S-07-33 Staff Report.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION
To: File No. S-2007-33
From:
ifer Machuga, Pl r
Date: December 20, 2007
File: S-2007-33
Applicant: Pat and Michael McCormick
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I.
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 2
A. Application.......................................................................................................................................2
B. Decision on Subdivision................................................................................................................... 2
II.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................... 3
A. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance.................................................................................... 3
B. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan........................................................................................6
C. Compliance with the Zoning Code....................................................................................................7
D. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions............................................................... 7
E. Environmental Assessment............................................................................................................... 7
F. Critical Areas Review....................................................................................................................... 7
G. Comments......................................................................................................................................... 7
III.
RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS..........................................................................8
A. Request for Reconsideration............................................................................................................. 8
B. Appeals............................................................................................................................................. 8
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals.................................................................................. 8
IV.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL.....................................................................................................9
V.
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR..................................................................................9
VI.
ATTACHMENTS:..............................................................................................................9
VII.
PARTIES OF RECORD......................................................................................................9
Pat and Michael McCormick
File No. S-2007-33
Page 2 of 9
L INTRODUCTION
The applicant is proposing to subdivide one lot addressed as 23016 -- 941' Avenue West into four 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 preliminary subdivision plans (Attachment 3). All previously existing
structures have been removed, and the site is currently vacant.
A. Application
1, Applicant: Pat and Michael McCormick
2. Site Location: 23016 — 94"Avenue West (see Attachment 2).
3. Request: To divide one lot with a total area of approximately 46,869 square feet into four lots
in a Single -Family Residential (RS -8) zone (see Attachment 3).
4. Review Process: Following the comment period, Planning Division 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 20.75,
subdivision requirements.
d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.95,
staff review requirements.
e. 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.
S. Decision on Subdivision
Based upon the Findings of Pact and Conclusions, and Attachments submitted with the application
and during the continent period, the following is the decision of the City of Edmonds Planning
Division:
The subdivision as proposed is APPROVED with the following conditions:
No tree clearing shall be allowed without approval by the Planning Division, in
accordance with ECDC 18.45. A tree clearing plan shall be submitted and approved with
the civil plans for removal of trees impacted by the subdivision improvements. Tree
clearing plans for the remainder of the site shall be submitted and approved with building
permit approvals for the individual lots. Refer to Section II.A.2.a of this report for further
direction on the required tree clearing plans.
2. 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.
(2) Submit a tree clearing plan with review of civil plans. This tree clearing
plan shall show proposed tree clearing for the subdivision improvements,
and may not include proposed tree clearing for the entire subject site. The
tree clearing plan shall also include proposed replanting of the trees to be
Pat and Michael McCormick
File No. 5-2007-33
Page 3 of 9
removed along 94th Avenue West. Refer to Section II.A.2.a for further
direction on the required tree clearing/replanting plan.
b) Make the following revisions to the plat:
(1) Indicate the location of the required critical area buffer from the top of the
steep slope on the adjacent property to the north, as required by the
geotechnical letter by Geotech Consultants, Inc., dated November 20, 2007
(Attachment 5).
(2) If setbacks are to be included on the plat, conduct the following:
(a) Correct the setbacks shown to reflect those indicated in Section
II.A.4.a of this report.
(b) Add the following statement to the face of the plat: "Setbacks
shown are for reference only and vest no right.
(3) 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 No. S-
2007-33 in the City of Edmonds Planning Division."
(4) Include on the plat all required information, including owner's certification,
hold harmless agreement, and staff's approval block.
c) Make sure all documents to be recorded meet the Snohomish County Auditor's
requirements for recording, including all signatures in black ink.
d) Submit an updated copy of the title report (short plat certificate) with the documents
proposed to be recorded. Note that this title report must be prepared within 30 days
of submittal.
e) 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.
3. 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.
4. Follow the recommendations set forth in the geotechnical letter by Geotech Consultants,
Inc., dated November 20, 2007 (Attachment 5) as well at the "original soil report"
referenced in this letter and any subsequent reports.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance
1. Introduction
a. Setting:
The subject property at 23016 — 90 Avenue West is located in the Single -Family Residential
(RS -8) zone (Attachment 2). The surrounding properties to the south, east, and west are also
zoned RS -8 and are developed with single-family residences. The surrounding properties to
the north are zoned Multiple -Family Residential (RM -1.5) and are developed with multi-
family residences and a retirement home.
b. TopograAhv and Vegetation:
The subject site is relatively level. A slope that is steep enough to be considered a Landslide
Hazard Area is located on the adjacent property to the north, approximately 10 to 15 feet
away from the northern property line of the subject site. Vegetation on the site is primarily in
a natural state and includes grasses, shrubs, and numerous large trees. There are fewer trees
Pat and Michael McCormick
File No. 5-2007-33
Page 4 of 9
located in the approximate center of the site due to past development activities on the site,
such as the previously existing residence and driveway.
C. Lot Layout:
The proposed lot layout is shown on the subdivision map (Attachment 3). Lot 1 will be
created on the southern portion of the subject site and Lot 4 will be located on the northern
portion of the site, with Lots 2 and 3 in between. All previously existing structures have been
removed from the subject property. The applicant has submitted a proposal for a boulevard -
type of road along 94`x' Avenue West, and all proposed lots will be accessed via an extension
of 90 Avenue West (Attachments 3 and 4),
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).
There are a substantial number of existing trees located on the subject site. These trees are
considered to be an environmental resource. Many of the existing trees will need to be
removed for the establishment of the new access road, driveways, and future homes on each
lot; however, it appears that quite a few of the existing trees could be retained with
development of the site. Comment letters were received from several neighbors of the
subject property with concerns over tree removal. Pursuant to ECDC 18.45, no tree clearing
shall be allowed without approval of a tree clearing plan by the Planning Division. The
applicant should preserve all of the trees located outside the footprint of development (access
road, driveways, building pads, etc.) and within a reasonable distance of these improvements,
unless the trees are dead, dying, diseased, or pose a hazard to the public. No tree removal
shall be conducted outside the footprint of development or within a reasonable distance of
these improvements, unless the applicant submits a report by an ISA certified arborist
identifying specific dangerous trees on the subject property that need to be removed.
Additionally, the applicant must meet the following requirements for tree clearing plans to be
submitted for Planning Division approval.
Per ECDC 18.45.050.A, "there shall be no clearing on a site for the sake of preparing that
site for sale or future development." Therefore, the applicant may not receive tree clearing
approval for the entire site at one time. The applicant must submit a tree clearing plan with
the submittal of their civil plans showing only the trees that are necessary to be removed for
the required short plat improvements. Since the existing "median strip" within 94"' Avenue
West contains established, mature trees that will need to be removed for the required
improvements to 94`x' Avenue West, the applicant's tree clearing plan must also provide for
the replacement of these trees. Replacement of the existing trees within the "median strip"
must be at a one to one ratio, except for the two existing trees located where new pavement is
proposed. The applicant must select a species of replacement tree for along 94's Avenue
West from the City's Street Tree Plan, and should use trees of a minimum 2 to 2.5 inch
caliper with a minimum 6 foot height branching, unless otherwise approved.
The applicant's preliminary plans indicate removal of many trees that are located
significantly outside the potential future building footprints; however, there is no apparent
reason to remove these trees. Since ECDC 18.45.050.A does not allow tree clearing solely
for the purpose of sale or future development, the applicant may only receive approval of tree
clearing on the proposed lots with building permit review. When the applicant submits
applications for residences on each lot, the applicant must also submit a tree clearing plan for
each lot at that time. The tree clearing plans will be reviewed with the building permits to
determine if the trees proposed to be removed are within the proposed developed footprint or
a reasonable distance of these improvements.
b. The proposal minimizes grading because the subject property is relatively level, and all lots
will be accessed via a shared access road.
