S-11-08 Staff Report with Attachments.pdf/11 C' "1 'r') (.)11
"T F EDMONDS MIKE COOPER
MAYOR
121 5th AVENUE NORTH ® EDMONDS, WA 98020 0 (425) 771-0220 ® FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www dedmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Project: Weiss -Holmberg Short Plat
File Dumber: PLN20110008
Date of Report: September 28, 2011
Reviewed By:
nnifer Machuga, Associate Planner
Owner: Barbara Weiss -Holmberg
Applicant: Rod Wickham, RAD Design
1ncot'pr,"�trtteAugust 1� 1890c1 fk¢�e r�� ,
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
Section
Page
I.
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................2
A. Application........................................................................................................................................2
B. Decision on Subdivision....................................................................................................................2
C. Decision on Modification Request....................................................................................................4
I1.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................4
A. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance....................................................................................4
B. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan........................................................................................8
C. Analysis of the Requested Setback Modification..............................................................................9
D. Compliance with the Zoning Code..................................................................................................10
E. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions.............................................................10
F. Environmental Assessment..............................................................................................................
l l
G. Critical Areas Review......................................................................................................................
l l
H. Comments........................................................................................................................................11
111.
APPEAL............................................................................................................................13
IV.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL...................................................................................................13
V.
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR................................................................................13
VI.
ATTACHMENTS..............................................................................................................13
VII.
PARTIES OF RECORD....................................................................................................1.4
1ncot'pr,"�trtteAugust 1� 1890c1 fk¢�e r�� ,
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
Barbara Weiss -Holmberg
File No. PLN20110008
Page 2 of 14
The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 29,303 square foot lot addressed as 7416 — 176a` Street Southwest
into two lots (Attachment 1). The site is located in a Single -Family Residential (RS -12) zone that allows lots
with a minimum area of 12,000 square feet. See the Zoning and Vicinity Map for reference (Attachment 2).
The proposed lot layout is shown on the preliminary subdivision map (Attachment 3) as well as the
preliminary development plan (Attachment 4). The applicant has indicated plans to retain the existing
residence on Lot 1. Both lots will be accessed via the existing drive on the north side of the site. The
applicant also submitted a modification request to reduce the minimum required rear setback for Lot 2 to 10
feet from the southern property line (Attachment 6).
A. Application
1. Owner: Barbara Weiss -Holmberg
2. Applicant: Rod Wickham, RAD Design
3. Site Location: 7416 — 176' Street Southwest
4. Request: To divide one lot with a total area of 29,303 square feet into two lots in a Single -Family
Residential (RS -12) zone.
5. Review Process: Short plats are Type II permits pursuant to ECDC 20.01.003. Following a
public comment period, the Director (or designee) makes an administrative decision.
6. Major Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030,
site development standards for the RS -12 zone.
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Title 18, public works
requirements.
c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.01,
development permit review requirements.
d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.75,
subdivision requirements.
e. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.85.010,
criteria of approval for a variance.
f. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 23.40 and
23.80, environmentally critical areas and geologically hazardous areas.
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. Follow the recommendations of the geotechnical report by The Galli Group updated May 20, 2011
(Attachment 13) and any subsequently approved geotechnical reports.
2. Any tree cutting on the site must be consistent with the requirements of ECDC 18.45 and the 30%
native vegetation requirements of ECDC 23.90.040.C. A tree cutting plan shall be submitted and
approved with the civil plans for removal of trees impacted by the subdivision improvements. Any
tree cutting proposed on Lot 2 that is not a hazardous situation and/or not necessary as part of the
subdivision improvements shall be reviewed at the time of a building permit application for Lot 2.
All trees retained during the development process must be protected according to the performance
standards found in ECDC 18.45.050.
Barbara Weiss -Holmberg
File No. PLN20110008
Page 3 of 14
3. 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) Adjust the location of the ingress/egress easement so that the existing residence on
Lot 1 fully complies with the minimum required 10 -foot side setback from the edge
of the ingress/egress easement. The location where this specifically needs to be
addressed is at the northeastern corner of the attached garage, where the garage and
deck above (including the garage -level wing -wall supporting the upper level deck)
must both be a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of the ingress/egress easement.
When adjusting the location of the ingress/egress easement, the net areas of Lots 1
and 2 will need to be revised accordingly to reflect the shifted location of the
ingress/egress easement. These net areas must remain above 12,000 square feet.
(2) Correctly indicate the locations of all existing easements, including the existing 10 -
foot sewer easement (AFN 2222065) and the existing 10 -foot roadway easement
(AFN 1244505). Where existing and/or proposed utilities fall outside of existing
easements, new easements shall be provided.
(3) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required as a Condition of
Subdivision" on Attachment 14.
b) A vegetation management plan showing how the 30% native vegetation requirement of ECDC
23.90.040.0 is achieved must be approved prior to recording. For further direction, see
section II.F.2 of this report.
c) Remove the metal barn from Lot 2.
d) Make the following revisions to the plat:
(1) Indicate the adjusted location of the ingress/egress easement as required in Condition
2.a.1 above and indicate the correct locations of all existing easements as required in
Condition 2.a.2 above.
(2) Indicate the locations of all new easements, and provide easement descriptions and
maintenance provisions for all new easements.
(3) Include a statement on the face of the plat stating the following: "The site is subject
to the 30% native vegetation requirements of ECDC 23.90.040.C. Lots 1 and 2 shall
retain and/or establish native vegetation as detailed in the native vegetation plan
approved by the City of Edmonds. This plan may be modified by the property
owner(s) with approval by the Planning Division."
(4) If setbacks are to be included on the plat, correct the setbacks as shown to be
consistent with those stated in Section II.A.4.a of this report 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 rear setback for Lot 2 has been granted a
modification to reduce the minimum required rear setback. Refer to File No.
PLN20110008 in the City of Edmonds Planning Division for the rear setback
requirements for Lot 2." If setbacks are not to be shown on the plat, a note should be
added to the face of the Plat stating, "The rear setback for Lot 2 has been granted a
modification to reduce the minimum required rear setback. Refer to File No.
PLN20110008 in the City of Edmonds Planning Division for the rear setback
requirements for Lot 2."
(5) 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. PLN20110008 in the
City of Edmonds Planning Division."
(6) Include on the plat all required information, including owner's certification, hold
harmless agreement, and Planning Division and Engineering Division staff's
approval blocks.
e) Make sure all documents to be recorded meet the Snohomish County Auditor's requirements
for recording, including all signatures in black ink.
Barbara Weiss -Holmberg
File No. PLN20110008
Page 4 of 14
f) Submit an updated copy of the title report (short plat certificate) with the documents proposed
to be recorded. The title report must be prepared within 30 days of submittal for final review.
g) 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 the
Snohomish County Auditor's office.
4. After recording the plat, the applicant must complete the following:
a) Provide the City 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 as a Condition of Building
Permit" on Attachment 14.
C. Decision on Modification Request
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 minimum required southern rear setback for Lot 2 is
APPROVED with the following conditions:
If the existing 10 -foot roadway easement (AFN 1244505) along the southern side of Lot 2 is
relinquished, the minimum required rear setback for Lot 2 shall be 10 feet as measured from the
southern property line of Lot 2. If the existing 10 -foot roadway easement (AFN1244505) along
the southern side of Lot 2 remains, the minimum required rear setback shall be an additional 2.5
feet from the northern boundary of the roadway easement for a total setback of 12.5 feet from the
southern property line of Lot 2.
A. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance
1. Introduction
a. Settin :
The subject property at 7416 — 176' Street Southwest is located in the Single -Family
Residential (RS -12) zone (Attachment 2). The surrounding properties to the south, west, and
east are also zoned RS -12 and are developed with single family residences. The surrounding
properties to the north are zoned RS -20 and are developed with single family residences. The
site is bordered by Soundview Drive to the west and 176`h Street Southwest (partially
unopened) to the north.
b. Topography and Ve eta ation:
Refer to the preliminary subdivision map (Attachment 3) for depiction of the topography of
the site and locations of existing trees. The subject site slopes downwards generally from
east to west. The central portion of the site containing the existing residence is relatively
level, but a steep slope is located on the western side of the site where the property slopes
downwards from the small lawn on the west side of the house to Soundview Drive below.
Also, the majority of the northeastern portion of the site contains a steep slope that slopes
downwards from northeast to southwest. This slope extends onto the adjacent properties to
the east and north as well as within the unopened portion of the 176"' Street Southwest right-
of-way.
The site contains typical residential landscaping, including grass, shrubs, and trees
surrounding the existing residence. This typical residential landscaping is primarily located
on proposed Lot 1, while the majority of proposed Lot 2 is overgrown with blackberries,
trees, and other unmaintained vegetation. There are a number of large evergreen trees
Barbara Weiss -Holmberg
File No. PLN20110008
Page 5 of 14
located adjacent to the southern property line, some of which appear to potentially be located
on the adjacent property to the south. There is also a cluster of trees located to the east of the
existing driveway within the lower portion of the steep slope. The steepest portion of the
slope at the northeastern corner of the site does not contain any trees, but is instead
overgrown with lower vegetation, including blackberries.
C. Lot Layout:
The proposed lot layout is shown on the preliminary subdivision map (Attachment 3). The
western approximate half of the site will comprise Lot 1, and the eastern approximate half of
the site will comprise Lot 2. The applicant has indicated that the owner plans to retain the
existing residence on Lot 1. The site is currently accessed via 176' Street Southwest. The
existing driveway is located near the proposed property line between Lots 1 and 2. The
proposal is to create a vehicular access easement on a portion of Lots 1 and 2 in order to
provide access to both lots via this existing access drive.
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 several existing trees located
adjacent to the southern property line of the site, some of which may actually be located on
the adjacent property to the south. Additionally, there is a cluster of trees located on the
eastern side of the existing driveway towards the lower portion of the steep slope on the
northeastern side of the site. The existing trees on the site are considered to be environmental
resources. These trees are depicted on sheet 2 of the preliminary subdivision map
(Attachment 3).
Most of the existing trees along the southern property line can be retained with development
of the site since the residence on Lot 1 is existing and since most of these trees are outside of
the footprint of development of the future residence on Lot 2. Some of the trees located
within the cluster of trees on the eastern side of the existing driveway will likely need to be
removed for the future development of Lot 2, particularly for the establishment of a driveway
and turnaround on Lot 2.
The City promotes the retention of as many trees as practicable and encourages the location
of building areas with the goal of retaining as many of the trees as possible. Any trees
retained must be protected during development in accordance with the performance standards
in ECDC 18.45.050. A condition has been added to this decision limiting tree cutting at the
time of the civil improvements only to those trees which will be impacted by the civil
improvements and requiring the owner to wait until the time a building permit is approved for
Lot 2 prior to cutting any trees on Lot 2 that are not hazardous and/or not impacted by the
civil improvements.
In addition to the tree protection measures discussed above, ECDC 23.90.040.0 requires all
subdividable properties that are zoned RS -12 and RS -20 to retain or create an area of native
vegetation equal to 30% of the total area of the site. See Section II.G.2 of this report for
further discussion on this topic.
b. The site is not located in an identified flood plain nor within the North Edmonds Earth
Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area.
Although development will occur within a portion of the steep slope on Lot 2, which will
require grading of a portion of Lot 2, the proposal limits the amount of total potential grading
by utilizing shared driveway access for both lots and by reducing the rear setback on Lot 2
through a modification request, which assists in shifting the proposed residence on Lot 2 to
the south and off of the steepest portion of the slope on the northeastern portion of Lot 2.
The portion of Lot 2 where the driveway and turnaround will be located is currently relatively
level, so the majority of the grading associated with the subdivision improvements and
development of Lot 2 will be from the construction of the residence on Lot 2, not from the
Barbara Weiss -Holmberg
File No. PLN20110008
Page 6 of 14
access or utility improvements. The applicant's June 9, 2011 response to the city's comments
on the preliminary submittal indicates that the plans for the future residence on Lot 2 were
altered so that they would be grading for a crawl space instead of a full basement in order to
reduce the total grading for development of Lot 2 (Attachment 5). Also, the applicant
indicated within this letter that grading is anticipated at approximately 450 to 475 cubic
yards. See Section II.F.2 for information on SEPA review related to grading. Also, see
Section II.G.1 for additional review of the steep slopes on the site, which have been identified
as Landslide Hazard Areas and are subject to the critical areas requirements of ECDC 23.40
and 23.80.
d. The proposed development must be designed to meet current code and minimize stormwater
impacts. All new impervious surfaces must be connected to an onsite detention system as
required by the engineering requirements (Attachment 14).
There are both local views and views of Puget Sound involved with this project. The
construction of a single-family residence on proposed Lot 2 may impact views of Puget
Sound that currently exist from surrounding properties. Due to the topography of the area,
the residence on the adjacent property to the east is much higher than a fixture residence on
Lot 2 would be, so the view from the property to the east is not likely to be impacted. As
with all single-family construction, the maximum height for a new house is 25 feet from
average original grade, which serves to minimize the negative impact to existing views in the
vicinity. The Edmonds Community Development Code does not contain specific regulations
regarding view protection within single-family zones.
3. Lot and Street Layout
a. This criterion 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
two -lot short plat is a reasonable use of the property.
Lot sizes and dimensions:
Lot Area:
Required
Proposed
Proposed
Lot Area
Gross sq. ft
Nets . ft
Lot 1 12,000
14,549
13,261
Lot 2 12,000
14,754
13,305
Lot Width: The required lot width in the RS -12 zone is 80 feet. Both lots meet this
requirement.
C. Safe walk provisions:
The subject parcel is primarily served by three area schools: Seaview Elementary,
Meadowdale Middle School, and Meadowdale High School. According to information that
is made available on the Edmonds School District website
(http://webquery.edmonds.wednet.edu/edulog/webquery/, accessed on September 26, 2011),
bus service is not available to Seaview Elementary School and Meadowdale Middle School
since these schools are within walking distance of the subject site, but a nearby bus stop
exists at the intersection of 1715` St. SW and 76"' Ave. W for service to Meadowdale High
School (Attachment 11). The subject site is approximately 2,000 feet from this intersection,
and there are existing sidewalks along 760' Ave. W between 176th St. SW and 171" St. SW.
For walking access to Seaview Elementary School, there are existing sidewalks along the
applicable portions of 76"' Ave. W, Olympic View Drive, and 188" St. SW, but there are no
sidewalks along the majority of 80th Ave. W. For walking access to Meadowdale Middle
School, there are no existing sidewalks along Soundview Dr., 72nd Ave. W, nor 176th St. SW,
but there are existing sidewalks along Olympic View Drive up to Meadowdale Middle
School.
Barbara Weiss -Holmberg
File No. PLN20110008
Page 7 of 14
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 -12 zone, setbacks for the lots should be as follows:
It should be noted that although 176th Street Southwest is partially unopened where adjacent
to the subject site, the entire length of this right-of-way is still considered a street for setback
purposes since the right-of-way has not been vacated.
Lot 1: Street Setbacks (25 feet): From the north and west property lines.
Side Setbacks (10 feet): From the south and east property lines.*
Lot 2: Street Setback (25 feet): From the north property line.
Side Setbacks (10 feet): From the west and east property lines.*
Rear Setback (25 feet): From the south property line.**
*Note: Where the new vehicular access easement serving Lots 1 and 2 is located, setbacks are
measured from the edges of the easement instead of from the property line between Lots 1
and 2. Thus, the eastern side setback for Lot 1 and the western side setback for Lot 2 will be
measured from the nearest boundaries of the ingress/egress easement that project onto these
lots.
**Note: The applicant has submitted a modification request to reduce the 25 -foot rear
setback requirement for Lot 2 to 10 feet from the southern property line of Lot 2 (Attachment
6). This modification request has been approved with conditions and is further discussed in
Section II.0 of this report and is specifically described in the conditions of approval.
b. Existing Structures / Encroachments: The existing residence is proposed to be retained on
Lot 1. The proposed subdivision will not be moving the northern, western, or southern
property lines any closer to the existing residence than they are currently located. Since a
modification request was not submitted for setbacks for the existing residence to be retained
on Lot 1, it must be shown that the residence will comply with the minimum required
setbacks from the new property line separating Lots I and 2. Additionally, since an
ingress/egress easement is being established between Lots 1 and 2, the side setback for the
existing residence must be taken from the closest boundary of the access easement where it
projects onto Lot 1. The preliminary plans (Attachment 3) indicate that the wing -wall
projecting from the northeastern corner of the attached garage is within the minimum
required 10 -foot side setback as measured from the edge of the proposed ingress/egress
easement. Since this wing -wall supports an upper level deck and is part of the overall
structure of the residence, it must comply entirely with setbacks. Thus, the ingress/egress
easement must be shifted approximately two to three feet away from the northeastern corner
of the existing garage so that the wing -wall, and thus the deck above the garage, is a
minimum of 10 feet from the edge of the ingress/egress easement. A condition has been
added to this decision requiring the ingress/egress easement to be shifted so that the entire
existing residence is a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of the easement. Additionally, a lot
cannot contain an accessory structure without a primary structure. Therefore, another
condition has been added to this approval requiring the removal of the metal barn from Lot 2.
