The URL can be used to link to this page

621 VIEW PL S.PDF14531 621 VIEW PL S 0 eZZ2 TAX ACCOUNTIPARCEL NUMBER: BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: CRITICAL AREASA &L-m DETERMINATION: El Conditional Waiver E] Study Required,/*aiver D[SCR-ETIONARY PERMIT #,s: DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) R-ECOR-DED FOR: PERMITS (OTHER): PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: SEWER LID FEE SHORT PLAT FILE: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED. SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: GEOTECH REPORT DATED: STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: 1 f W Iffill, LOT: BLOCK: L-ATEMP\DS'rs\Fonus\Street File Checklist.doc i CITY OF EDMONDS ,� .,,, LF CONSTRUCTION, PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER OF BUSINESS NAMEJNAME X MAIUiGA05RESS CL VV 0 ---- Cily jT.LEP;I.NE ,A C ZIP TELEPHONE. NAME 1, �j IRES USE PERMIT Z-.)NE NU"IE Go 2D S , UITEJAPT- ADDRESS PLAT NwFiSUB0114�1M40.1/ It I ; 0i — ' (1 LI NO. 0 LID FE� S PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PEA OFFIC:AL STREET MAP A. 0 A. 1 0 EXISTING —)� PROPOSED REOUIRED DEDICATION — METER SIZE LINE SIZE No. 04� FIXTURES PAY REOUtRED 31 VER%r NO 0 REMARKS OWNE TRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOq EROSION CONTROLIDRAINAGE f/g/ Ir ADDRESS 0 pa� -r TELEPHONE FIRE REVIEWED By '14�1 Zip , 4'Lli 017 RIANCEORCU VA Rcu SPECTI SHOR INE RE 'DoN N BO D POSTED STATE NS m �"o FCKED By AREA ........ ....... 1 14 SERA REVIEW Go P ETE I EXEMPT ALLOWED SIGN I PROP pnopE�TYTAX ACCOUNTIA."L— ') jD09 aoo.�, 6060 000 Err- .0 New - AEMDENTIAL-,'�: PLUMBINGIUEC14 6". ADDITION comm'ERCIAL c3" c MPLIANCE OR Go RANGE D�F USE.. t PARKING LOT AREA I REVIEWED By PLANNING REVIEWED BY REMODEL APARTMENT sirN.' Acoo PnoV ED REPAIR G ADING CyDS (FENCE X FT) evT C3 DEMO LISH TAN� / '-JARAGE R11AI.ING WALL RENEWAL A (TYPE 61 USE. BUSINESS A ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: VOW vew) CHECKED By c:44� TYPE Or CONSTAtICTION. v - wv. -'ODE NUMBER, or 12- Num""" F wN"LL' 1,111T!, L A EAS A "�Oov 0, PCCIALINSPECIort A E ED IRED 0 YES 15 u oczu- LOAD t NUMBER DESCRIBE woAX TO BE DONE Ylt A s PRONEiS INSPECTIONF. PER UBC 1081FINAL INSPEC.ION REO'D —i� —4 777, PIE "'ll -z IT - ILI-A VALUATION FEE PLAN CHECK FEE LAC HEAT SO E GLAZINQj�— I LD�Sff> BUILCING , . . PLAN C NU T - PLUMBING IS I:!To,.lToC YEAS WORK TO —THIS- PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THRU t'oT PUBLIC DON, ON PRIVATE P;ioPlAT! ONLY. A N CONST MECHA141CAL GRADINGIFILL %E.�IN 'CUAB�.S'.F.A LKS CAIVEWAYS' MAROUEES, liTC,) WILL REQUIRE c � 'A . -D a SEPAItATE PERMISSION STATE SURCHARGE PERMIT APPLICATION: 190 DAYS PEAG- IT LIMIT'. I YEAR . PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 160 DAYS -REVIEW FEES NG.,AEVtEW FEES ENG., Mon SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FDA E INFORMATION ENG,INSPECTIONFtE q HER SPOUSE: HEIR3. ASSIGNS AND SUCCESOPts -APPLICANTON8 ALF OrIDSWo.'lly, AND HOLD HARMLESS THE r ITY OF p G LANDSCA IN DiFENO IN INTEREST, E E T -E N NO DS VV CMLS MEL y, S DIAGENTSFROM ANY A ITSOFr CTLY OR INDIRECTLY _DMoN T N �E RE Z5 N FE INSPECTIC E t- RECEIPT TS", 'ATg_'Ag',1,4�G !1I.CGLAIMiFORD E; OF WHA A �IT ISSUANCEOF 1#415 PERMIT SHALL NOT BE F R?M,`G`,E.SSUG`, T H'IS, REEDU C � A N Y RE 0 U I A E M E �NT 0 F AN Y CITY 0 AD I NA N C E PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT Cl EE FNC'WoAIV D LIMIT IN ANY VAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PPOVISION No" TOTAL AMOUNT DUE RECErk '�J':2 1 E INFORMATION I H E A L BY ACK N OWL E Do E THAT 1. KNVTHP�t EoA WO T I�I A I PLIC��ATI UI � A'llAT..T'PIlED A..T Or CA T G AND THATPLAM APPLICATION APPROVAL P-1 �.Ifl .1g-d by GIVEN IS CORRECT; W; S NSTRUC- TH CIT Y AN 6 STATE �LoAW Aj0GNULATlLNBGCEo THE lllll� D'oING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY. t L M PLOYED A""* To C PER W T AND, o CALL FOR INSPECTION _10dg.d ... P—do TIoN; IN6VIKOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STAT F WASHINGTON RELATING