The URL can be used to link to this page

620 FIR ST.PDF11111111111111 11266 620 FIR ST BUILDING DEPARTMENT Applicant Fill Vag tools 1 1 inside H"vy Un" PERMIT APPLICATION son -ALA NAMff ION NAM6 OF 041)"GIR ^00*lm 10 Z.4v,eLl 3' ULr— SUBDIVISION No. ASSIISSOR MAP NO. MAILING A00149567 I Z 3: OA Aw !Do WAV. 0 16r— V PUBLIC MIGHT POO OOOINANc6 CrT I_-- a",00 771�4 9XISTING NIGHT or WAV, NAM9 PROPOS60 111*6"T OF W^V 1- /71 U Dareciffmcv OF MIGHT Or.w^V-- ADORRSS STREET/UTILITY WORK mmoutmao_..., 41NO U PERMIT FOR WORK IN PUBLIC gyms"" UNDERGROUP40 WIRING RUGUINgo v 0 its'' ONO NO M CITY ELEPHONE CONNECTION TO SANITARY *Vgs,.. No S TI&TANK PERMIT REQUIRED I 0Vag No NAME PTRINWWRMIT NO. E P 0 ADDRESS .0 U 4Q (-r- 4, SEE MEMO JDZTED < It CITY TELEPHONE NUMBER REMARKS I'_ Z 0 U STAYE LICENSE NUM13ER CITY LICENSE NUMBE CHECKED BY Legal Description of Property (Show Below or Attach Four Copies) METER SIZE BUILDING SUPPLY SIZE V6S7.5- ISr' ?9,02) -777 Z 2 060 PZ4-1 UV_ SIGN AREA ALLOWED PROPOSED ENV. REVIEW COMPLETE EXEMPT ADO NO. L 60 U VI W Ze7_ REMARKS W -1 VA[7CE OR C!U 7� PLANNING REVIEW 8 TE YARDS LOT COVERAGE NEW RESIDENTIAL GAS LINE -�? 0 FRONT. 5, SIDE /a- REAR FIRE ZONE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION HEIGH7 ADD ALTER NON-RESIDENTIAL E] DEMOLISH EXCAVATE OR FILL SIGN RETAINING WALL FENCE D I_ X_F-r) I ICODE SPECIAL INSPECTOR REQUIRED 0 YES 1:1 P AREA I . OCCUPANCY GROUP I OCCUPANT LOAD LAN CHECKED BY THIS SITE IS LOCATED IN,THE CITY REPAIR PRE -MOVE F� F1 swim OF EDMONDS. LOCAL SALES TAX SHOULD BE CODED 31.04. IN. REMARKS NUMBER OF STORIEST711UMBER OF D, DWELLING U Ul NITS NATURE OF WORK TO BE DONE 4c- / w0d zz/ 5 PROPOSED USE Z 2 PLOT PLAN (INDICATE BUILDING 'SETBACKS, - ABUTTING STREETS) 1 U 0 W a m 01 PLAN CHECK FEE BUILDING PLUMBING MECHANICAL FENCE SIGN RETAINING WALL SWIMMING POOL VALUATION FEE 0 3: U m W 3: z W W z W 0 J W Z 0 U U Z H P4 Z W PUBLIC WORKS'DEPAF=Tr CHEa4Or 91�ZIZJV Date BUILDING PER4IT REVIEW Address Street Right -of -Way Existing REQD Access Easements Existing REQD YLI.Ilty EaSenML rJUSL111g AeLCM&E =q1j Lot per Subdivision Plat "'K, Assessor Site Plan Checked for Accuracy 1� Map Underground Wiring Reqd. Check Accuracy of Legal Description Envirorm-entally Sensitive Area '00006 Environmental Checklist Reqd. Flood Hazard Zone Shoreline Management Area Lei Slope, Soil, Vegetation Yez Stream, Creek,.Drainage Basin Existing Zoning Per Code, e- S4 - Amenities Design Board Approval.Reqd.' ADB # Approval Board of Adjustment Approval Reqd. \/O-n' 7 Review By: Date: Existing Water Main Size t w "' e- r- Water Main Reqd. 10 0 Service Line Reqd. jk)Q Hydrant Size Existing Ic-4- Hydrant Reqd. Per Fire Code / U 4 Size Detector Check Meter Reqd. t,4n Cross Connection Inspection AI)CO Fire Department Comments Water Meter Charge Reqd. asE Review by: Date: beptic -ianK uesign Approveci e-lt� Septic Tank Permit Reqd. Sanitary Sewer Availability Drawing No. EA JJCLL.t-- ; Permit No. Proi - File No. Side Sewer Availability Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee Reqd. Review By: -Ns Date: —A —A. OAX A 0A1% A A A A A q)en Ditch Existing, Reqd. Culvert Reqd. Size P4 Catch Basin Reqd. Indicate on Site Plan 0 Shoulder drainage n-pint.�-1vc9di/c-t ion an swale open runoff F4 U3 -�hole reqd. Indicate on Site Plan -U -iditions and Ground Water Field Cliecked Soil Coi Review by Date Street Paving Reqd. Curb and Cutter Reqd. Sidewalk- Reqd. Air - Curb Cut for Driveway Reqd. C5 Wa 0 P� Right -of -Way Construction Permit,"'Reqd. Bond Reqd. for Public Improvem-nts Street Nami Sign Reqd. AUZ Other Signinc, Rc-,.qd. Pre Permit Site Inspection made on 0 BY: MER TATATER S=, T llq(,II\IL7ERL%IG Special Rcquiremnants listed in manx) to Comninity Develo'pment Departrrent, Building Di%rision BY �iw Da te o All item fill7ed Building Permit in n Application lApproved 13Y .1 Date — Drawirq;s Stan7ed and Notatiggs Made F PL4 BY Date 'I Public Woi. y :ks Deparma-it Revised: IV 10-1977 0. tv 0 C� C' -P.Aft� 0- AA P-- --- - - - Or- 0" ACCLIRACY Thr, intowr-,- C, dG,,,, nu v,, V k co U tc, C th Cf,":, oi Et�� fc- re uojj� scau map NO 0 .7 tzj 1 $ 112 Date 1- /7f MEMO TO: Building Division Community Development Department FROM: Engineering Division Public Works Department SUBJECT: After review of the. subject building permit applicafion, we have the following comments: XICoordination of the location of any structure with respect to utilities, streets, property lines and driveway grades is the responsibility of the contractor. X-ZT The contractor is required to keep the abutting streets cleaned !'F . of dirt and debris caused by the construction. The "Right -of -Way Construction Permit" is required, from the Engineering Division of Public Works, for any work within the Public Right -of -Way or public easement. LL01 Driveway slope not to exceed 14%. I�y Connection to sanitary sewer required. LT Septic Tank Permit required, submit design. Fire hydrant required, submit design. 1-7 Site drainage per code # See -approved plans /-7 Curb /-7 Sidewalk 1-7 Paving required. /-7 Bond required for public improvements. Submit cost estimate. /-7 Underground wiring required. �L-7 /-7 Approved Engineering.Plans.required when applicable. Rev. 7/78 - .110 /4V F6-r�Fre- -F I I-rerzbere, P E C y Engineer Department of Public Works -7 — -7: :77 CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERF,.41T APPLI OWNE"t NAME NAME OF BUSINESS MAILING ADDRESS TELEPHONE Ni .1 ADDRESS NAME ALO.EIS CI n TF1FPHD.NE1NL;MBER hLegal Description of Property - include a!! easements (show below or attach two copies) �5' i r z- LOT' dq j Tax Account Parcel No.1-,,,1q(4 cz�7irvt 000-7 USE Lp MI 1 -0 C rH J jo. OB AnDlICE S jc�x 6*,eeo UU (IQ LEG CRIPTION CH�CK r Fo I U PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP TESCP APPROVED BY EX.5-13, REr LIMED DEC:CAIION `AO,`OSEo - — -------- RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FIFOUIRED 0 STREET USE PERMIT REQUIRED 0 REVIE SEE ENGINEER114G MEMO DATED [ o�—. —.. e, -- I I A L PLUMBING V1. ..I.IERCIAL MECHANICAL AD_ A. SR APT. SLDG- El SIGN ElEXCAVATE FILL FENCE OR GRADE x—FI) CARPORT El swim 7S.EL I I GARAGE — Poo'. Fw0--O ST OVE I RET AINIING WALLI J RENEWAL_ INIERT ROCKERY 0 - 'ESSOR ACTIVITY) FXPLAIN: yp= OF USE- eUSIN W-IMLEA OF rTORJES NUMBER OF DWELL NO U.NiTs NA-,URE rjF %yoRv To eE D5NE (At I A L;. OLAN) Plain Check No. Tnis Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY Any cOnSIfUC1iO,1 On the p.;biic domain (curts, sidew?lks. 5 driveways, marquees, etc ) will require Separate n,�rmiSSion Perm,, AOvircation: 160 Days Permit Limli: I Year - Provided Work is Started Within 180 Days on behalf of his or tier spouse. he:rs. assigns and successors in interest. agrees to indemnity. defend and hold harmless the City of Edmonds. Washington. its officials. :j employees. and agents from any and all claims for dam ages of 5 whatever nature. arising directly or indirectly from the i ssuance t" I, f this permit. issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to modify. waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance 7" 01 no; limit in any vlay the City S aDilily to enforce any ordinance provision. hereby ac%rowledge that I have read this application; that the D formation given is correct: and that I am the owner. or the, duty authorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and 3tale laws regulating consiruction: and in doing !he work au!ho.,iz- I Deeby� no person will be employed in viola -ion of the Labor Z' de.111 3-teofVJashing-,onrelaiingtoVJo,,kmen'sCompensa- nonln-urLpce MEIER SIZE JBUILOIIIG 5UPPLI SIZE _fU111 UNII5 REMARKS T16N AREA ENV. REVIEW ADB NO. ALLOWED PROPOb0 111111-111 EXEMPT I 1 Z SHORELINE N VARIANCE OR CU PLANNING REVIEW BY A- -7 --� o JDATE SETBACKS — FEE OT CCIVErAGE FIIO1ITI2e SIDE REAR/ REMARKS ��O* -;-,, roff-1 = ri—A, ;,� - III ECKED BY ITYPE OF CO'NSTRUSTION C ODE66 I 1EI1 254 SPECIAL INSPECTOR A r�RE A OCCUP N cy CCUPANT Ono P LOAD REOUMED � No '/ 0 YES 60 3 10 4EMARKS PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 305 FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED VALUATION PLAN CI12CK FEE BUILDING PLUMBING MECHANICAL 7.RA;IN----ILL STATE SURCHARGE W PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT AMOUNT DUF TOTAL I — ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL I THIS PERMIT This application is not a permit until ALT HOPIZES signed by the Building Official or NS ONLY THE WORK NOTED Deputy; and fees are paid. and receipt I,, 3clknovledged in space provided. INSPECTION U EPARTMENT OF. ICiA I UATE CITY OF: EDMOND 0. CALL FIO nEL ATTENTION INSPECT! N I T 15 UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BU!LDI[qG OR STRUCTURE IINTIL A FINAL INSPr-CTION 'HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR 771-3292 ORIGINAL YELILOW"— Inspector A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC 041,11 P!NK — Owner GOLD — Assessor CHAPTER 3. 