S-06-144 Comments on Civils and NGPA - 3rd Review.pdf
CE
ITY OF DMONDS
th
• 1215 AN•E,WA98020
VENUEORTHDMONDS
P: 425.771.0220 • F: 425.771.0221 • W:www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
HONEAXEB
DSD: P•E•B
EVELOPMENT ERVICES EPARTMENTLANNINGNGINEERING UILDING
March 8, 2011
Mr. Steve Miles
Email: smiles@glacierenviro.com
RE: PLANNING DIVISION’S ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON CIVILS AND
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR HINKEL/MILES SHORT PLAT
FILE NO. S-2006-144
Dear Mr. Miles:
I have reviewed your resubmittal received on January 11, 2011 of your civils and proposed
Vegetation Management Plan for the above short plat, and it was found that the following
information, corrections, or clarifications will need to be addressed before review can continue:
1.The total quantity of cut is stated on your Grading and T.E.S.C. Plan as 1,500 cubic yards;
however, when adding up the proposed cut specified on your plans for the west site (150
cubic yards) and east site (900 cubic yards), the total is 1,050 cubic yards of cut, not 1,500
cubic yards. Please correct this discrepancy and provide accurate numbers for the total
proposed cut and fill on the Grading and T.E.S.C. Plan.
2.The response to Question B.1.e within the environmental checklist specifies that a total of
1,500 cubic yards of cut and 1,100 cubic yards of fill are proposed for grading of the
proposed driveway, drainage and utility construction, and to level the lots for houses.
Although the total quantities of cut and fill provided on the Grading and T.E.S.C. Plan must
only include the grading proposed for the civil improvements as shown in the civil plans,
the total quantities of cut and fill stated within the environmental checklist should also
include the estimated grading for the future homes. Please verify that the environmental
checklist does include grading for the future homes. If grading for the future homes is not
included in the environmental checklist, please correct the checklist accordingly in order to
avoid having to conduct SEPA review again at the time of the future building permits.
3.Thank you for submitting the environmental checklist and fee for SEPA review. It was
noted, however, that a notarized adjacent property owners (APO) list was not included with
your resubmittal. Please refer to the enclosed handout for instructions on how to compile
an APO list. This list must not be more than six months old. Thus, the list from the
preliminary short plat application cannot be used.
4.When Sheet R1 was updated for the resubmittal, topography lines were added to it. The
presence of the topography lines, however, makes it incredibly difficult to determine which
trees are to remain and which ones are to be removed. Please remove the topography lines
from this plan so that the plan clearly shows which trees are to remain and which are to be
removed.
5.Page 6 of the Vegetation Management Plan describes Zone 2 as having patches of ivy that
should be removed. These patches of ivy were previously indicated in two locations on
Sheet R2, but were removed from the resubmitted version of Sheet R2. Please add this
back to Sheet R2 (this item can be redlined on the plans).
6.The preliminary plans for the subdivision indicated that the portion of the existing shed that
projects onto the northeast corner of Lot 1 was to be removed. As such, and because an
accessory structure cannot be located on a lot without a primary structure, a condition of
preliminary approval was placed on the subdivision (Condition 1.c) stating that the portion
of the shed that encroaches onto Lot 1 shall be removed. Your previous civil plans
indicated a five-foot building easement on Lot 1 to benefit the lot to the north. In my
comments sent on July 28, 2010, I explained that a building easement cannot be utilized to
solve an encroachment issue, and no buildings can be located within an NGPA. As such,
you removed the note from the civil plans and indicated on the plans that the building
encroachment is to be resolved prior to final approval. Please keep in mind that as long as
the portion of the shed that encroaches onto the subject site is in fact removed prior to final
subdivision approval, there should not be a problem with this statement on the civil plans.
However, if the applicant is considering submitting for a lot line adjustment with the
neighboring property and then submitting for a minor change to the approved subdivision
to allow the shed to remain in its current location, then the boundaries of the NGPA and
would need to be revised accordingly.
7.Thank you for acknowledging the need for a performance bond and/or a three-year
maintenance bond pursuant to ECDC 23.40.290 for the new plantings within the NGPA.
My previous comments stated that a cost estimate and/or bill from the landscaping
company (covering all new plants, labor, and taxes) will be required in order to determine
the amount of the bond(s), but that the estimate is not required for civil approval. Please
keep in mind that if the applicant chooses to bond for the civil improvements and record the
short plat prior to constructing the civil improvements, a bond may be required for
landscaping prior to the Planning Division’s final approval of the short plat.
Please submit your responses to the above items with the resubmittal of your civil plans to the
Engineering Division, Monday through Friday, between 8:00 am and 4:30 pm. If you have any
questions, feel free to contact me at (425) 771-0220, ext. 1224.
Sincerely,
Development Services Department - Planning Division
Jen Machuga
Planner
Cc: Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager