Loading...
PLN20130020 3rd Request for Additional Info 3-20-14.pdf1-9 L. • 11 • , J 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 ® Fax: 425.771.0221 ® Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ® PLANNING DIVISION March 20, 2014 Mr. Rob Michel P.O. Box 1215 Lynnwood, WA 98046 SUBJECT: 3RD REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR PROPOSED SHORT PLAT LOCATED AT 7231 SOUNDVIEW LANE FILE NO. PLN20130020 Dear Mr. Michel: Thank you for submitting revised preliminary short plat plans, revised preliminary development plans, a drainage report, and three letters from Geospectrum Consultants Inc. (dated 2/21/14, 3/13/14, and 3/14/14) for the above referenced short plat application on March 14, 2014. Upon review of these materials, it was found that additional information/clarification is necessary. The comments from staff s December 23, 2013 letter that need additional clarification are included below together with additional comments in response to your resubmittal of March 14, 2014. Please provide responses to the following items at your earliest convenience so that staff s review of the proposal can continue: 1. Please respond to the comments from Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager, provided in the attached memorandum dated March 20, 2014. If you have any questions on Ms. McConnell's comments, you may contact her directly at (425) 771-0220 or Jeanie.MCConnellgedmondswa. og_v. 2. 12123113 Comment - When providing revised preliminary development plans in response to Ms. McConnell 's comments above, please ensure that the property dimensions indicated on the preliminary developrnentplans match those of the preliminary subdivision plans (the preliminary development plans submitted on November 19, 2013 did not reflect the revisions made to the property dimensions with the resubmittal of the preliminary subdivision plans). 3/20/14 Comment — The above comment was not addressed with your March 14, 2014 resubmittal. The preliminary development plans still indicate the incorrect proposed property dimensions. After your surveyor makes the corrections requested below, please provide that revised survey to your engineer to be utilized for the preliminary development plans. 3. 12123113 Comment — Staffs initial request for additional information sent on May 24, 2013 requested several items to be revised on the preliminary subdivision plans by your surveyor; however, not all of these items were fully addressed. Please have your surveyor revise the plans as necessary to meet the requirements of ECDC 20.75.060 and to address the following: a. 12123113 Comment - It was noted that some of the distances and bearings of the proposed lots and access tract were changed with the resubmittal; however, the proposed legal descriptions were not updated to reflect these changes. Have your surveyor verify and correct all proposed legal descriptions in order to be consistent with those indicated on the survey snap. 3/20/14 Comment — Upon review of the scaled preliminary short plat plans, it was noted that the dimension of the western property line of proposed Lot C is labeled incorrectly. This line is labeled as being 80.08 feet; however, it scales at approximately 77 feet. Please have your surveyor verify all distances and bearings indicated on the preliminary short plat plans and make all necessary corrections not only to the preliminary plans, but also to the proposed legal descriptions. Also, any necessary corrections to the proposed lot areas must be made, keeping in mind that all proposed lots must be a minimum of 12,000 net square feet. b. 12123113 Continent — It was noted that the proposed lot areas were updated to reflect the revisions to the proposed lot dimensions, but the 80 foot diameter lot width circles were removed from the plans, so staff is unable to verb if these changes to the lot dimensions impacted compliance with the lot width requirements applicable to the RS-12 zone. Please ask your surveyor to re -draw the 80 foot diameter lot width circles within each of the proposed lots and make any necessary changes so that all three of the proposed lots comply with the rninitnum required 80 foot lot width. 3/20/14 Comment — As discussed above, the dimension of the western property line of proposed Lot C is labeled incorrectly and all distances of the proposed property lines must be verified by your surveyor. In making any corrections to the proposed property dimensions, it will need to be shown on the survey that all proposed lots will still comply with the minimum 80-foot lot width requirement of the RS-12 zone. If necessary, the locations of the proposed property lines will need to be shifted in order for each lot to be a minimum of 80 feet in width. c. Addressed. d. Addressed. e. Addressed. f. Addressed. g. 12123113 Comment— Staffs initial requestfor additional information sent on May 24, 2013 requested that your surveyor indicate the tops and toes of the slopes for all Landslide Hazard Areas as defined in ECDC 23.80 (slopes in excess of 40 percent) present on/adjacent to the subject site. It was noted that both a top of slope and a toe of slope line were indicated on the preliminary subdivision plans submitted on November 19, 2013; however, these lines are not indicated in the correct locations. Refer to ECDC 23.80.020 for guidance on determining the top and toe of a landslide hazard area. If you need additional assistance, you may work with your geotechnical engineer on determining the top and toe. Please update the top and toe of slope lines indicated on the preliminary subdivision plans in order to correctly reflect the requirements of ECDC 23.80.020. 