Loading...
S-04-122 staff report.pdfInC.189v Date: 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwwdedmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning ® Building ® Engineering March 8, 2005 GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR To: Higa Burkholder Assoc. LLC Darla Reese 1721 Hewitt Ave. #401 Everett, WA 98021 Subject: S-2004-122 and S-2004-123 Transmitting Planning Division Findings, Conclusions, and Decision For Your Information: X As you requested: For your file: Comment: (Vote attachments: X Cc: Talbot Partners, LLC Stacy and Eric Heath Sincerely, Diane Cunningham, Administrative Assistant Incorporated Au'qust 11, 1890 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS,1 DECISION Date: March 4, 2005 File: S-2004-122 Applicant: Talbot Partners, LLC 04122sr.DOC / January 12,2001 / Staff Report Section Page I. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................2 A. Application...............................................................................................................................................2 B. Decision................................................................................................................................................... 2 II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................... 3 A. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance........................................................................................... 3 B. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan...............................................................................................4 C. Compliance with the Zoning Code........................................................................................................... 6 D. Compliance with the Flood Plan Management Provisions....................................................................... 6 E. Environmental Assessment: ..................................................................................................................... 6 F. Critical Areas Review: ............................................................................................................................. 6 G. Comments: ............................................................................................................................................... 6 III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS..........................................................................7 A. Request for Reconsideration.................................................................................................................... 7 B. Appeals.................................................................................................................................................... 7 C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals......................................................................................... 7 IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL.....................................................................................................7 V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR..................................................................................7 VI. APPENDICES.....................................................................................................................7 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD......................................................................................................8 04122sr.DOC / January 12,2001 / Staff Report Talbot Partners, LLC File No. S-2004/122 Page 2 of 8 I. INTRODUCTION A. Application 1. Applicant: Talbot Partners, LLC 2. Site Location: 8022 Cyrus Pl. (see Attachment 1). 3. RRec uest: To divide 1 lot with a total area of approximately 77,291 square feet (1.77 acres) into 3 lots (see Attachment 2). 4. Review Process: Following the Comment Period, Planning Staff makes an administrative decision. 5. Major Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.50.020, site development standards for the Community Business (BC) zone. b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Title 18, public works requirements. c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.1513, Critical Areas. d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.75, subdivision requirements. e. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.95, staff review requirements. B. Decision Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Attachments and Exhibits submitted with the application and during the comment period, the following is the recommendation of the City of Edmonds Planning Division: The Subdivision should be APPROVED with the following conditions: 1. Prior to recording the applicant must complete the following requirements: a) Civil plans must be approved prior to recording. In completing the civil plans you must address the following: (1) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required prior to Recording" on Attachment 4. (2) A split rail fence or another style acceptable to the City along with signage shall be installed along the edge of the Critical Area buffer (10 feet north of the top of the Steep Slope Hazard Area). b) Submit copies of the recording documents to the City for approval. These documents shall have the following information included: (1) 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 5-2004- 122." (2) Include on the plat all required