Any new construction on Lots 1 and 2 must comply with the setbacks in effect at the time of
development. Refer to Section II.0 of this report for discussion on the modification request
to reduce the minimum required rear setback for Lot 2.
C. Corner Lots: Lot 1 is considered a corner lot.
d. Flag or Interior Lot Determination: Neither of the lots are considered flag lots.
e. Lot Coverage of Existing Buildings on Proposed Lots:
1.) 35% maximum structural lot coverage is allowed in the RS -12 zone.
Barbara Weiss -Holmberg
File No. PLN20110008
Page 8 of 14
2.) According to Snohomish County Assessor's records, the existing house covers 1,558
square feet and the attached garage covers 896 square feet. This would result in a lot
coverage for Lot 1 of approximately 2,454 square feet. The site plan from the building
permit for the existing residence indicates a slightly larger lot coverage with a building
footprint of 1,680 square feet plus 1,210 square feet of decks. This would result in a lot
coverage for Lot 1 of 2,891 square feet, which is equivalent to 21.8% of the proposed
net area for Lot 1. This is below the maximum allowed lot coverage of 35%. The
existing metal barn is to be removed from Lot 2 prior to recording of the short plat;
therefore, the coverage on Lot 2 will be zero. Pursuant to ECDC 16.20.030, any future
buildings or structures on either of the proposed lots may cover no more than 35% of
the net area of each lot.
5. Dedications
a. None required, per Engineering Division requirements (Attachment 14).
6. Improvements
a. See Engineering Requirements (Attachment 14).
7. Flood Plain Management
a. This project is not 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.
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.
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.
B.6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural
constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage.
2. Compliance with the Residential Development goals and policies: The proposal will retain the
existing house that was constructed in 1998 (according to Snohomish County Assessor's records)
Barbara Weiss -Holmberg
File No. PLN20110008
Page 9 of 14
and would allow for construction of one new residence. The overall proposal should not cause
any adverse impacts and appears to be consistent with the residential development goals and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
C. Analysis of the Requested Setback Modification
The applicant has requested a modification to reduce the minimum required rear setback for Lot 2
from 25 feet to 10 feet from the southern property line, 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 6). These
declarations were submitted in response to staff's request for additional information dated April
21, 2011 (Attachment 7) and expand on the declarations that were submitted with the initial
application materials (Attachment 10).
3. Conclusions:
a. For determining the minimum required setbacks for a property, a street setback (and thus, the
rear setback from the opposite property line) is determined based on the presence of public
right-of-way and does not specify whether or not this right-of-way is opened and paved as a
street for public use or if this right-of-way is unopened. Due to the topography of the
unopened portion of 176' Street Southwest adjacent to the subject site, it is not likely that
this portion of 176th Street Southwest would ever be developed as a through -street. Thus,
although the northern property line of Lot 2 is adjacent to public right-of-way, the appearance
of the development is similar to if the northern property line of Lot 2 was adjacent to private
property. For example, if Lot 2 was completely surrounded by private property and was
accessed via an ingress/egress easement serving only two lots, then Lot 2 would be
considered a flag lot and the minimum required setbacks for the lot would be 10 -foot side
setbacks from all property lines. The current situation for proposed Lot 2, with unopened
right-of-way to the north, is very similar in appearance as if the 176th Street Southwest right-
of-way was vacated in this location and if Lot 2 was entirely surrounded by private property.
Thus, the layout of the lot in respect to the location of unopened public right-of-way is
unique. Although Lot 2 could be developed on in a way that complies with a 25 -foot street
Barbara Weiss -Holmberg
File No. PLN20110008
Page 10 of 14
setback and a 25 -foot rear setback, this would push a residence on Lot 2 further into the steep
slope at the northeastern corner of Lot 2.
The requested modification to reduce the rear setback for Lot 2 to 10 feet from the southern
property line is equivalent to the minimum required 10 -foot side setback applicable to the
RS -12 zone. The existing site, prior to the proposed subdivision, is considered a corner lot,
which requires a minimum 10 -foot side setback from the entire southern property line. Thus,
prior to the subdivision, the owners of the subject site could construct a structure at a distance
of 10 -feet from the southern property line, which is the same distance as the proposed
modification. Thus, the requested modification would not allow structures to be located any
closer to the southern property line than what would be allowed prior to the subdivision. In
fact, the proposal includes the removal of the metal barn, which is located closer to the
southern property line than new structures would be allowed even with the approval of the
modification request.
C. The proposal will be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan by taking the
existing topography of the site into account and by enabling a future residence on Lot 2 to be
constructed further down the steep slope than it otherwise might be. Additionally, the
proposal will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance in that the reduced rear
setback would not be allowing increased density of the site, as the modification would only
be allowing the future residence to shift further down the steep slope, without allowing
increased density or lot coverage.
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. As discussed
above, the requested modification is not allowing a future residence to be located any closer
to the southern property line than a structure could have been located prior to the subdivision
since this is considered a 10 -foot side setback for the parent parcel. In order to avoid conflict
with the existing 10 -foot roadway easement along the southern side of Lot 2, the modification
to the rear setback of Lot 2 has been conditioned so that the setback is 10 feet from the
southern property line only if the existing roadway easement is relinquished, but if the
roadway easement remains in place, an additional 2.5 feet is required from the northern
boundary of the roadway easement. This is because eaves or chimneys may project into a
minimum required setback by up to 30 inches, so locating the residence a minimum of 12.5
feet from the southern property line will prevent any eaves or chimneys from projecting into
the roadway easement. Additionally, keeping the future residence on Lot 2 further out of the
steep slope will help to reduce any potential risk of slope instability and will keep the height
of the residence effectively lower since height calculations are based on the average original
grade of the smallest rectangle that fits around the building and locating the house further
down the slope will keep the average grade lower. Therefore, the proposal does not appear to
be significantly detrimental.
e. The applicant has shown that the proposed modification is the minimum necessary to develop
a reasonably sized home on Lot 2 in such a location that avoids as much impact to the steep
slope as possible while still providing space on the property for vehicular access and turn-
around.
A Compliance with the Zoning Code
The proposed subdivision complies with the provisions of the Zoning Code. See sections II.A.3
and II.A.4 of this document.
E. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions
1. The proposed project is not located in a Flood Plain.
Barbara Weiss -Holmberg
File No. PLN20110008
Page 1 I of 14
F. 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? Not at this time. Pursuant to WAC
197-11-800(6), the approval of short plats is exempt from SEPA review, except upon lands
covered by water.
G. Critical Areas Review
1. Critical Areas Review Number: CRA20080015.
Results of Critical Areas Review: During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found
that the site may contain (or be adjacent to) critical areas, including Geologically Hazardous Areas
(Landslide Hazard Area and Erosion Hazard Area), pursuant to ECDC 23.40 and 23.80
(Attachment 12). As indicated on the preliminary plans (Attachment 3), a steep slope is located on
the western side of the site, sloping downwards to Soundview Drive. Also, a steep slope is located
on the northeastern portion of the site, sloping downwards from northeast to southwest and
continuing onto the adjacent properties to the north and east. These slopes exceed 40%, and are,
therefore, considered possible Landslide Hazard Areas. The applicant submitted a geotechnical
report addressing the proposal by The Galli Group dated June 6, 2008 and updated Mary 20, 2011
(Attachment 13). This report addresses the applicable requirements of ECDC 23.40 and 23.80
related to Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas, including the standards of ECDC 23.80.060 and
23.80.070 that are specific to development within a Landslide Hazard Area. The report provides
several recommendations for development of the site and concludes that the proposed subdivision
is feasible as long as the recommendations of the report are followed. Additional critical areas
study may be required at the time of civil plan review and/or future building permit review to show
compliance with the requirements of ECDC 23.40 and 23.80.
2. ECDC 23.90 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas: ECDC 23.90.040.0 requires all
subdividable properties in the RS -12 and RS -20 zones to retain or create an area of native
vegetation equal to 30% of the total area of the lot. The goal of the 30% native vegetation
requirement can be met through maintaining existing native vegetation, establishing native
vegetation, or a combination of both. This is meant to provide additional protection for fish and
wildlife habitat throughout Edmonds; however, the intent is not to set aside areas that cannot be
used and enjoyed by the owner. The applicant has indicated where the 30% native vegetation area
could be provided for on the preliminary development plan (Attachment 4), but did not provide a
full vegetation management plan. As a condition of this decision, the applicant must submit a
vegetation management plan showing how the requirements of ECDC 23.90.040.0 will be met.
The vegetation management plan could include a combination of retaining existing native trees and
vegetation and/or new landscaping consisting of native plants. Any native species will be
acceptable provided that a lawn may not count towards the 30% area. The plan must show where
the 30% native vegetation area will be located on the site (it does not need to be provided in one
contiguous location), specify the native species that will be retained and/or planted within the area,
specify any nonnative vegetation that will be removed, and establish ongoing maintenance
activities for the vegetation management area. Note that the plan need not preclude use of the
property, such as part of a garden or other landscaped area, but that all vegetation within
the 30% area must be of native varieties. The vegetation management plan must be approved by
the Planning Division prior to final approval of the subdivision; however, this plan can be
modified over time with subsequent approvals by the Planning Division.
H. Comments
1. Departmental Comment:
This project was reviewed by the Engineering Division, Parks and Recreation Department, Public
Works Department, and Snohomish County Fire District 1. The Engineering Division provided
comments in the form of a memorandum and Engineering Requirements (Attachment 14). The
Barbara Weiss -Holmberg
File No. PLN20110008
Page 12 of 14
Parks and Recreation Department and Public Works Department both stated the proposed
preliminary short plat does not affect their departments at this time (Attachments 15 and 16).
Snohomish County Fire District 1 provided comments regarding items that will be required as the
site is developed in the form of a memorandum (Attachment 17).
2. Public Comment:
ECDC 20.03 provides the City's regulations for public notice of development applications. A
"Notice of Development Application and Comment Period" dated July 14, 2011 with a comment
period running through July 28, 2011 (Attachment 18) was posted at the subject site, Public Safety
Complex, Development Services Department, and Library on July 14, 2011. The notice was
published in the Herald Newspaper on July 14, 2011. This notice was also mailed to residents
within 300 feet of the site on July 14, 2011 using a mailing list provided by the applicant
(Attachment 19). Declarations of posting and mailing are provided as Attachments 20 and 21, and
an affidavit of publication is included as Attachment 22.
Two public comment letters were received during review of the proposal and are included as
Attachments 23 and 24.
In a group letter signed by the owners of three nearby properties, Donald and Fern Thompson,
Marshall Hoffman, and Thomas and Lauralee Harville, concerns were raised regarding existing
easements and regarding the proposed modification request for a reduced rear setback for Lot 2
(Attachment 23). Regarding the existing easements on the subject site, the letter stated that the
easement recorded on July 12, 1957 extends the entire length of the proposed lots, the existing 10 -
foot sewer easement appears to be shown in error, and the proposed residence appears to be
encroaching into the existing roadway easement (AFN 1244505). In addition to concerns over the
existing easements, this letter also states that Lot 2 has no survey markers on the ground.
Additionally, the letter speaks against the proposed modification request to the rear setback for Lot
2, stating that the reduced setback is only a cost savings to the developer, that it would be
significantly detrimental, and that the adjacent properties would be adversely affected by this
reduced setback.
Staff Response: It appears that the existing 10 -foot roadway easement (recorded July 12, 1957
under AFN 1244505) was shown incorrectly on the survey, as the title report states that this
easement encompasses the southerly 10 feet of the original parcel (Tract 16 of the Meadowdale
Sound View Tracts). Additionally, it appears that the existing 10 -foot sewer easement (recorded
November 10, 1971 under AFN 2222065) was also shown incorrectly on the survey, as the
centerline of this easement is described as beginning at a point on the southern property line
located 120 feet east of the southwestern corner of the subject site and extending northwesterly in a
straight line to the City of Edmonds manhole located within 176`h Street Southwest. As such, a
condition has been added to this decision requiring the applicant to correctly indicate the locations
of both of these easements prior to civil approval as well as on the final recording documents. The
applicant will need to either correct these easements to be consistent with staff's understanding of
the locations of these easements as described in the title report or provide sufficient evidence that
these easements were in fact shown correctly on the preliminary documents. The applicant has
submitted a modification request to reduce the minimum required rear setback for Lot 2 to 10 feet
from the southern property line. This request is further discussed in Section II.0 of this report. As
conditioned, an additional 2.5 -foot distance must be provided from the northern boundary of the
roadway easement for a total distance of 12.5 feet from the southern property line (unless this
easement is relinquished in the future, then the setback would be 10 feet from the southern
property line) in order to avoid encroachment of eaves and chimneys into the roadway easement.
Pursuant to ECDC 20.75.135, the surveyor is not required to set monuments indicating the lot
corners until the time of preparation of the final plat.
The letter from Lynn Oltman (Attachment 24) addressed concerns regarding the vagueness of
material available online, stated that no details were submitted indicating existing easements or
property lines, and questioned the intentions of the modification request. Additionally, Ms.
Oltman addressed concerns regarding the prior illegal building and excavation of the slope and
Barbara Weiss -Holmberg
File No. PLN20110008
Page 13 of 14
concerns over slope stability. Ms. Oltman also stated that the plan would cause further
encroachment on the right-of-way and the 10 -foot roadway easement.
Staff Response: As stated within the public notice issued for the subject proposal, all of the
application materials were available at the Development Services Department for the public to
view during the public comment period. All records within the file for the subject application
(PLN20110008) are public information and are available to be viewed upon request, the majority
of which are included as attachments to this report. These materials include a survey indicating all
existing and proposed property lines as well as the applicant's statement regarding the requested
modification to the rear setback for Lot 2. The location of existing easements is addressed above
in staff's response to the other public comment letter that was received for this application. Staff is
not aware of previous illegal building or excavation at the site, but any proposed activities at the
site will be reviewed for compliance with current code requirements. The existing metal barn will
be removed with the proposed subdivision. Any development within the minimum required
critical areas buffer and building setback or within the steep slope itself is required to comply with
the critical areas code requirements of ECDC 23.40 through 23.80 (as discussed further in Section
II.G.1 of this report). One of the purposes of the proposed modification request to reduce the rear
setback for Lot 2 is to keep the future residence on Lot 2 from being located entirely within the
steep slope, and instead to locate only a portion of the residence within the steep slope. The
project plans do not indicate any encroachments into the 176`b Street Southwest nor the Soundview
Drive rights-of-way. Additionally, the existing 10 -foot roadway easement located along the
southern side of the subject site would be complied with, as the setback modification was
conditioned to require an additional 2.5 -foot distance from the northern boundary of the roadway
easement for a total distance of 12.5 feet from the southern property line (unless this easement is
relinquished in the future, then the setback would be 10 feet from the southern property line) in
order to avoid encroachment of eaves and chimneys into the roadway easement.
Pursuant to ECDC 20.07.004, a party of record may submit a written appeal of a Type II decision within 14
days after the date of issuance of the decision. The appeal would be heard at an open record public hearing
before the Hearing Examiner according to the requirements of ECDC Chapter 20.06 and Section 20.07.004.
Section 20.75. 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."
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. Zoning and Vicinity Map
3. Preliminary Subdivision Map (2 sheets)
4. Preliminary Development Plan (for reference only)
5. Applicant's June 9, 2011 Response Letter
6. Modification Request Resubmittal, dated June 9, 2011
7. Staff's Request for Additional Information, dated April 21, 2011
8. Staff's Follow-up Request for Additional Information, dated June 10, 2011
9. Notice of Complete Application
10. Initial Modification Request Letter, dated March 24, 2011
11. Edmonds School District Transportation Web Query
12. Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report (CRA20080015)
Barbara Weiss -Holmberg
File No. PLN20110008
Page 14 of 14
13. Geotechnical Report by The Galli Group, dated June 6, 2008 and updated May 20, 2011
14. Engineering Memorandum and Requirements
15. Parks & Recreation Department Comment Form
16. Public Works Department Comment Form
17. Snohomish County Fire District 1 Comment Form
18. Notice of Application and Comment Period with Vicinity Map
19. Adjacent Property Owners List
20. Declaration of Posting
21. Declaration of Mailing
22. Affidavit of Publication
23. Comment Letter from Thompson, Hoffman, and Harville
24. Comment Letter from Lynn Oltman
Planning Division Engineering Division
Barbara Weiss -Holmberg Rod Wickham
7416 — 176`' St. SW 2812 Colby Ave.
