12-0858 Plan Review Comments #2.pdfCITY OF EDMONDSi ® 121 5`h AVENUE NORTH ® EDMONDS, WA 98020
PHONE: 425.771.0220 • FAX: 425.771.0221 ® WEB: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING • BUILDING
November 20, 2012
May 30, 2013
James Thomas, Architect
jthomas@arch-design.net
RE: PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS #2 FOR PLAN CHECK # 2012-0858
NEW SFR AT 15500 75TH PLACE WEST
Dear Mr. Thomas,
I have again reviewed the above building permit application for the Planning Division. Before I
can sign off, the following information needs to be clarified. Updated comments from May 30,
2013 are in underlined italics. When responding, please include a cover letter describing how
each of the comments is being addressed:
1. Driveway/bridge: The proposed driveway/bridge approach is greater than 3' above
original grade within the required 25' street setback. Unfortunately, this design is not
code -compliant. Structures may not be taller than 3' within a required setback unless
excepted in ECDC 16.20.040 or 21.90.150. There are two options for moving forward:
applying for a variance to reduce the 25' street setback to allow placement of the
bridge as proposed, or redesigning the project to accommodate a code -compliant
driveway approach. See ECDC 20.75 for code requirements about variances and or
ECDC 18.80.060 for further requirements for driveways.
Redesigning or relocating the driveway and residence may result in changes
throughout the site; keep in mind the critical area mitigation sequencing criteria in
ECDC 23.40.120 as you consider any changes. When resubmitting (or with the
variance application, as appropriate), please include a cover letter describing how the
mitigation sequencing criteria were evaluated relative to the selected design. Finally,
any changes would have to be addressed by the geotechnical engineer.
Below are additional comments which should be considered during the redesign of
the project.
Addressed - A variance was obtained (PLN20120047) reducing the street setback for
the bridge/driveway and eastern steps.
2. Grading: Because a portion of the project site is within 200' of the Ordinary High
Water Mark (OHWM) of Puget Sound, the Shoreline Master Program of Chapter 23.10
ECDC applies. The site is designated Suburban Residential I in the code. A single
family residence in this area is exempt from a Substantial Development Permit if the
unit is owner -built in accordance with WAC 173.27.040(g); however, grading for
appurtenances in excess of 250 cubic yards would be subject to permit if it occurs
within 200' of the OHWM.
As proposed, grading is shown to be 740 cy of cut and 370 cy of fill. It is unknown if
the grading will be inside or outside the 200' boundary of the OHWM and if it would
be for the main house or appurtenances. As a result, please update the site plan
(SP1.0) and the related engineering plans (Sheet C1) to show the 200' distance from
the OHWM. Call out the amount of grading occurring both inside and outside the 200'
boundary on the engineering plans and describe whether the purpose of the grading is
for the house or the garage, driveway, decks, utilities, or fences, etc.
Addressed on May 3, 2013 Site Plan — a separate Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit is not required.
3. Structural lot coverage: On the site plan, please provide a structural lot coverage
calculation for the proposal, breaking out the individual items contained in the
calculation. ECDC 21.15.110, "(cooverage means the total ground coverage of all
buildings or structures on a site measured from the outside of external walls or
supporting members or from a point two and one-half feet in from the outside edge of
a cantilevered roof, whichever covers the greatest area."
Not Addressed. Please update the Site Plan accordingly. In this case, include the
house, garage, western deck and the elevated portion of the bridge/driveway.
4. Height calculations: Please move corners B and C of the height rectangle slightly to
the west to enclose the dining room bump out. Make any adjustments necessary to
the height calculations on the site plan as well as the building plan elevation sheets
(A1.0 and A1.1). Also on the elevations, please show the lines of average original
grade, proposed elevation, and maximum allowed height for the project.