information, including owner's certification, hold harmless agreement, and staff's approval block. (3) If setbacks are included in the final plat document, a statement shall be added to the face of the map which reads "Setbacks shown for reference only and vest no right." (4) Retain on the plat map the top of the Steep Slope Hazard Area and its buffer. Add a statement to the plat that states the Steep Slope Hazard Area and its buffers shall be reserved as a native growth area subject to development restrictions as provided for in the City's Critical Areas Ordinance. Also, any building permit submitted for Lot 3 will require a 04122sr.DOC / January 12,2001 / Staff Report Talbot Partners, LLC File No. S-2004/122 Page 3 of 8 geotechnical report that confirms the foundation type and construction practices that should be used for construction adjacent to a steep slope area. (Applicants are now responsible for recording their own documents once they have been approved and signed by the City.) 2. After recording the plat, the applicant must complete the following: a) Provide the City Planning Division with two copies of the recorded plat, with the recording number written on them. b) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required with Building Permit" on Attachment 4. II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance 1. Environmental Resources a. On this site, the topography and natural vegetation are considered to be environmental resources. The subdivision chapter states, 20.75.085, that a proposed subdivision should be designed to minimize significant adverse impacts. It also states that grading should be minimized by sharing driveways and making sure that road, house and lot placements relate to the topography. This subdivision is proposing three lots which will share a driveway with three additional lots that are being proposed on the adjacent lot to the west. The most sensitive and undisturbed area of the site is the Perrinville Creek ravine that runs along the south edge of the property. No development is proposed for this area. In fact, the applicant, consistant with the Critical Areas ordinance, is proposing to protect this area with a Native Growth Protection Easement. To ensure that this proposal is followed through in the final approval, it is appropriate to add the following condition on this subdivision: 1. The top of the steep slope area shall be identified on the recorded map. A statement should be made on the face of the plat that states the Steep Slope Hazard Area and its buffers shall be reserved as a native growth area subject to development restrictions as provided for in the City's Critical Areas Ordinance. 2. Lot and Street Layout a. This criteria requires staff to find that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance and also that the lots would ultimately be buildable. Based on a review of the project and the analysis in this section staff agrees that a three lot short -plat is a reasonable use of the property. Because the property is zoned RS -20 all bulk standards referenced in this report will be RS -20 standards. Lot sizes and dimensions: Required Proposed Proposed Req. Lot Proposed Lot Area Net sq, ft Gross sq. ft Width Lot Width Lot 1 20,000 20,547 sq. ft. 24,465 sq, ft. 100' Approx. 100 Feet Lot 2 20,000 20,355 sq. ft. 22,152 sq. ft. 100' Approx. 100 Feet Lot 3 20,000 30,510 sq, ft. 30,669 sq. ft. 100' Approx. 100 Feet C. Setbacks: The RS -20 zone requires street setbacks of 25 feet, side setbacks totaling 35 feet or more with no side less than 10 feet and a rear setback of 25 feet. Lot 2 will need to comply with these setbacks. Lot 3 will be considered an interior lot with only side setbacks required. 04122sr.DOC / January 12,2001 / Staff Report Talbot Partners, LLC File No. S-2004/122 Page 4 of 8 Corner Lots: Lot I will be considered a corner lot requiring a 25 foot setback from the north and the west property lines. All remaining setbacks will be considered side setbacks and may be 10 feet from the property lines. d. Because the setbacks shown on the proposed plat do not comply with the above described setbacks, the setbacks should either be elimitated from the final plat or they should be corrected to reflect above section c. If the applicant chooses to include setback lines with the plat, the following condition should be added to the decision: 1. A statement shall be added to the face of the map which reads "Setbacks shown for reference only and vest no right." 3. Dedications a. See City Engineer's Report (Attachment 4). 4. Improvements a. See City Engineer's Report (Attachment 4). 5. Flood Plain Management a. This project is not in a FEMA designated Flood Plain. B. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan has the following stated goals and policies for Residential Development and development within areas of sensitive soils and topography, both of which appear to apply to this project. Residential Development B. Goal. High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic consideration, in accordance with the following policies: 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. B.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: B.S.c Sable property values must not be threatened b view, traffic or land use encroachments. B.S.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. 