Edmonds, WA 98026 Everett, WA 98201
Donald and Fern Thompson Marshall Hoffman
7413 Soundview Dr. 7411 Soundview Dr.
Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026
Thomas and Lauralee Harville Lynn Oltman
7321 Soundview Dr. 7314 —176` St. SW
Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026
City of Edmonds�
Land Use Application
❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW ®'
❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # PLNI DLO II OQbB ZONE
❑ HOME OCCUPATION DATE 3 RECD BY '-fe, M.
❑ FORMAI, SUBDIVISION
V SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE 196.00 RECEIPT# OgGC41'a3
❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE Al/A
❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ HE (STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC
❑ STREET VACATION
❑ REZONE
❑ SHORELINE PERMIT
❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION
❑ OTHER:
PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION ICD
PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE)
PROPERTY OWNER w `hlf I 1APL�,r��CttJPHONE # •`/
I,
ADDRESS '144 -967+ �W �VW. %n� WA 413 lff,�
E-MAIL FAX #
TAX ACCOUNT # t �a/'rr�i® OKn SEC. TWP. RNG.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) - ti� 1 e, Imo_?
DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY)
APPLICANT PHONE #
ADDRESS
E-MAIL FAX #
CONTACT PERSON/AGENT ' t7 �� Ik- PHONE #�
ADDRESS c �' r 1� � �F' s� Ij �'lii k; pn A q9:)J
E-MAIL-P6'-Sl(j0 e, kl7tII),, ,1d" 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, 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 BOO. ( -ZQ1 1
Property Owner's Authorization
I, 430yf a,ti ,- OaSy �oi�11P�( a, IL certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
Washington that the following is a tru)and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the
subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the
subject property for the purposes of inspection nd posting attendant to this application. i
SIGNATURE OF OWNER V " - DATE 3 � « I -2,01
T _
Questions? Call (425) 771-0220.
Revised on 9114/10 B - Land Use Application Page I of]
ATTACHMENT 1
i'
ro
I
File No. PLN20110008
75 150 300
X11
I Y
I
I
i
I �
I
I I Z
1 �SF
'www
_°�
'-
M 3AV H19L
o �I
W
Fso Sw
f
p aZ�
R un a
a
lIJ
�
�0 4 4U P
w
mz
m
o
yah z
wz>z
0
F P
� � � �z
N ao�W
0
�
E
W
Few ON' a
® Q EB i9
I
m6 Ing..
D
O
p>
W
w
Pin
ip Pin
m �o
gl
95115Vf11
OR
_
CSt 1�V2i1
W
wH�waM
o
N Y
oo
�y
Lu
o �I
Mr.
�a a
H
W
Fso Sw
g2F
p aZ�
R un a
CL
lIJ
�
�0 4 4U P
w
mz
" �I" w
yah z
wz>z
p
z
N ao�W
0
-
"
W
Few ON' a
Mr.
�a a
H
DO
MI
�w
L
g2F
CL
lIJ
�
w
mz
m�aN
0
F
wz>z
p
z
N ao�W
0
-
"
W
a
® Q EB i9
I
D
O
M w�Qa
M �wwo
°z
z
m �o
gl
&�z
x °
J
LLJ
��LZK
V
N Y
oo
DO
MI
C
B4
�w
L
g2F
lIJ
�
w
mz
m�aN
0
wz>z
z
N ao�W
0
7N�_ ti
S.wr.
"
W
a
ES
o
M w�Qa
M �wwo
°z
gl
&�z
o
V a L7
W
��LZK
V
C
B4
7N�_ ti
S.wr.
"
a
cr
&�z
W
U o
SRg
N Y
oo
Lu
sw
6 x A
m E ER
U >-
waw
do>
C
B4
I
I
I �
7
I �31
I
s
z
z
J
_
�
.c
Y
I
.c
V�a.
uj
aQ
gn,
'
�p
sp
F
o
w
aaa 4��
�
g
6
)d
iK
pQBP
O ®o®.
s° 14 e
_moo
65y 900 �
oy
�Jo y
db'0
S
IL
Fu
a
s a�
°ry
-71°5
or
w
d
O
�Ssw
m
3 Q
2 nr
�.
o
dS.`9F 2p
`� w
t// �
a V�p
L2
Residential Art of D
esign
June 9, 2011
RE: 7416 176" ST SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
Response to City of Edmonds comments on preliminary submittal, April 21, 2011
Item 1
A more current title report was submitted on June 7, 2011
Item 2
Items a thru g are indicated on the Site Survey plans sheets 1 and 2
Item 3 and 4
The ingress easement along the southern property line has been eliminated.
Item 5
We have moved the home to the west 5' and eliminated a basement area converting it to
crawl space to reduce construction costs and minimize the excavation on the steep
slope. The area of steep slope above the toe to the property line is approximately 7500sf.
The basement and crawl space proposed in this area is approximately 850 sf in area.
Therefore only 11 % of the steep slope is impacted by locating the home as proposed.
The revised soils report addresses this change and supports construction as proposed in
this area. The current vegetation in the area to be excavated is 90-100 % blackberry
and once construction is completed will be replaced with natural vegetation per
ECDC23.90.040.0 The requirement is for 30% retention and or establishment of native
vegetation. Once complete the project will approach 45% retention of natural vegetation
over the two lots as indicated on site plan 3
Locating the home further west will not decrease the impact of the home on the steep
slope area as it would still remain above the toe. This can be clearly seen by looking at
Site Plan 1 of 2 Note the relationship between the toe of slope and the building footprint.
Additionally the area west of the building footprint, adjacent to the existing driveway, is
required to allow vehicular access and turnaround space as indicated on Site plan 3
Item 6
Preliminary calculations indicate excavation and grading will be approximately 450 to
475 cubic yards. This would negate a SEPA review.
Item 7
Approximately 45% of the property will be preserved or established with native
vegetation per ECDC23.90.040.c. Site plan page 3 delineates the boundary of this
vegetation line. Once the plat is approved and the project is submitted for a building
permit a vegetation management plan will be provided as part of the application. The
survey plan indicates 36 significant trees on the property. These are primarily Douglas
2812 Colby Avenue Everett, Washington 98201 (42
ATTACHMENT
fir, Hemlock and various deciduous trees located per Site Plan Sheet 2. Six of the trees
located within the proposed BSBL will be removed and 84% will be maintained on both
lots as part of the native vegetation management plan.
Item 8
Reply to Jeannie McConnell comments to follow.
Item 9
Please refer to attached revised soils report.
Response to memorandum from Jeannie McConnell
Item I
The existing residence to remain per site plans
Item 2
10 easement removed per site plans
Item 3
Sewer service is indicated as a connection to an existing y in lot 1 adjacent to lot 2.
Storm drainage will be per the Site plan 3 preliminary plan and Standard detention
system worksheet detail (5000sf or less) provided by Trepanier Engineering. The water
service connection will be made in the 176t" St ROW adjacent to the lot 2 driveway
easement. The water line will run parallel with the storm drain line to the proposed
home.
Item 4
The existing sewer lateral is located on the survey plan.
Item 5
Sheet 3 indicates the proposed storm water detention system as designed by Trepanier
Engineering. This plan is preliminary and the storm water will drain to an existing
culvert and drainage ditch. Flow is easily achieved as all connections are well down
slope from the building foundation. Note the invert elevations on drainage plan Site Plan
3
Item 6
The access easement area has been increased and the gross and net areas of each lot are
indicated on site plan 2. The turn around area is existing and is located on Preliminary
site plan 3
Item 7
See cross section XX on Site Plan 3
Rod Wickham
Owner's representat e
2812 Colby Avenue Everett, Washington 98201 (425) 252-2789
Residential Art of Design
June 9, 2011
RE: 7416 176' ST SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
Modification Request resubmittal
'JUN 16 2011
DEVELOPMENT
P_
We are asking to reduce the rear setback on this proposed short plat from the required
25' to 10' a reduction of 15'. There is a pinch point in the southerly property line where
the North West running line changes direction in a southerly direction. The proposed
setback will be 10' at this point only. The setback distance increases to 25' running
towards the Southwest where it meets the west side BSBL. To the east it increases to
18' where it meets the eastern side BSBL. Currently there is an existing storage shed
located 5' from the southerly property line adjacent to the pinch point. This building will
be removed so that the new home can be constructed.
If the modification request is granted the average width of the rear setback will increase
to 15' an improvement of 10' over the existing condition with the existing shed being 5'
from the property line. It will also double the distance at the pinch point from 5' to 10'
The proposed lot meets or exceeds all other minimum requirements of the RS -12 zone.
The approval of the variance will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
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 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 zoning.
The design as proposed takes into consideration the impact of building into the steep
slope area and the soils report addresses the issue. The recommendations of the soils
engineer have been followed and coordinated with the building design. To reflect the
planning department's earlier concerns regarding encroachment into the slope we have
moved the home to the west 5' and eliminated a basement area converting it to crawl
space. This will reduce construction costs and minimize the excavation on the steep
slope. Approximately 7500sf of the lot is located above the toe of the slope. The
basement and crawl space proposed in this area is approximately 850 sf in area.
Therefore only 11 % of the steep slope is impacted by locating the home as proposed.
The revised soils report addresses this change and supports construction as proposed in
this area. The current vegetation in the area to be excavated is 90-100 % blackberry and
once construction is completed will be replaced with natural vegetation per
2812 Colby Avenue Everett, Washington 98201 (4' ATTACHMENT 6
Residential Art of Design
ECDC23.90.040.0 the requirement is for 30% retention and or establishment of native
vegetation. Once complete the project will approach 45% retention of natural vegetation
over the two lots as indicated on site plan 3
Locating the home further west will not decrease the impact of the home on the steep
slope area as it would still remain above the toe. This can be clearly seen by looking at
Site Plan 1 of 2 Note the relationship between the toe of slope and the building footprint.
Additionally the area west of the building footprint, adjacent to the existing driveway, is
required to allow vehicular access and turnaround space as indicated on Site plan 3
If approved the variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed
by other properties in the vicinity and the same zone.
Rod Wickham Owner's representative
2812 Colby Avenue Everett, Washington 98201 (42 5) 252-2789
C. 1890
April 21, 2011
121 5th AVENUE NORTH o EDMONDS, WA 98020 0 (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: wwwdedmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Mr. Rod Wickham
2812 Colby Ave.
Everett, WA' 98201
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR YOUR SHORT
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION, FILE NO. PLN20110008
Dear Mr. Wickham:
MIKE COOPER
MAYOR
Staff has begun review of your land use application for a two -lot subdivision located at 7416 1761h St. SW;
however, it was found that your application is incomplete. Please submit the following items at your
earliest convenience so that staff can continue processing your application:
1. The title report provided with your application was prepared on January 14, 2011; however, the
report is required to have been prepared within 30 days of application submittal. Please submit an
updated title report in order to satisfy this requirement. When obtaining the updated title report,
please obtain a complete title report with all referenced easement and restrictive documents
referenced in the report attached.
2. Please make the following corrections to the preliminary short plat survey:
a. Refer to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.75.060 for all required
information to be shown on the preliminary survey. Some of the items on this list are not
indicated on the survey, such as the date prepared/revised, zoning, setback lines, etc.
b. Provide gross and net areas of both proposed lots on the preliminary plans. Net area
excludes area of any vehicular access easements and must exceed a minimum area of
12,000 square feet, as required by the RS -12 zone.
c. Indicate all proposed easements, including vehicular access easements. It was noted that
an easement will be necessary for both lots to share access along the existing driveway
and along any portions of the driveway that is to be expanded for shared access.
d. Indicate the setbacks required by the RS -12 zone as well as the setback proposed through
the modification request. When indicating the setbacks on the plans, note that setbacks
are measured from the edge of vehicular access easements where they exist.
e. Confirm whether all existing tree covered areas are indicated on the survey.
f. Indicate the tops and toes of the slopes for all Landslide Hazard Areas (slopes in excess of
40 percent) present on and adjacent to the property.
g. The preliminary short plat survey must be signed by the surveyor. Please submit two
large -format copies (preferably with a scale of 1"=20') and one reduced -format copy
(sized 11" by 17") of the signed and updated survey.
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
ATTACHMENT 7
Your plans indicate a proposed ingress/egress easement along the northern boundary of the
adjacent property to the south; however, it is not clear what this easement is intended for, as your
preliminary development plan indicates that the two lots will share access. It appears that this
might have been a previous plan for access to Lot 2 which isn't being proposed anymore. If this
easement was shown in error and is not proposed, please remove it from the plans. If this
easement is in fact proposed, provide additional information on its intended use and also indicate
the distances from all structures on the property to the south to this easement, as all structures
must comply with minimum setback requirements to the edge of the easement.
4. Please describe why Lot 2 is proposed to have an approximate 10 -foot wide strip along the
southern side of Lot 1 down to Soundview Drive. Was this part of a previous proposal for access
to Lot 2 together with the access easement indicated on the adjacent property to the south? If
there is no logical reason for this strip to be a part of Lot 2, it makes more sense for the proposed
property line between Lots 1 -and 2 to be adjusted so that this strip is a part of Lot 1 in order to
avoid any potential future ownership and maintenance issues.
Your modification request states that you are requesting to reduce the rear setback to 10 feet. I
believe you are only making this request for Lot 2; however, please specify which lot(s) the
modification is being requested for. Additionally, the request states "east of this pinch point, the
setback distance increases to 18' and to the west it increases to 15'." Does this mean that you are
requesting different setback modifications from the two segments of the southern parcel line of
Lot 2? The request states that if the modification is not approved, the future home would need to
be built in an area that has a 40 percent slope; however, the preliminary development plan
indicates that even with the requested modification; the proposed home is well within the steep
slope. When you were discussing the proposal with Mike Clugston, Associate Planner, at the end
of last year, you submitted a drawing for a future residence on Lot 2 that takes the angle in the
southern property line into account and that would bring the house as close to the southern
property line as possible while keeping the home much further out of the steep slope than the
current proposal indicates. Please provide further explanation of the requested modification,
including why the requested modification is the minimum necessary, how the requested
modification is keeping the home further out of the steep slope than it otherwise would be, why
the home isn't proposed closer to the southwestern corner of Lot 2 where there are less slopes,
etc. Additionally, please have your surveyor indicate all required and requested setback lines on
the survey document.
6. If the subdivision improvements and future development of the site will require more than 500
cubic yards of grading, SEPA review is required. Please provide a written statement whether
grading for the subdivision improvements and construction of the future residence on Lot 2 is
anticipated to exceed 500 cubic yards. The preliminary development plan submitted with your
application indicates that a substantial portion of the proposed residence is located within the
steep slope, which would require a large quantity of grading. If grading associated with this
project is anticipated to exceed 500 cubic yards, an environmental checklist and associated review
fee must be submitted. Pleasecontact me for additional information if the SEPA review
requirement will be triggered with this proposal.
ECDC 23.90.040.0 requires retention and/or establishment of 30 percent of native vegetation on
subdividable properties located within the RS -12 and RS -20 zones, which includes the
requirement for submittal of a vegetation management plan. Please submit a plan to satisfy this
requirement, including an indication of which portions of the site will be retained/established as
native vegetation to account for the 30 percent by area requirement and plans for how this area
will be established and maintained in accordance with the requirements of ECDC 23.90.040.C.
Page 2 of 3
8. Refer to the enclosed memorandum from Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager,
dated April 5, 2011 for additional information requested by the Engineering Division for review
of your application.
9: The geotechnical report prepared by The Galli Group dated June 8, 2008 states that the future
residence on Lot 2 will be located 10 feet from the toe of the slope. However, the plans submitted
with the application show a proposed future residence located well within the slope on Lot 2.