C. There is a steep slope located on the adjacent property to the north, approximately 10 to 15
feet away from the northern property line of the subject site. It is evident that Lots 1, 2, and 3
3.
4.
Pat and Michael McCormick
File No, S-2007-33
Page 5 of 9
would be able to be developed using the standard required 50 -foot buffer and 15 -foot
building setback from the top of the slope. The applicant submitted a letter from a
geotechnical engineer, Geotech Consultants, Inc., which concluded that proposed Lot 4
would be able to be safely developed at a reduced buffer from the top of the slope
(Attachment 5). Refer to Section II.F.1 of this report for further discussion of the Landslide
Hazard Area. No other known hazardous conditions, such as flood plains or unstable soil or
geologic conditions 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 drainage impacts. All new impervious surfaces must be connected to an on-
site detention system.
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 four lot short -plat is a reasonable use of the property.
Lot sizes and dimensions:
Lot Area:
Required
Lot Area
Proposed
Gross sq. ft
Proposed
Nets , ft
Lot 1 8,000
9,459
8,005
Lot 2 8,000
10,229
8,292
Lot 3 8,000
10,145
8,752
Lot 4 8,000
9,566
9,566
Note: Net lot area excludes the area of shared ingress/egress easements. Net area must be
over 8,000 square feet within the RS -8 zone.
Lot Width:
The required lot width in the RS -8 zone is 70 feet. All proposed lots meet this requirement.
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 eastern boundary of the shared access road.
Side Setbacks (7.5 feet): From the northern and southern property lines.
Rear Setback (15 feet): From the western property line.
Lot 2: Street Setback (25 feet): From the eastern boundary of the shared access road
(including a radius from the turnaround).
Side Setbacks (7.5 feet): From the northern and southern property lines.
Rear Setback (15 feet): From the western property line.
Lot 3: Street Setback (25 feet): From the eastern boundary of the shared access road
(including a radius from the turnaround).
Side Setbacks (7.5 feet): From the northern and southern property lines.
Rear Setback (15 feet): From the western property line.
Lot 4: Street Setback (25 feet): Measured as a radius from the access easement serving
the lot.
Side Setbacks (7.5 feet): From the northern property line and the portions of the
eastern and southern property lines not impacted by the
radius for the street setback.
Pat and Michael McCormick
File No. S-2007-33
Page 6 of 9
Rear Setback (15 feet): From the western property line.
Existing Structures / Encroachments: The subject site is currently vacant; therefore, there are
no existing structural encroachments.
b. Corner Lots: None of the proposed lots are considered corner lots.
C, Flag or Interior Lot Determination: None of the proposed lots are considered flag lots.
d. Lot Coverage of Existing Buildings on Proposed Lots:
1.) 35% maximum lot coverage is allowed in the RS -8 zone.
2.) The subject site is currently vacant; therefore, all proposed lots would have a zero
percent lot coverage. Pursuant to ECDC 16.20, future buildings or structures on any of
the proposed lots will be permitted to cover no more than 35 percent of each lot.
5. Dedications
a. The Engineering Division is not requiring any street dedications (see 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:
13.1. 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.
13.4. 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:
13.5.d. Private property must be protected from adverse environmental
impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides,
etc.
8.6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural
constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage.
Pat and Michael McCormick
File No, S-2007-33
Page 7 of 9
2. Compliance with the Residential Development Goals and Policies: The proposal will allow for
construction of four new single-family residences. As conditioned, the overall proposal should not
cause any adverse impacts and appears to be consistent with the residential development goals and
policies.
C. Compliance with the Zoning Code
The proposed subdivision complies with the provisions of the Zoning Code. See sections ILA.3
and ILAA of this document.
D. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions
1. The proposed project is not located in a Flood Plain.
E. Environmental Assessment
1. 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.
F. Critical Areas Review
1. Critical Areas Review Number: CRA -2003-0144.
Results of Critical Areas Review: During initial critical areas review of the subject property,
staff issued a "waiver" from the requirement to complete a critical areas study. However, after
conducting a site visit of the property for the subject application, it was noted that a steep slope is
present on the adjacent property to the north of the subject property, where there is an
approximate 40 foot drop in elevation to the north. This slope is steep enough to be considered a
Landslide Hazard Area as defined by ECDC 23.40 and ECDC 23.80. As a result, the original
critical areas determination was changed, and the requirement to complete a study was issued.
The applicant submitted a geotechnical letter (Attachment 5) from Geotech Consultants, Inc.,
dated November 20, 2007, which concluded that the proposed development would not be
detrimental to the stability of the steep slope as long as the recommendations of the geotechnical
letter and the referenced "original soil report" are followed. The geotechnical letter stated that
the future residence must be a minimum of 15 feet from the top of the steep slope. This minimum
buffer must be shown on the final short plat documents for recording to ensure that all future
owners are aware of this requirement.
G. Comments
Five public comment letters were received during review of the proposal and are included as
Attachments 7 through 11. Concerns brought up in the continent letters are addressed below:
Concerns over tree removal throughout the site, particularly around the perimeter, as well as
replacement of the trees along 94'h Avenue West: Refer to Section II.A.2.a of this report for
discussion on the existing trees and the requirements for tree removal. Any future tree removal
must be in accordance with the requirements of ECDC i 8.45. A condition has been added to this
approval requiring the applicant to submit a tree clearing plan with submittal of civil plans for
review by the Planning Division.
Pat and Michael McCormick
File No. S-2007-33
Page 8 of 9
Concerns over the sizes of the future residences, the increased density, and the potential loss of
privacy: The proposed four lot subdivision is allowed as long as it meets all requirements set forth
in the Edmonds Community Development Code. These requirements are discussed in further
detail throughout this staff report. The City cannot deny a proposed subdivision if it is found to
meet all applicable codes. The RS -8 zone allows for lots with a minimum area of 8,000 square
feet. It is possible to subdivide the subject property into four lots that both meet this requirement.
The City cannot deprive the applicant of use of their property if all applicable code requirements
are met, Future residences on the proposed lots will not be permitted to exceed the City's site
development standards contained in ECDC 16.20. For example, unless a variance is obtained,
none of the future residences would be permitted to exceed 25 feet in height or to cover more than
35% of each lot. The adopted setback requirements contained in ECDC 16.20 are intended to
assist in retaining privacy; however, the City cannot impose additional setback requirements on
any lot.
Traffic and safety concerns on 232"1 Street Southwest. The Engineering Division and Fire
Department have reviewed the proposed alterations to 941' Avenue West and the proposed access
to the four new lots and have provided their requirements in Attachment 6.
Erosion concerns due to presence of steep slope on adjacent property: Discussion of the
Landslide Hazard Area located on the adjacent property to the north is provided in Section II.17.1
of this report. During development of the site, the Engineering Division will determine what
erosion control measures are necessary. The applicant has submitted a geotechnical letter showing
that the proposed subdivision should not be detrimental to the stability of the slope.
Concerns over construction occurring outside of approved hours and potential damage to other
properties: During construction, the applicant is required to follow the City's approved
construction hours unless the applicant received approval otherwise. Any damage caused by
construction activities is a private matter between property owners.
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 stat
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.