04122sr.DOC / January 12,2001 / Staff Report Talbot Partners, LLC File No. S-2004/122 Page 5 of 8 Soils and Topography B. Goal. Future development in areas of steep slope and potentially hazardous soil conditions should be based on site development which preserves the natural site characteristics in accordance with the following policies: B.2. Streets and access ways should be designed to conform to the natural topography, reduce runoff and minimize grading of the hillside. C. Goal. Development on steep slopes or hazardous soil conditions should preserve the natural features of the site, in accordance with the following policies: C.1. Grading and Filling. C.1.a. Grading, filling, and tree cutting shall be restricted to building pads, driveways, access ways and other impervious surfaces. C.1.b. Grading shall not jeopardize the stability of any slope, or of an adjacent property. C.1.c. Only minimal amounts of cut and fill on hillsides exceeding 15% slope should be permitted so that the natural topography can be preserved. Fill shall not be used to create a yard on steeply sloped property. C.1.d. Fill and excavated dirt shall not be pushed down the slope. C.2. Building Construction. C.2.a. Buildings on slopes of 15% or greater shall be designed to cause minimum disruption to the natural topography. C.2.a. Retaining walls are discouraged on steep slopes. If they are used they should be small and should not support construction of improvements which do not conform to the topography. C.2.a. Water detention devices shall be used to maintain the velocity of runoff at predevelopment levels. C.3. Erosion Control. C.3.a. Temporary measures shall be taken to reduce erosion during construction. C.3.b. Natural vegetation should be preserved wherever possible to reduce erosion and stabilize slopes, particularly on the downhill property line. C.3.c. Slopes should be stabilized with deep rooted vegetation and mulch, or other materials to prevent erosion and siltation of drainage ways. Compliance with the Residential Development goals and policies: Generally, staff feels this project is consistant with these goals. Compliance with the Soils and Topography goals and policies: City has no major concern over the ability for a future development to comply with these goals and policies relating to soils and topography. There is more than enough room left on the lots to allow for appropriate development without impacting the steep slope areas. Also, the City's Critical Areas ordinance will control what, if anything, will be allowed in that portion of the site. For these reasons, the condition proposed in section II.A.1 is further justified. 04122sr.DOC / January 12,2001 / Staff Report Talbot Partners, LLC File No. S-2004/122 Page 6 of 8 C. Compliance with the Zoning Code Staff finds this project to comply with the provisions of the Zoning Code, see section II.A.2.b. D. Compliance with the Flood Plan Management Provisions Staff finds this project to comply with the provision of the Zoning Code, see section II.A.5.a. E. Environmental Assessment: Is an Environmental Checklist Required for this application? No. A three lot short plat does not exceed any of the thresholds for requiring an Environmental Checklist and issuing an Environmental Determination. Also, a previous checklist and determination was completed by the applicant and City for a project that had greater impact than the proposed subdivision. F. Critical Areas Review: Critical Areas Review number: CA -1997-116 and CA -1997-117 Results of Critical Areas Review: A Study Required determination was issued to establish the degree and extent of steep slopes on the property and precisely locate them. The applicant completed the study requirement by submitting a surveyed topography map which identifies the top of the steep slope along the southwest side of the property. A geotechnical report does confirm the area from the top of the bank and down, as a Steep Slope Hazard Area. It also addresses the required buffer for the slope. In this case, the geotechnical report supports a reduction of the Critical Areas buffer from 50 feet down to 10 feet as long as a 15 foot building setback from the edge of the steep slope buffer is retained. This will provide 25 feet between the top of the steep slope to the nearest house or structure. However, this recommendation was made based on a site reconasance and hand borings. A more detailed subsurface report that outlines the foundation design and construction practices that may be use for lot 3 is justified. Although there is a stream on the property , the required buffer for a class 2 stream that has salmonids is not wide enough to reach from the stream bank to the top of the steep slope as shown on the site survey. Therefore, the steep slope critical area and its buffer provide even greater protection then it would otherwise get through our code. Because the applicant has specifically located the edge of the steep slope area and is maintaining a minimum of 25 feet from the top of that slope, no additional studies are required regarding those critical areas. However, to ensure that the Native Growth Protection Easment functions as it should and to comply with the Critical Areas ordinance, fencing and signage should be installed along the edge of the Critical Area buffer (10 feet north of the top of the Steep Slope Hazard Area). 