102.87 I —A, -- I I � 1716- zat, �' � - - �-' I �"' �r .� � 11 "1 - L , �' V '.' I, V - . - Ii, ;P ; C, - 17 . "qle Or-, CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - STH AVE. N. . EDMONDS. WA S8020 - (2061771-0220 FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT (Z� Public Works . Planning . Parks and Recreation - Engineering q 0 C) OLtober 23, 1993 Mr. Sheldon Soule 620 Fir Street Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Accessory Dwelling Unit at 620 Fir Street, Edmonds Code Enforcement Case #ZE-91-22 Dear Mr. Soule: LAURA M. HALL MAYOR On September 21 & 22, 1993 we spoke on the teiephone regarding the accessory dwelling unit located on your property at 620 Fir Street, which is in violation of the Edmonds Community Development Code, Sectiors 16.20.0101;, 19.00, 20.05.00, and the Uniform Building Code, Sections 303(a) and 303W). As of our last conv3rsation September 22, 1993, you were at-;�mpting to locate proof that the accessory dwelling existed prior to 1956 (when the ECDC was adopted). To date I have not received any such information. Since you are in v7olation *f the above referenced codes, this matter must continue to be pursued to gain compliance. Therefore, by November 11, 1993 you must either submit an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the accessory dwelling unit, or return the structure to a garage as documented -Dr. previous p!ans for permit in 1978 and schedule an inspection with our department to verify compliance. Failure to take action by the aforementioned date will force this office to take the necessary legal action to gain compliance, including fines of $100 per day and abatement costs until comp!izince is obtained. Your cooperation zrd prompt attention to this matter is appreciated. Sincerely, Ann Gullis Code Enforcement cc: Jeannine Graf, Acting Building Official (Expired permit # 900600) File ZE-91-22 * Incorporvied Au,3ust 11, 1890 0 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan U.1 0 a Or-, es a a Ael/ RECORD OF INSPECTIONS INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED m I, SETBACKS .............. FOUNDATION: FoolJng ................ Wal; ................... % op., Pier/Porch ............. Retaining Wail .......... . PLUMBING: Uncerground .......... Rough -In ............... CF.................... HEATING: Gas Test ............... Gas Piping ............. Equipmen, .......... .. CF.................... FRAMING ............... SHEETROCKNAILING ... SPECIAL INSPECTION ... FI NAL APPROVAL FOR OCCUPANCY ....... N "I FINAL. A16 1�j A-PPC;4�_ 7)-C� XW L) ! 41-1 1— IF- 7 ,(I, c- 18 c0l May 7, 2008 0 st CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwwxi.edmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning - Building - Engineering Sheldon Soule 620 Fir St. Edmonds, WA. 98020 Case: # ZE-07-271 (COD20080014) Subject property: 620 Fir St., Edmonds, WA. 98020 Dear Mr. Soule, GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR The City has received a complaint regarding an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or apartment developed at tile subject property. Investigation reveals that past code enforcement required that the rear unit can not be occupied as an individual dwelling unit. It was also required to have the stove removed per the inspection of November 29, 1993. It did appear, from a cursory inspection, that the unit has a separate address and may be an apartment. ADUs are a permitted secondary use in single family zones but do require a conditional use permit and any associated construction permits. The City does not have a permitfibran ADU on file for this address. A statement from you, recognizing the need for this permit, is enclosed as recorded with Snohomish County. Corrective actions required: Please contact iric at your earliest convenience by May 15, 2008 to respond to this letter. Tile City requests to re -Inspect the structure to confirm it has not been converted to a dwelling unit. The enclosed Accessory Dwelling Unit handout describes the Planning requirements and criteria to establish an ADU. liyou want to discuss ADUs with a planner, please contact the "planner on duty" on the second floor of City Hall or at 425-771-0220. The office is closed on Wednesdays. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance. Sincerely, Mike Thies Code Enforcement Inspector thies(Daci.ednionds.'wa.us Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Citv - Hekinan, JaDan 0 0 00�71 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwwci.edmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning - Building - Engineering September 19, 2003 Mr. Sheldon Soule 620 Fir Street Edmonds, WA 98020 GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR RE: Encroachment of Retaining Wall in City Right of Way at 620 Fir Street Dear Mr. Soule: We have received your letter dated September 17, 2003. Your right of way permit application was received on September 18, 2003 and the permit was issued on September 19, 2003. Please note the conditions contained in the permit which must be complied with. I must remind you that the Order to Correct Violation issued to you on July 9, 2003 is still in effect. However, based upon your commitment to complete the corrections within 14 days of issuance of the right of way permit, we will grant you an extension to the required correction date to 5:00 PM October 3, 2003. If correction is not made by this date, a Notice of Civil Violation will be issued. The Notice of Civil Violation will assess fines of $100. 