This report is almost three years old, and looking back at the items that were submitted for the
pre -application meeting for this property, it appears that the geotechnical engineer reviewed and
provided recommendations on a previous preliminary development plan, which is quite different
than the current proposal. As such, a new geotechnical report will need to be submitted,
addressing the current proposal (including any changes that are made in response to the comments
above) and how the proposal complies with all applicable requirements of ECDC 23.40 and
23.80. In particular, if the future residence on Lot 2 requires some construction within the
Landslide Hazard Area, then the report must address all of the requirements of ECDC
23.80.070.A.2 and 3, which include design standards for building within a Landslide Hazard
Area. Although the geotechnical engineer will need to review the actual building permit plans
and provide another report at the time of a future building permit application for more specific
requirements, a report that adequately addresses the preliminary development plan'is necessary at
this time in order for staff to determine if the proposed lots would in fact be buildable.
Please submit the above information as soon as possible, so that staff may continue processing
your application. Please keep in mind that a complete response to this information request
must be received within 90 days or the application will lapse for lack of information (ECDC
20.02.003.D). Thus, your application will expire if the requested information is not received by
July 20 2011.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (425) 771-0220, extension 1224.
Sincerely,
Development Services Department - Planning Division
s
Jen Machuga
Planner
Enclosure: Memorandum from Jeanie McConnell dated April 5, 2011
Cc: File No. PLN20110008
Ms. Barbara Weiss -Holmberg
7416-176 th St. SW
Edmonds, WA 98116
Page 3 of 3
Date: April 5, 2011
To: Jen Machuga, Planner
From: Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
Subject: PLN20110008, 2 lot Short Plat
7416176th St SW `
The comments provided below are based upon review of the preliminary plans & documents
for the subject short plat. Additional information is requested from the applicant at this time
in order to continue review of the application and provide preliminary approval of the short
plat. Please ask the applicant to revise and resubmit plans addressing each of the comments
below.
Please, also note, after receiving preliminary short plat approval from the Planning Division,
the applicant will be required to submit a complete set of civil engineering plans to the City
Engineering Division for review and approval. The current civil plan review fee is $1,000.
1. Please indicate on the plans whether the existing residence will be maintained.or if it will
be demolished.
2. The preliminary short plat plan indicates a "proposed 10 -foot ingress & egress easement"
on the property to the south. This easement falls outside the proposed development and
should be removed from the plans, unless the proposal is for Lot 2 to take access from
Soundview Dr. Revise plans accordingly.
3. Show the location of existing and proposed underground utility line's, sanitary sewer
systems, water mains and water service lines adjacent to or within the proposed
subdivision.
4. Documents found within City records held for 7416 176" St SW indicate there is an
existing sewer lateral that crosses the property just east of the existing home and in a
north/south direction. Please find attached copies of these documents and revise plans as
needed to show the sanitary sewer lines as they exist on the property today.
5. Provide a preliminary drainage plan showing the proposed on-site stormwater
management system. If connection is to be made to the City system, show the point of
connection and provide invert elevations to the extent necessary to confirm discharge to
the City storm system is possible.
City of Edmonds
6, Preliminary development plans should show all required easements. The access easement
should encompass the width of the driveway and allow for on-site turnaround for both
lots.
7. Provide a cross section of 176`h (driveway area) as well as Sound View Dr. Show existing
pavement width, drainage ditches, etc.
Thank you.
Inc. IS')11
June 10, 2011
CITY OF EDMONDS MIKE COOPER
MAYOR
121 5th AVENUE NORTH e EDMONDS, WA 98020 < (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
Website; www dedmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Mr. Rod Wickham
2812 Colby Ave.
Everett, WA 98201
SUBJECT: FOLLOW-UP REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR YOUR
SHORT SUBDIVISION APPLICATION, FILE NO. PLN20110008
Dear Mr. Wickham:
An updated title report was received on June 7, 2011 for your proposed subdivision located at 7416 176t'
St. SW. This addresses the first item requested in staff's letter of incomplete application sent on April 21,
2011; however, the remaining items within that letter must still be addressed in order for your application
to become complete and so that staff can continue processing your application. These remaining items
from the April 21, 2011 letter are restated below for your reference:
1. Please make the following corrections to the preliminary short plat survey:
a. Refer to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.75.060 for all required
information to be shown on the preliminary survey. Some of the items on this list are not
indicated on the survey, such as the date prepared/revised, zoning, setback lines, etc.
b. Provide gross and net areas of both proposed lots on the preliminary plans. Net area
excludes area of any vehicular access easements and must exceed a minimum area of
12,000 square feet, as required by the RS -12 zone.
c. Indicate all proposed easements, including vehicular access easements. It was noted that
an easement will be necessary for both lots to share access along the existing driveway
and along any portions of the driveway that is to be expanded for shared access.
d. Indicate the setbacks required by the RS -12 zone as well as the setback proposed through
the modification request. When indicating the setbacks on the plans, note that setbacks
are measured from the edge of vehicular access easements where they exist.
e. Confirm whether all existing tree covered areas are indicated on the survey.
f. Indicate the tops and toes of the slopes for all Landslide Hazard Areas (slopes in excess of
40 percent) present on and adjacent to the property.
g. The preliminary short plat survey must be signed by the surveyor. Please submit two
large -format copies (preferably with a scale of 1"=20') and one reduced -format copy
(sized 11" by 17") of the signed and updated survey.
2. Your plans indicate a proposed ingress/egress easement along the northern boundary of the
adjacent property to the south; however, it is not clear what this easement is intended for, as your
preliminary development plan indicates that the two lots will share access. It appears that this
might have been a previous plan for access to Lot 2 which isn't being proposed anymore. If this
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
ATTACHMENT
easement was shown in error and is not proposed, please remove it from the plans. If this
easement is in fact proposed, provide additional information on its intended use and also indicate
the distances from all structures on the property to the south to this easement, as all structures
must comply with minimum setback requirements to the edge of the easement.
3. Please describe why Lot 2 is proposed to have an approximate 10 -foot wide strip along the
southern side of Lot 1 down to Soundview Drive. Was this part of a previous proposal for access
to Lot 2 together with the access easement indicated on the adjacent property to the south? If
there is no logical reason for this strip to be a part of Lot 2, it makes more sense for the proposed
property line between Lots 1 and 2 to be adjusted so that this strip is a part of Lot 1 in order to
avoid any potential future ownership and maintenance issues.
4. Your modification request states that you are requesting to reduce the rear setback to 10 feet. I
believe you are only making this request for Lot 2; however, please specify which lot(s) the
modification is being requested for. Additionally, the request states "east of this pinch point, the
setback distance increases to 18' and to the west it increases to 15'." Does this mean that you are
requesting different setback modifications from the two segments of the southern parcel line of
Lot 2? The request states that if the modification is not approved, the future home would need to
be built in an area that has a 40 percent slope; however, the preliminary development plan
indicates that even with the requested modification, the proposed home is well within the steep
slope. When you were discussing the proposal with Mike Clugston, Associate Planner, at the end
of last year, you submitted a drawing for a future residence on Lot 2 that takes the angle in the
southern property line into account and that would bring the house as close to the southern
property line as possible while keeping the home much further out of the steep slope than the
current proposal indicates. Please provide further explanation of the requested modification,
including why the requested modification is the minimum necessary, how the requested
modification is keeping the home further out of the steep slope than it otherwise would be, why
the home isn't proposed closer to the southwestern corner of Lot 2 where there are less slopes,
etc. Additionally, please have your surveyor indicate all required and requested setback lines on
the survey document.
5. If the subdivision improvements and future development of the site will require more than 500
cubic yards of grading, SEPA review is required. Please provide a written statement whether
grading for the subdivision improvements and construction of the future residence on Lot 2 is
anticipated to exceed 500 cubic yards. The preliminary development plan submitted with your
application indicates that a substantial portion of the proposed residence is located within the
steep slope, which would require a large quantity of grading. If grading associated with this
project is anticipated to exceed 500 cubic yards, an environmental checklist and associated review
fee must be submitted. Please contact me for additional information if the SEPA review
requirement will be triggered with this proposal.
ECDC 23.90.040.0 requires retention and/or establishment of 30 percent of native vegetation on
subdividable properties located within the RS -12 and RS -20 zones, which includes the
requirement for submittal of a vegetation management plan. Please submit a plan to satisfy this
requirement, including an indication of which portions of the site will be retained/established as
native vegetation to account for the 30 percent by area requirement and plans for how this area
will be established and maintained in accordance with the requirements of ECDC 23.90.040.C.
7. Refer to the enclosed memorandum from Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager,
dated April 5, 2011 for additional information requested by the Engineering Division for review
of your application.
Page 2 of 3
The geotechnical report prepared by The Galli Group dated June 8, 2008 states that the future
residence on Lot 2 will be located 10 feet from the toe of the slope. However, the plans submitted
with the application show a proposed future residence located well within the slope on Lot 2.
This report is almost three years old, and looking back at the items that were submitted for the
pre -application meeting for this property, it appears that the geotechnical engineer reviewed and
provided recommendations on a previous preliminary development plan, which is quite different
than the current proposal. As such, a new geotechnical report will need to be submitted,
addressing the current proposal (including any changes that are made in response to the comments
above) and how the proposal complies with all applicable requirements of ECDC 23.40 and
23.80. In particular, if the future residence on Lot 2 requires some construction within the
Landslide Hazard Area, then the report must address all of the requirements of ECDC
23.80.070.A.2 and 3, which include design standards for building within a Landslide Hazard
Area. Although the geotechnical engineer will need to review the actual building permit plans
and provide another report at the time of a future building permit application for more specific
requirements, a report that adequately addresses the preliminary development plan is necessary at
this time in order for staff to determine if the proposed lots would in fact be buildable.
Please submit the above information as soon as possible, so that staff may continue processing
your application. Please keep in mind that a complete response to all information requested in
staff s,April 21, 2011 letter (restated above) must be received within 90 days from the date this
information was initially requested or the application will lapse for lack of information (ECDC
20.02.003.D). Thus, your application will expire if the requested information is not received by
July 20, 2011.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (425) 771-0220, extension 1224.
Sincerely,
Development Services Department - Planning Division
Jen Machuga
Planner
Enclosure: Memorandum from Jeanie McConnell dated April 5, 2011
Cc: File No. PLN20110008
Ms. Barbara Weiss -Holmberg
7416 —176t' St. SW
Edmonds, WA 98116
Page 3 of 3
Date: April 5, 2011
To: Jen Machuga, Planner
From: Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
Sub1ect: PLN20110008, 2 lot Short Plat
7416176th St SW
The comments provided below are based upon review of the preliminary plans & documents
for the subject short plat. Additional information is requested from the applicant at this time
in order to continue review of the application and provide preliminary approval of the short
plat. Please ask the applicant to revise and resubmit plans addressing each of the comments
below.
Please. also note, after receiving preliminary short plat approval from the Planning Division,
the applicant will be required to submit a complete set of civil engineering plans to the City
Engineering Division for review and approval. The current civil plan review fee is $1,000.
1. Please indicate on the plans whether the existing residence will be maintained.or if it will
be demolished.
2. The preliminary short plat plan indicates a "proposed 10 -foot ingress & egress easement"
on the property to the south. This easement falls outside the proposed development and
should be removed from the plans, unless the proposal is for Lot 2 to take access from
Soundview Dr. Revise plans accordingly.
3. Show the location of existing and proposed underground utility line's, sanitary sewer
systems, water mains and water service lines adjacent to or within the proposed
subdivision.
4. Documents found within City records held for 7416 176" St SW indicate there is an
existing sewer lateral that crosses the property just east of the existing home and in a
north/south direction. Please find attached copies of these documents and revise plans as
needed to show the sanitary sewer lines as they exist on the property today.
5. Provide a preliminary drainage plan showing the proposed on-site stormwater
management system. If connection is to be made to the City system, show the point of
connection and provide invert elevations to the extent necessary to confirm discharge to
the City storm system is possible.
City of Edmonds
6. Preliminary development plans should show all required easements. The access easement
should encompass the width of the driveway and allow for on-site turnaround for both
lots.
7. Provide a cross section of 176th (driveway area) as well as Sound View Dr. Show existing
pavement width, drainage ditches, etc.
Thank you.
Inc. 1890
July 14, 2011
CITY OF EDMONDS MIKE COOPER
MAYOR
121 5th AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www d.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Mr. Rod Wickham
2812 Colby Ave.
Everett, WA 98201
SUBJECT:• OF • FOR •'SHORT ;D •,
APPLICATION, LOCATED AT 7416 —176 TH ST. SW
FILE ,• PLN20110008
Dear Mr. Wickham:
Thank you for submitting additional materials on June 16, 2011 in response to my June 10, 2011
letter regarding your short plat application located at 7416 176th St. SW. The application became
complete pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.02.002 on June 30,
2011. Although it has been determined that the application meets the procedural submission
requirements and is therefore complete, additional information may be needed as staff continues
with review of the application. The public notice of the proposal was issued today, which
included the posting of a notice sign near the northwest corner of the site. Staff will contact you
as our review continues if additional information is necessary.
If you have any questions, you may, reach me at (425) 771-0220, extension 1224.
Sincerely,
Development Services Department - Planning Division
Jen Machuga
Planner
Cc: File No. PLN20110008
Ms. Barbara Weiss -Holmberg
7416 —176th St. SW
Edmonds, WA 98116
• Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
ATTACHMENT 9
Residential Art of Design
March 24, 2011
RE: 7416 176' ST SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
Modification Request
We are asking to reduce the rear setback on this proposed short plat from the required
25' to 10' a reduction of 15'. This occurs in one location only, where the angle of the
property line changes acutely along the south side. East of this pinch point, the
setback distance increases to 18' and to the west it increases to 15'
We propose this modification because the lot does have steep slopes and the area where
we have situated the proposed home takes advantage of the lower sloped portions of the
property.
If we are forced to maintain the 25' requirement the home would need to be built in an
area that has 40% slope and we would also need to take out some significant trees in
that area. As proposed no significant trees need be removed.
The proposed lot meets or exceeds all other minimum requirements of the RS -12 zone.
The approval of the variance will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
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 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 zoning.
If approved the variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and the same zone.
Sincerely
Rod Wickham
Owner's representative
2812 Colby Avenue Everett, Washington 98201 ( ATTACHMENT 1C
Edulog's Web Query
Page 1 of 1
I TMR-RO: R1
Street Address 7416 176TH ST SW
Grade All Grades *Program
*Middle School Activities
Go RESET
Click School Name to
see detailed school
information,
Challenge, Madrona, and Maplewood schools -
enrollment is by application only. Please contact your
local elementary school.
School Code School Name
483 MEADOWDALE HIGH
364 MEADOWDALE MIDDLE
105 SEAVIEW ELEM
540 MAPLEWOOD COOP -
CHOICE
541 CHALLENGE PROGRAM
539 MADRONA SCHOOL -
CHOICE
MEADOWDALE HIGH View the map
Number Stop Time Stop Description Bus Number Stop ID
1 6:53 AM 171ST ST SW & 76TH AVE W 70 483.022
2 2:00 PM 171ST ST SW & 76TH AVE W 64 483.022
Edmonds School District Home Page
JIMM
Transportation
Grades
Eligibility
Eligible
09, 10, 11, 12
Within walk distance of 07,08
school
Within walk distance of 01, 02, 03, 04,
school
05, 06, K2, KP
01, 02, 03, 04,
Eligible
05, 06, 07, 08,
K2, KA
Eligible
01, 02, 03, 04,
05,06
01, 02, 03, 04,
Eligible
05, 06, 07, 08,
K2, KA, P, P1,
P2, P3
For a map of the student,`
school, and stops, click
the View the Map button.'
MEADOWDALE HIGH View the map
Number Stop Time Stop Description Bus Number Stop ID
1 6:53 AM 171ST ST SW & 76TH AVE W 70 483.022
2 2:00 PM 171ST ST SW & 76TH AVE W 64 483.022
Edmonds School District Home Page
JIMM
CITY OF EDMONDS
'%`3'RITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT
Site Location:
7416 176th Street SW
Tax Acct. Number:
00513600001600
Determination:
Study Required
Determination #:
CRA -2008-0015
Applicant:
Barbara Weiss -Holmberg
Owner:
Barbara Weiss -Holmberg
During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site contains and/or is
adjacent to critical areas, including Geologically Hazardous Areas, pursuant to Chapters 23.40 and
23.80 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC).
While the area where the current single family structure is somewhat level, a steep slope rises up
away from the house to the east and falls away to the west. According to the City's LIDAR data,
the steepness of the eastern slope varies from approximately 35% on the southeast corner of the
parcel to nearly 60% at the northeast corner. The steepness of the shorter western slope is
approximately 50%.