3. Conditions Required for Critical Areas Compliance: The following things should be done to ensure compliance with ECDC chapter 20.15B Critical Areas: a. Retain on the plat map the top of the Steep Slope Hazard Area and its buffer. Add a statement to the plat that states the Steep Slope Hazard Area and its buffers shall be reserved as a native growth area subject to development restrictions as provided for in the City's Critical Areas Ordinance. Also, any building permit submitted for Lot 3 will require a geotechnical report that confirms the foundation type and construction practices that should be used for construction adjacent to a steep slope area. A split rail fence or another style acceptable to the City along with signage shall be installed along the edge of the Critical Area buffer (10 feet north of the top of the Steep Slope Hazard Area). 04122sr.DOC / January 12,2001 / Staff Report Talbot Partners, LLC File No. S-2004/122 Page 7 of 8 G. Comments: A letter was submitted related to protection of the Perrinville Creek ravine for both trees and the stream. This concern is addressed in sections II.A, B and F. III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. Request for Reconsideration Section 20.95.050.B.2 allows for Staff to reconsider their decision if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the posting of the notice required by this section. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. B. Appeals Section 20.105.020 and 20.105.030 describes how appeals of a Staff decision shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals The time limits for Reconsiderations and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for a reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time "clock" for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the staff has issued his/her decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continued from the point it was stopped. For example, if a request is filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the staff issues their decision on the reconsideration request. IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.075.100 states, "Approval of a preliminary plat or preliminary short plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of five years, unless the applicant has acquired final plat or final short plat approval within the five-year period." V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the staff request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office. VI. APPENDICES Attachments: 1. Vicinity / Zoning Map 2. Plat Map 3. Geotechnical Report dated 5/30/01 4. Engineering Requirements 5. Letter from Stacy and Eric Heath, dated 1/25/05 04122sr.DOC / January 12,2001 / Staff Report VII. PARTIES OF RECORD Higa Burkholder Assoc. LLC Darla Reese 1721 Hewitt Ave. #401 Everett, WA 98201 Stacy and Eric Heath 8125 Frederick Pl. Edmonds, Wa 98026 Talbot Partners, LLC Matt Howland 19237 Aurora Ave. N. Shoreline, WA 98133 Talbot Partners, LLC File No. S-2004/122 Page 8 of 8 Engineering Department Fire Department Parks Department Public Works Department Planning Department 04122sr.DOC / January 12,2001 / Staff Report 8223 8202 8228 8230 8302 8159 8229 8223 8209 8129 8125 8302 8120 8117 8116 8111 8108 8112 Rln4 8107 7919 7921 7115 7917 8011 7826 7823 781 7824 17121 7821 8015 7816 7812 7 8017 8001 8007 17131 8125 8119 17201,� 171 'N 127 A� 209 211 O��b 215 2© N 8124 17232 8219 8120 8112 8025 17212 17222 8200 8032 7925 8229 7923 8022 �- 8223 8202 8228 8230 8302 8159 8229 8223 8209 8129 8125 8302 8120 8117 8116 8111 8108 8112 Rln4 8107 OK N -k Zoning and Vicinity Map Attachment I S-2004-122 7919 7921 7917 7826 7823 781 7824 7822 7821 R 412 7816 7812 7 OK N -k Zoning and Vicinity Map Attachment I S-2004-122 COO 0". A Attachment 2 S-2004-12-4 4 COO 0". A Attachment 2 S-2004-12-4 N- 2, co g zoo NO 7- q Tzl winq 4 LLI 4U LLI H Ha PE V P �V /fA MLU5 Ni Im 8 OR May 30, 2001 1-91M-14012-0 Howland Homes 19237 Aurora Avenue N. Shoreline, Washington 98133 Attention: Mr. John Bissell Subject: Geotechnical Reconnaissance Report Proposed Edmonds Subdivision—Talbot Commons 8022 Cyrus Place Edmonds, Washington Dear John: CSI. JUN 21 2001 PERMIT CDUNTEr� AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. (AMEC) is pleased to submit this report describing our geotechnical reconnaissance of the above -referenced project site. The purpose of our reconnaissance was to determine the feasibility of constructing a new, 11 -lot subdivision above a classified steep slope (greater than 40 percent). Due to the cursory nature of our study, a geotechnical engineering evaluation of the site will be needed before the design can be finalized. As outlined in our proposal dated May 21, 2001, our scope of work was limited to surface observations, geotechnical research, and report preparation; no subsurface explorations, laboratory tests, or engineering analyses were included. We received your written authorization for our reconnaissance on May 22, 2001. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Howland Homes and their consultants, for specific application to this project, in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is currently occupied by one residence on proposed Lot 10. The remainder of the site is landscaped and virtually clear with the exception of an old barn and a fenced -in pasture at the site of proposed Lots 1 through 8. The site is located approximately one-half mile from Puget Sound in Edmonds, Washington, as shown on the enclosed Location Map (Figure 1). It consists of an irregularly shaped parcel that encompasses approximately 5.4 acres. Site boundaries are generally delineated by Cyprus Place on the northeast, by a ravine on the west/southwest and by private residences on the northwest and southeast. AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. 