by:
http://edniondspmtweb/permittrax/PermitTraxMainlAttachmentsILivelPERMITIPMT_5662411272006134033987.doc form revised: 11/15/05
A.S.P.I. Surveyors and Land Use Facilitators
4727-A Evergreen Way Everett, WA 98203 Tele: (425) 252-1884 Fax: (425) 339-0269
January 16, 2007
Jennifer Machuga, Planner
Development Services Department
City of Edmonds
121511 Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Lot Area Modification for Lot 1 Crispeno Short Plat.
Dear Ms. Machuga:
On behalf of Carmen Crispeno, I am submitting this letter in support of the application to grant a
lot area modification to reduce the lot area for Lot 1 from the required 8,000 square feet to the
requested 5,688 net square feet. The proposal is to construct a single family residence on each of
the proposed lots of the Crispeno Short Plat.
The application would meet all other dimensional standards of the RS -8 zone. The proposed lot
exceeds the minimum required 8,000 square feet of gross area; however due to the existing
access easements along the west and north property lines the net area falls below 8,000 square
feet. Future construction would be able to comply with the other setbacks, lot coverage and
height requirements of the RS -8 zone.
The original application submitted for this short plat had a layout which complied with the lot
area requirements of this zone. Based on discussions with the city and given the topographic
constraints on the development, a revision was made that layed out the lots so that there were no
"unusable areas".
In addition to the design features mentioned above, the following is in response to the city's
variance criteria (EMC 20.85.010):
No variance may be approved unless all of the findings in this section can be made.
A. "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.
1. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of
the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses as set forth in ECDC
17.00.030 and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife
habitats. "
The special circumstance related to this property is the steep slope along the middle of the
property running north to south. Creating lots that conform to the topography of the slope,
are over 8,000 net square feet, and are not irregular in shape is almost impossible. We
Lot Area Modification Request Page 2
believe that the current layout conforms to the general layout of other lots in the immediate
zone and vicinity.
2. "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; "
The special circumstance related to topography and steep slope is not a direct result of the
current or previous property owners.
B. "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; "
Approving the modification will allow the applicant to construct a single family house on a lot
designed to be more suitable and compatible with other homes and lots in the City of Edmonds.
Other properties in the vicinity and also in the RS -8 zone are allowed to construct a single family
residence as well. Approval of this variance would not grant a special privilege.
C. "Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the
comprehensive plan; "
The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Map designates the property as Single Family
Urban 1. This designation allows for the construction of single family homes. Approving this
variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
D. "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; "
The purposes of the zoning ordinance can be found in ECDC 16.00.010. The first purpose is to
implement the Comprehensive Plan. As stated above, the proposal is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and therefore is consistent with the first purpose. The second purpose is to
protect the character and the social and economic stability of residential uses within the city. The
proposed use is an appropriate one for the RS -8 zone; single family residential is a permitted use
within the zone. The use is compatible with surrounding uses and does not appear to be a
detriment to the neighborhood. By eliminating the "unusable areas" identified by the city,
homeowner care of their perceived property eliminates the need for code enforcement issues such
as un -maintained lawns and construction of structures on neighbor's properties.
The purposes of the residential zones and more specifically the single family residential zone can
be found in ECDC 16.10.000 & 16.20.000. The proposed project meets these purposes because
it preserves the values of light, privacy, views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features
not just for itself but for adjoining properties.
A.S.P.I. 4727-A Evergreen Way, Everett, WA 98203 1 Phone: 425.252.1884 1 Fax: 425.339.0269
E -Mail: lee@alphasub.com ( Web: http://wxvw.alphasub.com
Lot Area Modification Request Page 3
E. "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 "
The variance as approved will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements. The resulting lot will still have a gross area of 8,000
square feet. The existing access easements and associated pavement are already in place so no
additional impacts of impervious surface would be expected. The only perceived detriment
would be the construction of the two houses. We have already submitted a layout that would
allow the construction of the two homes; this proposal would allow the lots to be layed out in a
manner more consistent with the neighborhood.
F. "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. "
The request is reduce the lot square footage of Lot 1 from 8,000 square feet to 5,688 square feet.
This number was determined by making the other two lots meet the minimum area of 8,000
square feet. In doing this, we have shown that 5,688 square feet is the minimum necessary to
create a lot as part of the short plat process.