00 per day, or portion of a day, during which the violation continues. Since.4y, DUANE V. BO WMAN Development Services Director Cc: ��Scott Snyder, City Attorney Dave Gebert, City Engineer Jeannine Graf, Building Official Mike Thies, Code Enforcement 40 C. 1891, 0 0 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.d.edmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning - Building - Engineering September 24, 2003 Mr. Sheldon Soule 620 Fir Street Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Right of Way Permit No. 2003-0261 at 620 Fir Street Dear Mr. Soule: GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR Your letter dated September 22, 2003 requested an amendment to the scope of work covered by your Right of Way Permit No. 2003-0261 to include installation (replacement) of steps in the restored slope on "A" Avenue. Your request is approved with the understanding that the steps will be constructed of treated landscaping timbers, set in the restored slope, and projecting no further into the right of way than the toe of the restored slope, as indicated in your letter and sketch. k, DAVID K GEBERT, PE City Engineer Cc: Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Jeannine Graf, Building Official Mike Tbies, Code Enforcement Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan 11 9/22/03 To.Dave Gebert, City of Edmonds d"XIM SEP 2 3 2003 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Re: Amendment to Right of Way Permit for Removal Retaining Walls at 620 Fir Street Today we discussed on the phone an amendment to the right of way permit we have applied for involving the restoration of the right of way and removal of retaining walls at our property. : The 'order to correct notice' that we are complying with requires us to "restore the right of way to it's original condition". When we originally built the retpining walls we removed the soil on thr slope and some rotten timber steps that,�vere intended to allow us the ability to ascend and descend th� slope safely. Those steps were located alon� 'A Ave'. We did not include the replacement of the steps in Ithe application for the right of way permit ano we are asking that yop allow us to replace those steps as outlined in the drawing I have provided you. The steps will be built out of ground contact treated timbers. The height of each step will not exceed 7 inches and the steps will be approx. 3 feet wide. Your attention to this amendment is appreciated. Sincerely, Sheldon Soule RECEIVED SEP 2 3 2003 ENGINEEIRING DIVISION 0 0 m pl-Aw- t-w vw "W + am T . tP W4, r-F j7 20070801 ImageOO46.JPG O�8/01/2007 13:30, 4 08/01/2007 13:30 rN M. xv, Aij: -7 08101/2007 13:30 ilk k i-5P 4-, In -Pt te i�-, u �;� . . .,: I I .. 620 Fir Street Sheldon Soule ROW Permit #2003-0261 ROW PERMIT SPECIAL CONDITIONS I I . Traveled lane to remain open at all times. 2. Debris not to be placed within the City right-of-way. 3. Based upon the City's understanding that the existing stairs will be left in place, the Right-of-way is to be restored with the toe of the slope extending no further into the right-of-way than the bottom of the stairs. The remainder of the area between the toe of the slop� and the edge of pavement shall be flat and either grass or crushed rock. 4. Placement of low growing shrubs, ground cover, and/or bark on the slope, within the right-of-way, is acceptable. 5. Placement of a few rocks is acceptable. Rocks shall be no closer than 10 feet from the edge of pavement and shall be embedded to prevent movement. Rocks shall be no larger than 2-man (18"-28" in diameter) and randomly placed with space in between each. Rockeries are not allowed within the City right-of-way. 6. Applicant is responsible for ensuring adequate erosion and sediment control measures are installed and maintained as necessary until work is complete and slope is vegetated. It is acceptable to locate the silt fence within the unimproved portion of the right-of-way,'maintaining a buffer from the edge of pavement. 7. Restore any damage to the City right-of-way per City standards. 417 C. 1 89\3 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwwxi.edmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning - Building - Engineering September 15, 2003 Mr. Sheldon Soule 620 Fir Street Edmonds, WA 98020 GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR RE: Encroachment of Retaining Wall in City Right of Way at 620 Fir Street Dear Mr. Soule: This is to summarize our meeting this morning. Throughout the meeting, I referred you several times to our previous letters to you and to City standards. I reiterated to you that if you wish to propose any approach other than removal of the retaining wall from the City right of way by September 22, 2003 and complying with our previous correspondence, you must submit your proposal in writing for our approval. It is your responsibility to develop, design and propose your solution. The City will review your proposal, but we will not determine, develop or design the solution for you. - You informed me that you are having difficulty getting a contractor to remove the retaining wall and restore the right of way. You indicated that they are concerned about their liability in the City right of way. You explained the previously existing condition, that it was a steep slope, grass was worn/eroded, etc., and that the landscapers with whom you have consulted recommend that a retaining wall is the right solution. You asked who would be responsible for maintenance of the slope and who would be liable if people trip and/or fall. I responded that liability would be a legal issue and that you should seek advice from your attorney. You asked who would be liable if the retaining wall failed. Again, I responded that this is a legal issue and that you should seek advice from an attorney. You asked why City staff drove by while you were building the retaining wall and didn't stop you earlier. I responded that, without knowing who they were, I would not be able to answer this question. You asked what I thought of what Danielle had told you when she initially came to the site. I told you that Danielle had told me that she did not tell you that you could build a retaining wall in the right of way without a permit. You then asked me what I suggest for a solution. I responded to you that I will not offer a suggested solution other than that the existing retaining walls must be removed from the Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Citu - Hekinan. JaDan right of way. Other tl�an that, the solution is up to you, subject to. City approval. I re- emphasized that the retaining wall, as built, is unacceptable. In accordance with our recent letters, the retaining wall must be built per the City standard details or designed and stamped by a licensed professional engineer, and approved by the City. I referred you to our City handout on retaining walls, a copy of which we have previously provided to you. I advised you to submit what you propose to do in the City right of way in writing for our approval. We then discussed the necessary Right of Way Permit for removing the retaining wall. I clarified that, as stated in my letter to you dated September 10, 2003, if any large equipment (other than hand tools) will be used, a contractor must apply for, sign for, and obtain the Right of Way Permit. You asked how long it takes to issue a Right of Way Permit. I responded that, although some are issued over the counter, this one probably will not. However, we will try to expedite review as fast as possible, but it will likely take a few days. You explained that you don't think you can get a contractor hired, obtain the permit, and complete the removal of the retaining wall by the September 22, 2003. 1 advised that if you are requesting an extension to the September 22 deadline, you must submit a detailed request in writing. Your request must be detailed and specific as to why you can't meet the deadline, and when you can remove the retaining wall. We will consider your request, but I made no commitment as to whether your request would be approved. We may not approve it. You questioned the requirements for erosion and sediment control. I referred you to our recent letters to you and the information we enclosed with the previous letters. We discussed various erosion control measures such as silt fence, straw, jute matting, etc. If you have any questions as to whether the erosion control measures you install in the right of way will be acceptable to the City for installation in the right of way, I suggested that you clearly indicate on your Right of Way Permit application what you propose to install in the right of way. You then asked if it would be acceptable to correct the existing retaining wall. I reiterated that the existing retaining wall does not meet City standards or any recognized engineering, construction, or industry standard. I do not know if it is possible to correct the existing retaining wall so that it will be acceptable, and I am not aware of any corrections that would make it acceptable. If you want to propose some sort of correction to the existing retaining wall, it must be designed and stamped by a professional engineer, must adequately address all the concerns expressed in our denial of the encroachment permit application, and must be submitted for our approval. We will consider, but I made no commitment as to whether we would approve such a proposal. In addition, I informed you that, if you submit a proposed method of correcting the existing retaining wall, we would probably need to send it out for an independent engineer's peer review, for which you will have to pay, in addition to the other permit 0 0 fees, a Development Project Peer Review fee of $110 plus the actual cost of the consultant review. I reminded you that, per our previous letters, the retaining wall on 'A' Avenue does not meet the criteria for approval of an encroachment permit if it is in the right of way. We then discussed determining the location of the right of way. I suggested that you need to confirm the location of the right of way. We discussed that the water meter location is not an accurate indicator of the location of the edge of the right of way. We discussed how to measure back from street monuments to estimate the location of the edge of the right of way, but that the only way to be sure is to survey. I suggested that you verify the location of the right of way. I informed you that, if you can demonstrate that the retaining wall on 'A' Avenue is not in the right of way, we have a different situation, and an encroachment permit would not be required. You mentioned what you believed to be a survey marker on a concrete post with a "V" on it at the comer of your property and that you believe it may be a survey marker for the property comer. I told you that I would check to see if we know what it is. (Subsequent to our meeting, I checked and have been advised that it is a valve marker, not a survey marker.) Finally, in summary, although we will be happy to work with you and your design professional and will consider options, it is your responsibility to develop, design and propose your solution. The City will review your proposal, but we will not determine, develop or design the solution for you. If you wish to propose any approach other than removal of the retaining wall from the City right of way by September 22, 2003 and complying with our previous correspondence, you must submit a detailed and comprehensive written proposal, timeline, explanation, and request for our approval. `--DAVID K. GEBERT, PE City Engineer Cc: Scott Snyder, City Attorney Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Jeannine Graf, Building Official Mike Thies, Code Enforcement CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 * FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.d.edmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning - Building - Engineering September 8, 2003 Mr. Sheldon Soule 620 Fir Street Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Encroachment of Retaining Wall in City Right of Way at 620 Fir Street Dear, Mr. Soule: This is- in response to your letter of September 4, 2003. GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR We understand that you intend to file a claim for damages. You are entitled to do so. However, as indicated by Duane Bowman, Development Services Director, in his letter to you dated September 2, 2003, you must still remove the wooden retaining walls from the City right of way along Fir Street and "A" Avenue no later than 5:00 PM, September 22, 2003. We do not intend to refrain from civil enforcement, fines or penalties as you request. We intend to pursue these actions if they become necessary. As indicated in Mr. Bowman's letter, if the retaining wall is not removed from City right of way by September 22, 2003, a Notice of Civil Violation will be issued. The Notice of Civil Violation will assess fines of $100.00 per day, or portion of a day, during which the violation continues. In your letter you indicate that you need clarification on where the right of way ends and that you believe you were told by a City inspector that if you were behind the water meter you would be fine. I have looked into this and been advised that, although the inspector told you that the location of the water meter can often be used as a guide for determining the approximate location of the right of way, she also advised you to obtain a copy of our City handout that explains how to locate the edge of the right of way (by measuring from existing street monuments). I understand that she also told you that the only way to determine the property line accurately is to have it surveyed. It is your responsibility to determine the location of the right of way before you construct any structure that may encroach within the right of way. Again, as indicated in Mr. Bowman's letter, if you have any questions as to the exact location of the edge of the right of way before you remove the retaining walls or before you construct new retaining walls, it is suggested that you obtain the services of a surveyor to establish its exact location for you. You also ask in your letter if there are other acceptable materials for retaiffing walls. The answer is yes. If you will review our development information handout entitled "Retaining Wall Permit Submittal Requirements" (copy enclosed) you will see that there are numerous types of retaining walls, including but not limited to gravity, semi -gravity, cantilever, soldier pile, sheet pile, proprietary block, mechanically stabilized earth, and soil nail retaining walls, some of which may Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan be appropriate for your application and others that would not. In addition, there are a variety of materials used in these various types of retaining walls. The reason we suggested the modular block wall design is that the City has a standard design detail that is already approved for this type of retaining wall. It is your choice as to the type of retaining wall you construct, subject, of course, to our approval if it will be in City right of way or otherwise require a permit. However, as indicated in my letter to you dated August 21, 2003, if you choose any other retaining wall design, we will require the design to be prepared and stamped by a registered professional engineer if it will be in City right of way or otherwise require a pem-iit. Regarding your comments concerning the urgency of resolving this issue, although the existing retaining walls may not pose an imminent danger to the public safety, we are not confident that they will not fall in the event of heavy rains as you state in your letter. In fact, as indicated in my letter to you of August 21, 2003, they are not constructed per any recognized engineering, construction or industry standard, and the wood planks are already bowed and showing signs of overloading (failure). Finally, you express concern about the end of summer approaching, anticipated rainy weather, and potential erosion of your yard. We share your concern and remind you that it will be your responsibility to install and maintain adequate erosion and sediment control measures to ensure compliance with Department of Ecology regulations. We also have informational handouts and standard details to assist you in implementing best management practices for ensuring erosion and sediment control at your property. Copies of these are enclosed for your information and reference. If you believe it is not possible for you to complete restoration of the right of way to its previous condition or, if you choose, installation of new retaining walls before rainy weather, and would like to propose or discuss a phased