Pat and Michael McCormick
File No. S-2007-33
Page 9 of 9
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. Land Use Application
2. Vicinity 1 Zoning Map
3. Preliminary Subdivision Plans
4. Letter from Applicant Proposing Access Drive Design
5. Geotechnical Letter from Geotech Consultants, Inc.
6. Engineering Requirements
7, Comment Letter from Elisabeth and Chris Nyssen, received September 6, 2007
8. Comment Letter from Richard and Maruene Barnes, received September 7, 2007
9. Comment Letter from Chad and Christine Rothschiller, received September 7, 2007
10, Comment Letter from Chutima and Sumate Kusol, received September 10, 2007
11. Comment Letter from Alexandra Hepburn, received September 11, 2007
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD
Engineering Division Richard and Maurene Barnes
23022 — 90 Pl. W
Planning Division Edmonds, WA 98020
Pat McCormick Chad and Christine Rothschiller
804 NW 52nd St., Apt. C 23109 — 94`h Ave. W
Seattle, WA 98307 Edmonds, WA 98020
Michael McCormick Chutima and Sumate Kusol
2830 —196`h St. SE 23011 — 94`h Pl. W
Bothell, WA 98012 Edmonds, WA 98020
Elisabeth and Chris Nyssen Alexandra Hepburn
23007 — 94`x' Pl. W 23115 — 94`4 Ave. W
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 .
city of edmonds
land use application
0 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
0 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
0 HOME OCCUPATION
0 FORMAL SU13DIVISION t5 Gj4r
X SHORT SUBDIVISION �5D tYs
0 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
0 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTIA'90
0 OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT 6G6 F
0 STREET VACATION
0 REZONE
0 SHORELINE PERMIT
0 VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION
0 OTHER;
FILE # 3 �1' 33 ZONE P - S -Y 3
DATE Q k fkl %J0-7
REC'D BY 1:11 Y1C( `
FEE �5 • u v RECEIPT # 044 V__i___^
HEARING DATE
HE STAFF APB 0 ADB 0 CC
C;RA -b3 —l4 -t
PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 9 r-"
PROJECT NAMF (IF APPLICABLE) a TGI.Y"Af
PROPERTY OWNER , /* '.5: JL4A ! 1 /YI c s�/a9. c _ _ PHONE # - `It
ADDRESS �� % l 12 �" 5 ��a U // leep
E-MAIL ADDRESS
FAX #
TAX ACCOUNT # D Q(D k) c3 0 O 0 SEC. TWP. _ RNG
DESCRIPTION! OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE ''
U, �4
APPLICANT t? ` ' ' _ c'li PHONE # Z4-4.
ADDRESS
E-MAIL ADDRESS
FAX #
CONTACT PERSON/AGENT n 7- .Jn PHONE 2 Z X - 4'
ADDRESS.: P �? e-2 ! 2-4 ` ST y? i( c.Zj acs
E-MAIL ADDRESS Cei� -a - a4 FAX #
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,
inaecuratc 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 2f _DATE 1,19
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 CL�i of Edmonds to enter the subject
property for the purposes of 1WTe ion and ing attendant to this applicatio
SIGNATURE OF OWNER �, � DATF<��/ n
This application form was revised on 1127100. To verify whether it is still current, call (425) 771-0220,
L[UIMARY\PLANNING1Forms & HandoutsTublic Handoutslland Use Application.doc
Attachment 1
ED
Zoning and Vicinity Map
0 75 150 300
File No. S-2007-33 Feet
lac. 1890
N
A
Attachment 2
f
a} 1 4 2 O ^ O
F nT m
N ~ Z
pWWf W Z W
U ss tO�� p y� t7 Qi W 41 W n4 y 6
F w ^ M x G@Cl Y L
w aN m r 0
1z w a O a
!`•' u� t�9 � ��� iwi �4� WZo � � � �^Q i SF� W t S 2 � z ' � Gi
<GJ2Q
J ZW (n \
aT N(tl4w O �� 6N.a W R x s %'•'1N QLt j� N ~
NNZN i 4N y�j W� �y�yYr <r KyW
i R Fg9FW C+Za_���'Z• y y FH�r O Zm�2�206 Z
``¢ rr N� OC L 2 Ip. Ly1�GfyJLLp
z Z 1J 916Ix.1 ��y'f� 6 WW U�WcZ� II. I] p( 6 NpCWb tlyOa
ZO � M uVgK� W $ F W ZUZW FFF� a 6 4 �Zd� �2 W � � C
Ir 3
CL
w _ 8
O� A+-
Yy�u�u
^my c 4-W^ a •� J J4 r NZ o J C ZOZ !
i W Y
� iA � T N Q yy a KKK • '
I� Wy ZZ 44 W q Wy U K [u 4{ w y■{
� MSO � N W hh0 S NF t�{ Ww � N H ��4- S pYSw W •aRi y�q � � M
JJ y SUZ-�
VZ' l� Fr AS }$HHS 6 u N GLR ~ F 14�- {�' py2 g2 OJ Pfuj, N_
'� z NVV R2p2pAN++ yW�� JJO OyWH G ryu5 29 Ig
pW - n Z yq�MZN O W6 [.IS .�.
1V O �FZ �4 4 p 2�M Ll LqQ� CCCNNN<
Is
Y iii��� ju 4 WGW Zs�WW} V yRj � 4 1. 1�� I` W Cw� (ayyj M
[9 xhp��2� �ih�o�"n k!``i' mmm'"%a.mm 3 } �. �l5�or SII.
Li W�y� }}ma�yy y yy o qZ Zm (�yy�y ma tMJ
�M [] - D pF m6 rS�. G^~o 6 W - G O1+ W S•: °
n
zgg�gr ooh i z i€ Nyil a a� 9={x�i y U a fi
rHHnyyrHH�i•
a=W��5z
11.
Do
��
o O n cud r ce=av c� op
{I < I G w c
W2 W
1 P r • b;
OF O.°e `u�«°y�• I �y�r a �`u'••O:oW�ni�
D z V U a 4 ��� e y N«c C��' ! G a ti O «° ° a° i a•� e
La
•N Y;"C: •i�O MC CC« ON11
(n N t/j ~ ~ n•"o icc° .^oa " F ie��'u°a`E�"v
z
m m ,°. s• ' : o ive e a' a ... v.�
LO
Z a a v«o �a�� n°Divi v Lu `o=°Ii vO k
Z W uVi w .O t �..°�•• ° w Is! < quo u«can `°a n L
O K rc oy a�..n� V3
Fi � z o J o ~ - crcenn• C9 a ^ay.c a••z c. a'O�.t .°.a i
in
v} a ccvc^a i �n a ix a v.L �v
H W W O °`°i6xom m _ ry ix
<
ti E N IrJ .. a �.' O °oc n`•, y C =• ii• �v c«O o
o g; 1V W'; '^ eft« r� 4 e
�'- 2z `° ai• Cxl .. ° va
V xz °oe •• _.`°.a G �a afar
Y! V/J� T� • nNO ^o Tv[C i O • n�id .4..@u •.M•. "]
ti to ��� N�•`a^a = i.•. o.c. .� �a c ny o�"ovu r9 IA « Y
avvy
om 00
�LTIwH IL i�L. ~VC •� °rte etl e a aw ` •.G. ° r 9« c°i• a oi�p i I _ "]
u aCL<
Sao m
'vim oe°occ° $ r «« �a �_ eo a �ce•F�.':i�� e $ t
� � c �o°a fin: «_°
I
.i
Attachment 3.
