Loading...
S-06-44 Planning Civil Review - 2nd Review.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS • 1215" AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 PHONE: 425.771.0220 •FAX: 425.771.0221 •WEB: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING • ENGINEERING • BUILDING February 17, 2011 Mr. Erich Tietze 18530-76 1h Ave. W, Suite B Edmonds, WA 98026 RE: CIVIL REVIEW COMMENTS FOR FILE NO. S-2006-44 RITTER 3 -LOT SHORT PLAT AT 8364 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE Dear Mr. Tietze: I have reviewed your resubmittal submitted on December 30, 2010 for civil review for the above project for the Planning Division, and it was found that the following information, corrections, or clarifications will need to be addressed before review can continue: 1. Shed: Notes were added to your plans that the two existing sheds are to be moved outside of the setback area. Due to the location of Landslide Hazard Areas on the subject site, a building permit will be required to move the sheds to a new location. Please contact the Building Division for permit submittal requirements. 2. Grading: Provide grading quantities for the civil improvements, including total proposed cut and total proposed fill. Note that if the proposed cut or fill exceeds 500 cubic yards, SEPA review will be required. You may contact me for additional information on the SEPA review process if the proposed cut or fill is determined to exceed 500 cubic yards. 3. Fencing and Signage: Provide details of the permanent split rail fencing and signage that are required to delineate the NGPA areas. 4. Changes to NGPA Boundaries: Your plans state that the NGPA areas on Lots A and B may need adjustment for development on these lots. Please keep in mind that once the subdivision indicating the boundaries of the NGPAs is recorded with Snohomish County, current code requires that any changes proposed to a recorded subdivision must be reviewed the same as a new subdivision application. Therefore, you'll want to make sure that the NGPA boundaries are in their desired locations when you submit for final review and prior to recording the subdivision with Snohomish County. 5. Job Shack and Materials Storage: The job shack and materials storage are indicated on the plans within an existing treed area on Lot B. This could cause compaction around the roots of these trees, which would damage the trees. The job shack and materials storage should be located in an area that will not cause potential damage to the site, such as within the existing paved driveway area on Lot C. 6. Legal Descriptions: The legal description for Lot C contains several question marks towards the bottom of the legal description. These appear to be there in error. Please confirm that all of the legal descriptions are correct. 7. Geotechnical Report: Since much of the site contains a Landslide Hazard Area, this phase of the proposal will need to be reviewed by a qualified geotechnical engineer pursuant to ECDC 23.40 and 23.80. The geotechnical engineer will need to review all plans for the civil improvements as well as the vegetation management plan and proposals for tree removal. Since changes are required to both the civil plans and the vegetation management plan at this time, the updated versions of these plans must be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer. Please provide a report by a qualified geotechnical engineer that addresses how the proposed work associated with the civil improvements, tree removal, and vegetation management plan is consistent with the critical areas regulations of ECDC 23.40 and 23.80 and providing any additional recommendations for what would need to be done in order to comply with the critical areas regulations and avoid any potential negative impacts to the stability of the slope. 8. Vegetation Management Plan: Please request that Wetland Resources, Inc. revise the Vegetation Management Plan dated July 24, 2009 to address the following comments: a. It is stated in one location on page two of the plan that 7 conifers and 1 deciduous tree within the NGPA areas could be impacted during construction activities, but then it is stated elsewhere on page 2 that 7 conifers and 2 deciduous trees could be impacted. Correct this discrepancy. b. A section regarding building setbacks is provided on page 2 of the plan. The code section referenced (ECDC 23.40.280) refers to building setbacks from the edge of critical areas buffers, but does not necessarily apply to NGPAs. The civil plans indicate possible future buildings footprints on Lots A and B that are located well within 15 feet of the NGPAs. This section of the plan should be clarified or possibly removed. c. The Vegetation Management Plan should include the tree protection measures of ECDC 18.45.050.1-1 for protection of existing trees that are to be retained during construction activities. d. The existing water and side sewer lines serving the existing residence go through a portion of the NGPA on Lot C. The Vegetation Management Plan should include provisions regarding what must be done to restore this portion of the NGPA if it is disturbed by utility work on these existing lines, and the plan should also include provisions on what must be done to restore any other portions of the NGPA areas if disturbed by other construction activities. e. State within the plan that all applicable City codes shall be followed for removal of any trees or vegetation from within the NGPA areas in the future. f. ECDC 23.40.220.C.7 provides regulations for vegetation removal from within critical areas. This section requires a replacement ratio for hazardous trees within critical areas of 2:1 and also a minimum replacement size of one inch in diameter at breast height for deciduous trees and a minimum of six feet in height for evergreen trees. Although this section discusses hazardous tree removal specifically, its guidance for replacement ratios and sizes can also be applied to removal of trees within the NGPA that are damaged by construction. Although the proposed replacement ratio of 3:1 is higher than what is required by code, the proposed replacement size of 1 gallon trees is substantially smaller, and following the numbers set forth in the code will be more effective for mitigating any impacts from tree removal. As such, the Vegetation Management Plan should be revised to require a tree replacement ratio and tree sizes consistent with this code section. g. Page 3 of the plan states that all disturbed ground within on-site critical areas shall be seeded with grasses as recommended. Although this may be appropriate for disturbed areas outside of the NGPAs, disturbed areas within the NGPAs should be restored with native trees, shrubs, and groundcover. Thus, this section should be clarified as to which areas of the site should be seeded with grasses and how disturbed areas within the NGPAs should be restored. In particular, page 3 of the plan states that no mitigation plantings are being provided for the removal of invasive species within the NGPA areas; however, due to the slopes on the site, a combination of ground cover and mulch at a minimum should be planted to reduce erosion potential and help prevent invasive species from entering back into the site. h. The plan states that no wetlands are present on the site, but the plan refers to monitoring by a wetland biologist and makes reference to wetland requirements in a few locations of the plan, particularly on pages 3 and 6. If there no wetlands are present on or adjacent to the site, these references to wetland requirements should be removed from the plan. If there are wetlands present, then the proposal needs to meet the requirements of ECDC 23.50. i. Page 4 of the plan refers to a potential performance bond. A performance bond will not be required if all work is done at the applicable times; however, a maintenance bond may be required. This section should be corrected to state that any bond requirements will be established by the City and that a maintenance bond may be required. j. For the project monitoring program, as discussed on page 4 of the plan, the requirement for annual site inspections is established. Please provide additional information on who will do the monitoring and initial compliance report. A report by a qualified professional must be provided to the City at the end of the mitigation period in order to document compliance with the requirements of the plan. Also, within the requirements for the monitoring program, the plan states that upon completion of the disturbance activities on the subject property, an inspection by a qualified professional will be made to determine plan compliance. The plan should clarify what is meant by disturbance activities and whether this is referring to the civil improvements and/or construction of the new homes on Lots A and B. Please make all submittals to the Engineering Division, Monday through Friday, excluding Wednesdays between 8:00 am and 4:30 pm. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at (425) 771-0220, ext. 1224. Sincerely, Development Services Department - Planning Division Jen Machuga Planner Cc: Carl Clap (via email to carcip@comcast.net)