C. OFFICIALS SIGNATI.T% w A MEN SCoMPE2SATIONINSURANC .27. SIGI'En (425) "1 i , m- SIONATUME ((0 C . OR AGENTI D— 1 7 7 1 -0220 � lk F4LLLA'�t:G By ATTENTION EXT 333 d IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL INSPECTION HAS BEEN IAADE AND APPHOVAL.OR A CERTIFI- 771-0221 ORIG!NA FILE YELLOW INSPECTOR PINK OWNER GOLD - ASSES$OR A FINIAL CATE DF OCCUP�NCY HAS 13 EEN GRANTED: UBC SECTION 109 b FAA '711,91,1 &;94 /Sao i� 0 z 9 0 :-n m c: m -40 00 c -4 K x rn m z 0 -TI n m M a us 00 Fn co M 0 z z 0 m PLANNING DATA STREET:F::1L:E] SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Name: Date: Site Address: Plan Check #: Project Description: Reduced Site Plan Provided: (YES NO) Zoning: Map Page: 0-:5 Corner Lot: (YES (e0j) Flag Lot: (YES no) Critical Areas Determination #: Study Required aiver SEPA Determination: —;01<'Xempt Needed (for over 500 cubic yards of grading) 0 Fee 0 Checklist 0 APO List with notarized form Required Street: Side: Side: Rear: Actual Setback5 Street: Side: Side: El Detached Structures: Rockeries: Fences[Trellises: Bay Windows/ Projecting Modulation: Stairs/Deck: jL-b A J-Pq &* Height 4111 Datum Point: Mamh 0 L Datum Elevation: Maximum Height Allowed: Actual Height: - I --- Other Parking Required: 2- Parking Provided: Lot Area: Maximum Lot Coverage: 35% Proposed: '9 3,� Lot Coverage Calculations: ADU Created: (YES& 2" Subdivision: Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES CNO)) Comment5 SON Plan Review By: Planning Data Form 04-11-06.doc The city of Mmonds Side Sewer Drawing EASEMENT NO - ----------------------------------------- — 106-01500 NEW CONSTRUCTION El REPAIRS R LID NO - ------------------ - ASI�ff. NO - ------------------ ELLIOTT A. NOTE CONTRACTOR ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ PERMIT NO - ------------- ------ OWNER................................ .............................. --------------------------- jOB ADDRESS ...... �a:L..KIBW --- PIAQ E ....... ................................ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO . ...................................... BLOCK NO - -------------------------------- a- lis N ......................................................................................... -------------------------------------------------------- NAMEOF ADDITION ----------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DYE TESTED ON SEWER Approved: PWW-0001-111'75 (REV.111-18) DATE -------------------------------------------- By ------------------- *4 E 1_4 ll" 04 Rff,'�. I,— - IF Ell H 'MmRO IE FROJEr-T:ATKINSON RESIDENCE REMODEL 621 VIEW PLACE SOUTH EDMONDS, WA 9802 "* REGISTERM ARCHI DARRYL CUSTER VATE, 7057 23rd AVE NE L US o " SEATTLE, WA.98115 STATE Of WASHIN rt. 410 I — AI -- a "/., 4-4 1-� #I 1 6 FILE NO. 'Z DOD tritical Areas Checklist -------------------------------------------------------------- Site Information (soil s/topography/hydrology/vegetation) I . Site Address/Location: 6L I V\15W FLAGt_; %Vt� 1�D"K�, WA. 2. Property Tax Account Number: 606.0 _1000 —001 - 0006 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 4000 4. Is this site currently developed? X 'yes;_no. If yes; how is site developed? 12W"s ft"ILILf 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). X_ Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of I 0-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 3 0% present on site (a vertical rise of I 0-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: �j 0 Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway VJ'D floodplain of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year- round? ID Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? 