228TH ST SW
BRASS DISK 1N
CDNCRL;M IUMP 47 IN
STEEL CASE (TYPICAL)
TP: 27033800 102200 ,
ONT`ER: EDNONDS WOODWAY LLC
S 88' 20' S7' , SS
i
i M1 n -
e 1
6N " i F En
mx M1 1 C a
pw i S] � bc7
30.7
15�-'--�_--�- 1
NQ
F
N
E
o
a
� i
�
�
w
�
S 88' 18'94" E 131. 02
v
a
�`
oa
r
2
13' n
n
1
8�
�
oW
a
rn
11 J i
fa
N
�
i
FO
a�
4
n
m
S 88.18' 34' 131. 2s
236TH STREET SW
r
= h w
r
r
v
cj F it n
�M C
� ra�
� rlrareLas ar,raune�
o�
o
�+
n<
5 18 54 [ 11 O, a3
Y
�pW
40
MI
NS
•
OZ
9z
b
"rc
N�
ik °' W'ui
L
N
p
a
P
226TH ST SW
34p� LL~9
a:2WK K Z
ogN�M^U <N
a raWFsg I'm
1�3iKi"�6" 80�
yyVl .yy�<FJW�� �¢¢¢
W < J A W o
SM mo
ar Mw<iw v
33U
g K
>
3s �
232ND ST SW fs
8W
O"
U
^
v
E
m
�
GN
m�
v
a
�`
oa
g
<V,m:;
gin
a
rn
s
�
"
aNM1
¢a
ay
n
!Br ME
236TH STREET SW
r
= h w
�i1
v
io c
� ra�
�y
o
�+
•
m n
"rc
ik °' W'ui
L
P
pm
`p
H
1:4zs
W
cc
yc
0 0
til
a
mspco�
n
�
<a
I
1�
<ii�i
i err
Oxo
opo
O�
Z
M1od
Z
N
o,�..
FO12~
^CCwfr
O -U:
o
�q
tJJJJ
NT
7U5 leg
O
m
pJ
S
>
3s �
232ND ST SW fs
g
`y.71
E
m
�
1
I v
s
ii.11
c
L
a
!Br ME
236TH STREET SW
f
= h w
�i1
� ra�
>
3s �
232ND ST SW fs
m
�w
NQ
l
I v
s
a
!Br ME
236TH STREET SW
f
yw
�i1
>
3s �
232ND ST SW fs
a
m
tCltl1 N
■1 W < J ! m ¢ l
'g z_§
<
u1. i i
GY
o -r
G
Koh
�
$ o i
� �-
�
Iu J nn pp c JJ
j�41
{�
uy.� q0 Z F W ~ u�l ��W F 4h1 Zr
�
J1�I a
Qp (xp1 U�
W
`
m
�SR883R
F
mm
Sfif
YY PYM LI
yW
41
J ,ZjK i
765 < N -w -
N .M+
J
613
^ ^ N
G
m
tw.ma¢a` a ¢¢ hhI>WJ-
J W'OarZM M ~ 11<iS WWi < r0
22 F• W W
.r.
zoo..
plN zoo.y}.
;WiwwWW
S ZZ
W
2
tc-
5■!ww■
111
�f6I01-
I `a
^pu �n.+Mn�w Nww
p<aft00 Gh OP
Q�
5
m
...
„Nga<IIGt<i
Sopaoao
1Ji Ni
j_
mw
mx _o ooN a0O C -.Nes a'*Y OW
� q NFY N20 NZ_S ZOm O�N Zig Yl�
a«O[iCoit`/1 tlw.:.�
MMW-NMNNN^wN�'1�
W^I�P^pm
h9=P��•
UI
�
1 � c
11S J
0 W
nd'
K€.p.S€�Fx
w
<Om000
xFsxx
V
a
�
po eJ6ta yyN}[ZW
N ��r yQy11�4�+yyII�40._21¢pF
«C<2y,C;2W �<2W KF2 Yl�N<aN4 �O
W
V4'R�6 CJ
�O 0000
p
�N Z�NfPII
IL
S g a
W=WW12}: Rtl"
KppZ
g
f iJ is
me�
tl W WW
z.z
10
yyII[l
pp I(�I�1 y1cW)ni,�uZau
SSS
O �LL�NHIWi=N�==04 FNFk.
N
�t r!•-Ff
o
�onm1n�
n
S pY W W W W s W W W W W W W W
�
r wj
=
mn Neila.N�N��p'1 N.Ilh
`�/
■
:.Q
�
miVmbppmNmGlD 044�Q
.-iPti�
♦Oa O.+f wwpOp
•�
v
8
j y4 1
N�
qwq
8008 mO�WO1P40��
?j
m
I
3
N
(dAl) 1N3f135v3 of
ZZZZNZNYI2 NN Z1nN
}
H
S311a
1i11f1 ONY ; k p�
-
9.i m SNS
7
O
J
�Sd2173 S53W"l G
"i'wi
i
:!
3O 11
N]YN 1111 ii
'411 O^�IM<
r
<
•
1J
JJJJ J��J Jm JJ1JJ
Cl)
\/J N
d
1
i ;
I�ryefl
j
V�V V
1
� I
uvU
od
1L]
N
....
r
o
1N3N3SV3 S31111I1[1 jo iJ J1j
3QIx ,
q�,
J
_
AWYlI71flY i0 lIWIl9I �1
W
■1 W < J ! m ¢ l
'g z_§
<
u1. i i
GY
a 2 g
G
Koh
$ o i
� �-
�
Iu J nn pp c JJ
j�41
{�
uy.� q0 Z F W ~ u�l ��W F 4h1 Zr
J1�I a
Qp (xp1 U�
W
`
m
mSO
mm
Sfif
YY PYM LI
yW
41
J ,ZjK i
765 < N -w -
N .M+
J
+0
G
m
tw.ma¢a` a ¢¢ hhI>WJ-
J W'OarZM M ~ 11<iS WWi < r0
22 F• W W
.r.
zoo..
plN zoo.y}.
;WiwwWW
S ZZ
W
2
tc-
5■!ww■
111
I `a
NDN K• KZ
rn1nN �~w UO
n Zm♦3 3 �r Vytv.
Q�
�Q�NXNti
m
...
„Nga<IIGt<i
Sopaoao
ul
mw
mx _o ooN a0O C -.Nes a'*Y OW
� q NFY N20 NZ_S ZOm O�N Zig Yl�
<
�
W^I�P^pm
h9=P��•
UI
�
1 � c
11S J
<x�� pa x aFss tlos caF
._Z
nd'
K€.p.S€�Fx
w
<Om000
xFsxx
V
a
�
po eJ6ta yyN}[ZW
N ��r yQy11�4�+yyII�40._21¢pF
«C<2y,C;2W �<2W KF2 Yl�N<aN4 �O
W
V4'R�6 CJ
�O 0000
p
�N Z�NfPII
IL
S g a
W=WW12}: Rtl"
KppZ
g
w
tl W WW
z.z
10
yyII[l
pp I(�I�1 y1cW)ni,�uZau
SSS
O �LL�NHIWi=N�==04 FNFk.
�t r!•-Ff
7
01-h!•.F�
N
=
v
8
I
3 R
Michael E. McCormick
2830 196` ST SE
Bothell, WA, 98012
August 24, 2006
File
Pre -app file
File:
Modification Request
' Py W A;
11 v49' [
`na
The Short Plat for the property at 23016 94"' Ave W, Edmonds, Washington has one
Modification Request.
The property is designed with a driveway which is approximately 350 feet from the
property to street 232�d St. SW. This driveway is approximately 22+ feet wide. This
driveway is parallel to a drive to the south that is currently utilized by other home owners
at 94th Ave. W.
There are several concerns that need to be addressed with the driveway. Among them:
1. The property directly south of 23016 901 Ave W, (located at 23102 94th Ave W)
has easement to this properties driveway. The homeowner is proposing building
4 houses on the property at 23016 94h Ave. W. This would be a total of 5 houses,
which exceeds the current allowable limit for a driveway this wide.
2. Several of the neighboring homeowners really want to maintain the "lane" feel
that the current driveway offers. (The current driveway has a row of mature trees
that provide the lane feel.)