11335 N.E.122"d Way, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington USA 98034 Tel (425) 820-4669 Fax (425) 821-3914 Attachment 3 www.amec.com SAWoi 5-2004-122 amee Howland Homes 1-91M-14012-0 May 30, 2001 Page 2 We understand that the ravine slope bordering the site's western/southwestern side is classified as a steep slope under the guidelines of the City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance 20.158 and, therefore, requires a minimum setback of 65 feet from the top of the slope. SLOPE CONDITIONS The original slope reconnaissance performed for this study was completed by AMSC on February 17, 2000 for a different developer. Since that time, we understand Howland Homes has purchased the property and is continuing forward with the project. At that time, we observed slope conditions and conducted a series of shallow, hand -excavated test holes to confirm near -surface soil conditions. A second reconnaissance was performed on May 23, 2001 to verify site conditions observed during our February 17, 2000 reconnaissance. No excavations were performed during our second reconnaissance. The following text sections present our observations and interpretations regarding surface, soil, and groundwater conditions along the slope. Surface Conditions The old road, shown approximately on the Site Development Plan, Figure 2, in the southwestern corner of the property, begins at the barn and it continues along the entire slope, well beyond the subject property. The road is, on average, about 12 to 15 feet wide. It is not maintained and is moderately to densely overgrown, predominantly with berry vines, stinging nettles, and Devil's Club. The downslope side of the road is lined with a barbed wire fence. A steep cut runs along the upslope side, primarily along the western extent of the road. According to the topographic survey prepared by CG Engineering (dated April 13, 2000), the vertical relief of the northern ravine slope ranges from 55 feet in Perrinville Creek at the western corner of the property to as high as approximately 155 feet at the southeastern property corner. On roughly the southeastern half of the slope (below proposed Lot 11), inclinations as steep as about 1.2H:1 V are measured, while the slope flattens somewhat to the northwest with slopes on the order of about 2H:1V. Steeper slopes can also be found here locally. Steeper slopes can also be found below the old road along the entire length of the property. Existing vegetation along the slope includes light to moderately dense, medium to large sized trees (up to 24 -inch -diameter), mostly conifers. Groundcover on the western portion of the slope is dense and is dominated by ferns, Devil's Club, and berry vines. The groundcover on the steeper, eastern portion of the slope is less dense and consists primarily of ferns, though stinging nettles grow densely just above, along, and below the road, in addition to sparse horsetails. Soil Conditions According to the Preliminary Surficial Geologic Map of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Snohomish and King Counties, Washington (GM -94), soil conditions are generally characterized by interbedded, nonglacial floodplain deposits of sand, silt, and clay (Whidbey Formation). The contact with the Vashon Glacial Till (an overconsolidated mixture of sand, silt and gravel) is shown on the geologic map as being near the eastern margins of the site. 52, S:\WORDPROCk—Projects\14000s\14012 Howland Homes\Howland Homes.doc AMHowland Homes 1-91 M-14012-0 May 30, 2001 Page 3 The USDA Soil Conservation Survey Map for Snohomish County indicates that the site is underlain by the Norma clay loam and the Everett gravelly, sandy loam. The Norma clay loam, mapped at the top of the slope, is characterized as hydrologic group "CID", and is described as having a moderately high to high potential for runoff with slow to very slow infiltration rates. The Everett unit, mapped on the ravine slope, is characterized by hydrologic soil group "A" described as having rapid rates of infiltration and low potential for runoff. Though we did not encounter glacial till, our surface observations confirmed the existence of the Whidbey Formation within the ravine. They also revealed that the near -surface soils above the old road comprise roughly 4 to 6 inches of forest duff and topsoil mantling loose, medium sand with trace silt and gravel. We observed approximately 8 inches of saturated topsoil overlying medium -dense to dense, fine sand/silty sand in the road below proposed Lot 11. To the east of this location, we revealed roughly 2 inches of forest duff over loose, medium sand, which became medium -dense at a depth of about 6 inches below the surface. Though we could not access the portion of the slope below the old road due to dense vegetation and steep slopes, we did observe a significant, nearly vertical outcrop of what appeared to be interbedded sand and silt on the southern ravine slope. This outcrop was noted below the northeastern corner of Lot 11 and extends beyond the northeastern property boundary. The outcrop ranged in height from approximately 5 feet to as high as 20 to 25 feet north of the site. The elevation of the old road at this location appears to be roughly equivalent to that of the top of the outcrop. Above the outcrop, the slope flattens slightly, signifying a change in composition and/or