Loading...
V-12-33 Request for Additional Info.pdf14'i c" 0 October 23, 2012 121 5th AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 m (425) 771-0220 ® FAX (425) 771-0221 www,edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Tom and Lin Hillman 15915 — 74th Pl. W Edmonds, WA 98026 1X4j 11,11111 refill W.111IRA XURTS-1111111 M 115,11010111 *610 a 10 W11916T NIZF41J11 Dear Mr, and Mrs. Hillman: DAVE EARLING MAYOR During staff's continued review of your land use application for both a setback variance and a critical areas variance to construct a new single-family residence at 1139 Sierra Place, it was determined that additional information/clarification is necessary. Please provide responses to the following items at your earliest convenience so that staff's review of the proposal can continue and so that the public hearing can be scheduled: 1. Your "Title Sheet & Whole Site Plan" (Sheet 1 of the plans packet) indicates a wall around the northern and eastern sides of the residence. The ends of the wall are labeled as "garden wall 1'-3' high" and the middle of the wall is labeled as "retaining wall 3'-8' high." The wall is indicated slightly differently on the "Site Plan" (Sheet 2 of the plans packet). Walls that exceed three feet in height as measured over original grade must comply with setback requirements. It appears that much of the proposed wall would be supporting a cut slope; however, please confirm if any portion(s) of the proposed walls are proposed to exceed three feet in height over original grade so that staff can confirm compliance with setback requirements and/or so that the proposed wall can be incorporated into the setback variance request if necessary. 2. Sheet 1 of the "Proposed Site Development Plan" indicates a finished floor elevation for the house and garage of 219 feet. Additionally, the "Site Plan" (Sheet 2 of the submittal packet) states a total of 362 cubic yards of proposed cut. The goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan, however, state that natural topography should be preserved and that grading should be minimized by designing a residence that takes the existing topography of a site into account. The quantity of proposed grading and the proposal for a wall surrounding the residence makes it appear that the proposal is not taking the existing topography into account as much as it could. Please address why this quantity of grading is necessary and why it would not be possible to construct the home without as much grading. 3. The following questions/comments are related to the "Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan" by Wetland Resources dated July 18, 2012: a. On Page 3 of the report, under the "Methodology" beading, it states that the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual was used, "as required by Snohomish County." However, it should state: "as required by Edmonds Community Development Code Section 23.50.010.B." Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan b. The report classifies the on-site wetland as being Category 3; however, a report prepared by Wetland Resources for the past critical areas variance request on the subject site dated August 7, 2003 (Wetland Resources Inc. project #03199) identified the wetland as being Category 2. Please have Wetland Resources provide a written explanation of why the rating of the wetland has changed since the time of their 2003 report. c. The report needs to expand its focus on ECDC 23.50.030.F. As part of further addressing this code section, please have your biologist provide a map of the wetlands and buffers within 200 feet of the project area, including all information required in 23.50.030.F.1. This map should also indicate locations of other critical areas within the vicinity of the site. d. Table I on Page 11 states that the proposed wetland enhancement area is 12,560 square feet; however, the proposed wetland enhancement area is stated elsewhere in the report and on the project plans as 15,560 square feet. It appears this may simply be a typo; however, please provide confirmation of the correct area of wetland enhancement. e. The report focuses on reduction of the required wetland buffer, but does not go into detail about the proposed reduction of the required stream buffer. Please have Wetland Resources provide a revised report (or an addendum to the existing report) that specifically addresses the critical areas requirements applicable to streams contained within ECDC 23.90. Particular attention must be paid in explaining how the proposal complies with the requirements of ECDC 23.90.040.D.2 and D.7. f. The report provides information on mitigation of the impacted area of the wetland and wetland buffer, but does not provide information on mitigation of the impacted stream buffer. Please include mitigation measures for all impacts to the stream buffer, and expand the discussion on the mitigation sequencing required by ECDC 23.40.120 (beginning on Page 8) to also address the mitigation sequencing applicable to the stream. g. The site contains a mapped fish and wildlife habitat conservation area. As such, please have Wetland Resources confirm that all applicable requirements of ECDC 23.90 are addressed within the report. 4. Your title sheet includes a tree removal list. Please provide a plan indicating the locations of all trees proposed for removal. Some of the comment letters received during review of the subject application raised concerns over the size of the proposed house, particularly regarding the fact that the proposed living space of the second floor is much smaller than that of the lower floor and that open ceilings are proposed over the living/dining room and front entry. Have you looked at the feasibility of other house designs, particularly any designs that would reduce the overall house footprint while providing the same amount of living space? Please provide additional information/analysis on how the proposal meets the criteria of ECDC 23.40.210.A.2.c. The following comments have been provided by Jennifer Lambert, Engineering Technician: 6. You submitted a revised stormwater plan on October 2, 2012 indicating that the detention system would be connected to the catch basin at the southwestern corner of the site, and that the stormwater would flow underneath the adjacent access driveway to the west and into the existing wetland located on the adjacent property addressed 1111 Sierra Place. The following questions/comments are related to the revised stormwater system proposal: a. Please provide a response from your biologist addressing number 4 — Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems, and number 8 — Wetland Protection of the Stormwater Supplement. It needs to be Page 2 of 3 shown that the proposed drainage system will not have any negative impacts on the wetland and/or stream. b. Provide a document from your biologist that shows where the site naturally flows (i.e. towards the culverts at the northwest or southwest corners of the site). All water entering the proposed developed area shall be directed as shown in the requested document in order to maintain existing site flow conditions. c. The proposed stonnwater system must have as minimal impact as possible to the critical areas. Please consider a spreader trench for any water that is discharged towards the north culvert. The spreader trench should be designed by a licensed engineer and meet all requirements set forth by the biologist. If there is a direct discharge to the stream, SEPA review would be required. d. Since you are proposing to discharge some of the stonnwater frorn your site into a private culvert, which outfalls into the neighbor's wetland to the west, written permission from the owner of the adjacent property at 111 I Sierra Place is required. Additionally, an easement will need to be provided during the building pen -nit process. e. Please provide all invert elevations of the southwest culvert. Additionally, provide the elevation of the water in the wetland on the neighboring property at 1111 Siena Place during the rainy season. It will need to be detennined that the elevation of the wetland during the rainy season is not higher than that of the west invert of the culvert. f. It has been brought to our attention that during high flow events, the stream diverts along the western property line. It is important that the pre-existing conditions on the lot remain the same. Therefore, you will need to show the overflow path of the stream to ensure that you are not changing the existing overflow conditions. g. It appears from the provided plans that the northwest culvert and stream may fall outside of the existing 10 -foot drainage easement. Please indicate the location of the northwest culvert on the revised project plans. Additionally, please note that an easement will need to be provided to the City that encompasses the entire stream and culvert. The easement will be required during the building permit process. Please submit the above information to Jen Machuga, Associate Planner, as soon as possible, so that staff may continue processing your application and so that the public hearing can be scheduled. Please keep in mind that a complete response to this information request must be received within 90 days or the applicatioiz will lapse for lack of information (ECDC 20.02.003.D). Thus, your application will expire if the requested information is not received by January 21, 2013. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at (425) 771-0220, extension 1224. Any questions related to the proposed stormwater system can be directed to Jennifer Lambert, Engineering Technician, at (425) 771-0220, extension 1321. Sincerely, Development Services Department - Planning Division Jennifer Machuga Associate Planner Cc: File No. PLN20120033 Page 3 of 3