10. Site is primarily: forested meadow ;shrubs mixed urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) V-E� kDR0,61- LAMS60% 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: ... .. .. ...... .. - — ------ ---- - ------- r ------------- . .. .... :.Use On . ... . ..... ----------- 1. ::Site is Zoned?: DETERMINATION ^ca_Chk.doc: Rev 10/03/97 9 0 L� City of Edmonds CRITICAL AREAS CHECKLIST 0--W01W The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to his/her submittal of a development permit to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, 'or may be, present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Hall (Critical Areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). An applicant, or his/her representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application. Please submit a vicinity map along with the signed copy of this form to assist City staff in finding and locating the specific piece of property described on this form. In addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent infor m-ation (e.g., site plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assist staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site I have completed the attached Critical Areas Checklist and attest that the answers provided are factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below). Owner/Applicant: r* ( VkNA % Name - t7ll V�yw VL- Street Address WMW� (W. I 150Lo - city State Zip 4v; ��o -�(,l I Telephone Signature Date Applicant Representative: I?AnA, ocx� Name 105 1 S S J2-V AV16 M Street Address city State Zip Telephone Signature Date (over) c:reccption\jana\cac1.doc DA ZoneF NX 1/4, SEC. 25 T.27N.9 R.3 E.W.M. '0 V ALDER 11D GECK S 1105 11,- 6, ta I, I _ _ _ j -q 37, kn' ul �i, 9 WA L IN T � i 505: 505 '519 s', N tq In .n. , %n -, 1' Sit P.9 1 52, v 528 523 25 538 529 612 In 153 . ........................................ ALDER oz r r4 1 405 -Lr 00 47� 1� h QD WALN T WALNUT 00 I, QD 00 M 506 I Zd .-1 .4 1 Z1516. WAR CEDAR ST CEDAR 600 no (oil Q2 7 606 _wt 3rE 617 610 ppaucE .f&19 boo RUCE 421 (6012. 42 , in 1 01 k% in a7 620 OR 700 SpRvcr ST. 703 LJ 61 IPO CID 6201 — 01 HOMELAMb 766 707 702 714- 7-20 723 100 40 721 717 - a '710 716 LU E%;�Z 3 -7 716 to 710 9 60 704- Zo > 726 727 4cc 78 7 613 -1p 1 1$* 7/8 720 731 795 %91 ZZ In 9, 72, 714 719 a * HEMLOtr Sr. 15' 4% tn 617 WAY% HEMLOCK 716 103 N 40 006 621 8 6 807 631 8/0 of? *LLMV1JntftL 4G in tn 4 — in %11 831 K F. IS .4 g sit 31 ai N 831 go /�, F2� Sig 1651 LAIIREI s1r ZEAr4gKT L V 901 %a 904 ;; *,-A 19081 —io-g— W4 41,7 .911 Ln 1- ?, t, 912 1 ;, t - - --1 - 1061 2 1z I,',, �1 I,, 1 1910 102 (0 9A 906 Ln a- 'p q Ln 9 it IJ9! 1 -7 909 'n 91 go 9, FT E. Pi E ST PINE PINE -ST . ...... log/ 1020 10" ru ta-,- L, LA , - u% ;T� 7", P14- I L PINE -cf— 1002 N Sner-Lr r JW4 105 "1609 tv fuli FAA K lots 1010 %d 1011 1010 Ci 1669 log lolls 1024 — 102) . 1016 /016 1014 td 1023 102f 1013 1023 1022, 1029 1021 1022 1033 1030 102.7 102, Ila- 1031 1030 1031 )Ole 1029 1028 J03) IA3(, 10113 FORSYTH LAHE 1034 1,029 L-J 10315 16M loql la34 — Io3,q a 1040 1037 1040 1031 10016 Imi ��)040 1049 11636 1033 /040 1035 ta 1040 1045 1048 L4 10,39 1044 - 10 37 WTV )049 1040 04 . 1041 La L4 iiia _L04-0 104+ 14, )m > 104Z 'ICE iHo,- —In W; 1051 lose 1060 < + Cc loss /062 1Z x -3 it I u cb LL06 79 Jos& FIR CONTEIV. ST T EffrA L Ak FIR :, 11�- �"-, I 10 cm 9 1103 11 M 9 rem al 105 1105 1114 //M SMAM 1114 Rock a. 1113 fill 1114 tillil 708 1/21 .1//8 1115 1124 1123 vRF' 112) 1126 1191 7io — 1122 112S //36, P, "25' 1128 13, 2 [133 1134 1:132 113,1 Iiso EL 1131 iiZ4 Its/ 1136 1131 1122 uJ 114D 1126 A a' L 1132 //y/ r-1 c- 1137 1139 to It 37 1130 114 1 u261' 1 W113311H 1 1 1 1137 SIA vi 1142 1134 /140 1141 g-T C� 1142 No . 115) T, 6-1 4 �11 5491 1136 /143 WAY — 1148 PARK 1149 1149 — 1152 1153 11-54 1139 t: 1161 in M H59 -14 1 1157 PARK E M ST. 220' P19RK 00 - Z?0" 'n 1�0 4j rip 22 6 Ili N 1210 20A ELM M x0t .0 0 CITY OF EDMONDS lz7 C . i s9\3 February 7, 2000 Gary Atkinson 621 View Place So. Edmonds, WA 98020 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning - Building - Engineering Subject: Determination regarding Critical Areas Checklist# 2000-10 Dear Applicant: GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR Enclosed please find a copy of the Critical Areas Checklist you submitted. The "DETERMINATION" reached by the City is located on the reverse side of the form (bottom of page). mo, You must submit a copy of the CRITICAL AREAS CHECKLIST and DETERMINATION MTH ALL PERMIT APPLICATIONS or YOUR APPLICATION WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Permit applications include the following: Building Permits Conditional Use Permits Subdivisions Variances Applications to the ADB* Land Use Applications Any other development permit applications. c: Darryl Custer Enc: Critical Areas Determination * Architectural Design Board Thank you. Sharla Graham Planning Secretary C:Rer,eption\Jana\CRLTR.doc Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Citv - Hekinan, Jar)an 9 1 117 c . is L) v CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - Edmonds, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OFTHE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS GAR'y HAAKENSON MAYOR APPELLANTS: Frans & Betty Munson. Flugh & Grace Preston, Toin &:. Sharon Karnmerzell (See Exhibit A. Attachment 2) PROPERTY OWNERS/ APPLICANTS: Gary & Diana Atkinson CASE NO.: A P-2001 -1 3 ) 5 LOCATION: 6' " )I View Place South (See Exhibit A. Attachment 1.) APPEAL: Appeal of staff interpretation regarding height calcifla-,ion for single-family residence. C� iAZE VIEW PROCESS: Hearin(—, Examiner conducts a public hearing and makes the final decision for the City. MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 Single-Farnily Residential - Site Development Standards. b. Compliance with ECDC Section 17.30.0-35. Trellises and Arbors c. Cornpliance with ECDC Section 21.40.030. Height definition d. Compliance with ECDC Section 21.90.150, Structure definition e. Compliance with ECDC Section 21.10.040, Building derinition f. Compliance with ECDC Section 2- 1.000.000. Buildin'! Compliance with ECDC Section 20.85.070, Rool'del. 1111 t toil h. Compliance with ECDC Section 21.15.110. CoveragC definition i. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.91. Public Flearing-, ard Notice Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.105. Appealsand C'o,,'.-.-t Review 0 Incorporated ALIgust 1.1, 1890 0 S:ster City - Hekiran, Japan C rr C C n M a 0 0 C 9 M z I Ica-ing Examiner I wc sion C ase 1\1 o SUMMARY OF RECOMMEINDATION AND DEICISION: Staff'Reconinicridation: D-Iny theappeal Hearing Examiner Decision: Deny the appeal PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the official file. which included tile Planning Division S!aff Advisory Report. and after visiting th,-, site� tile Hearing I , Examiner conducted a public hearing on the appeal. The hearing on the appeal was opened at 9:38 F-m., Octobei 18. 2001. in the City Hall. 1---dinonds. Washinoton, and closed at 11:' )0 a.m. Parti,-.ipants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered 1, in the and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is avai ablo Planning Division. HEARING TESTIMONY/LEGAL ARGUMENT: The following persons offered tc�tirnonv and/or legal arpumcnt a, the public hearing. From the City: Kathleen Taylor. Planner Ann Bullis. Assistant Building Official From the Appellants: Frans Munson Tom KemrnerzeV Hugh Preston Grace Preston From the Applicants/Property Owners: Edward McKenna, Attorney for the Applicants Gary Atkinson, Applicant Jim Simpson, Contractor From the Cominun;ty: Tom Readek Jim Mizell Gene Summy Shirley Murdock Barbara Kurtz The Appellant and neighbors testified in part that: * The subject house is taller than they were told it would be. * The method of determininc, the sinallest rectangle is not correct. * The house should be surveyed from all four of the points that make up the reciangle. * Some of tile neighbors were assured that the City would survey the site. * T here is no cover or roof oil the arbor and it should not be used in the calculations. I learing F.xarnincr I )vc s]" k )I I CascNo. 0 One ofthe new corners that was established al'tcr the arbor was included to dct(:;-n-.J'nc the hei0lit of the building is incorn-'a Corner B is off by about two feet. 0 Includin- the arbor is the wrong way to get a higher building. 0 The arbor hasn*t been constructed yet. 0 'Flie house is being built without consideration for the neighbors and is blocking, 0 7 he !oss of views from neighhornng properties has resulted in a loss of value for the properties affected. 0 No one in the City seems to -he concerned with view protection. The Applicant, his attorney and his builder rcsponded in part that: • The house. as built, meets the requirements of the code relative to height. • The house does not meet the definition of a nuisance ns specified by the E-drilL111d'S '--odes. • Some of the neighbors support the design ofthe house. • It is unfortunate that some ofthe neiohbor's views have been impacted. but I-C HO City requirements for view protection and the ne'llghbors do not own view cascine!As over the subject property. • The applicant did take the neighbors views into acCOUnt. because by code the% could have constructed the house fUrther Lip the hill and then more views would have been iir.-p�icted. Staff responded in part that: 0 There is nothing in the City Code to protect private views. There is only a require.'rient for I�mitation oil heights. • The arbor was on the original plans and staff made a mistake and did not inclUdC ir ;1-, tile original calculations. • Scme of *the houses in the are- have view casenler,�'-.- over homes in front of then,, to protect their views. That is not the case here. • The maximum allowed height in this instance is 290.75 feet above sea level and that is what the top elevation of the house is. • Points B and C were both checked by s"Laff when the rectan-lewas changed. Staff, �,.;'Iieves the elevation shown for Point B is correct. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was subraitted into the record at the hearing Dorothy Knesal (Exhibit B) Howard Loss (Exhibit C) Donald and Bonnie Brindle (Ex,-,ibit D) Diana and Gary Adkinson (Exhibit E) Daniel Roupe, PLS (Exhibit F) Invin and Janet Bucholz (Exhibit G) Alan Brobeck, MD (Exhibit.1) (earing, I 11.-� sioll CaseNo. 4 Ofthe live letters Submitted by neighbors. 11OUr ofthL letters (I"xilibits 13. C. 1). and (i) cxj:-resscd no ohjcctioils to the subject home and one of the letters (1---'xhib;t J) expressed concern ()%,cr th%� loss ofview reSLIltill(' from the construction Of the Subject home. L, One of the letters submitted (Exhibit E) was from the applicant arid it responds to iS'�H-,:�, r--1'SL-d by the appollants. One of the letters submitted kExhibit F) was from the applicant's land surveyor indICLM11,11 that ille ridge elevation of the subject house is acceptable per the approved plans. FiNDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) (1) �: The subject property is approximately 8.537 square feet. See Exhibit A. Attachment 3. (2) Land Use: The subject property was recently developed with a new Sin2lo-4--r-lily residence. (3) Zonin : The Subject property is zoned RS-6. Single-Farnily Residential. �Scc Exhibit A, Attachment 1. (4) Terrain: The lot slopes downward from the westem portion of the lot towards View Place South. Overall the lot changes approximately 20 feet ill elcvatlffL. Refer to the topography information available oil the site plan. Exhibit A. Attach rnent ' ). 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: t!5 2� a) Fact: The neighboring properties are zoned RS-6 and are developed residences. b) Conclusion: Construction of a single-family residence, which meets code requiremencs. is consistent with single-family development. B. HISTORY 1. Chronology a) On July'), 2000, the City received a bLlildin ' e. permit application frorn theAtkinsons to remodel an existing single-family residence at 621 View Place SOLIth. T11C application included using the existing foundation and first floor to COIISUIM J single-family residence. See Exhibit A. Attachment 7. b) City staffrevicwed the application, and the permit was iSSUed on September 2000. I fearing I - :xamincr I ',t:c sion CaseNo. AP--2(1',1)l-l',,-- c) Oil April 6. 