I hope that the information we have provided to you is sufficient to approve the modification
request. If you require additional information or have further questions, please feel free to call
me.
Sincerely,
ALPHA SUBDIVISION PRO'S INC.
Lee A. Michaelis, AICP
Director of Planning
A.S.P.I. 14727-A Evergreen Way, Everett, WA 98203 1 Phone: 425.252.1884 1 Fax: 425.339.0269
E -Mail: lee@alphasub.com I Web: http://�vww.alpliasub.coni
I
:0
z
z
O
ZZI
I
:0
CI
W-
' IZ
IL
4-71
A 1T
�11 1jr
Ai
z
z
O
z
- - - - - - - -
--- *�
LU
m
IIII
405
d8l.
HH
N
CI
W-
' IZ
IL
4-71
A 1T
�11 1jr
Ai
z
z
- - - - - - - -
--- *�
CI
W-
' IZ
IL
4-71
A 1T
�11 1jr
Ai
z
m
IIII
405
. . Surveyors and Land Use Facilitators
4727-A Evergreen Way Everett, WA 98203 Tele: (425) 252-1884 Fax: (425) 339-0269
November 15, 2006
Planning Division
Development Services Department
City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020 RECEIVED
RE: Setback Modification for Lot 1 and Lot 3 Crispeno Short Plat. NOV 2 Q 2006
Dear Reviewer: PERMIT COUNTER
On behalf of Carmen Crispeno, I am submitting this letter in support of the application to grant a
setback modification to reduce the side yard setback (west side) from the required 7.5 feet to the
requested 5 feet. The proposal is to construct a single family residence on each of the proposed
lots of the Crispeno Short Plat.
The application would meet all other dimensional standards of the RS -8 zone. The lots exceed
the minimum required 8,000 square feet. Future construction would be able to comply with the
other setbacks, lot coverage and height requirements of the RS -8 zone.
In addition to the design features mentioned above, the following is in response to the city's
variance criteria (EMC 20.85.010):
No variance may be approved unless all of the findings in this section can be made.
A. "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 of public structures and uses as set forth in ECDC
17.00.030 and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife
habitats. "
The special circumstance related to this property is the steep slope along the middle of the
property running north to south. To minimize impact to the steep slopes, we are requesting
that the foot print of each new house be located 5 feet away from the access easement and
property line.
2. "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; "
Modification Request Page 2
The special circumstance related to topography and steep slope is not a direct result of the
current or previous property owners.
B. "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; "
Approving the modification will allow the applicant to construct a single family house more
suitable and compatible with other homes being constructed in the City of Edmonds. Other
properties in the vicinity and also in the RS -8 zone are allowed to construct a single family
residence as well. Approval of this variance would not grant a special privilege.
C. "Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the
comprehensive plan; "
The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Map designates the property as Single Family
Urban 1. This designation allows for the construction of single family homes. Approving this
variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
D. "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, "
The purposes of the zoning ordinance can be found in ECDC 16.00.010. The first purpose is to
implement the Comprehensive Plan. As stated above, the proposal is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and therefore is consistent with the first purpose. The second purpose is to
protect the character and the social and economic stability of residential uses within the city. The
proposed use is an appropriate one for the RS -8 zone; single family residential is a permitted use
within the zone. The use is compatible with surrounding uses and does not appear to be a
detriment to the neighborhood.
The purposes of the residential zones and more specifically the single family residential zone
can be found in ECDC 16. 10.000 & 16.20.000. The proposed project meets these purposes
because it preserves the values of light, privacy, views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural
features not just for itself but for adjoining properties.
E. "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 "
The variance as approved will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements. The request is to reduce the side yard setback by 2.5
feet. The only properties that would be affected by the request are the properties directly to the
west, which are approximately 30 feet away.
F. "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. "
A.S.P.I. I 4727-A Evergreen Way, Everett, WA 98203 1 Phone: 425.252.1884 1 Fax: 425.339.0269
E -Mail: lee@alphasub.com I Web: http://www.alphasub.com
Modification Request
Page 3
The request is to reduce the impact to the steep slopes east of the proposed footprints. The
distance requested to be reduced provides sufficient width to build a home similar to that found
in the City of Edmonds.