3. The City of Edmonds would prefer not to have multiple parallel driveways onto
232nd St SE. There are multiple reasons for this, it is not safe with the multiple
driveways, it is confusing as to the address (which is a concern for the police and
fire departments), and it does not enhance the neighbor. (Refer to sketch 91 on
attached drawing for schematic of multiple driveways.)
The homeowner has met with the neighboring homeowners and the City of Edmonds
Planning Engineer several times to address the concerns. The homeowner has also
discussed the driveway with the different departments at the City of Edmonds to ensure
that all parties required for planning agree to the proposal.
The proposal agreed to and proposed in the pre -application is design a "lane" driveway
utilizing the existing driveway (paved driveway currently utilized by neighboring
homeowners) which will be now become the ingress "entrance" to all homeowners on
901 Ave. W. The egress "exit" drive will be a new driveway on the other side of a 5 -
Attachment 4
W
R
a
' Py W A;
11 v49' [
`na
The Short Plat for the property at 23016 94"' Ave W, Edmonds, Washington has one
Modification Request.
The property is designed with a driveway which is approximately 350 feet from the
property to street 232�d St. SW. This driveway is approximately 22+ feet wide. This
driveway is parallel to a drive to the south that is currently utilized by other home owners
at 94th Ave. W.
There are several concerns that need to be addressed with the driveway. Among them:
1. The property directly south of 23016 901 Ave W, (located at 23102 94th Ave W)
has easement to this properties driveway. The homeowner is proposing building
4 houses on the property at 23016 94h Ave. W. This would be a total of 5 houses,
which exceeds the current allowable limit for a driveway this wide.
2. Several of the neighboring homeowners really want to maintain the "lane" feel
that the current driveway offers. (The current driveway has a row of mature trees
that provide the lane feel.)
3. The City of Edmonds would prefer not to have multiple parallel driveways onto
232nd St SE. There are multiple reasons for this, it is not safe with the multiple
driveways, it is confusing as to the address (which is a concern for the police and
fire departments), and it does not enhance the neighbor. (Refer to sketch 91 on
attached drawing for schematic of multiple driveways.)
The homeowner has met with the neighboring homeowners and the City of Edmonds
Planning Engineer several times to address the concerns. The homeowner has also
discussed the driveway with the different departments at the City of Edmonds to ensure
that all parties required for planning agree to the proposal.
The proposal agreed to and proposed in the pre -application is design a "lane" driveway
utilizing the existing driveway (paved driveway currently utilized by neighboring
homeowners) which will be now become the ingress "entrance" to all homeowners on
901 Ave. W. The egress "exit" drive will be a new driveway on the other side of a 5 -
Attachment 4
August 24, 2006
Page 2
foot wide `island strip". The ingress, egress and the island strip will be installed where
the existing drive is and in the 22' of the property owner's driveway (refer to sketch #2 in
attached drawing). This is also shown in the Preliminary Short Plat Drawings. New trees
will be planted in the island strip.
Advantages of this approach are:
1. The property owner has access to the property and can build more than three
houses on the property.
2. The neighboring homeowners are happy to keep the lane feel.
3. The City of Edmonds requirements are met, and the resulting drive does not result
in multiple drives onto 232nd ST SW.
The additional requirements to make this approach acceptable are:
I. The property owner has discussed this approach with the property owners that
own the property that the current driveway is on. These property owners would
be required to grant easement access to the additional property owners from the
proposed subdivision. Since this driveway already exists, all property owners
have verbally agreed to grant easement access. The only stipulation has been to
ensure that trees are planted in the island strip. The property owner would also
have to grant easement access to all the property owners that would utilized the
driveway. The property owner agrees to grant easement access. Notarized
easement grants will be included in the formal application.
2. The City of Edmonds Engineering, Planning and Fire Departments have discussed
the width of the driveways (entrance and exit) and agree that if each driveway is
13'6" is a variance for the width of the road for the number of houses that will
utilize the drive, however, the City code does not have specifications for a lane
type driveway. The major concern for the width of the road is for the Fire
Department, which has agree that 13'5" is adequate for truck access.
Based on the discussions on this Modification Request, this variance should be
acceptable.
Sincerely,
Michael E. McCormick
Property Owner
Attached; Drawing Illustrating Access Alternatives
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
Buffalo Run Company
2830 -- 196th Street Southeast
Bothell, Washington 38012
Attention: Mike McCormick
l vPn
Nov
` 2007
PERMIT c®UVrER
13256 Northeast 20th Street, Suite 16
Bellevue, Washington 98005
(425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561
November 20, 2007
Subject: Steep Slope Concerns
Proposed Residences - 23016 — 94th Avenue West, Edmonds, Washington
JN 06013
Reference: "Geotechnical Engineering Study," subject site, Geotech Consultants, Inc., February 22, 2006.
Dear Mr. McCormick: via email. michmcco@amgen.com
We understand that there is some concern regarding the relationship between the steep slope on
the on neighboring northern property and the proposed northernmost residence in your proposed
short plat. We understand that the site plan has not changed appreciably from the plan at the time
of our original report. The plan, at that time, showed a setback of the northern residence from the
northern property line on the order of 15 feet. On October 25, 2007, the undersigned geotechnical
project manager visited the subject site to review the existing conditions in regards to this
relationship. In this northern area, the subject site is sloped slightly down to the north, but
approximately 10 feet north of the property line, a steep (approximately 50 percent) slope begins
down to the.north. This slope appears to be a graded feature associated with the development of
the apartments to the north.' Very dense glacial till was observed in exposed areas of the upper
portion of this cut, and similar soil was encountered in our previous test pits on the subject site.
The slope is relatively well vegetated, and we observed no signs of large-scale slope instability
during our site visit. Given the soil conditions observed in the northern slope and the inclination of
the slope, we would anticipate any slope instabilities to be limited to the shallow surficial layer of
weathered soils on the slope without affecting the underlying non -weathered glacial till. Provided
the foundations for the proposed northern house are excavated to bear on the very dense glacial till
soils and are at least 15 feet from the top of the slope, the proposed house would not be affected
by any anticipated slope instability. As described in our original soil report, no fill should be placed
on or near the top of the slope, and no water (surface or subsurface) should be directed at the
northern slope. Provided the recommendations in our original soil report and in this letter are
followed, we would also not anticipate any decrease in stability of the northern slope due to the
proposed development.
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.
Respectfully submitted, Aa,;
JM4�%�
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
3�83G4
,lames H. Strange, Jr., P.E.
Geotechnical Project Manager JHS: art
t ! Za-ev
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC.
Attachment 5
CITY OF EDMONDS
ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS FOR SHORT PLATS
Name: McCormick File No.: PLN20070033
Reviewed by: _ Jeanie McConnell _ October 24, 2007 Address: 23016 94th Ave W
Engineering Division Date
p1n20070033 McCormick SP Req's.xls 1 of 3
Attachment 6
REW'D PRIOR TO
REQ'O W/BLDG
COMPLETE
REQORDING
PERMIT
1. Right -of Way Dedication for Public Streets
a)
X
2. Easements (City utilities, private access, other
utilities):
`✓ -
. .
a) Provide all access and utility easements as required.
X
b) Ali lots shall take access off private access road, 94th Ave W. The
access for 9403 232nd St SW shall be modified to take access of 941h
X
Ave W.
C)
Existing private access easement, 94th Ave W, shall be widended for
Fire Department access. Total easement area shall be a minimum of
33 (thirty three) feet in width. This will include 2 (two) - 13.5 foot lanes
X
with a planter strip separating each lane along segments of the access
drive. One lane will be designated for ingress, the other lane
designated for egress.
d) Private access easement, serving the 4 new lots, shall be a minimum
X
of 20 (twenty) feet in width.
3. Public Street Improvements (ACP, curb gutter and
-
sidewalks);_,."
a) 94th Ave W shall be improved at the intersection of 232nd St SW to
include an asphalt radius.