implementation plan, please let me know. However, we will not allow the removal of the retaining wall from the right of way to be deferred until or contingent upon resolution of any claim for damages you may choose to submit. Sincer DAVED K. GEBERT, PE City Engineer Encl: Development Information Handout #23, Retaining Wall Permit Submittal Requirements Development Information Handout #72, Construction Contractors Best Management Practices Cc: Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Jeannine Graf, Building Official Mike Thies, Code Enforcement 0 0 To: City of Edmonds Engineering Dept. Mr. David Gebert Dear Mr. Gebert, RECEIVED SEP 0 � 20P-3 9/4/03 RECEIVED ENGINEERNG DiVISIGN SEP 0 4 2003 EDMONDS CITY CLERK Yesterday I ha o d a conversation with the attorney for the city of Edmonds, Scott Snyder, regarding the ongoing retaining wal I issue at our property @ 620 Fir Street. I am writing this letter as a result of that conversation. We agreed that I would request that the city refrain from any civil enforcement and/or levying any fines or . penalties until the matter is resolved and I am doing so by this letter. Therefore, please refrain from any —,,9 civil enforcement actions until a comprehensive resolution has been agreed upon and set in motion. The following is an outline of a plan for resolution of this issue and further questions we face: J eaAq , 1. We will be in contact with the city clerk's office and the city's insurance provider by Monday, Sept. 8, rhw"q'ALA,� to initiate an insurance claim. This claim will involve costs to date, removal and replacement of the existing retaining wall(s) in their appropriate location or restoring our yard to it's original condition before the project began. Mr. Snyder mentioned that the city's insurance provider has been notified already. The speed at which this issue is resolved hinges on their cooperation to a large extent. 2. We need clarity on the 'A' ave wall. When the city inspector initially came (and then after she bad served us with a notice) she said that if we were "behind the water meter" we should be fine. None the less, the existing wall needs to be removed and replaced and we need clarification on where the right of way ends. We have had numerous conversations with landscape professionals about the situation. The consensus is that a retaining wail is appropriate for that portion of our property and to replace what was originally there would be unwise, costly and in the long run create future erosion problems. 3. You have suggested materials that are suitable for a retaining wall as "Modular Block Wall". We have spotted several modular block walls in our area that have failed for one reason or another. Are there other options as far as acceptable materials? Perhaps a stamped concrete wall or ? 4. As mentioned above, I have several landscape companies who have asse.ssed the situation. They will likely be handling permit, design, installation and /or compliance issues once we have received word from your insurance provider. Lastly , Mr. Snyder also mentioned he had discussed the "urgency" of resolving this issue with you and that you felt confident the existing wall would not fail in the event of heavy rains etc. As the summer weather is rapidly disappearing I am concerned that this may drag out into the rainy weather season. Our front yard is just loose soil waiting to have sod laid but we can not until we know where the boundaries of our yard will be. We have also experienced a lot of grief and embarrassment as our front yard has sat for 8 weeks unfinished. I would appreciate your help in getting this resolved as soon as possible. � �C� Sheldon Soule 425-776-5800 or 425-772-3530 cell 0 �t z? C. 18,9 11 CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwwdedmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning - Building * Engineering Qlgolrll�' September 2, 2003 Mr. Sheldon Soule 620 Fir Street Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Encroachment of Retaining Wall in City Right of Way at 620 Fir Street Dear Mr. Soule: This is in response to your letter of August 21, 2003. As indicated in the City Engineer's letter to you dated August 21, 2003, you must remove the wooden retaining walls from the City right of way along Fir Street and "A" Avenue. If you have any questions as to the exact location of the edge of the City right-of-way before you remove the retaining walls, it is suggested that you obtain the services a surveyor to establish its exact location for you. I must remind you that the Order to Correct Violation issued to you on July 9, 2003 is still in effect. However, we will grant you an extension to the required correction date to 5:00 PM September 22, 2003. If correction is not made by this date, a Notice of Civil Violation will be issued. The Notice of Civil Violation will assess fines of $100.00 per day, or portion of a day, during which the violation continues. In addition, the City Engineer has looked into your statements as to what you believe you were told by our City representative. She has advised him that she did not tell you that you could construct a retaining wall in the City right of way without a permit. If you believe you are entitled to compensation from the City, you may file a claim for damages with the City Clerk. However, whether you file a claim for damages or not, the retaining wall must be removed from the City right of way no later than September 22, 2003. Si� erely, DUANE V. BOWNL4,N Development Services Director Cc: Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Dave Gebert, City Engineer Jeannine Graf, Building Official Mike Tbies, Code Enforcement Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 1 9 August 29, 2003 Re: Mr. Sheldon Soule's letter dated August 21, 2003 I never told Mr. Soule the he did not need a permit. I told him to come down to the City of Edmonds and get our rockery and retaining wall handout. I also never stated that I didn't know he was going to do all this, nor did I say that I thought he was only going to use rocks and trees. What I did say was that we do allow some development within the city right of way, like trees that grow no more than three feet in height. 2. 1 never told Mr. Soule that his retaining wall on 'A' avenue was not in the city right of way, nor did I tell him that it was "ok" because it was behind the water meter. I did tell him that a good "GUIDE" for determining property lines is one's water meter. I also told him that there was another handout at the City of Edmonds that would show him how to get a good estimate of his property lines, but the only way to determine one's property lines accurately was to have it surveyed. SAENGR\Danie11c\Sou1e2.doc RECEIVED RECEIVEDA AUG 2 5 2003 AUG 2 5 2003 Page I ENGINEERNG DIVISION August 21, 2003 EDMONDS CITY ULEKK -1) a.*e As 7 To The City of Edmonds Engineering Department and Mr. Davi d Gebert, This letter is in response to our ongoing dispute with the city of Edmonds regarding a retaining wall. Your department gave us permission to build the wall without a permit after we sought your advice on the need 7� for a permit. I outlined the circumstances surrounding this issue in my previous letters but I felt it necessary again to point out a few key facts again. ktp 1. 1 was involved in a remodel project which required a final engineering inspection. I was at the city's 114 114 1/ 111.5 building department discussing the final inspections required and at that time inquired with city building kOC14 official, Jeanine Graf, about whether I would need a separate permit for a retaining wall I was contemplating building and as I started to describe the project to her she stopped me and suggested that "when you have your final engineering inspection, our engineer will be onsite and will have the ability to 44k ; �411 ji I better understand the project and tell you whether or not you need a permit". I scheduled the appointment. 