Critical Areas Reports identify, classify, and delineate any areas on or adjacent to the subject
property that may qualify as critical areas. They also assess these areas and identify any potential
impacts resulting from your specific development proposal. If a specific development proposal
results in an alteration to a critical area, the critical areas report will also contain a mitigation plan.
You have the option of completing the portion of the study that classifies and delineates the critical
areas and waiting until you have a specific development proposal to complete the study. You may
also choose to submit the entire study with your specific development application.
® Please review the minimum report requirements for all types of Critical Areas that are listed
in ECDC 23.40.090.D. There are additional report requirements for different types of
critical areas (see below).
® Note that it is important for the report to be prepared by a qualified professional as defined
in the ordinance. There are options on how to complete a critical areas study, and there is
an approved list of consultants that you may choose from. You may contact the Planning
Division for more information.
® General Mitigation Requirements for all Critical Areas are discussed in ECDC 23.40.110
through 23.40.140.
STUDY REQUIREMENT — EROSION HAZARD AREA
It appears that this property contains or is adjacent to an Erosion Hazard Area. Erosion Hazard
Areas include:
® Those areas with Alderwood and Everett series soils on slopes of 15 percent or greater.
Any area with slopes of 15 percent or greater and impermeable soils interbedded with
granular soils and springs or ground water seepage.
® Areas with significant visible evidence of ground water seepage, and which also include
existing landslide deposits regardless of slope.
ATTACHMENT 1
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ASSOCIATED WITH EROSION HAZARD AREAS
Development within an Erosion Hazard Area must meet additional criteria.
• For erosion hazard areas with suitable slope stability, the only critical area study needed is
an erosion and sediment control plan prepared in compliance with the requirements set
forth in Chapter 18.30 ECDC as part of the construction documents. This option is at the
director's discretion, per Edmonds Community Development Code section 20.80.050.G.
• In areas where the slope stability is not suitable, projects within Erosion Hazard Areas will
require a report by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer or other qualified professional. Note
that it is important for the report to be prepared by a qualified professional as defined in the
ordinance.
• Report requirements are given in ECDC 23.80.050, and more generally in ECDC
23.40.090.D.
• Development standards are given in ECDC 23.80.060 and 23.80.070.
STUDY REQUIREMENT — LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA
It appears that this property contains or is adjacent to a Landslide Hazard Area.
• A Landslide Hazard Area is any area with a slope of forty percent (40%) or steeper and
with a vertical relief of ten (10) or more feet (except areas composed of consolidated
bedrock).
• Landslide Hazard Areas are further defined and illustrated in ECDC 23.80.020.B.
• In addition to the general requirements for Critical Areas reports referenced above, specific
Critical Area report requirements for Landslide Hazard Areas are provided in ECDC
23.80.050.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ASSOCIATED WITH LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS
Development is restricted within a Landslide Hazard Area and its buffer.
• Projects that will intrude into these areas will require a report by a licensed Geotechnical
Engineer.
• The criteria that are applied depend on the amount that the buffer is reduced.
• The buffer can be reduced to a minimum of ten (10) feet (with an additional 15' building
setback per ECDC 23.40.280) if a report is prepared that meets the standards listed in
ECDC 23.80.050. The alteration must also meet the requirements listed in ECDC
23.80.060.
• In addition, proposals to reduce the buffer to less than ten (10) feet must comply with the
design standards listed in ECDC 23.80.070.A.3.
Certain activities are allowed in or near critical area buffers as specified in ECDC 23.40.20. If you
have any questions about whether your proposed development qualifies as an allowed activity,
please contact a Planner for more information.
2
Certain development proposals may be exempt from Critical Areas Requirements (ECDC
23.40.230). If you think that a specific development proposal may be exempt, contact a Planner
for more information.
ivame signature uate
NOTE: Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found on
the City of Edmonds website at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us.
Geotechnical Report
Proposed Short Plat
7416 SW 176th Street
Edmonds, Washington
Project 1518-01
June 6, 2008
Updated May 20, 2011
Prepared for:
Barbara Weiss -Cook
Mike Cook
7416 SW 176`" Street
Edmonds, WA 98026
Prepared by:
The Galli Group
5034 18'h Avenue NE
Seattle, Washington 98105
206-525-5097
ATTACHMENT 13
Table of Contents
PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................1
3.0 SITE FEATURES.....................................................................................................2
3.1 CRITICAL AREAS AND CODE REQUIREMENTS ......................................
3.1.1 Erosion Hazard Areas..............................................................................2
3.1.2 Landslide Hazard Areas...........................................................................2
3.1.3 Seismic Hazard Area...............................................................................3
3.1.4 Implications on Development Standards.................................................3
3.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS................................................................................3
3.3 GEOLOGY........................................................................................................4
3.4 SITE SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS......................................4
3.5 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS.................................................................4
3.6 STABILITY ANALYSES.................................................................................5
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................7
4.1 SITE GRADING AND EARTHWORK...........................................................7
4.1.1 Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control......................................7
4.1.2 Seasonal Grading Restrictions.................................................................8
4.2 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS AND RETAINING ELEMENTS ...............8
4.2.1 Temporary Excavations..................................8
.........................................
4.2.2 Retaining Wall Design Parameters..........................................................9
4.3 SLOPE MITIGATION MEASURES AND CODE REQUIREMENTS ...........10
4.4 FOUNDATIONS...............................................................................................12
4.5 SLABS-ON-GRADE.........................................................................................12
4.6 BACKFILL AND COMPACTION...................................................................13
4.7 DRAINAGE RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................13
4.8 PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL.............................................................13
4.9 ASSESSMENT OF RISK TO CRITICAL AREAS..........................................13
5.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES AND LIMITATIONS..................................................14
5.1 ADDITIONAL SERVICES...............................................................................14
5.2 LIMITATIONS..................................................................................................14
LIST OF FIGURES:
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Site Features
Figure 3A Generalized Soil Stratigraphy A -A'
Figure 313 Slope Stability Analyses Section AA'
Figure 4 Generalized Soil Stratigraphy B -B'
Figure 5 Temporary Excavation Sections
APPENDIX
Geotechnical Report
Proposed Short Plat
7416 SW 176th Street
Edmonds, Washington
June 6, 2008
Updated May 20, 2011
The Galli Group performed a geotechnical investigation on the property located at 7416 SW
176th Street in Edmonds, Washington. The purpose of our investigation was to identify the
subsurface soil conditions on the site and to provide conceptual recommendations for future
site development and a feasibility analysis for short platting the property into two lots.
Subsequent to our initial report prepared in June of 2008, the owners revised the location of
the proposed new residence. This report was prepared considering that new location.
This geotechnical report summarizes observations from our research and subsurface
exploration performed for the above referenced property. It also presents our
recommendations for conceptual geotechnical design elements of the project.
The project site is located on the south side of the undeveloped right-of-way of SW 176th
Street near the intersection with Sound View Drive (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The
existing site contains a two story single-family residence with daylight basement, a paved
driveway and unattached shop. The shop is located in the vicinity of the proposed new lot
and future home site. Slopes ascend from the existing shop to the north and east at
inclinations on the order of about 45 to 60 percent. An unimproved gravel drive inclined at
about 18 percent accesses the existing shop and proposed building site. Site features and
topography are provided on Figure 2, Site Features.
Short Plat -- 7416 176th Street SW, Edmonds
June 6, 2008
Updated May 20, 2011
The proposed residence will be sited in the vicinity of the existing shop about 17 feet west of
the eastern property line, 45 feet south of the north property line, and at least 10 feet north of
the southerly property line as shown in Figure 2. In order to construct a residence in the
desired location the standard buffer for critical areas of 50 feet (ECDC 23.80.070) will need
to be reduced. Construction of the new residence will occur entirely within the standard
buffer.
3.0 SITE FEATURES
3.1 CRITICAL AREAS AND CODE REQUIREMENTS
A review of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) indicates that site will be
governed by Critical Areas regulations. Below we have discussed the elements that apply to
the project site with reference to ECDC code requirements.
3.1.1 Erosion Hazard Areas
The ECDC defines Erosion Hazard Areas as areas possessing steep slopes in excess of 40
percent (see below.)
Erosion hazard areas include: "areas of the city of Edmonds that may experience severe to
very severe erosion hazard. This group of soils includes, but is not limited to, the following
when they occur on slopes of 15 percent or greater:
a. Alderwood soils (15 to 25 percent slopes);
b. Alderwood/Everett series (25 to 70 percent slopes);
c. Everett series (15 to 25 percent slopes)." (ECDC 23.80.020 A(1)
The slopes on the north and east side of the proposed building footprint are inclined from
about 45 to 60 percent. Soil Conservation Service maps the area as underlain by Alderwood
gravelly sandy loam. Because of these topographic and mapping conditions the project site
would be designated an Erosion Hazard Area.
3.1.2 Landslide Hazard Areas
The inclination of the slope at the north and east side of the proposed residence and steepest
portion of the slope appears to be on the order of about 65 percent. The slope has a 4 -foot
vertical cut at the toe that defines the lower limits of the slope.
Section 23.80.020B defines "Landslide Hazard Areas" as follows:
Landslide hazard areas are areas potentially subject to landslides based on a combination of
geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. Within the city of Edmonds landslide hazard
areas specifically include: "any area with a slope of 40 percent or steeper and with a vertical
relief of 10 or more feet except areas composed of consolidated rock." (ECDC
23.80.020B(2).
The project site qualifies for designation of "Landslide Hazard Area" due to topographic
features.
1636 Cook Holmberg RPT 2 The Galli Group
Short Plat -- 7416 176th Street SW, Edmonds
June 6, 2008
Updated May 20, 2011
3.1.3 Seismic Hazard Area
"Seismic hazard areas" are areas subject to severe risk of damage as a result of earthquake -
induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement, soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, or
surface faulting." (ECDC 23.80.020C)
The project site appears underlain by dense glacially consolidated soil, or glacial outwash.
This dense material does not present a risk of deep-seated slope movement, seismic
liquefaction, lateral spreading, or surface rupture. Provided the new foundations are
supported on native undisturbed soil, the risk of seismic -induced settlement is not significant.
As shown in our slope stability analyses, the risk of slope failure due to seismic ground
shaking is limited to shallow slumps in the loose surficial soil rather than deep-seated slope
failures or failures that would impact the residence or planned improvements. In our opinion
the site does not represent a severe risk of damage due to seismic induced ground shaking.
3.1.4 Implications on Development Standards
The standard 50 -foot buffer from geologic hazard areas as measured from the toe of the
slope east and north of the proposed building site and measured from the top of the slope
west of the existing residence essentially eliminate any building footprint on the lot.
Incorporating these buffers would preclude development of the site including the existing
residence. The proposed short plat must include mitigation to the geologic hazards
identified above to allow for creation of an additional building site. These mitigation
measures will include eliminating buffers at the toe of the steep slopes, construction of
retaining walls at the toe of the steep slope, drainage control measures, and erosion
control measures for the steep slopes. These measures are discussed in more detail in the
Recommendations Section of our report below.
In the report sections that follow we have described the site soil conditions and the
subsurface geologic conditions. The site appears underlain by dense glacially
consolidated sediment. The project site contains steep slopes and presents risks of
erosion. In our opinion it does not present a significant risk of seismic liquefaction, slope
movement, or erosion if conventional Best Management Practices are followed during
site development, and our recommendations are followed during project development.
3.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS
The project site is located on the south side of SW 176th Street on the lower portion of a
west -facing slope. The slope declines westerly at an overall declination on the order of 55
percent for about 55 feet from the top of the ridge to the proposed building site and then
declines less steeply toward the west, until it again descends steeply toward Sound View
Drive. The slope surface is fairly well vegetated with grass, blackberries, shrubs, a few
deciduous trees and mature cedar near the lower reaches of the slope. We did not notice any
significant signs of erosion on the site due to stormwater runoff or springs, or seepage. No
wet conditions were evident on the slope face.
1636 Cook Holmberg RPT 3 The Galli Group
Short Plat -- 7416 176th Street SW, Edmonds
June 6, 2008
Updated May 20, 2011
3.3 GEOLOGY
Geologic maps of the area indicate that the vicinity is likely underlain by glacial outwash or
advance outwash from the Vashon stade of the Fraser glaciation (Geologic Map of the
Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, James P. Minard, 1983.) Glacial
outwash tends to consist of granular soil deposited in fluvial environments in front of the
most recent glacial advance thousands of years ago. The deposit can appear braided with the
sorting dependent upon the energy of the depositional environment. It can often contain beds
or seams of varying material but tends to consist mostly of sand and pebbly gravel.
The advance outwash unit is often underlain by the Whidbey formation or other transitional
beds that were either deposited during previous glacial periods or in between glacial
advances. Glacial till tends to cap the advance outwash at the higher elevations along the
ridge lines. These units have all been consolidated by tons of ice. The older units tend to
exhibit more advanced weathering. The contact between the advance outwash and an
underlying unit of fractured clay or silt tends to be notorious for slope stability problems due
to intrusion of groundwater and underlying layers that inhibit downward infiltration of
ground water.
Based upon our site reconnaissance and subsurface investigation it appears that the project
site is underlain by dense advance outwash soil and the site appears generally stable in its
current condition.
3.4 SITE SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
During our subsurface investigation on June 2, 2008, we excavated three test pits at the
locations shown on Figure 2, Site Features. We encountered dense silty SAND with gravel at
about 5 feet in TP -1 at the top of the slope. We encountered dense silty SAND at the ground
surface below the cut near the toe of the slope in TP -2. Blanketing the dense silty SAND in
TP -3 we encountered loose silty SAND approximately 4 feet thick.
Based upon the results of our subsurface investigation, the site appears underlain by very
dense silty SAND with gravel, blanketed by a unit of weathered silty SAND and topsoil. We
interpreted this geologic unit as advance outwash. No groundwater was observed in our test
pits. The core of the hillside appears stable and we did not observe any indications of recent
slope movement.
3.5 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
The site appears underlain by glacially consolidated silty SAND blanketed by a unit of loose
to medium dense silty SAND approximately 2 to 3 feet thick. Geologic maps show the site
as underlain by advance outwash. No groundwater was evident in our test pits. Based upon
these site factors seismic liquefaction does not appear to be a significant concern.
The risk of seismically induced slope movement is not significantly increased with the
proposed residential construction provided the retaining elements at the toe of the slope are
1636 Cook Holmberg RPT 4 The Galli Group
Short Plat -- 7416 176th Street SW, Edmonds
June 6, 2008
Updated May 20, 2011
adequately designed to support the slope above. The uppermost surficial soils might be more
prone to minor downslope creep than the core of the hillside, but this would not adversely
affect the proposed improvements or adjacent properties.
Based upon the latitude and longitude of the site we consulted the USGS Seismic Hazards
Maps and estimated the site coefficients for an event with 2 percent probability of exceedance
in 50 years (corresponding to a 500 -year seismic event.) In conformance with the 2006
International Building Code the following design parameters should be used for the project
site:
TABLE 1
Seismic Site Coefficients
3.6 STABILITY ANALYSES
The site appears underlain by very dense silty SAND with gravel or glacially consolidated
material that we interpreted as glacial outwash. This material is generally stable provided
that it is protected against erosion and provided that it is not underlain by seepage zones
along the contact with interglacial units or lacustrine clay. We did not observe any seepage
zones within or immediately adjacent to the property that might tend to compromise the
stability of the slope.
We conducted a slope stability analysis on the cross section A -A' as shown on Figure 3. In
order to arrive at apparent soil values to use in the analyses, we assumed a slope stability of
unity for seismic conditions similar to those recorded during the Nisqually quake of 2001.
The site appears to have remained stable during that event including the vertical cut at the toe
of the slope. We then back calculated using the slope stability program XSTABL to
determine the apparent soil parameters for the slope. The following parameters were utilized
to identify the critical failure surfaces on the slopes for various conditions:
1636 Cook Holmberg RPT 5 The Galli Group
S,
Site
Spectral
F,
Spectral
Acceleration
Fa
Class
Acceleration
Site Coefficient
(0.2 second
Site Coefficient
(1 second period)
period)
C
0.462
1.34
1.3
1.0
3.6 STABILITY ANALYSES
The site appears underlain by very dense silty SAND with gravel or glacially consolidated
material that we interpreted as glacial outwash. This material is generally stable provided
that it is protected against erosion and provided that it is not underlain by seepage zones
along the contact with interglacial units or lacustrine clay. We did not observe any seepage
zones within or immediately adjacent to the property that might tend to compromise the
stability of the slope.