X
4. Private Access Improvements:
-
a) Existing private access road, 94thAve W, shall be paved to a minimum
of 13.5 feet in width, plus 6" concrete extruded curb around planter
X
areas.
b) Private access road, serving the 4 new lots, shall be paved a minimum
of 16 feet in width, plus 18" asphalt thickened edge or 6" concrete
X
extruded curb may be used.
c) Slope of private access road and driveways shall not exceed 14% and
shall be noted as such on the civils.
X
d) Gross slope of private access road shall not exceed 2%
X
5. Street Turnaround:
a) Provide on-site turnaround on private access road to City Standards.
X
6. Street Lights:
� _--..-
ME -
N/A
7. Planting Strip:
p1n20070033 McCormick SP Req's.xls 1 of 3
Attachment 6
pin20070033 McCormick SP Req's.xls 2 of 3
REq'D PRIOR TO
RECORDING
REP'n w/BLDG COMPLETE
PERMIT
Required in segments along private access road, 94th Ave W, between
ingress and egress lanes.
X
8. Water System Improvements OVWSD
a) Applicant must meet requirements set forth by Olympic View Water
Sewer District for conneclion to public water system.
X
b) Install 8" watennain in private access road, 94th Ave W, from 232nd St
SW to north end, per Olympic View Water and Sewer District
requirements.
X
G) Install 6" fire hydrant, including 4- Storz adapter. Hydrant spacing as
required per ECDC 19.25.
X
d) Provide new water service to each lot.
X
e) Connect to public water system.
X
X
9. Sanitary Sewer System Improvements (OVWSD)
a) Applicant must meet requirements set forth by Olympic View Water
Sewer District for connection to public sewer system.
X
b) Provide new 6" service lateral to development with G" cleanout at
property line.
X
c) Provide new 4" side sewer to each lot
x
d) Connect to public sewer system.
x
X
10. Storm Sewer System Improvements:
SOWER-�WOMEN--
e �.. -
a) Provide a Stormwater Management report and plan. Compliance with.
a)
ECDC 18.30 and 1992 Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual is
required.
x
b) Construct privately owned and maintained storm detention system
sized to provide adequate capacity for proposed single family dwellings
and street improvements in accordance with ECDC 18.30. Storm
detention system to be located on private property.
X
c) Connect all new impervious surfaces to detention system.
X
X
d) Provide storm sewer service to all proposed lots.
X
e) Connect to public storm system.
X
X
11. Underground Wiring (per Ord. 1387):
X
- F
X
a) Required for all new services.
12. Excavation and Gradin(per 1BC
x
_
a) Submit a grading plan as part of engineered site plan.
X
b) Submit grading plan for foundations with building permit.
X
13. Signage(per City Engineer):
a) Provide fire and aid address signage.
x
b) Provide ingress and egress directional signage.
x
14. Survey Monumenta#ion feet Ord. Sect. 12.10.120:'
NIA
15. As -built Drawin s(per City En ineer .
pin20070033 McCormick SP Req's.xls 2 of 3
��Bans�lG
Engineering Program Manager, CITY OF EDMONDS
Date
pIn20070033 McCormick SP Req's.xls 3 of 3
REq'D PRIOR TO
RECOROINO
REq'D VV/BLOC
PERMIT
COMPLETE
a)
Required for all street and utility improvements. Provide an AutoCAD
electronic copy and a hard copy to City.
X
X
16.
Other Requirements:
�x
a)
Plat showing lots, easements, legals, survey information
X
b)
Legal documents for each lot
X
c)
Field stake lot corners (by professional surveyor)
X
d)
Field stake utility stubs at property lines
x
e)
Clustered mailbox location per Postmaster
X
Q
Maintenance agreements
X
g)
Traffic Impact Analysis
X
17.
Engineering t=ees:
=
:�= s �M
.=
a)
Storm development charge (access tract)
$451.00
X
b)
Storm system development charge
$428.00
X
c)
Sewer connection fee
OVWSD
X
d)
Water connection fee
OVWSD
x
e)
Water meter fee - 314" meter
OVWSD
X
f)
Traffic mitigation fee
$840.72
X
g)
Short Plat review foe
$880.00
y
h)
Inspection fee (2.2% of improvement costs)
TSD
X
��Bans�lG
Engineering Program Manager, CITY OF EDMONDS
Date
pIn20070033 McCormick SP Req's.xls 3 of 3
September 3, 2007
City of Edmonds Development Services Department
Jennifer Machuga, Planner
121 S" Avenue N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Development Application File # S-07-33
Dear Ms. Machug,
We are writing to express our concerns about the pending development at 230I6 9411' Ave. W. in Edmonds. Pat
McCormidt, the developer, was kind enough to meet with a couple of hot neownets on 94' Place to answer our questions,
and hear our concerns. We are relieved that he expressed sensitivity to the issues that are important to our neighborhood
and we expect tnar you will help to keep the safety and lifestyle choices of the surrounding neighbors in mind as you
monitor this project.
Each of the bordering propertiesti on 94;' Place has 5 - 10 large fir trees that we hope to beep healthy so that they will
continue to help moderate seasonal temperature fluctuation and air quality, absorb noise and provide shelter for wild life
around our horns. Nk McCom-tick has indicated that he will hire an arborist to make suggestions on which trees on the
perimeter of his property can and should be retained. We feel it is important to retain healthy trees on his properry to help
protect our trees and homes as well as his new strut n -m And who knows, maybe the new homeowners will value trees too
and we will all have something in cwrnmzon?
We are very disappointed that this project involves four very large homes because it will be difficult w znaintam the current
landscape feeding of space and privacy. We chose to live in this neighborhood because of the mature native trees, quer,
private and park- like setting. We enjoyed the absence of fast moving traffic on 232' Street SW and looked forward to
raising a family where we could move about safely with our children even on streets with no sidewalks. The City seem to
promote these high density developments while putting much less (and too ]ate) consideration into the traffic
inftasttumire, safety, and quality of life of the people who live in rhe neighbothoods. To our dismay, all of this (and other)
pending development around 232` Street S.W. is aeatipg a VERY unsafe environment for our children and especially
those who are trying to get to school. The Sherwood Elementary school bus slops at least twice on 232`" StxeeL These
young kids usually have no safe place to wait for the bus as cats are whizzing by. Those of us who walk to Madrona K-8
are also exposed to traffic drat has poor visibility and usually exceeding the speed limit
It leaves us wondering if Edmonds really cares about the quality of life for families. We appreciate Mr.
McCormick's consideration and openness but we hope that the Edmonds City Planners will choose to keep
families duality of life in mind. We live here.
Sincerel ,
Elisabeth and Chris Nyssen
23007 94" Place W.
Edmonds, WA 98020
206--546-5278
nyssenge9comcastnet
Attachment 7
Sept. 7,2007
City of Edmonds Development Services Dept.
Jennifer Machuga,. Planner.
121_51h Avee N.
F mo ds; WA 98020
Rc:. Lievelopmcnl Application File #S-07-33
Dear Ms. Machu:
This letter is regarding the property at 23016-94`h Ave. W., Edmonds. As I sit at my dining table
this mate, viewing the sun shining through the evergree#r trees, I realize if the development on
said property consists of four 2 story houses placed in close proximity to each other; my "view"
will consist of a 30 ft. "wall" of houses. We purchased our home in this area because of the
private; woodsy setting. Since our area was annexed to Edmonds, high density developments are
being promoted by the city while quiet woodsy settings seem to be a thing of the past. The traffic
on. our, access street has also been reasonable, although crossing -Edmonds Way at 232 St. is now
a nightmare and destined to become even more difficult when that corner development of some 50
units plus a strip mall is completed. We accept the fact that changes will happen in -all -
neighborhoods. However, we feel putting four huge houses on that property as well as the
necessary tree removal to accommodate such a development will be very detrimental to the
quality of our neighborhood.