density/consistency, as observed above the road on the northern ravine slope. Groundwater Conditions At the time of both our original slope reconnaissance (February 17, 2000) and subsequent site visit (May 23, 2001), we did not observe groundwater seepage on the face of the slope. Additional near surface soils above the road appeared to be at or near their optimum moisture contents. Stinging nettles and horsetails (observed on the slopes) may be indicative of saturated soil conditions, suggesting that seepage may occur here at certain, wet times of the year. CRITICAL AREAS CONSIDERATIONS Under the guidelines presented in the City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance 20.955, the slope delineating the property's western/southwestern margin meets. the criteria for classification as an erosion hazard, landslide hazard, and steep slope. Our site investigation included a reconnaissance of this slope in an effort to identify features which may indicate past or recent slope failure or erosion. Figure 2 (Site Development Plan) identifies the lots in relation to the slope. Evidence of Historic and On -Going Slope Failures: We identified surficial features that could be indicative of past or ongoing slope instability. Two relic landslides measuring roughly 50 and 130 feet long were observed on the northwestern half of the slope, and one, small, recent landslide was observed on the southeastern half. The relic landslides appeared to have been S.AWORDPROM Projecls114000s114012 Howland Homes\Howland Homes.doc 53 Howland Homes May 30, 2001 ameO 1-91M-14012-0 Page 4 slump failures with vertical movement on the order of 10 to 15 feet. Both have distinctive scarps that are now overgrown. The vegetation, including mature trees up to 2 feet in diameter, was observed growing on the landslide debris, and they did not appear to be disturbed due to recurrent downslope movement. Downslope of the head -scarp of the larger landslide was hummocky topography that extended to approximately mid -slope. A discontinuous, back - sloping bench has formed along the top of the larger slump block. The condition of the mature trees on these landforms is evidence of their present stability. First, these trees grow relatively straight, as opposed to growing at odd angles to one another in a "jackstraw" fashion, which would indicate past earth movements. Thus, these trees have not been disturbed in a subsequent landslide event. Second, these trees do not show a bend at the bottom, which would indicate slow, downslope soil creep. Overall, we encountered relatively few indications of soil creep along the entire slope face, and we observed no stands of trees with bent trunks (indicative of a slope experiencing creep). Where encountered, bent trees were generally surrounded by straight trees of equal size. The one observed area of bent trees is situated near the upper -middle portion of the slope, roughly '40 to 50 feet long, and located at approximately elevation 140 feet. The bent trees were dominated by 12- to 24 -inch -diameter conifers. On the steeper, southeastern portion of the slope, we observed an area with signs indicating small-scale, active mass wasting. It was downslope and slightly east of the area of bent trees described above. The scarp was about 3 feet wide at the head, which had propagated up into the old road. Below the road, it widened to roughly 10 to 15 feet across and extended down to the base of the slope. Tension cracks, exhibiting up to about 6 inches of vertical displacement and spaced roughly 3 feet apart, were visible in the road here. Across the remainder of the slope, we observed little, if any, evidence of historic slope instability. The features described above are shown approximately on Figure 2. Evidence of Historic Erosion: We attempted to identify surficial evidence of past or ongoing erosion of site soils by flowing water. Our slope assessment did not yield any significant evidence of erosion activity, past or present. We attribute this to the free -draining nature of the soils as having low susceptibility to runoff due to the inherently high rate of infiltration. We did not observe any surface water flow on or over the slope at the time of our site reconnaissance. Erosions Hazard Classification: The steep ravine slopes are considered an erosion hazard based on 20.15B.060.A3a of the City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance since they are underlain by the Everett gravelly, sandy loam (USDA). In our opinion, based on our surface observations and geotechnical research, the glacial till and underlying sands would be well suited for support of conventional single-family residences SAWOROPROC\ Projects\14000s\14012 Howland HomesftMand Homes.doc 5-V Howland Homes May 30, 2001 AM • 1-91 M-14012-0 Page 5 contingent on the implementation of certain recommendations provided in the following text section. The site soils are also capable of sustaining steep slope angles, provided that loading conditions are minimal near the top of the slope and that no water is infiltrated near the top of the slope nor allowed to discharge over the top of the slope. Natural processes will serve to move the top of the slope farther into the lot. These natural processes result from weathering, storm events, and the freeze/thaw cycle. The effectiveness of any construction or maintenance methodology used to improve slope stability, or reduce the likelihood of future instability, depends on proper construction procedures and effectiveness in controlling those factors which might affect hillside stability. The owner should be aware that there are latent risks in owning a hillside home that the owner must assume. The homeowner typically has the responsibility of maintaining slopes and drainage in this type of environment. RECOMMENDATIONS We offer the following geotechnical recommendations concerning the 11 -lot subdivision above the Critical Areas slope. Geologically Hazardous Area Buffer: Based on our geologic research and site observations, it is our opinion that the 50 -foot minimum required buffer can be reduced to 10 feet for the proposed development on Lots 3, 4, and 11 adjacent to the steep slope. Setbacks for Buildings and Ancillary Structures: In our opinion, the minimum required building setback of 15 feet is adequate for Lots 3, 4, and 11. For development on Lot 11, we further recommend that the bottom of all footings be extended down to intersect a hypothetical line projected from the toe of the slope at the Perrinville Creek elevation inclined upward at 2H:1V. This would correspond to a minimum footing embedment.of 4 -feet. Ancillary structures such as decks, walkways, patios, etc. should not extend outward from a residence itself toward the steep slope into the buffer zone. Building Drains: All foundation and roof drains should be tightlined to an appropriate disposal point at the northeastern end of the property. It is our opinion that directing roof and footing drain discharge points away from the high bank portion of the property will significantly reduce the likelihood of accelerated future slope degradation. Site Grading: Minimize grading adjacent to, or on, the steeply sloping portion of the property. Site Maintenance: Plumbing should be kept in good repair and all leaks should be fixed promptly. Lawn watering and irrigation along the slope should be 55- S:IWORDPROCI Projects114000s114012 Howland HomeslHowland Homes.doc AdIL amedo,-Y Howland Homes 1-91M-14012-0 May 30, 2001 Page 6 minimized. Landscaping debris should not be disposed on, or adjacent to, the steep slopes. • Periodic Slope Monitoring: An examination should be made periodically for evidence of movement along the slope and/or distress in any structures located on or adjacent to the steep slopes. Erosion Control: We recommend that no stripping or grading work should be done on the ravine slopes. We understand that all grading work is proposed for the area above the slopes. .56 S:\WORDPROC\ Projects%14000s114012 Hovland HomesWoWand Homes.doc Howland Homes 1-91M-14012-0 May 30, 2001 Page i CLOSURE The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based, in part, on our interpretations and assumptions regarding subsurface conditions; therefore, if variations in the subgrade conditions are observed at a later time, we may need to modify this report to reflect those changes. AMEC is available to perform a geotechnical engineering evaluation of the project site, and to provide geotechnical monitoring, soils and concrete testing, steel and masonry inspection, and other services throughout construction. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report or any aspects of the project, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. 4� / Ana L. Pierson Senior Staff Geologist i A. S OV \YAS,Y��� h� c�`'�' x `� t sA Stephen A. Siebert, P.E. Senior Project Engineer ALP/KSS/kms Enclosures: Figure 1 Figure 2 EXPIRES — Location Map — Site Development Plan Distribution: Mr. John Bissell, Howland Homes (3) '67 S:\WORDPROC\—Projects\140OOsXI4012 Howland Homes\Howland Homes.doc v a, 74 ie ST su io\ -tet IBM :119sli.� 7 CE IL7 a PE -T NMI ST IOUT S1 13 g SW ni I 19 ST � SW 1 PL)GET WY I GASP Stan i S Sr r '121 9 O&ACH tMXL4vM,.% A4 -4 V slut all Q, I!Eu In ST $T41 IlitAINj I BAT" :e Sr EL U; as TL aco 14, fb A.1 .9 ,i acw 2I51 219 aNwgz �d i� rj P11 9E401 tJ_J: SW r Z 30. sKaWULA QD0 ELM ST220 I- st It 0 D sarm Eli Reproduced with permission by THOMAS BROS. MAPS. This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS, MAPS. It is P- 1 T. S. unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resole, without permission. AV& ar*& LOCA110N MAP FIGURE AMEC EARTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. HOWLAND HOMES 11335 N.E. 122nd Way, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA, U.S.A. 980346918EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 5$ _ I P, a, 74 ie ST su io\ -tet IBM :119sli.� 7 CE IL7 a PE -T NMI ST IOUT S1 13 g SW ni I 19 ST � SW 1 PL)GET WY I GASP Stan i S Sr r '121 9 O&ACH tMXL4vM,.% A4 -4 V slut all Q, I!Eu In ST $T41 IlitAINj I BAT" :e Sr EL U; as TL aco 14, fb A.1 .9 ,i acw 2I51 219 aNwgz �d i� rj P11 9E401 tJ_J: SW r Z 30. sKaWULA QD0 ELM ST220 I- st It 0 D sarm Eli Reproduced with permission by THOMAS BROS. MAPS. This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS, MAPS. It is P- 1 T. S. unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resole, without permission. AV& ar*& LOCA110N MAP FIGURE AMEC EARTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. HOWLAND HOMES 11335 N.E. 122nd Way, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA, U.S.A. 980346918EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 5$ _ I LL W W O ui W 4 J _ Q Iz Z Z ,1 a xow a f• ¢ 4 til 0-1o \ 8 \ > z IA 1 j a W to 11 a j 3SV8 / a A3ANf1S v� 1 J \ \ Z � <\, W: ":ISA:,\'.. t.'. ', o r�o �� , . 