We conducted a slope stability analysis on the cross section A -A' as shown on Figure 3. In
order to arrive at apparent soil values to use in the analyses, we assumed a slope stability of
unity for seismic conditions similar to those recorded during the Nisqually quake of 2001.
The site appears to have remained stable during that event including the vertical cut at the toe
of the slope. We then back calculated using the slope stability program XSTABL to
determine the apparent soil parameters for the slope. The following parameters were utilized
to identify the critical failure surfaces on the slopes for various conditions:
1636 Cook Holmberg RPT 5 The Galli Group
Short Plat -- 7416 176th Street SW, Edmonds
June 6, 2008
Updated May 20, 2011
TABLE 2
Slope Stability Design Model Parameters
Soil
Unit
Internal
Apparent Cohesion
Lateral acceleration
Type
Weight
Friction
�' psl
due to seismic
1518R02A; 1518R02B
y pcf
0, degrees
1.5
event
Loose silty SAND
115
34
40
0.28
Dense silty SAND
125
38
200
0.28g
We modeled the slope for existing conditions on the slope as shown in Section A -A'. The
results of our analyses are provided in Table 3, below.
TABLE 3
Slope Stability Analyses Results
Critical Failure Surface
Description
Factor of Safety*
(FOS)
Reference File
Static
Seismic
XSTABL Files
Model Existing Slope Condition
1.5
1.0**
1518R02A; 1518R02B
Section A -A' with Wall
2.6
1.5
1518R03A; 1518R03B
* FOS described as median value of 10 most critical theoretical failure surfaces in results
** Used to model slope conditions based upon measured representative PGA values during 2001 Nisqually
Quake and owner observations of no movement during event. (PGA = 0.18g)
It appears from our analyses that the most likely form of slope movement on the project site
would be a shallow colluvial slump involving the loose surficial soils on the slope face
during seismic induced ground shaking. These failures appear unlikely to exceed a few feet
in depth and more than about 10 or 20 feet in length. These types of failures do not pose
significant risk to the site, the adjacent sites or to nearby or proposed structures.
For elements located at the toe of the slope under developed conditions the FOS for seismic
design exceeds 1.2 and the FOS for static design easily exceeds 1.5 (See Table 3.) The event
most likely to create surficial slope movement would include either seismic induced ground
shaking or an extreme runoff event from broken water mains or severe storms and/or failure
of existing stormwater runoff conveyance systems on properties above. By either integrating
a catchment wall into the proposed structure or providing a building setback from the toe of
the slope, the risks to the homeowners from such an unlikely event can be reduced to
acceptable levels.
1636 Cook Holmberg RPT 6 The Galli Group
Short Plat -- 7416 176th Street SW, Edmonds
June 6, 2008
Updated May 20, 2011
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The site contains steep slopes comprised of very dense silty sand or glacial outwash
blanketed by loose sand approximately two feet thick. The loose soils represent a significant
risk of erosion if left unprotected or exposed to concentrated discharges from downspouts or
other runoff. No groundwater or seepage was evident during our site visit or subsurface
exploration. Planned improvements will require significant excavation into the lower reaches
of the slope. The following geotechnical issues should be addressed in the proposed
development of the site:
1. The proposed building site must include temporary excavations or staged excavations
to avoid excessive retaining wall heights or the need for shoring.
2. We recommend that the proposed building permit require both of the following two
rquirements:
® The daylight basement wall for the residence should be designed as a catchment
wall with a minimum of 3 feet of freeboard, and
® Flat areas at least 8 feet wide should be constructed around the basement walls to
provide access for maintenance of the hillside and removal of debris in the
unlikely event that the slope experiences sloughing while slope vegetation is being
re-established.
All stormwater runoff should be captured and directed toward the existing storm
drain. No downspouts or area drains should discharge onto the slope.
4. A slope vegetation/restoration plan should be incorporated into the future permit
application for the residence to restore vegetation disturbed during site development.
5. Best Management Practices should be followed during site development to prevent
erosion of the site soils.
The sections below address these geotechnical issues and other aspects of site development
for the proposed project. Provided the recommendations supplied in this report are followed
during design and construction of the residence, development of the site to include short
platting and construction of a new home may proceed safely under appropriate geotechnical
supervision. Once a site-specific plan for the proposed residence, drainage, and site
improvements are completed, The Galli Group should review the proposed plans and provide
additional recommendations as needed to comply with the ECDC development standards.
4.1.1 Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control
The site contains silty SAND soils that represent severe erosion potential if left unprotected
from concentrated discharges during construction. Best Management Practices commonly
1636 Cook Holmberg RPT 7 The Galli Group
Short Plat -- 7416 176th Street SW, Edmonds
June 6, 2008
Updated May 20, 2011
observed should be employed during construction. We anticipate these will include the
following:
Maintain vegetation on the slope area wherever possible to help reduce siltation and
retard site runoff.
2. Maintain the street and driveway free of sediment during excavation and hauling and
when mobilizing equipment to and from the site. Mud and silt tracked from the site
should be removed or cleaned by the contractor.
3. The existing drainage system should be protected from sedimentation by placing a silt
fence and straw bales across swales that direct water to the existing drainage system
and placing straw wattles where runoff from the construction area might leave the
site. Wattles can be moved during construction activity to allow foot traffic and
equipment in and out of the site.
4. From October through May we recommend mulching exposed soils with straw or
erosion control mats until permanent landscaping is installed. In areas planned for
future flatwork such as patios, clean crushed gravel may be substituted for mulch to
stabilize the soil.
4.1.2 Seasonal Grading Restrictions
Due to the erosion potential of the site we recommend confining grading activities including
excavation, utility installation, backfill and compaction to the drier summer months.
Construction activity such as flatwork, framing, and above -grade activity can continue after
October 1st provided the site is stabilized against erosion by means mentioned in the section
above. The geotechnical engineer should evaluate the erosion control measures to verify that
the site appears stabilized for wet season construction activity.
4.2.1 'Temporary Excavations
The proposed development will require temporary cuts for walls on the order of about 8 to 13
feet high. In order to avoid massive temporary cuts that extend up the slope, we recommend
staging the excavation by constructing lower walls, backfilling and then constructing the
perimeter walls. We also recommend avoiding a full depth basement in the NE corner of the
building since temporary cuts would then extend beyond the property limits or else shoring
would be required.
Excavation can be accomplished with conventional excavating equipment and generally
shaped according to the following guidelines:
Cuts within the very dense glacial outwash (as confirmed by the geotechnical
engineer) mayb be shaped at 4V:1H for the lowermost 5 feet of the excavation.
Above that point the cut should be sloped back at 1H: IV. We anticipate that the very
dense unit will be encountered at about 5 feet below existing grade.
1636 Cook Holmberg RPT 8 The Galli Group
Short Plat -- 7416 176th Street SW, Edmonds
June 6, 2008
Updated May 20, 2011
® Cuts within the medium dense outwash sand and gravel should be shaped no steeper
than IH: IV. We anticipate that the upper 5 feet of the soil will be comprised of the
medium dense outwash sand.
The following depicts the general guidelines for the temporary excavations. Specific
sections for the proposed building layout are provided on Figure 5 at the end of the
report. Using these guidelines the temporary excavation limits for the proposed site
development are shown on Figure 6.
Generally the cuts can be contained within the property. These temporary cuts should be
reevaluated when the building permit application is submitted. The geotechnical engineer
should monitor the initial excavation and make recommendations as needed to maintain the
stability of temporary cuts. If different soil conditions are encountered than expected we will
make recommendations at that time to provide safe excavations and support of adjacent
properties.
Ongoing safety of open excavations is the responsibility of the contractor. Temporary
excavations should be flattened as necessary in order to maintain safety for the workers.
Surface runoff should be directed around the excavation. Conditions that might necessitate
flattening the excavation include encountering soil conditions different from those observed
in our limited hand holes, finding water seepage in the sides of the excavation, or extreme
weather and runoff conditions.
4.2.2 Retaining Wall Design Parameters
We anticipate that basement retaining walls will be constructed on the east and north sides of
the proposed residence at the toe of the existing slope. As recommended, the retaining walls
1636 Cook Holmberg RPT 9 The Galli Group
Short Plat -- 7416 176th Street SW, Edmonds
June 6, 2008
Updated May 20, 2011
should be constructed with at least three feet of freeboard in order to account for possible
accumulation of soil at the wall from gradual erosion, foot traffic, or minor sloughing of
surficial soils. Below are our recommendations for the new walls:
1. The wall footings shall conform to the recommendations described in Section 4.4
below.
2. The footing must bear on native undisturbed soils (or compacted structural fill.) The
top of the footing should be at least 4 inches below the slab so that a capillary gravel
break and/or insulation can be provided between the top of the footing and the base of
the slab.
3. The walls should be designed to resist an active earth pressure equivalent to 35 pcf
per foot of retained soil height. This assumes level backslope behind the wall and no
structures or embankments within 5 feet of the wall.
4. For walls supporting inclined backfill or supporting embankments or structures within
8 feet, we recommend using 60 pcf for lateral earth pressure.
5. The walls must contain at least three feet of freeboard on the uphill sides of the
excavation when situated against the slope. The wall should be designed to include
the additional three feet of soil. Basement windows should not be permitted on walls
on the east and north sides of the residence where the wall is situated against the steep
slope and where the 3 feet of freeboard can not be maintained below the window.
6. A backwall drainage system must be supplied for all newly constructed walls. The
drainage system shall include at a minimum, a 4 -inch perforated, smooth-walled pipe,
enveloped in 3/4" to 11/2" washed gravel, and wrapped in Mirafi 140N filter fabric
(AOS 0.212 mm.) for separation from adjacent soils. The zone of drain rock must be
at least 12 inches wide.
7. Additional drainage measures for the basement should include filling all snap tie
holes, waterproofing the concrete face, and placing sheet drains against the walls on
the north and east sides. We recommend sheet drains such as Delta Drain,
AmerDrain, or Mirafi G100N. The sheet drains should direct water toward the
backwall drainage system.
8. The geotechnical engineer should verify that the drainage system, bearing conditions,
and backfill compaction are in accordance with the report recommendations.
4.3 SLOPE MITIGATION MEASURES AND CODE REQUIREMENTS
The existing shop and proposed residence appear situated within the lower limits of the steep
slope on the project site. The proposed residence would be sited within the steep slope and
standard minimum buffer or building setbacks (ECDC 23.80.070 Alla and lb). The
proposed residence would not require a setback from the slope provided the plan includes the
following:
1636 Cook_ Holmberg RPT 10 The Galli Group
Short Plat -- 7416 176th Street SW, Edmonds
June 6, 2008
Updated May 20, 2011
Integrate a catchment wall into the design of the structure on the sides of the residence
that are located against the toe of the slope. The catchment wall should be designed
to retain the slope soils and allow for deposition of soils against the wall from gradual
erosive processes.
Side yard setbacks or other means should be included in site development that allow
equipment access to the rear of the house (or the toe of the slope) to perform
maintenance as needed in the event of erosion or shallow sloughing of the soils on the
slope.
Alterations to areas within buffers or steep slope areas must meet the following requirements
in order to be permitted:
1. "The development will not increase the surface water discharge or sedimentation to
the adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions." (ECDC 23.80.070 2a).
The project will increase the amount of impervious area on the existing lot. We
recommend the following mitigation measures to satisfy this requirement:
® Runoff from impervious surfaces must be collected in a stormwater collection
system and routed to the existing drainage system in SW 176th Street.
Management of stormwater runoff shall conform to the requirements of ECDC
Section 18.30. In particular if total impervious area of the site development
exceeds 2000 square feet, a stormwater detention system should be required
with controlled release rates.
All disturbed slope areas should be seeded and covered with erosion control
mats prior to the wet season.
2. "The development will not decrease the slope stability on adjacent properties."
(ECDC 23.80.070 2b) Our slope stability analyses indicate that the proposed
improvements will not significantly alter the slope stability of the site or adjacent
sites. We recommend the following measures to help maintain slope stability:
® The retaining walls at the toe of the slope should be designed as described in
Section 4.2 of this report.
® Proposed deck footings that are situated within the steep slope area should be
pier or pile supported to minimize ground disturbance.
"Such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas." (ECDC 23.80.070
2c) bounded on the lower reaches by SW 176th Street and Sound View Drive. Both
streets include roadside drainage ditches as part of a stormwater conveyance system.
The proposed improvements will not impact other critical areas. No additional
mitigation measures beyond those described above are needed to protect adjacent sites
or critical areas.
1636 Cook Holmberg RPT 11 The Galli Group
Short Plat -- 7416 176th Street SW, Edmonds
June 6, 2008
Updated May 20, 2011
4.4 FOUNDATIONS
We anticipate that the proposed residence will be supported on conventional spread footings.
Small decks that extend into the steep slope area should be supported on pile or pier
foundations. Below we have provided recommendations for conventional footings and pile -
supported footings.
For spread footings we recommend the following:
1. An allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf may be used for footings bearing on
undisturbed glacial soil or properly compacted structural fill. This may be increased
by 1/3 for temporary loads such as wind loads or seismic loads.
2. Minimum footing size for isolated column footings should be 24 inches square. Strip
footings should be at least 16 inches in width.
3. The footing area must be free from loose or wet soil prior to placing reinforcing or
pouring concrete. The geotechnical engineer should verify the bearing.
Footings for decks that are situated on the steep slope should be supported on isolated pier or
pile footings to minimize disturbance to the slope surface. The piles can be either driven pin
piles or small diameter drilled piers. Additional recommendations for the piers and piles can
be provided once the building plans are finalized.
4.5 SLABS -ON -GRADE
Reinforced concrete slabs can be placed on properly prepared subgrade soils or structural fill.
For slabs on grade, we recommend that granular import be placed as soon as the subgrade is
prepared to protect the subgrade soil. The following additional recommendations are
provided for construction of patios, slabs, or continuous paves:
® We recommend that the contractor use deformed reinforcing steel for slab
reinforcement rather than welded wire fabric. A minimum reinforcement scheme
would be #3 or # 4 bars, 18 inches on center, both ways. Fibermesh may be used to
help decrease drying shrinkage cracks, however it is not a replacement for structural
reinforcing.
® Interior slabs should include a capillary break of clean gravel and vapor barrier
beneath the slab.
® If the impervious area of the patio slab or pavers exceeds 250 square feet, we
recommend capturing the runoff in area drains and routing them toward the existing
storm drainage system.
® For slabs or patios less than 250 square feet the runoff should leave the slab as sheet
flow. Concentrated runoff from impervious areas should be avoided.
1636 Cook Holmberg RPT 12 The Galli Group
Short Plat -- 7416 176th Street SW, Edmonds
June 6, 2008
Updated May 20, 2011
4.6 BACKFILL AND COMPACTION
Imported fill soil used as backfill behind walls and under slabs should be moisture
conditioned to within 3 percent of optimum moisture content, placed in loose, horizontal lifts
less than 8 inches in thickness, and compacted to at least 92 percent of the maximum dry
density, as determined using ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor). The 92 percent compaction
criteria should apply to any material intended to support pavement or intended as backfill
behind walls. If structures are supported on the structural fill the compaction criteria should
be 95 percent of the Modified Proctor. In areas not constructed as fill slopes or not intended
to support pavement or structures, fill material should be placed in loose lifts less than 12
inches in thickness and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density.
4.7 DRAINAGE RECOMMENDATIONS
The following general recommendations are provided for the drainage:
Impervious areas shall direct runoff as sheet flow. For patios larger than 250 square
feet the area shall direct runoff toward an area drain that is tied into the existing storm
drain as discussed above.
2. No concentrated runoff shall be permitted onto the slope face or within 50 feet of a
steep slope area.
3. The owner should remain vigilant about maintenance of the downspouts and area
drains on site in order to prevent overflow that might create erosion on the site.
Following installation of the foundation system, utilities and drainage system, and completion
of the flat work, the site must be permanently stabilized. All exposed soils on site must either
be covered with a thick layer of mulch (3 — 4 inches) that is incorporated into the final
landscaping plan or vegetated with other groundcover. The site vegetation should be
established prior to October 1.