I hope that the information we have provided to you is sufficient to approve the modification
request. If you require additional information or have further questions, please feel free to call
me.
Sincerely,
ALPHA SUBDIVISION PRO'S INC.
Lee A. Michaelis, AICP
Director of Planning
A.S.P.I. ( 4727-A Evergreen Way, Everett, WA 98203 1 Phone: 425.252.1884 Fax: 425.339.0269
E -Mail: lee@alphasub.com I Web: http://www.alphasub.com
RECEIVED
MAR 1 9 2007
EDMONDS CITY CLERK
Jonathan and Kimberly Prinz
23511 99`x' PI W
Edmonds, WA 98020
City of Edmonds Building Dept
121 5d' Ave N — 2nd Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
March 18, 2007
To Whom It May Concern:
We are writing in regards to the proposed plan to subdivide the current Single Family lot
at 9812 235' PL SW, into three separate Single Family lots. The following are a few of
the concerns we have concerning this rezoning next to our property:
The proposed lots are located next to a slope that is described as a Landslide
Hazard area according to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
section 23.80.020. These proposed lots are also located in an area that qualifies as
an Erosion Hazard area. According to the Geotechnical Engineering Study these
lots have an inclination of approximately 64 percent slope on the northern side
and a 71 percent slope on the southern side. This steep slope is estimated to be
over 25 feet tall. Per the development standards of the ECDC, no building on a
Landslide Hazard Area or/and an Erosion Hazard Area is recommended.
• The foundation walls of the proposed residences will be designed as the support
of the eastern slope, which lies directly in a Landslide Hazard Area.
The current one lane road will be used as a driveway for access to a current home
and one of the proposed lots. I have seen first hand how bothersome this road can
be in the event of an emergency. The current home to the south had an emergency
in December of 2003 and the Aid cars from Edmonds and Mt. Lake Terrace had
difficulty having to maneuver their vehicles up and back down the road to deal
with the homeowner.
• Also, I have been told by a local builder that the type of homes proposed for the
two proposed lots are not subject to the same height requirements of a typical two
story home. The garage area is not counted as part of the building but rather as the
foundation and the height is derived from the two main floors. I cannot confirm
this to be true but if so these proposed homes will ruin the curb appeal of the
neighborhood and tower over any existing homes. I am to assume according to the
Height Calculation Information that the average for these two lots to be around
127.5 and put these homes at 152.5 or right at the height of the current fence on
the current property.
We again deeply express our concerns with the proposed building sites in a Landslide
and Erosion Hazard area. We would also like to see a more complete report
concerning the Traffic and Environmental impact of the proposed developments if
they are to proceed.
I would hope the City of Edmonds would seriously consider our concerns for our
safety and for our property.
Sincerely,
Jo than a;Lberly Prinz
Karen Milnor
23520-97 h Place West, Edmonds, WA 98020
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
ATTN: Ms. Machuga
121-5t" Ave North
Edmonds, WA 98020
March 19, 2007
Dear Ms Machuga,
I received your notice of March 5t", 2007 regarding the proposed 3 -lot
subdivision from applicant Carmen Crispeno. I live directly behind the
proposed subdivision in question and most vehemently contest this
proposal.
My decision to purchase my residence in May of 2006 was largely due to
my own lot size and those of the surrounding neighbors. The residential
lots as they are provide privacy and a beautiful naturalistic setting.
With the proposed development 1 would have 2 houses cramped next to
each other looking straight onto my residence which is lined with large
picture windows and doors. I am assuming that Carmen has proposed to
build 2 two story homes. As my property is significantly elevated from the
property below, this change will drastically impact our privacy, the noise
level and my ability to conduct business from home and entertain guests
comfortably.
I will continue to emphatically contest the modification request to reduce
lot size along with reducing the required 7.5 side setback. i feel these
changes, if allowed to be placed into effect, would drastically diminish the
serenity, privacy and appeal that my home offers needless to say
negatively impacting my property and resale value.
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
ATTN: Ms. Machuga
121 -5th Ave North
Edmonds, WA 98020
March 19, 2007
Dear Ms Machuga,
We received your notice dated March 5th, 2007 regarding the proposed variances
from applicant Carmen Crispeno. We contest this proposal as we feel it would
significantly impact our property values and detract from our naturalistic setting
which our neighborhood provides.