Our concern are: a) ex_ccssiw removal of trees as these trees left standing will not be protected.
L*xcessive density for this newhborhoQ4,
C)excessive traffic on 232°d St., already impacted by ten- new houses .using the st.
Not counting- the sixty units being- built at 232a and Edmonds Wy. ,half of
Will be funneled onto 232`d St..
D_rte safes fQr our children walking to school as well as those Win
Blessed.
E)de eased quality of life for those Qf us living in the rtcigliborhood and payin-g
Our tis.
T_h_ank you for cQnsidcring our concmns,
Richard and Maurene Barnes
23022-90 gl. W.
4moftds, WA 98020
Phone 206-546-2731
Attachment 8
Chad & Christine Rothschiller
23109 94"' Ave W
Edmonds, WA 98020
(206)533-6040
September 7, 2007
.Ten Machuga, Planner for City of Edmonds
Robert Chave, Planning Manager
1215' Ave N — 2"d Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
Dear .Ten, Robert, & City of Edmonds Planning Staff.
We want to express both excitement and concern over the development prospects on the property located at
23016 94a' Ave W in Edmonds. We are excited at the possibility of invigorating our neighborhood with new
construction homes, improved landscaping "look and feel", and having new friends as neighbors. We realize
that, if done well, this development could also increase the value of our homes and add to the charm that our
neighborhood has been enjoying for many years.
However it is our concern that compels us to write to you. After talking with our neighbors, we've identified six
areas that we want to bring to your attention. We've also discussed these issues with the developers themselves
(Pat McCormick et al). To date the discussions have been friendly, and they've shown interest to hear what
we're concerned about. They've also mentioned development plans that meet some of the concerns below.
Nonetheless we feel it best to express this in writing to the various parties involved, to ensure clarity_
1. We highly value our tree -lined private lane, and are concerned that part of the development proposal
might be to alter this aspect of our neighborhood. We don't want a single paved strip with no trees. The
private lane feel is a reason why many of us bought homes on this street. Other benefits are: it slows
traffic, provides a sound barrier, is safer for kids & animals, is a great refuge for birds, and allows a
more natural transition from surrounding woods & fields to the development property in question.
4 We ask that development of the property maintains two lanes separated by the existing trees. if the
existing trees need removal for some reason, we ask that they be replaced with mature trees, and we ask
that we have some influence over the type of tree chosen.
2. Currently we have a significant forest for wildlife, enhanced by surrounding lots with many trees and
grassy field. We currently have hummingbirds, yellow finches, downey woodpeckers, northern flicker
woodpeckers, junkos, nuthatches, chickadees, wrens, robins, varied thrushes, and purple house finches.
Some of these birds are hard to find in city areas_ One of our neighbors, Ginger Gibbs, is also a member
of the national Audubon society.
4 We understand that trees will have to come down to put up the houses, and even removal of diseased
trees is important and healthy, but we ask for careful planning and forethought so that the number of
trees to be removed is minimized.
4 We also ask that any trees planned for removal are clearly marked, so that no mistakes can be made
by those running the chainsaws. For accountability purposes, we would like to see in a formal report
how many trees are currently on the property (6 inches or more in diameter, measured 4 feet from the
ground) and how many are marked for removal.
3. Residents currently enjoy a high amount of privacy. The trees and vegetation provide for privacy from
people and noise. With the new development and layout of houses, we fear there will be new houses
looking down into existing yards & windows, additional noise from SR104, people looking in from the
road, and where you once enjoyed trees in view, now you see your neighbor in a window.
4We ask that tree & vegetation removal and house layout be considerate of neighborhood privacy.
4. Erosion. The development property borders a steep bank.
->Any kind of tree or vegetation removal should be carefully weighed against the damaging effects of
accelerated erosion.
Attachment 9
5. Construction intrusion. All of us have several concerns with the logging and construction: demolishing,
building, logging, and large trucks and crews could be invasive, loud, disruptive, temporarily blocking
the road, and damaging neighboring property like fences or the private road.
4 We ask that construction happens only within the approved hours, and no exceptions be granted for
working outside those hours. Furthermore, we ask that. any damages incurred on private property,
including the road, be repaired.
6. Traffic Flow. The addition of 4 houses is going to compound the traffic issues on our private road, 90'
Ave W, and intersecting roads. There are three issues we're concerned about regarding traffic:
a. The intersection at 94`h Ave W and 2315` (behind our house) is already dangerous, and it is a
blind corner.
4 We ask that careful consideration be given to that corner, and that there be no additional
roads, entrances, or exits intersecting with those two streets, as that will further complicate the
traffic there.
b. Speeding vehicles.
4 We ask that speed bumps be placed on 9e Ave W to help mitigate fast drivers.
c. Wider streets after completing the two "one way" lanes. We are concerned that if two "one way"
lanes are implemented, widening each lane to accommodate the larger traffic volume, the City of
Edmonds will require existing residents bordering 94`' Ave W to trim their trees more than what
is required now.
--> We ask that there are no additional requirements or restrictions put on existing houses to trim
back trees or other vegetation as a result of putting in the new one way lanes, if those lanes in
fact are developed.
We've read the "Comprehensive Plan" document for the city of Edmonds (online) and we've also read section
18.45 of the Edmonds development code, entitled Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Code. A short review of the
goals provides for
"...preserving the physical and aesthetic character of the city through the prevention of indiscriminate
removal or destruction of trees and ground cover on undeveloped or partially developed property" and to
"...retain clusters of trees for the abatement of noise and for wind protection."
..Any growth or development should strive to preserve for itself and its neighbors the following values: B.4.a. Light
(including direct sunlight, B.4.6. Privacy; B.4.c. Views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features; B.4.d.
Freedom from air, water, noise and visual pollution.)... "
We also recognize that economic development is important to the city of Edmonds. We believe that with careful
planning and review, many of these goals can be achieved in this development project.
We've had really good communication so far with the land developers. They've been able to share some of their
thoughts with as, and we've been able to voice our concerns to them. We've already had one neighborhood
meeting to discuss the potential impacts, and we have a few more planned. We're also inviting the developers to
one of the meetings so we can meet each other, understand plans and concerns, and be on friendly terms with
each other.
While the actual development project will probably be relatively short in duration (1-5 years), the outcome and
impact will be much more permanent (10-100 years), and the effects on the neighborhood will be long lasting.
That's why we're keenly interested in helping influence how the development of the property proceeds.
Thank you so much for reading this letter. We look forward to working more with you on this matter.
Sincerely,
Chad & Christin schiller
Homeowners
-xs
i
Page 1 of 1
Machuga, Jen
From: Chutima Kusol [dearpoom@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 3:09 AM
To: Machuga, Jen
Subject: Concerns on Development Application file #S-07-33
Dear Ms.Machuga,
Please view the attached pdf file of our letter regarding our concerns on the pending project at 23016
94th Ave. W. (file# S-07-33). Please also let us know whether you have any trouble opening the file and
do not hesitate to contact us with any questions you may have_
Thank you so much for your help as our city planner. Hope we could all work together and come up
with a win-win positive solution for everyone involved and for our beloved neighborhood
and the environment.
Sincerely,
Chutima and Sumate Kusol
23011 94th Place West
Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: 425-361-1621
9/10/2007 Attachment. 1.0
Chutima and Sumate Kusol
23011 94th Place West
Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone. 425-361-1621.
E-mail. dearpoomPgmail.com
September 10, 2007
Ms.Jen Machuga
City of Edmonds Development Services Dept.