Partially Addressed. Corners A and 8 need to be moved slightly to the south about 3'
to be adiacent to the north wall of the building. Make any adjustment necessary to
the height calculations on the site plan and building plan elevation sheets 01.0 and
A1.1). Also on the elevations, please show the lines of average original grade, propose
height, and maximum allowed height for the project.
Setback encroachments: Two proposed setback encroachments do not appear to
meet code requirements: a small section of eave at the northeast corner of the house
and the eastern steps and entry area. For eaves, according to ECDC 16.20.040.13,
"eaves and chimneys may project into a required setback not more than 30 inches."
The eave at the northeast corner of the house appears to project into the setback
more than 30 inches.
For porches, ECDC 16.20.040.0 states, "Uncovered and unenclosed porches, steps,
patios, and decks may project into a required setback not more than one-third of the
required setback, or four feet, whichever is less; provided, that they are no more than
30 inches above ground level at any point." The eastern steps and entry are within
the required 25' street setback area. As a result, the steps and porch may only
encroach 4' into the setback (using the lesser of 4' and 8.3'). Please verify and revise
the site and building plans accordingly.
If the variance course is chosen for the driveway/bridge, these encroaching features
could also be included.
Addressed on the May 3, 2013 Site Plan. The eaves satisfy the setback requirements
and the eastern steps were included with the street setback variance (PLN20120047).
6. Tree retention and mitigation plan:
a. Trees 347, 349 and 385 appear to be on the property line with County Park
adjacent to the north. Please submit signed confirmation from Snohomish
County that removal of these three trees is acceptable and whether any specific
replacement is required.
Not Addressed. Please confirm with the County what to do about these three
trees. Logan Daniels from Snohomish County Parks and Recreation commented
on the associated variances and may be able to assist with this issue (425-388-
6600). The comment letter was included as Exhibit 18 in the Hearina Examiner's
decision of March 1, 2013.
b. Tree 320 is identified as to be removed on Sheet L2.0. However, the tree matrix
on the same sheet indicates that the tree has good vigor and average structure,
despite having co -dominant leaders. It would seem that this tree might be a
good candidate for retention with appropriate maintenance and/or bracing.
Not Addressed.
c. It is assumed that those living and dead trees to be removed from within the
identified clearing limits will be removed from the site. Tree 381 is dead but falls
outside the clearing limit. Confirm whether this tree will be left onsite or
removed in accordance with ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b.iii.
Not Addressed.
d. Sheet 1-1.0 shows 21 replacement trees as opposed to the 22 described in the
mitigation calculations.
Partially Addressed. Letter dated March 29, 2013 from Harmsen & Associates
indicates that 22 replacement trees will be installed. The letter also mentions
that another tree, #253, also must be removed and so an additional replacement
tree would be installed to bring the total to 23. However, Tree 253 appears to
straddle the south property line in a way similar to Trees 347, 349 and 385 on the
north property line. Please submit signed confirmation from the property owner
to the south (Degan) that removal of Tree 253 is acceptable.
7. Geotechnical setbacks: On the site plan, please show the top of slope and the
setbacks as determined by Nelson Geotechnical Associates on page 8 of their July 15,
2011 report. It should be noted that separate buffer and setback distances are
required in accordance with ECDC 23.80.070 (buffers) and ECDC 23.40.280 (setbacks),
unless otherwise provided.
Addressed on the Mav 3 Site Plan.
8. Clearing limits: The clearing limits shown on Sheets C1 and L2.0 do not match. Please
update the limits on L2.0 to show the location of the proposed drainage pipe.
Addressed on Sheets C1 and L2.0 dated May 3, 2013.
All referenced code sections are available at the following website:
http://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/Edmondsnt.html.
Please submit three copies of your updated site plan (one being reduced size of 11 x 17 or
smaller) and two sets of any updated sheets of the building plans. Please make all
submittals to a Permit Coordinator, Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 4:30 pm (8:00 to
12:00 only on Wednesdays). If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 771-
0220.
Sincerely,
Mike Clugston, AICP
Associate Planner
4