1h An engineering inspector named Mrs. Gilbert came on the appointed day and we discussed the retaining wall and the subject area just as Jeanine Graf suggested. Mrs. Gilbert advised me that "As long as you keep it under three or four feet and know that it is subject to removal if the city decides to put in sidewalks or needs the right of way YOU DO NOT NEED A PERMIT." She then said I should confirm the height restriction and I called the city and did so. My older children were on our front porch and witnessed this conversation take place. 2. 1 commenced work on the project and 3 weeks later, just as I was about 95% finished, Mrs. Gilbert showed up with a "notice of correction required". I was in awe and yet discussed with her how she could be doing this when it was her that originally advised me. She stated "I did not know you were going to do all this. I thought you were going to use rocks and trees." My kids again witnessed this conversation. For the record, -your inspector upon serving the notice commented that the retaining wall on 'A' avenue was "not in the city right of way but was on my property and ok because it was behind the water meter 3. 1 immediately responded and went to the city to discuss the matter. I was told by Lyle Chrisman, a city engineer, that he would discuss it with his leadership and get back to me. Less than 24 hours later a "Stop Work " notice was posted and then less than 24 hours later an "Order to Correcf' notice instructing me to remove the wall was posted. 4. Approximately one week later my wife and I later met with David Gebert and Lyle Crisman to further discuss the situation and hopefully come up with some solutions. They suggested we apply for an encroachment permit or remove the wall. At that time we brought up the point that if their engineers gave us permission to build the wall without a permit, then to put the burden on us to now remove it and rebuild something else would be unreasonable and unjust. The city would then in effect be taking no responsibility for their improper advice to us. We also informed them that we were not in a position financially to do anything more with the retaining wall and that it had already cost us more than we had anticipated. 5. We decided to go through the encroachment permit process as they had suggested. The city attempted to collect double fees stating that "because you started the project without a permit, the fees are double". They later reduced the fees to normal after we protested. We waited 3 weeks and then after placing several calls to the city we were informed that we would have to remove the wall and thus our encroachment permit was denied. The city provided the decision and their alternatives that are ludicrous, costly and unreasonable in a letter dated August 21, 2003. Their suggestions caused us to question their judgement even further. Again they refused to bear any of the responsibility of their employee's actions and put the entire burden on us. Page 2 In discussion with several law firms and our own legal research we have come up with portions of the Revised Code of Washington and case law that may apply to this situation and should be reviewed by your city attorney. I will forward a copy of this letter to him. For your own information one or two in particular read : RCW 4.96.010 Tortious conduct of local governmental entities — Liability for damages. (1) All local governmental entities, whether acting in a governmental or proprietary capacity, shall be liable for damages arising out of their tortious conduct, or the tortious conduct of their past or present officers, employees, or volunteers while performing or in good faith purporting to perform their official duties, to the same extent as if they were a private person or corporation. Filing a claim for damages within the time allowed by law shall be a condition precedent to the commencement of any action claiming damages. The laws specifying the content for such claims shall be liberally construed so that substantial compliance therewith will be deemed satisfactory. (2) Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, for the purposes of this chapter, "local governmental entity" means a county, city, town, special district, municipal corporation as defined in RCW 39.50.0 10, quasi -municipal corporation, or public hospital. and 3) The liability of one who is under a public duty to give the information extends to loss suffered by any of the class of persons for whose benefit the duty is created, in any of the transactions in which it is intended to protect them. Restatement (Second) of Torts 552(3) (1977). Recently, the City of Tacoma and Pierce County were held liable for negligent representations in which the court cited the above section from the Restatement in support of its decision. WILBER v. WESTERN PROPERTIES, 22 Wn. App. 458, 462-64, 589 P.2d 1273 (1979). The principle applies equally to the facts of this case.<(5)) While there are other circumstances and facts that we could address, it is probably best to state our position and bring to your attention our plans at this point. When the city initially served us a notice of correction we informed you that we did not have the financial resources to comply and remove the.wall and replace it with something else. In addition, having to do so would be a complete injustice. (After ail , we came to your department for permission and it was granted) our financial situation has not changed since this issue arose 7 weeks ago. The property has been leveled out some what and the retaining wall required us renting a tractor. Just to undo what has been done would exceed $2000.00 - The city's alternatives to our project would cost thousands more which we do not have. We can not comply rather than will not. The only way we see the project being able to be accomplished the way you desire is for you and your engineering department to finance it and complete it. We have exercised great restraint and patience since the day your department improperly advised us to proceed without a permit. Our property on the two front sides is unfinished and is an eyesore to the entire neighborhood. We have exercised good faith and had the right to rely upon the expertise of your department when we first asked for your inspector to come out. We intend to do the following if necessary to resolve this matter: • Seek injunctive relief from the courts in this matter • Speak with the appropriate state officials governing municipalities to seek some sort of intervention and/or arbitration. • Seek local citizen support for our cause • Seek compensatory damages for several aspects of this issue from the courts Page 3 Mr. Gebert, it is clear that you are now doing yourjob to the best of your abilities and you even admitted to visiting our home and viewing the project yourself Your letter dated 8/21 states that.you "field inspected" the walls. Unfortunately your department had already been at the site 3 weeks before you, at our request, and granted us permission to proceed with the project without a permit. It was then that this information should have been disseminated to us rather than granting us permission to proceed without a permit.Your work ethic and standards and thoroughness would greatly benefit the city if they could only be assimilated by your staff. On the other hand, demonstrating for your staff a sense of responsibility for errors committed seems to be lacking in your leadership. In this case an error was made by your employee and you are asking our family to pay the price for that error rather than that employee or your department You admitted to my wife and I that your employee may have made a