J ith and Richard Cook
3521 -97th Place West. Edmonds WA 98020
Jason Mckie and Elizabeth Pfau
23512 -97th Place West, Edmonds WA 98020
or
23520 -97th Place West, Edmonds WA 98020
Rapheus and Marci Villanueva
23507 99" PI W
Edmonds, WA 98020
City of Edmonds Building Department
121 5th Avenue North - 2nd Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020 MAR 1 9 2007
Phone: 425-771-0220 Fax: 425-771-0221
March 16, 2007
To Whom It May Concern:
We ai7e wilting in regards to the project plan to subdivide the lot at 9812 235th PI SW,
Edmonds into three lots. The following is a list of our concerns and comments with
respect to the proposed development adjacent to our property.
The proposed site lies adjacent to a slope that is described as a Landslide Hazard
area according to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) section
23.80.020. It also qualifies as an Erosion Hazard Area where building is not
recommended. These standards are in place to prevent serious injury, death
and/or costly damage to property. No study can predict the dynamic effects of
multiple factors over a long period of time.
• An analysis of the rate at which the eastern slope may regress over 50 to 100
years should be performed before any consideration can be made for building a
home in this area.
The geotechnical engineering report studied samples taken between the months of
October and November 2005, where no groundwater seepage was observed. It
also explained that test pits were kept open for a short period of time. However,
the precipitation during this test period was substantially less than the period
between October and December 2006 when rainfall was significantly greater.
T esting after a heavy rain period would probably have altered the assessment of
erosion risk.
• Soil movement may also be affected by cold weather where a combination of
freezing, thawing, and rainfall can lead to an increase rate of water seepage into
the soil layers. This scenario has resulted in landslide events around the Seattle
area.
The foundation walls of the proposed residences are designated as the support for
the eastern slope, which would be undesirable for potential homeowners of the
property.
• There is no guarantee that future homeowners will maintain the property in a
manner that would mitigate soil erosion or land slide risk.
Page 1 of 3 Attachment 12
A different party should perform further studies at a time where weather
conditions can be used to assess a worst-case scenario and to confirm the findings
in this report.
We feel that this project poses a risk to the families living adjacent to the site and
if responsibility passes to the builder and future property owners, then there is the
likelihood that no party becomes accountable once the property or properties are
sold.
We appose the setback exemption to reduce the required setbacks to only 5 feet for
several reasons.
•
There should be ample room for the planting of adequate vegetation to prevent
erosion and create privacy between neighbors.
• Reduced setbacks would create unappealing, crowded dwelling spaces that seem
to be too common in the Seattle metropolitan area and should not be emulated in
Edmonds. In our opinion it reduces the curb appeal of the neighborhood.
The design plan calls for 3 single-family residences sharing a very narrow private
driveway with poor access for emergency vehicles.
Despite our extreme concerns and disapproval with building on a potential Landslide
Hazard Area, if construction does proceed, we ask that the following requirements be
made.
• Two separate inspections are performed on all retaining walls before additional
building can occur.
• Previous construction projects at this address have resulted in trucks parked
illegally for extended periods of time. These trucks blocked driveways, a one lane
road and emergency access to homes. We propose that all trucks for this
construction project Have a 30-60 minute unload period and then be moved off
site.
• All construction debris should be removed from streets daily to avoid hazards to
neighbor's vehicles.
• To provide the adequate vegetation and privacy to the existing neighbors, we
request that 6-8 feet tall trees be planted in the set back area prior to construction
occurring.
• Proper steps should be employed to prevent the inadvertent collapse of old growth
trees and to notify neighboring homeowners in advance.
Page 2 of 3
• The project should be subject to regular, continuous safety inspections.
• It is requested that there be no permanent or construction lighting be visible to
existing houses at night.
We again express our extreme concern with clearing established root systems and
building on a landslide -hazard area. We will hold all parties involved in this project
responsible for damage to our person or property if a landslide or similar event occurs at
anytime during or after construction.
We would like the City of Edmonds to seriously consider our concerns for our safety and
property.
S'McereI �
,
Rapheus and Marci Villanueva
Page 3 of 3