4813 BELVEDERE AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

W�t/��dT�e�o�rc�s, l�c. prl ne.iUn�� IdiNq�lio�� 7asta•�bon HnhJdl Crndt�o� PeimilAss.fitlnr,u August 23, 2004 Mr. James Thomas Architectural Design Associates,lnc. 2221 Everett Avenue #201 Everett WA 98201 Re: Olin Construction - Lots 32 & 33, Everett Dear Mr. Thomas, _ __ --___ 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everet�, Washington 98208 (425)337-3174 F,X iazs 3s�-aons I recently visited two properties on E3elvedere Avenue lo assess polential building envelopes with respect lo wetlands, streams, and steep slopes. The parcels are identified as Lots 32 and 33, on the north/east side of Belvedere Avenue. 6oth parcels are currently vacant and are surrounded by single family residences. A steep northeast aspect slope lies on a large part of both parcels, with higher, flatter areas in the western port+on, near Belvedere Avenue. A small stream is located at the toe of the steep slope, �pproximately 300 feet east of Belvedere Avenue. The channel is approximately two•feet in width with intermittent flow. There is no fish habitat within the channel, and its steep connection to Puget Sound prohibits anadromous fish use. Under the City of Everett's Environmentally Sensitive Areas code (EMC 37.130), this stream meets the criteria for a Category I!I classification. It appears that the topography on Lot 32 contains a relatively flat bench on tlie west side of the stream that would contain an entire 25-foot stream buffer. In this case, since the outside edge of the buffer does not lie on a steep slope, the City would not require an extension of the buffer to the top of slope. A building setback may be required from the top of slope for stability purposes, but not for the slream buffer. Topography adjacent to the stream on Lot 33 is relatively flat in the eastern portion of the lot, but becomes steeper to the northwest (downstream►. It appears that a small portion of the 25-foo[ buffer in [he central part of Lot 33 would lie on a slope in excess of 25 percent. In this case, the portion of buffer lying on the slope would be required to be extended to the top of the slope, and up to 25 additional feet. Atthough only a small portion of the buffer would lie on the sleep slope, the extension of the buffer above the top of the slcpe would severely constrain the buildable area of Lot 33. A modification of the buffer may be heneficial in this situation.