mistake and you would look into it but you/ have yet to communicate anything further in that regard. May I suggest that your department and the specific employee involved take ownership of the error in advising us we could proceed without a permit. In doing so you would certainly set a precedent. I have witnessed numerous citizens' anger being displayed in your offices during my recent visits. I believe that there is a growing number of Edmonds residents that are unhappy with the planning, engineering and building departments for various reasons. May I also suggest that you and your department seek a more reasonable and/or "creative" solution to this problem that will not put a financial burden on my family. Perhaps you could consider that since this project lands within the city right of way, you could consider doing some improvements to the right of way. In closing, I reiterate that it is not that we will not comply but that we can not comply due to the financial burden it would put on our family. I believe that should this end up in court a reasonable judge Would see our point of view and also see that we had the right to rely upon your department's expertise and that your department had a certain "duty of care" and responsibility to us when we asked for an onsite inspection to determine whether we needed a permit or not. I will leave the matter with you in regard to whether you want to further discuss how the city may achieve it's desired outcome for this portion of the right of way or forward this matter to the city attorney for review. Sincerely, Sheldon Soule CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 1 (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwwdedrnondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 112 "1 Planning - Building - Engineering August 21, 2003 Mr. Sheldon Soule 620 Fir Street Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Encroachment Permit Application #2003-0007 Dear Mr. Soule: GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR STREET FILE This letter is in response to your Encroachment Pern-lit application #2003-0007. In reviewing your application, we have three primary concerns: 1. Public interest, safety and convenience. We have determined that the encroachment of an adequately designed and constructed retaining wall in the City right of way 2L& Street meets the requirement of ECDC Chapter 18.70.030.B.4, that it must be in the public interest, safety and convenience. However, the retaining wall on 'A' Avenue does not meet this requirement. 2. Additional Permits. As noted below, a Right of Way Construction permit is required. Retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height require a building permit. Retaiming walls greater than 3 feet in height above original grade are not allowed in a setback. As long as these height criteria are not exceeded, a building permit is not required. 3. Structural adequacy. Based upon a field inspection of the retaining walls that are under construction, it is the City's determination that they are structurally inadequate and not acceptable for a structure in the City right of way. The retaining walls are not constructed per any recognized engineering, construction or industry standard and the wood planks are bowed and showing signs of overloading. Therefore, your application for an encroachment permit is denied, and the following shall be required: 1. Remove the current wooden retaining walls from the City right of way on Fir Street and on 'A' Avenue. 2. An encroachment permit may be approved for an adequately designed and constructed retaining wall that meets City standards, on Fir Street onl , but not for the wooden retaining wall that is under construction. In order for an encroachment permit to be approved, the additional requirements below must be met. 3. The current wooden retaining wall on Fir Street must be removed and replaced with an acceptable retaining wall and terminated at the property line on 'A' Avenue, or the right of way must be restored to its previously existing condition. 1ncorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Citv - Hekinan, Japan Mr. Sheldon Soule Encroachment Permit Application #2003-0007 August 21, 2003 Page 2 4. If you choose to replace the retaining wall on Fir Street with an acceptable retaining wall in the city right of way, the following conditions must be met: a. A Right of Way Construction Permit is required. b. If the height of the retaining wall exceeds four feet, a building permit is required. c. The retaining wall must be constructed in accordance with acceptable engineering design and construction standards. If you choose to construct the retaining wall in accordance with City of Edmonds Standard Detail E 8.12, "Modular Block Wall", this will be acceptable to the City. - If you choose any other retaining wall design, we will require the design to be prepared and stamped by a licensed professional engineer and that it be submitted with the Right of Way Construction Permit and Encroachment Permit applications for approval. d. The retaining wall on Fir Street must be located to provide a minimum of 10 feet clear area between the retaining wall and the paved street surface and must terminate at the property line on 'A' Avenue. e. The area between the retaining wall and the paved street surface must be provided with a minimum of 6 inches of crushed and compacted rock surface to prevent erosion and deterioration. f. The retaining wall design in the area of the existing steps must be such that it does not create a safety hazard of the steps projecting into the parking area created by the retaining wall, or the steps must be relocated to a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of the paved street surface. g. You must acknowledge through signing the encroachment permit agreement that it is your responsibility to remove the retaining wall from the City right of way upon request from the City. 5. You will be required to obtain a Right of Way Construction Permit for the removal of.the retaining walls and construction of an acceptable retaining wall on Fir Street or restoration of the right of way to its previously existing condition. VID K. GEBERT, P.E. City Engineer DKG/DG/cmc Cc: Jeannine Graf, Building Official Mike Thies, Code Enforcement SAENGR\Danic11e\Sou1c.doc Aug 14 03 10:50a Sheila P. Mac Lane 454-0298 0 0- P. 1 F the Prc%idenv,, rjr If I ne Mac Lane Azenc FA RME RS INS URA N CE GR 0 UP oj' Co nip a it ies 11041 A -fain Street * Bellevue, W4 98004 BUSINESS. (421) 454-6009 FAX.- (425) 454-0298 EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE FOR MORTGAGEE INTERESTS 60-DAY INSURANCE BINDER Augusit 12, 2003 r\ �- L4%a5---1--11 Attn: Shclderri Fax: '425�-7764&00 I'luej nsl irance I i �is been appi icd fiv. u n d. is houn d jo r 6.0 tLays).r-i �.nl.t 1.i.e- C c 1� i y'; d.; qe L) q g d i n � i 11; s k [P 11 Ce. t) [*,I p(Ilic to the named insured. Th i s isRuan ce�jq spbje�r 19 ffic terms.y.cl r�q lii�iiatians �)Lljje ) Li ic-, applied [or and currenfly _j�fi iqns_fL _ _ __pL q: in uso_hy_1he conipany. llease.accepl 1his 1�srni as a hinder. P Nained Insured: Sheldon L. Soule Property Address: 620 Fir ST. Ldmonds, WA 98020 Effective Date: August 12, 2003 Renewal Date: May 19, 2004 Dwelling Amount: $185,000 Liability Co\,erage: 0 $500.000 Deductible: $500.00 Issuing Company: Farmers Insurance Policy Type: Protector Plus (does include ECC up to 125%) Premium: $ Policy Number: 79-91125-05-23) Additional Insured: City of Edmonds Building Division 121 5"' AVE N Edmonds. WA 99020 Loan Number: A-ent Name: Sheila Mac Lane Agent Address: 11041 Main St Bellevue, WA. 98004 A-ent Phone: (425) 454-6009 Ac,ent Fax: (425) 454-0298 Lil7t](I M 13c�(,,ocki .4ugusi. 