4.9 ASSESSMENT OF RISK TO CRITICAL AREAS
The proposed short plat and construction of the single family residence if conducted in
conformance with our recommendations will meet the following requirements according to
ECDC 23.80.060:
® The improvements will not increase the threat of the geologic hazard to adjacent
properties beyond predevelopment conditions;
® The improvements will not adversely impact other critical areas;
® The improvements are or will be designed so that the hazard to the project is
mitigated to a level equal to or less than predevelopment conditions; and
® The improvements, provided they are designed and constructed in accordance with
our recommendations, are safe under anticipated conditions according to our
professional engineering judgment.
1636 Cook_ Holmberg RPT 13 The Galli Group
Short Plat -- 7416 176`h Street SW, Edmonds
June 6, 2008
Updated May 20, 2011
5.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES AND LIMITATIONS
5.1 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Additional services by the geotechnical engineer are important to help insure that report
recommendations are correctly interpreted in final project design and to help verify
compliance with project specifications during the construction process. For this project we
anticipate additional services might include the following:
1. Coordinate with the architect and structural engineer to clarify design specifics and
alternatives for the proposed residence and site development.
2. Review final design and construction drawings for the residence for conformance
with geotechnical recommendations.
3. Monitor excavation of the building footprint.
4. Monitor the installation of pile -supported deck footings (if needed.)
5. Provide periodic construction field reports, as requested by the client and required by
the City.
We would provide these additional services on a time -and -expense basis in accordance with
our Standard Fee Schedule and General Conditions already in place for this project. If our
firm is not utilized to provide these services or if the contractor fails to notify us and request
construction monitoring we cannot be held responsible for performance of the geotechnical
design elements.
5.2 LIMITATIONS
This geotechnical investigation was planned and conducted in accordance with generally
accepted engineering standards practiced presently within this geographic area. Geotechnical
investigations performed by these standards reveal with reasonable regularity soils that are
representative of subsurface conditions throughout the site under consideration.
Recommendations contained in this report are based upon the assumption that soil conditions
encountered in explorations are representative of actual conditions throughout the building
site. However, inconsistent conditions can occur between exploratory borings or test pits and
not be detected by a geotechnical study. If, during construction or subsequent exploration,
subsurface or slope conditions are encountered which differ from those anticipated based
upon results of this investigation, The Galli Group should be notified so that we can review
and revise our recommendations where necessary. If conditions change prior to the proposed
construction, we should be consulted so that we may alter our recommendations if necessary.
This report is prepared for the exclusive use of the owner or the owner's consultants for
specific application on this project at this particular site. Copies of this report should be
made available to the design team, and should be included with the contract drawings issued
to the contractor. Our report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a
1636 Cook Holmberg RPT 14 The Galli Group
Short Plat -- 7416 176th Street SW, Edmonds
June 6, 2008
Updated May 20, 2011
warranty of the subsurface conditions on the site and should not be applied to neighboring
sites. No warranty, expressed or implied is made.
We recommend that geotechnical observation and testing be provided during the construction
phases to verify that the recommendations provided in this report are incorporated into the
actual construction. If our firm is not utilized to provide these services or if the contractor
fails to notify us or request construction monitoring we cannot be held responsible for
performance of the geotechnical design elements.
Respectfully submitted,
THE GALLI GROUP STOLT,%
293 9
Paul L. Stoltenberg,P.E. Ok. �:►slF�
ON
Project
Project Geotechnical Engineer
1636 Cook Holmberg RPT 15 The Galli Group
r
O
00
T --
LO LO
r
N Hi V9AVITUZ� coKA
m m IdIn
Q Q
r N
}'�j ryr�.
j M g t j i 'ID1 � L � iii .,.�
civ f
! 14 ,j.�.... �) j /(} [�� � `ems h�
i1 !il i�ii0.7_.. j�/� T ~ 4 y�. �t� i .I♦,jj}{{j_ ty.{f' U914 AV `ii.i4 1tY
1 t.Lit3
cL k.�#.�l-.-.f �3Li Lm m
t invj 1
We"l�,C,...�K.
Bre I �� _
cry M 1d
It Id VR
1,;
l § •v.
,ter (�{{ ].,�( tx jj
..{{ � i Y� yy WIT
jam j � � ��1
jj Im
FL
ILI
lf j.4
lot
Id RL14
Id
PL W
CQ
' _.
AV
sdeW '30
3'
g
a8 sewoyl L6660
ob
Zn
M,
� gs
W
Zo
t
iv
i T—OOE: 90
PE- —r v o U) 0)
29
r'o
0
Id
270 1 C)
cu
we
c me
26
'. 10
ON
PTw
�
p � 2 `"�
v s LL
i
4
p
fl
M
C,
'25 -
F� P� C vX2
5-
F-; All, ZSN os
� gs
W
Zo
t
iv
i T—OOE: 90
PE- —r v o U) 0)
29
r'o
0
Id
270 1 C)
cu
we
c me
26
'. 10
4
-4-i0£
.9
IM
$pig doqSRS
BUI I DG
Rb ED ZD
co
7
W. -
01
im
En
b
0
b
Ea
:LL
�LL
c"I
\
\
�
�
\
:
:
$pig doqSRS
BUI I DG
Rb ED ZD
co
7
W. -
01
im
:LL
�LL
$pig doqSRS
BUI I DG
Rb ED ZD
co
7
W. -
01
im
P F.
0 F1 Fj MC24 C94
II
LL
LL
cot
P-1
I..
pig dixis Bu!IsDg
b0 LO
MC -9 CV
O
fVLp
:19
7
C/)
CLC7
0
co
1
—(D C--
LO
41
a
I -Z
F
If C)
II
LL
LL
cot
P-1
I..
pig dixis Bu!IsDg
b0 LO
MC -9 CV
MI'l
I
C)
Bpjq doqS 6uils.IX3
o In b in o ipn CD Lo pp
Cl) CV C\l
BOA
JDR
0 0 o rn LO rn
CY) C'7 m N N
c
O
m
N
Cu
°
x
W',
O
0-
Q
CD
o
3
N
c
I)
N
C;
\
<
0
O
�� \\
a
c
M Oo OCY) N N
14
C11).
Ll)
U \ I
\
c
O
m
N
Cu
°
x
W',
O
0-
HII�
Q
CD
o
°c
N
c
I)
O
lW
\
<
0
O
paeogaaa::j Io
a
c
M Oo OCY) N N
14
\
Ll)
U \ I
\
� c
� O �
� c
75
8 0 °-
I1
U)�
'O
�
\
0)
3 c
U- c.�
.N
II
4) ai
;W
z
CD
3
M co
O N N
ZN \
HII�
O�
7i
N
'N
O
U
\ L1
:
paeogaaa=l jo �£
Q.
ani
Q �
in e=
M ;N C
OLL
; II
:II �
O
C7;]
O
m O O N N
Q
CD
o
°c
N
c
I)
O
lW
\
<
0
O
paeogaaa::j Io
O LO O In O
c
M Oo OCY) N N
ami
-a a)
O�
7i
N
'N
O
U
\ L1
:
paeogaaa=l jo �£
Q.
ani
Q �
in e=
M ;N C
OLL
; II
:II �
O
C7;]
O
m O O N N
CD
o
°c
N
c
I)
lW
>+
W
<
0
m
O LO O In O
c
M Oo OCY) N N
O�
7i
N
'N
O
U
\ L1
:
paeogaaa=l jo �£
Q.
ani
Q �
in e=
M ;N C
OLL
; II
:II �
O
C7;]
O
m O O N N
CD
�-
c
.®
N Ea)
>+
W
C
c
ami
-a a)
� c
� O �
� c
75
8 0 °-
U)�
0
—aa)
-0 -ib U)
3 c
U- c.�
4) ai
z
CD
M co
O N N
O�
7i
N
'N
O
U
\ L1
:
paeogaaa=l jo �£
Q.
ani
Q �
in e=
M ;N C
OLL
; II
:II �
O
C7;]
O
m O O N N
Logs of Exploratory Test Pits
Appendix A: Logs of Exploratory Borings and Test Pits
Unified Soil Classification System; from American Society for Testing and Materials, 1985
FOR SAND AND GRAVELS
FOR SILTS AND CLAYS
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GROUP
GROUP NAME
VERY LOOSE
0-4
SYMBOL
LOOSE
4-10
GRAVELWELL-GRADED
10-30
GW
GRAVEL, FINE TO
VERY DENSE > 50
MORE THAN 50% OF
CLEAN GRAVEL
VERY SOFT
COARSE GRAVEL
GP
POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL
COARSE FRACTION
COARSE
RETAINED ON NO.4
GRAVEL WITH
GM
SILTY GRAVEL
GRAINED SOILS
SIEVE
FINES
GC
CLAYEY GRAVEL
MORE THAN 50%
> 32
RETAINED ON
SW
WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO
NO.200 SIEVE
SAND
CLEAN SAND
COARSE SAND
°
MORE THAN 50% OF
SP
POORLY -GRADED SAND
-
COARSE FRACTION
SM
SILTY SAND
PASSES NO.4 SIEVE
SAND WITH FINES
SC
CLAYEY SAND
SILT AND CLAY
INORGANIC
ML
SILT
LIQUID LIMIT LESS
CL
CLAY
FINE GRAINED
THAN 50
ORGANIC
OL
ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY
SOILS
MORE THAN 50%
MH
SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC
PASSES NO.200
SILT AND CLAY
INORGANIC
SILT
SIEVE
LIQUID LIMIT 50 OR
CH
CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT
MORE
CLAY
ORGANIC
OH
ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT
HIGHLY
ORGANIC SOILS
PT
PEAT
FOR SAND AND GRAVELS
FOR SILTS AND CLAYS
The Galli Group Figure ®7
STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE
DENSITY
(SPT) BLOWS/FT.
VERY LOOSE
0-4
LOOSE
4-10
MEDIUM DENSE
10-30
DENSE 30-50
VERY DENSE > 50
STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE
CONSISTENCY (SPT) BLOWS/FT.
VERY SOFT
0-2
SOFT
2-4
MEDIUM STIFF
4-8
STIFF
8-16
VERY STIFF
16-32
HARD
> 32
The Galli Group Figure ®7
Logs of Test Pits
7416 SW 176th Street.
Edmonds, Washington
fim
Depth Description
0" — 24" Loose, brown Silty SAND
with roots, debris. (FILL)
24" — 66" Loose, brown Silty
SAND, organics.
66" — 72" Gray, weathered,
medium -dense to dense,
very Silty SAND. Damp.
72" — 84" Light gray, dense, very
Silty SAND w. trace
gravel. Weathered
streaks.
Depth Description
0" — 48" Light brown, loose to
medium -dense, silty
SAND w. trace gravel
and organics.
48" — 72" Gray, medium -dense to
dense, weathered, very
Silty SAND w. trace
gravel.
72" - 110" Light gray, dense to very
dense, SAND with trace
Silt and gravel.
Depth Description
0" — 24" Loose, dark brown Silty
SAND with organics.
(TOPSOIL)
24" — 60" Medium -dense, orange -
brown Silty SAND w.
trace gravel.
60" - 72" Medium dense gray
SAND w. trace Silt and
gravels. Weathered
streaks.
72" — 84" Light gray, dense, Silty
SAND w. trace gravel.
The Galli Group Test Pit log Figure
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 19, 2011
To: Jen Machuga, Planner
From: Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
Subject: P1LN20110008, Weiss -Holmberg 2 -lot Short Plat
7416 –176th St SW
Engineering has reviewed and approved the preliminary short plat application for the Weiss -
Holmberg property at 7416 –176t' St SW. Preliminary approval shall not be interpreted to
mean approval of the improvements as shown on the preliminary plans.
Please find attached the Engineering Requirements for the subject development. The
applicant will be required to satisfy these requirements as a condition of short plat approval.
Once the Planning Division has approved the preliminary short plat, the applicant will be
required to submit revised civil engineering plans addressing all short plat conditions. Plans
are to be submitted to the Engineering Division. A civil plan review fee is to be paid at the
time of submittal. At this time, the review fee is $1000.
The following is provided as information only to assist with future civil construction plan
submittal.
— Drainage and utility systems serving private properties shall be installed on private
property and shall be privately owned and maintained. Easement and Maintenance
Provisions shall be provided on the face of the recording documents stating ownership and
maintenance responsibilities.
— The storm detention worksheet submitted does not provide for detention system sizing
consistent with the City's revised storm code, which became effective June 1, 2010.
Additionally, small site minimum requirements will need to be addressed and outlined
within the plan set. Please refer to Edmonds Community Development Code 18.30,
Stormwater Supplement to the Code, and Stormwater Handout E72 for additional
information.
Thank you.
City of Edmonds
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF EDMONDS
131 ' 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS WA 98020
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ' ENGINEERING DIVISION
REQUIREMENTS FOR SHORT PLATS
To: Planning Division File Number: PLN20110008
From: Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
Engineering Division
Date: July 1A.2011
Project: Holmberg 2-ktshort plat
Address: 7416-178thStSVV
pin2011 r_Roqmnts'071911 1of3
Required as a
Required as a
Requirement
Condition of
Condition of
Already
Subdivision
Building Permit
Satisfied
1. Right -of Way Dedication for Public Streets:
2. Public Street Improvements & Access
(Asphalt, curb, gutter and sidewalks):
a) Soundview Drive to be widened along property frontage to provide for a
minimum 12 -foot wide north bound lane as measured from centerline of
X
paved roadway to east edge of lane.
b) 176th St SW to be widened along property frontage to provide for a
X
minimum 20 -foot wide pavement section.
c) Curb and gutter and/or asphalt thickened edge to be installed as required
X
along property frontage on 176th St Sw & Soundview Drive.
d) Storm system improvements to be constructed as required along property
X
frontage on 176th St SW & Soundview Drive.
e) Cross slope of public road shall not exceed 2%
X
f) Lots I & 2 shall take access off 176th St SW.
X
I. Driveway curb cuts shall be constructed to meet City standards and
ADA requirements.
ii. Individual driveway access points shall meet sight distance
requirements set forth by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
3. Private Access Requirements & Improvements:
a) Lots I & 2 shall share a driveay access point off 176th St SW.
X
1. Private access/driveway shall be paved to 12 -feet in width, plus 18"
asphalt thickened edge or 6" extruded curb may be used to direct storm
!I. Slope of private access road and driveways shall not exceed 14% and
shall be noted as such on the civils.
ill. Cross slope of private access road shall not exceed 2%
b) Driveway entrance shall be provided to City standards
X
c) Provide asphalt or concrete driveway approach to Lot 2.
X
4. Street Turnaround:
a) Provide on-site turnaround for Lots I & 2.
X
pin2011 r_Roqmnts'071911 1of3
pin20110008-Holmberg-Engr_Regmnts-07.19.11 2 of 3
form revised 07.19.11 printed 7/19/2011
Required as a
Condition of
Subdivision
Required as a
Condition of
Building Permit
Requirement
Already
Satisfied
5. ; Easements
(City utilities, private access, other utilities):
a) Provide all easements as required - access, utility, etc.
X
b) Private access easement shall be 15 (fifteen) feet in width
X
hts
6. Street Lights:
N/A
7. Planting Strip:
a) N/A
X
8. Water System Improvements:
a) Public hydrant spacing shall meet requirements of ECDC 19.25.
X
b) Provide water service stub to each Lot
x
c) Connect to public water system.
X
X
d) Install storz adapter on existing fire hydrant, as required.
X
9. Sanitary Sewers stem Improvements:
a) Provide new 6" lateral within access/utility easement and individual side
sewers to each lot with 6" cleanout at each property line.
X
b) Provide 6" service lateral from City's sanitary sewer main to development
with 6" cleanout at the edge of right-of-way.
L Provide 4" side sewer to individual lots.
ii. Where sewer lateral is shared by more than one lot, it shall be 6".
X
c) Connect to public sewer system.
X
X
10.'`Stormwater System Improvements:
a) Provide a Stormwater Management Report and Site Plan that shows
compliance with ECDC 18.30, Stormwater Supplement and Department of
Ecology Stormwater Manual.
X
b) Construct privately owned and maintained storm drainage system sized to
provide adequate capacity for proposed future single family dwellings, and
associated impervious areas in accordance with ECDC 18.30.
L Stormwater system to be located on private property.
H. Construction of storm facility may be deferred to coincide with
construction of a single family residence on Lot 1 if the required short plat
improvements create less than 2000sf of impervious area and the site is
less than one acre in size.
X
X
G) Connect all new impervious surfaces to storm system as required.
X
X
d) Provide storm sewer stub to all proposed lots.
X
e) Connect to public storm system or manage stormwater on site if soils
allow.
X
f) Storm system improvements to be constructed as required along property
frontage on 176th St SW & Soundview Drive.
X
11. Underground Wiring (per Ord. 1387
a) Required for all new services.
X
X
12. Excavation and Grading'(per IBC
a) Submit a grading plan as part of engineered site plan.
X
X
b) Submit grading plan for foundations with building permit.
x
pin20110008-Holmberg-Engr_Regmnts-07.19.11 2 of 3
form revised 07.19.11 printed 7/19/2011
* Fee estimate only. Actual amount based on fees in effect at time of building permit issuance.
pin20110008-Holmberg-Engr_Regmnts-07.19.11 3 of 3
form revised 07.19.11 printed 7/19/2011
Required as a
Condition of
Subdivision
Required as a
Condition of
Building Permit
Requirement
Already
Satisfied
13 Signage per City Engineer):
a) Provide fire and aid address signage.
X
14. Survey` Monumentation`(per Ord., Sect.12.10.120):
a) N/A
15. As -built Drawings (per Ci!y Engineer):
a) Provide an as -built drawing of all street and utility improvements both in
.dwg format as well as a hard copy.
X
16. Other Requirements:
a) Plat showing lots, easements, legals, survey information
X
X
b) Legal documents for each lot
x
c) Field stake lot corners (by professional surveyor)
X
d) Field stake utility stubs at property lines
X
e) Clustered mailbox location per Postmaster
X
f) Maintenance agreements
X
g) Traffic Impact Analysis
X
17.'.Engineering `' Fees:
a) Storm development charge (access tract)
N/A
b) Storm system development charge
$428.00-
x
G) Sewer connection fee (each new lot)
$730.00 *
X
d) Water connection fee (each new lot)
$908.00 *
X
e) Water meter fee - 3/4" meter
$550.00 *
X
f) Traffic mitigation fee per each new SFR
$1,196.33 *
X
g) Short Plat review fee
$1,000.00 *
X
h) Inspection fee
TBD
X
* Fee estimate only. Actual amount based on fees in effect at time of building permit issuance.
pin20110008-Holmberg-Engr_Regmnts-07.19.11 3 of 3
form revised 07.19.11 printed 7/19/2011
CITY OF EDM DS ® PLANNING DIVISIcaN
REQUEST COMMENT FOR
,,
PW -Engineering Fire PW - Maintenance Parks & Rec. Building
El Treatment Plant 0 Economic Dev.
Project Number: PLN20110008
Applicant's Name: BARBARA WEISS HOLMBERG
Property Location: 7416 176TH ST. SW
Date of Application: 3/24/11 Date Form Routed: 3/25/11
Zoning: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -12)
Project Description: TWO LOT SUBDIVISION WITH MODIFICATION TO REAR SETBACK.
"PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTSDAYS OF
THIS FORM WAS ROUTED:
If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact:
Responsible Staff: JEN MACHUGA Ext. 1224
Name of Individual Submitting Comments: ��� to -74
Title: �� t� s -- Al "�'`� e��
I have reviewed this land use proposal
for my department and have
concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT
MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no
comments. My department may also
review this project during the building
permit process (if applicable) and
reserves the right to provide additional
comments at that time.
I have reviewed this land use proposal
for my department and have
concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY
DEPARTMENT, so I have provided
comments or conditions below or
attached.
Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed):
The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the
requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed):
Date: t 1
Signature:-
Phone/E-mail: —%
ATTACHMENT 15
CIl r OF EDMONDS - PLANNINGDIVISIvN
REQUEST FOR COMMENT FORM
El PW -Engineering El Fire PW - Maintenance 11 Parks & Rec. Building
Treatment Plant 11 Economic Dev.
Project Number: PLN20110008
Applicant's Name: BARBARA WEISS HOLMBERG «a
Property Location: 7416 176TH ST. SW A s • 2
Date of Application: 3/24/11 Date Form Routed: 3/25/11
Zoning: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -12)
Project Description: TWO LOT SUBDIVISION WITH MODIFICATION TO REAR SETBACK,
"PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE
THIS FORM WAS ,• DUE BY 4.7.11
If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact:
Responsible Staff: JEN MACHUGA Ext. 1224
Name of Individual Submitting Comments:
Title:
have reviewed this land use proposal
for my department and have
concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT
MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no
comments. My department may also
review this project during the building
permit process (if applicable) and
reserves the right to provide additional
comments at that time.
I have reviewed this land use proposal
for my department and have
concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY
DEPARTMENT, so I have provided
comments or conditions below or
attached.
Commens (please attach memo if additional space is needed):
The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the
requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed):
Date:
Signature:
Phone/E-mail:
ATTACHMENT 1
R
Date: June 13, 2011
To: Mr. Rod Wickham, RAD rad.designChotmail.com
From: Fire Marshal John J. Westfall 425.771.0213
Subject: PLN2011-0014 Weiss SFR behind 7416 176th St SW
This Review is conducted in accordance with 2009 IFC and Edmonds Community Development
Code. Fire Services provides the following comments:
1. Existing hydrants meet proper spacing requirements ECDC 19.25.055 C.
2. Existing driveway grade at 12% is accepted.
3. For information, flow-through design residential fire sprinkler system is required when new
dwelling living space (FIRE AREA) exceeds 3,000 s.f. ECDC 19.05.020 C.
4. For information, provide minimum combination water -service of one inch (1") meter and
one and one quarter inch (1 W) service line for each property; or show that domestic and
fire protection needs, when required, can be met with smaller service. General Facility
Charges are based upon domestic requirements only. For instance, up-sizing to one inch
(1 ") meter will be calculated to fees for a three quarter inch (3/4") connection. Equipment
will be charged by actual equipment costs.
5. Obtain approved building address from Development Services Department.
6. Post approved address on building minimum 4" letters on contrasting background.
Additionally, when view may be obscured from public street, provide address sign in
accordance with COE Engineering Standard Detail E8.3. See
httD://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/encs toc std details/PDF STDDETAILS/E8-3 St-
&-Adrss Sign-Model.pdf
City of Edmonds * Office of Fire Marshal
ATTACHMENT 1 i
cd 4,
cn
E
0 M
cu
CL cu
CD
ct
cn
c
0 NO
C)
0
0
(D
0 0
ul
u
0-
(D
U) E
< -0
L)
rf� a)
(D
C14
u A -
cn
cu
a)
0) 0 C14
C?
c)
CQ
-0
<
c- cu
0 0)
C14
E
0
m
0
75- co—
C'4
�z
+0,
L
0
0
c—
0
(D
G:3'
co C\l
as
N
(D
A, o O -cl
O
is
0
0
0
0
0
7�
0
cQ
E o
76
(D
0 4-4
(D
00
4--4
E
En 0 .- � 0
1:� d (D U
ai
0
>
0 , "
m o
bO
(D0
Ci
C:r
LU
Ci CU
Q)
Q�>
(D
-ff
-0
E 0
'cj (D ci
0
0-
(D (U
-
cr
cu
0
0
0
ID
ami
:t -f
CIO
E
cl�
0
ci�
Q�
C) C)
0-
2)
0 C14
E
(/)SO
>
0
r
N
cu
�
c;)
U)
O CL -2
:
to m
<
(D 0 U)
0
(D
Q
Cc)
0
0 "C�
0
cd
o
0
E
o m 0 = LL.
cn
CU
LLJ
-2 0 a)
F
> :F-:
cn
E U)
cl)cn
>
C)
C'4
1714
p P. cd
clqOM
C)O
CK3 (D
N
CIO
-0
0
cu
0 O
U 3-4 j, 0
r--
Q E cnC)
0
CL
<Si0
0
bD
C13
bp V)
cd(1)
;-I 4 4,
0
o
C�s bD *'
(13
<
CL
C-)
U)
0
0
<
-0
i
rn
CD
E
E
(1)
Q)
o
2!: m
m
cu 0
ATTACH ME NT 1 E
File No. PLN20110008
75 150 300
Feet
Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list.
On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties
located within 300 feet of the subject property.
s
Signat6re f Applicant q� Applicant's j\epresentative
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
a®® PRA .... °®®
✓J Zo
to o N®T,gRY
Notary Public in and for the State'of Wpshington PUBLIC
9 °
Oi
Residing at�'J
ATTACHMENT 1
PDS COMPANIES
PDS COMPANIES
DISCOVERY PRACTICE MANAGEMENT
00513600001701
00513600002302
INC 00700900000100
PO BOX 13519
PO BOX 13519
4281 KATELLA AVE UNIT 111
ARLINGTON , TX 76094
ARLINGTON , TX 76094
LOS ALAMITOS , CA 90720
OLTMAN LYNN P
GONG BRADLEY & PAULA
WALKER CODY C & ANN E
00513600000903
00456000001500
00456000001600
7314176TH S W
7307176TH ST SW
7315176TH ST SW
EDMONDS , WA 98020
EDMONDS , WA 98026
EDMONDS , WA 98026
ARCHER JEFFREY T
DIZARD GARY R
MCKEEVER LADONNA K
00513100014106
00513600000800
00513600000904
7401176TH ST SW
7231 SOUNDVIEW LN
7308176TH ST SW
EDMONDS', WA 98026
EDMONDS , WA 98026
EDMONDS , WA 98026
COLE MARY K
HARVILLE THOMAS P
HOFFMAN MARSHALL A
00513600001001
00513600001002
00513600001003
7313 SOUNDVIEW DR
7321 SOUNDVIEW DR
7411 SOUND VIEW DR
EDMONDS , WA 98026
EDMONDS , WA 98026
EDMONDS , WA 98026
FELDKAMP LUCY & GRIGGS GERALD
EIKE BRIAN K & SUSAN
JOHNSON LLOYD P & MARIANNE
00513600001102
00513600001103
00513600001104
7400 SOUNDVIEW
7324 SOUNDVIEW DR
7320 SOUNDVIEW DR
EDMONDS , WA 98026
EDMONDS , WA 98026
EDMONDS , WA 98026
BAIER STEPHEN C & DEBORA G
HUNTER DIANA H
MUSTARI MICHAEL & SHARYN K
00513600001300
00513600001301
00513600001400
7422 SOUNDVIEW DR
7420 SOUND VIEW DR
7426 SOUND VIEW DR
EDMONDS , WA 98026
EDMONDS , WA 98026
EDMONDS , WA 98026
THOMPSON DONALD L
HOFFMAN MARSHALL
WEISS-HOLMBERG BARBARA
00513600001500
00513600001501
00513600001600
7413 SOUNDVIEW DRIVE
7411 SOUND VIEW DR
7416176TH ST SW
EDMONDS , WA 98026
EDMONDS , WA 98026
EDMONDS , WA 98026
PARSONS JACK L & PAULA M
CARTER ALICIA D & SAMUEL D
CODER NATHAN & HEUU
00513600001700
00513600001801
00513600001900
7520176TH ST SW
17619 76TH AVE W
17629 76TH AVE W
EDMONDS , WA 98026
EDMONDS , WA 98026
EDMONDS , WA 98026
ADAMS JOHN T & EVELYN E
HARVI LLE JOHN D & JANET C
TROKA PETER J & SANDRA L
00513600002000
00700900000300
00700900000400
17707 76TH W
7415 176TH ST SW
17527 76TH AVENUE WEST
EDMONDS , WA 98026
EDMONDS , WA 98026
EDMONDS , WA 98026
SHEBLY MARK A
BLACK PATRICIA T
CLEMENT BRUCE P & CARLA P
00713100000300
00713100000400
00513600001802
7312175TH ST SW
7229176TH ST SW
17623 76TH AVE W
EDMONDS , WA 98026
EDMONDS , WA 98026
EDMONDS , WA 98026-5401
File No.: „1 111:
• •ps_Weiss-Holmberg
On the 14th day of July, 2011, the attached Notice of Application and
Comment Period was posted as prescribed by Ordinance and in any event
where applicable on or near the subject property.
I, Jennifer Machuga, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of
the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 22nd day of
September, 2011, at Edmonds, Washington.
Signed:
{BFP747892.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }
ATTACHMENT 2(
File No.: PLN20110008
Applicant: Weiss -Holmberg
On the 14th day of July, 2011, the attached Notice of Application and Comment Period was
mailed by the City to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the
above -referenced application. The names of which were provided by the applicant.
I, Jennifer Machuga, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 22nd day of September, 2011, at Edmonds,
Washington.
Signed:
{BFP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }
ATTACHMENT 21
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH
OF Ox,p4
/.l'C. 139J
CITY OF EDMONDS
NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
NAME OF APPLICANT: Rod Wickham on behalf of Barbara
Weiss -Holmberg
DATE OF APPLICATION: 3/24/2011
DATE OF COMPLETENESS: 6/30/2011
DATE OF NOTICE: 7/14/2011
FILE NO.: PLN20110008
PROJECT LOCATION: 7416 —176th St. SW, Edmonds, WA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Application to subdivide one lot into
two lots, with a modification request to allow for a reduced rear
setback of 10' from the southernroperty line of Lot 2. The site is
zoned Single -Family Residential RS -12).
REQUESTED PERMIT: Short Subdivision. Information on this ap-
plication can be viewed at the City of Edmonds Development Ser-
vices Dept., 121 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020.
OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: Unknown.
REQUIRED STUDIES: Geotechnical Report.
EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENTS: Critical Areas Checklist.
COMMENT PERIOD: Comments due by July 28 2011 Any per-
son has the right to comment duringthe public comment period,
receive notice, and request a copy of the decision on the applica-
tion. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have
standing to initiate an appeal
CITY CONTACT: Jen Machuga, Associate Planner
425)771-0220
PUBLISHED: 7/14/2011
S.S.
The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of
THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of
Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general
circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal
newspaper by order of the Superior Courtof Snohomish County and that the notice
Notice of Development Application
Rod Wickman on behalf of Barbara Weiss -Holmberg
a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in
supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and
times, namely:
July 14, 2011
and that said newspaper was regularly
1 J l f �-
Subscribed and sworn to before me
day of July, 2,411
Notary Pt in and e State
County.
Account Name: City of Edmonds Account Number: 101416
to its subscribers during all of said period
Principal Clerk
® 4q®as®53434%9q
ton, res rplotromssAt
ts} ®
e/l �tl°�,� ®A��
Order Number: 0001743770
ATTACHMENT 2e
To: City of Edmonds, Planning Department; Jen Machuga
Re: Comments on File Number PLN2011008
From: Interested Property Owners on Soundview Drive
1. Easement recorded July 12, 1957 extends the entire length of lots 1 & 2 and beyond.
2. Lot 2 has no survey markers on the ground.
3. Existing 10 foot sewer easement on lot 1 appears to be in error.
4. Reduced setback of 15 feet is a cost savings to the developer, but will be significantly
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare to the property or improvement in the
adjacent vicinity.
5. Proposed residence appears to be encroaching on 10 foot easement #1244505.
6. The properties adjacent to the proposed construction enjoy a quiet setting and would be
adversely affected by a reduced setback of 15 feet.
Donald and Fe n Thompson, Owners
7413 Soundview Drive, Edmonds 98026
Marshall Hoffman, Owner
7411 Soundview Drive, Edmonds 98026
Thomas and Lauralee Harville, Owners
7321 Soundview Drive, Edmonds 98026
t
7 2 s r-?- c %/
JL 2 2011
E
date
date
date
ATTACHMENT 2%�
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
7314 176TH ST. SW EDMONDS, WA 98026
(425) 743-6324
July 24, 2011 JUL 271 2011
City of Edmonds . PLANNNG DEPT
Development Services Department
121 5t" Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: PLN20110008
I am the property owner abutting the east property line of the proposed project.
Following are my concerns:
1. Vagueness of the material available online regarding the scope of the project and
questions and answers from the city.
2. Prior illegal building and excavation into the toe of the hill and their intentions of
further damage to a slide area.
3. What are,the intentions of the application to modify the set back from the
8outh'ern `property line of Lot 2?
4. No details submitted for existing easements and property lines.
5. By proceeding with this plan it would be further encroachment on the right of way
deemed by all the property owners that there would be an easement of 10 feet
north and south of each property owners that was agreed upon on the original
plat. This agreement should be honored by all property owners. The property
owner of Lot 1 proposing Lot 2 has already encroached upon the right of way and
blocked access to other property owners via his building projects and had
personally threatened to sue me if I wanted to open up access to my own
property which is on the right of way. I don't believe the variance should be
allowed.
I would appreciate m'y concerns being addressed
application.
Sincerely,
6;1a�''�
ynn P. Oltman
prior to the decision of this
ATTACHMENT 24