9 iso• .1 � � a to J A 1 I + ,% >'isi%' �� a ♦ try , , _ , '�- + g$ o l 1 1 R \ ' Ij CITY OF EDMONDS ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS FOR SHORT PLATS Name: TALBOT PARTNERS File No.: S-04-122 and S-04-123 Approved by:4Z Z�j�t/jjj/D¢ Vicinity: 8026 CYRUS PL Engineering Prop -ram Manager date V:\dvrw\.sp\04-122-123 talbot partners plt.doc S-2004-122 Req'd Req'd w/bldg. Bond posted Complete prior to Permit recording 1. Rights-of-way for public streets: N/A- Access road shall be private X 2. Easements (City utilities, private access, other utilities): Provide all easements as needed. X Total access easement width shall be 30.00' X 3. Street improvements (ACP with curb and gutter): Slope of proposed private access road shall not exceed 12%. X Provide 1 common shared access road for lots 1-3 (S-04-122) and 1-3 (S-04-123). Access road shall be paved 20.0' wide plus 18" asphalt thickened edge. Concrete extruded curb or curb and gutter may also be used. Access for the above lots shall be off Cyrus PL X Construct 18" concrete curb and gutter along the property X frontages on Cyrus PL 4. Street turnaround: Provide a shared on-site turn around to City Stds. X 5. Sidewalks and/or walkways:. Construct 5' wide concrete sidewalk along property frontages on X Cyrus PL. 6. Street lights: N/A X 7. Planting strip: N/A X 8. Water system improvements (pipelines, fire hydrants, etc) Provide service to each lot. X Connect to public water system. X X 9. Sanitary sewer system improvements (pipelines, pump stations etc) Provide new service to each lot X Connect to public sewers stem X X 10. Storm sewer system improvements (pipelines, DOE, fisheries, etc.): Provide storm sewer service to all proposed lots. X Construct storm detention system sized to provide adequate X capacity for proposed single family dwellings and access improvements in accordance with ECDC 18.30. Connect to Public Storms stem X 11. On-site drainage (plan per Ord. 3013): Connect all new impervious surfaces to detentions stem. X X 12. Underground wiring (per Ord. 1387): Required for all new services X X 13. Excavation and grading (per UBC, Chapter 70 Submit a grading plan as part of engineered site plan. X X V:\dvrw\.sp\04-122-123 talbot partners plt.doc S-2004-122 PROGRAM MANAGER, CITY OF EDMONDS DATE The Ertgineeriiig requirertie�is -have iieen coritpleted and the:subdtvison can,be vecorded Authorized for recording by: Date: VAdvnv\sp\04122-123 talbot partners plt.doc Req'd prior to Req'd w/bldg. Bond Complete recording Permit posted 14. Signage (per City Engineer): All signs shall be vinyl letters and to City Stds. No silk screen X signs will be permitted Install high intensity sign at the entrance X Provide "Private Access road Ends" X Provide fire and aid address signage X 15. Survey monumentation (per Ord., Section 12.10.120): N/A X 16. As -built drawings (per City Engineer): Required for all utility construction. X X 17. Other requirements: a) Plat showing lots, easements, legals, survey information X X b) Legal documents for each lot X c) Field stake lot comers (by professional engineer) X d) Clustered mailbox location per Postmaster X e Maintenance agreements X 18. Engineering fees: a) Storm drainage connection charge for plat road ( $ 799.50) X b) Storm drainage connection charge per lot ($ 428 ) X c) Sewer connection fee per SFR ($ 730) X d) Sewer connection charge/LID fees to be paid in full. X e) Water connection fee per SFR (based on meter size) X d) Plat inspection fee: 2.2% of improvement costs $ X e) Plan review fee: ($1720. X Traffic mitigation: total for both short plats ($ 5,444.32 X PROGRAM MANAGER, CITY OF EDMONDS DATE The Ertgineeriiig requirertie�is -have iieen coritpleted and the:subdtvison can,be vecorded Authorized for recording by: Date: VAdvnv\sp\04122-123 talbot partners plt.doc �� 11�� -, JAN 2 r 2005 City of Edmonds Development Services Department DEVELOP MENT' ERVICES 1215 1h Ave. North Edmonds, WA 98020 1/25/05 To whom it may concern, We have reviewed the plans for the development of 8026 and 8028 Cyrus Pl., Edmonds (File # 5-04-122 and File # 5-04-123) Our concerns revolve around the areas labeled "NGPA/E Forested" and the Perrinville Creek. These are considered "critical areas" and should be protected and left untouched. According to City Code - Subdivisions 20.75.060, Requirements for the preliminary plats can include N: "The location of tree -covered areas, with the location of individual trees over eight inches in diameter in areas as requested by the planning director. There were no trees labeled on the plans that we viewed. We are hoping that this can be interpreted as meaning that no trees are going to be touched, cut-down or trimmed with regards to this development. In either case, we are formally requesting that the planning director require this information for the record and so that it may be further reviewed, in relation to U: "Other Information needed to determine the environmental impact of the proposal." If it would be helpful, we have photographs of the area showing its current condition. As per 20.1513.050, the applicant is required to submit a critical areas checklist for review. We would like to confirm that this has been followed and that any necessary studies have been done. The trees and the creek are part of what makes this, such a wonderful place to live. We would appreciate your help in protecting them. Thank you for your time, and we look forward to hearing back from you soon in regards to our concerns. Sincerely,' Stacy nd Eric Heath 8125 Frederick Pl. Edmonds, WA 98026 Lot #82