121 Vh Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: comments on subdivision plan at 23016 94`h Avenue West
.Dear Ms.Machuga,
We are writing to you to express our concerns regarding the pending development at 23016 94"' Avenue
West, Edmonds (file# S-07-33).
Since we live on 94' Place West, right behind this project and will be directly affected by it, we did visit the City
of Edmonds Development Services Department to obtain a copy of the subdivision plan and arranged to meet
with Mr.Pat McCormick, who kindly came to meet with us to discuss about the development. However, our
family and nearby neighbors still have some major concerns about the project as follows: -
1) Trees preservation & its impact in terms of safety, privacy, environment, and
neighborhood livelihood
As we all know, trees sustain the weather element much better when they are in group. And when we overly
disturb the way nature intends, we more likely to be the ones paying the price.
One of the recent proofs of why it is safer for the neighborhood to keep big fir trees in group is obvious during
the recent December 2006 windstorm. None of our & nearby neighbors' trees on 90 Place West, 90 Avenue
West, and nearby streets fell down except for one lone giant fir tree across the street at 232`d St. SW, where
the new houses were built a few years ago (and they cut down most trees in the process). Luckily, no one. got
hurt, but we lost our power for three days due to the tree fallen on the power line and no one could enter our
road from the east of 232"d St until the tree was removed from the street.
Although Mr.Pat McCormick told us that he would try to keep as many healthy trees as possible, especially the
ones along the perimeter between 9e Avenue West and 94'h Place West; he did mention that if it was up to
his brother, Mr.Michael McCormick, he would have cut down all the trees on this four lot subdivision.
Therefore, we are very concern about their pending plan and highly hope that the developer and the city
planner would work harder in keeping as many trees as possible. We believe that the privacy provided by
these beautiful Douglas fir trees will also be such a valuable asset to the new homeowners and a great selling
point for the developer. It is not easy nowadays to find a newly built home in park -like settings.
• Page 2 September 30, 2007
We, too, moved away from the North Seattle area last year to raise our family in Edmonds. Even though one
of us works in South Seattle area, it is worth the extra commuting time to live in the kids -friendly and peaceful
neighborhood, where we can raise our children to appreciate the serenity of the beautiful nature surroundings.
To us, Edmonds is exceptional in the way that the city seems to embrace its nature environment and care
about the residents, unlike many nearby cities with excess development problem. So, please help keep
Edmonds this unique charm.
Many of our neighbors on 94" Place West are long-time residents and they, too, love the peaceful
neighborhood we have shared. But now we are worrying about the dramatic change to our livelihood that
could occur if too many trees be removed from this subdivision.
We cannot stress enough that the beautiful fir trees we have here have given us in so many ways including
being our safety net during the past windstorms, providing the privacy and serenity of our neighborhood by
being the buffer of noises from nearby homes and the busy commute on Edmonds Way and nearby streets,
being the natural habitat of native birds (we have been bird watching almost every day). The residents here
appreciate living in these peaceful surroundings and would love to have the developer have this in
consideration in their final plan.
2) The close distance of the new homes to our hack fence
We are very uncomfortable to see that the plan shows the new homes to be only 15 feet away from our back
fence. For a project of four two-story 3,200 sq.ft. homes, this distance is too close for comfort. We moved here
because we greatly value our privacy and now we are facing the lack of privacy problem of having new
neighbors looking into our bedrooms, living areas, kitchen, dining area, and private backyard.
These four mega houses will also call for a lot of tree removals, as shown in the plan. This means that we will
have less noise buffering effect and privacy once provided by trees and instead we will be looking out into our
new neighbors' homes. Therefore, aside from saving the trees as many as they can, we kindly request that the
developer revise the plan to build the houses much further from the fences of our and neighbors' homes on
94`h Place West.
Nowadays, there are many irresponsible new developments coming up, so please make a difference to our
beloved community. Once again, our family and neighbors here enjoy the serenity of this area and peaceful
livelihood and would like very much to keep it this way.
3) Request of involvement in the process of trees removal decision
We definitely would like to be involved when the developer's arborist comes to evaluate the trees on the
subdivision and to be informed in advance about which trees will be cut and which trees will be kept. We also
need them to evaluate our and nearby neighbors' trees since the evaluation will not be complete without the
consideration of the surrounding area as a whole. It is important that we work on this issue together.
Lastly, we understand that changes are inevitable, and we believe that with careful and responsible planning,
we can all make a difference and create a win-win situation for all of us involved.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have at the contact information shown above.
Sincerely,
Chutima and Sumate Kusol
Alexandra Hepburn
23115 94th Ave W
Edmonds, WA 98020
September 9, 2007
Ms. Jen Machuga, Planner
121 5h Ave N — 2nd Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
Dear Ms. Machuga,
Regarding the planned development at 23016 94th Ave W., Edmonds, by Pat and Michael
McCormick, I am writing to comment on the Development Application. I have been
involved in conversations about this development since purchasing my home two and a
half years ago. It is my understanding that the developers need an easement signed by
several of us on this lane in order to create the changes in road access required by this
development plan. I have not yet been approached regarding signing this easement
despite the fact that demolition has been carried out on the existing building, and I have
concerns regarding the development before I sign such an easement. These have been
expressed in writing and in meetings two years ago; I want to reiterate them now.
These are some concerns I feel strongly about:
1. Preserving the flavor of the access to our residential neighborhood. While I
understand that the existing trees on the lane will be removed, and a one-way loop
will be created, I want assurance that there will be a green strip down the middle
with sizeable trees replacing those removed. In addition, I would like clarity
about the "loop" that is now proposed at the entry to the new development, and its
potential impact on traffic flow and neighboring houses.
2. Preserving as much as possible of the special features of the forested lot. The
tranquility and sound barrier provided by these trees are important to all of us.
-> Request: careful planning is given to the process of tree removal so that the
number of trees to be removed is minimized.
4 Request: any trees planned for removal are clearly marked, so that no mistakes
can be made by those running the chainsaws. For accountability purposes, it
would be good to know how many trees are currently on the property (6 inches or
more in diameter, measured 4 feet from the ground) vs. how many are marked for
removal. (I am aware of the "mistakes" made regarding unauthorized tree
removal on the steep banks near Marina Park.)
3. Privacy is currently a valuable feature of this neighborhood, and we would
imagine it would remain so for new purchasers.
--> Request. tree & vegetation removal and house layout be considerate of
neighborhood privacy.
Attachment 11
4. Erosion. The development property borders a steep bank -
4 Request: Tree or vegetation removal should be carefully weighed against the
damaging effects of accelerated erosion.
5. Construction intrusion. I am very concerned about the logging and construction
process: demolishing, building, logging, and large trucks and crews could be
invasive, loud, disruptive, temporarily blocking the road, and damaging
neighboring property like fences or the private road.
We in the neighborhood have educated ourselves regarding the "Comprehensive Pian"
document for the city of Edmonds (online) and we've also read. section 18.45 of the
Edmonds development code, entitled Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Code. A short
review of the goals provides for
"... preserving the physical and aesthetic character of the city through the prevention
of indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees and ground cover on undeveloped or
partially developed property" and to
"...retain clusters of trees for the abatement of noise and for wind protection."
"...Any growth or development should strive to preserve for itself and its neighbors
the following values: B.4_a. Light (including direct sunlight; B.4.b. Privacy, B.4.c.
Views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features; B.4.d. Freedom from air,
water, noise and visual pollution.)... "
I hope that this development project can proceed with minimal people and environmental
impact and ultimately serve the needs and goals of all concerned 1 need some assurances
in writing regarding some of these issues in order to be willing to sign the required
easement.
Thank you for your continuing attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Alexandra Hepburn
Homeowner