21.2003 1-9-50-314 Authorized Representative Date A(-,ent Number -k- PERMIT #:&D� "7 DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED: ADDRESS OF PUBLIC USE: PROPERTY OWNER: (-X/1" U. moi wfir)ffit "Oe r?09LETE, MPLEASE ROUTE ' f*O'NCE YOUR RE VIEW IS TO THE NEXT DI VISIONIDEPAR TMENT ON THE LIST. * * * PLEASE ROUTE IN THE ORDER SHOWN * * * F1 PLANNING DIVISION Date Stamp Received: A/0 Co7A-j--;,? e-n4S r6 /0�ezl —fio IAoi ^ /A c"r -T C ER---�PUBLIC WORKS Date Stamp Receive AUG 0 nT rNew- F] EN IISIEERINGDIVISION ate tampReceived: RECEIVEt) ED 6* f . 1--lb , �� L, --,- JUL 2 2 2003 ENGINEERING DIVISION DS ADMINISTRATION Date Stamp Received: RECEEVED A U6 0 BUILDING DEPT. APPROVAL SIGNATURES AND REMARKS OR COMMENTS ARE TO BE MADE UNDER THE "DEPARTMENTAPPROVALS"SECTION ON THE PERMIT RAengr\fbrms\Encroachment permit routing 0 MEMORANDUM Date: August 6, 2003 To: File From: Dave Gebert, City Engineer Subject: Encroachment Permit Application, Soule, 620 Fir Street, #2003-0007 Attachment: Photographs of retaining wall under construction at 620 Fir Street Mr. Sheldon Soule has submitted an encroachment permit application for retaining walls in the City right of way at 620 Fir Street and on adjoining 'A' Ave. The retaining walls are already under construction and are the subject of an Order to Correct Violation issued on July 9, 2003 because they were constructed without the required permits. Since the City has stopped work on these retaining walls, it was determined appropriate for the Engineering Division to review this application before routing to other City departments. Therefore, Public Works and Planning have not yet reviewed the application" In reviewing the application, the Engineering Division has three concerns ... 1) Do the retaining walls meet the requirement of ECDC Chapter 18.70.030.B.4, that they must be in the public interest, safety and convenience? 2) Are there any other permit requirements, in addition to an encroachment permit?, and 3) Are the retaining structures structurally acceptable to be in the City right of way? 1. Public interest, safely and convenience. In his letter accompanying his application, Mr. Soule argues that the retaining walls provide an improved walking area for pedestrians along the street, improve on -street parking by providing a parking area that did not previously exist, improve the right of way at no cost to the City, reduce traffic congestion at the intersection, and improve the appearance of the right of way to the neighbors. The Engineering Division agrees that a retaining wall, adequately designed and properly installed on Fir Street, would provide these public benefits. However, we do not agree that a retaining wall on 'A' Avenue provides these benefits. City of Edmonds Development Services Department Engineering Division Mr. Soule also argues that, since he believes he was told by City employees that he did not need permits to install the retaining walls in the right of way, it would be in the public interest and convenience to approve his encroachment permit. First, the Engineering Division does not concur that our representative told him he did not need permits, and second, this is irrelevant as to whether the encroachment should be allowed. However, based upon the above acknowledged improvements to the right of way on Fir Street, the encroachment of an adequately designed and constructed retaining wall in the City right of way on Fir Street meets the requirement of ECDC Chapter 18.70.030.B.4, that it must be in the public interest, safety and convenience. However, the retaining wall on 'A' Avenue does not meet this equirement. 2. Other permits required. In accordance with the ECDC and Development Information handout '.'Retaining Wall Permit Submittal Requirements" retaining walls greater than four feet in height require a building permit. Also, retaining walls greater than three feet above original grade are not allowed in the setback. As long as these height criteria are not exceeded, a building permit is not required. However, since the walls are constructed in the City right of way, a Right of Way Construction permit is required for removing the retaining walls and construction of an acceptable retaining wall on Fir St. A right of way permit would not be required to construct a wall on 'A' Ave since it would be required to be built on private property, nor would a building permit be required as long as the wall did not exceed 4 feet in height, or 3 feet in height above the original grade in the setback area. And again, retaining walls greater than 3 feet above original grade are not allowed in the setback. 3. Structural Adequacy. Based upon a field inspection of the retaining walls that are under construction, it is the determination of the Engineering Division that they are structurally inadequate and not acceptable for a structure in the City right of way. They are not constructed per any recognized engineering, construction or industry standard, but are constructed of wood posts with 2 X 12 planks. The spacing of the posts is inadequate and the planks are bowed and already showing signs of overloading and potential failure (See attached photos). in conclusion, subject to review by and additional comments from Public Works and Planning, the Engineering Division recornmends the following: 1. Remove the current wooden retaining walls from the City right-of-way on Fir St and on'A'Ave. 2. An encroachment permit may be approved for an adeguately designed and constructed retaining wall, on Fir St. onl , that meets City standards, but not for the wooden retaining wall that is under construction. In order for an encroachment permit to be approved, the additional requirements below must be met. 0 3. The current wooden retaining wall on Fir St must be removed and replaced with an acceptable retaining wall and terminated at the property line on 'A' Ave, or the right of way must be restored to its previously existing condition. 4. If the applicant chooses to replace the retaining wall on Fir St. with an acceptable retaining wall: a. A Right of Way Construction Permit is required. b. If the height of the retaining wall exceeds four feet, a building permit is required. c. The retaining wall must be constructed in accordance with acceptable engineering design and construction standards. If the applicant chooses to construct the retaining wall in accordance with City of Edmonds Standard Detail E 8.12, "Modular Block Wall", this will be acceptable to the City., If the applicant chooses any other retaining wall design, we will require the design to be prepared and stamped by a licensed professional engineer and the design to be submitted with the Right of Way Construction Permit application for approval. d. The retaining wall on Fir St. must be located to provide a minimum of 10 feet clear area between the retaining wall and the paved street surface and must terminate at the property line on 'A' Ave. e. The area between the retaining wall and the paved street surface must be provided with a minimum of 6 inches of crushed and compacted rock surface to prevent erosion and deterioration. f. - T - he retaining wall design in the area of the existing steps must be such that it does not create a safety hazard of the steps projecting into the parking area created by the retaining wall, or the steps must be relocated to a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of the paved street surface. g. The applicant must acknowledge through signing the encroachment permit agreement that it is his responsibility to remove the retaining wall from the City right of way upon request from the City. 5. The applicant is required to obtain a Right of Way Construction permit for the removal of the retaining walls and construction of an acceptable retaining wall on Fir Street or restoration of the right of way to is previously existing condition. MME -4