3/20/14 Comment — Thank you for providing a letter from Geospectrum Consultants, Inc. dated February 21, 2014 addressing the locations of Landslide Hazard Areas on and adjacent to the project site. It was noted, however, that although the "steep slope area limits" were added to Sheet 3 of the preliminary short plat plans, this sheet still includes the incorrect "top of slope" and "toe of slope" delineations. In order to avoid confusion, please have your surveyor remove the incorrect "top of slope" and "toe of slope" lines from Sheet 3 while retaining the "steep slope area limits." Page 2 of 4 Additionally, the February 21, 2014 letter from Geospectrum Consultants, Inc. states "there is a moderate risk of future shallow slope failures over time within the shallow weathered soils and fill on the slope surface" and "sloughing of the slope should not affect the structures provided that all foundations are supported ..." Although this letter indicates that any sloughing should not affect structures on the subject site, please have Geospectrum Consultants, Inc. verify that any such sloughing will not have an impact on adjacent properties by specifically addressing the standards of ECDC 23.80.060. Additionally, this letter includes three recommended minimum slope -foundation setback criteria; however, these criteria are unclear. Please have Geospectrum Consultants, Inc. provide additional explanation/clarification of these three criteria (a figure may also be helpful). h. 12123113 Continent — The revised preliminary short plat plans and the preliminary development plans submitted on November 19, 2013 reference a scale of I " = 20'; however, these plans are not printed at such a scale. Staff needs to be able to scale off these plans in order to ensure compliance with applicable site development standards, such as ininimum required lot width, setbacks, etc. As such, please be sure that the revised plans addressing the above comments are printed at an actual scale of I " = 20'. 3/20/14 Comment — The preliminary short plat plans submitted on March 14, 2014 were printed to scale; however, the preliminary development plans were not printed to scale. Although the scale bar on the preliminary development plans is correct, the drawing itself is not at this scale. Please revise as necessary. i. 12123114 Continent — Please submit two full-sized and one reduced (II " by 17" or smaller) copy of the signed and updated survey reflecting the above changes. 3/20/14 Comment — Reduced copies were not included with your resubmittal. Please submit reduced copies (I I" by 17" or smaller) of all large -format plans including the preliminary short plat plans, preliminary development plans, and preliminary vegetation management plan. 4. Addressed. 12/23/13 Comment — Thank you for providing a preliminary native vegetation plan indicating which portions of the site will be retained/established as native vegetation to account for the 30 percent by area requirement of ECDC 23.90.040. An actual plan detailing what vegetation will be retained/established and how the native vegetation areas will be maintained will be required at the time of civil/final review; however, for the preliminary short plat review, it needs to be shown that there is sufficient space on the subject site to comply with this code requirement. It was noted that the property dimensions indicated on the native vegetation plan submitted on November 19, 2013 do not match those of the preliminary subdivision plans. Additionally, the native vegetation plan states a required area of 11,542 square feet, but a proposed area of only 11,484 square feet. Therefore, please update the native vegetation plan to reflect the actual proposed property dimensions as indicated on the preliminary subdivision plans, and increase the total area provided within the native vegetation areas so that it adds up to a minimum of 11,542 square feet. 3120114 Comment — The above comment was not addressed with your March 14, 2014 resubinittal, as a revised preliminary native vegetation plan was not included with your resubinittal. Page 3 of 4 6. New Comment — In order to verify that all of the above comments have been addressed, please provide a written letter stating how each of the above comments have been addressed, including those comments of Ms. McConnell's memo. Please submit the requested information to the Planning Division 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 June 18, 2014. If you have any questions, you are welcome to contact me at (425) 771-0220 or Jen.Machu. @edmondswa.gov. Sincerely, Development Services Department - Planning Division Jen Machuga Associate Planner Enclosure: Memorandum from Jeanie McConnell dated March 20, 2014 Cc: File No. PLN20130020 Page 4 of 4 MEMORANDUM Date: March 20, 2014 To: Rob Michel From: Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Subject: PLN20130020, Soundview Lane 3-lot Short Plat 7231 Soundview Lane The comments provided below are based upon review of the resubmitted preliminary development plan for the subject short plat. Not all of the comments from December 12, 2013 have been addressed. Please provide a written response to each of the outstanding comments below and revise and resubmit plans accordingly. Please note, after receiving preliminary short plat approval from the Planning Division, a complete set of civil engineering plans will need to be submitted to the City Engineering Division for review and approval prior to recording. March 20, 2014 — Thank you for providing updated geotech responses/comments in review of the current civil construction plans. Several recommendations have been provided throughout the report that should be incorporated into the civil design. As the geotech has indicated feasibility approval, the City will look for confirmation that these items have been addressed during the civil plan review phase of the project. At this time, nothing further is needed from the applicant regarding the geotech comments. December 12, 2013 — Thank you for providing a geotech report. The report states "Our office should review the final storm water system to evaluate potential impacts on down gradient slopes and structures". Please note, the geotechs letter of project concurrence will be required with the final design and civil plan submittal for this project. 412412013 comment - Provide a geotech report that addresses placement of homes, proposed grading, and proposed storm system improvements. 2. ok 3. ok 4. ok 5. ok 6. ok 7. March 20, 2014 — Comment not addressed. City of Edmonds December 12, 2013 — On Sheet 3 of the civils, please add a note next to the Sound View Lane cross section (similar to the residential access detail) that states how many homes are being accessed off Sounview Lane. 41412013 comment - Clearly show existing road/driveway limits and note on plans how many homes are currently served off this road section. 8. A 9. March 20, 2014 — Comment not addressed. December 12, 2013 — Please revise plans to address this comment. 41412013 comment Please clarify that the electrical feed for the subject development will be placed underground. Show the utility pole from which the service will be provided. 10. March 20, 2014 — Comment not addressed. It appears as though the utility layer may have been turned off? December 12, 2013 — Please revise plans to address this comment. 41412013 comment - Show the location of all existing and proposed utility lines (power, phone, cable, gas), water mains and water service lines adjacent to or within the proposed subdivision. Thank you.