2001. the CitN received a lormal complaint from Mr. Kaninic,-/-�Ii — V'Ave. S. regarding tile heig 0 --lit of'the residence under construction. On Aor!] 24" tile City received another formal complaint regarding the height frorn Mr. Nl'ur;-�on of 612 — 9"' Ave. S. and Mr. Preston of6! 8 — 9"'-Ave. S. d) In regards to the height calculations. the appeliants expressed concern that th2 smallest bo.,� possible was riot drawn around the proposed residence. as I-CL]Lhrc�� hv Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 21. 40.030. Refer to 1-:xhijbit e�*. Attachment 2. At that 'time. staff realized an error had been made in the o1-1'!::1I);:; height calculations. Tile box Should have been drawn to include tile proposed �irbor. which had been shown attached to the north side of the building oil the pk;ns that werc previously reviewed by staff. e) On May 14. 2001. the applicant SUbinittcd a new site plan with revised hci,-,It calculations for staff' review. The height calculations box included the arbor. hi doing so. the height calcu;ations changed from a niaxil'IILI111 CICV,16011 Of 290 fl*eet to IllaXiII11.1111 clevallon oi'290.75 fect. 0 On May 24, 2001, planning staff adProved the revisions. g) On June 12. 2001. both the Mavor's Office and the Building Division recelv�:d letters and photographs from the appellants. See Exhibit A. Attachments 8 and 1). h) On the same day. Code Eril'orcement Officer. Jason Tourtellot. responded ;(,, letters to clarify the height calculation verification process, that is to say. iNc could not be verified until tiric of fran-rino inspection. i 'I The Cit'!�S Building Inspector verified tile h—cight on July 2-5. 2001. Refer to Exhlbi-,. A.Attachments 5 and 6. j) On August 17, 2001 . a letter was sent from the Code Enfrorcement Officer -,o tile appellants. The purpose was to describe the appeal process. k) On August 3 ) 1. 200 1, tile City received a formal appcal. Please refer to Exhibr. 1A. Attachment 2. 2. Past Precedent In. the past staff has included covered porches and covered patios in the licight calculations. However. it is difficult to cite specific examples. since tile", "i-C includcd with single-family residential building permits and not recorded sepa'rawl", :111 Citv records. One recent case that included a covered porch :In the height calculations was i'o'.' a new home at 836 Olympic Ave. C. APPEAL ISSUES I. Issues Raised by the Appellants. Tile appellaiits� issues are contained in Exhibit A. Attachment 2. In summary. the iS5LIcs are as flollows: a.) The arbor should riot be included in the heiplit calculations. learing I:Xlllli,l(, -:- I ',,,c �iioll Case No. ..\ 1 1-21 1 - I b.) The height vel-ii"Ication Was done illipropci-ly. I 0 The newl\1 remodeled residence is not compatible w'tIj tile existing rCSiLIL!11,U ;, �-J 'IS �1 1ILliSalICC tO the neighbors. c 2. Hearing Examiner Response. a) Issue: Including the alrboi- in tile liciolit calculations. (I) Facts (a) Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDQ 21.49.030 prc)% ldcs a definition of"height.- The code states. "Height means tile average v�.-!ic�d distance. from the averap ,c level ofthe undisturbed soil of the site (:('ve;-L-d a strUCtUrc. to the highest point of the sti-LICture. CNCILlding tile 110110%% Ing: I A Church steeples. (B) Elevator penthouses... : (C) Chimneys... : (1)) v ',n- pipes.... (E) Standpipes.... *Average leveF shell he determined bv avtr�igillv elevations of Oie downward pro.jection of the COW, corners of" the sniii'le:ii rectangle, which will enclose all ofthe bUilding. CNCILlding a lilaxilIlL.11- ol'31) inches ofeaves. If a corner falls offthe site. its elevation shall be the a-veraLle elevation ofthe two points proJected downward where the two sidt.-S :)fthe rectangle cross the property line." (b) ECDC 21.90.150 provides the definition of a so-ticna-e. It states. culre means a corribl.nation oft-naterials constructed and erected perrnant.�w;\, on. flic ground or attachied to something havini, a permanent location oil t;:e �!round. Not inc!uded are residential fences less than six I'cet in 116ohit. rockeries. and similar improvements ofa minor character less ,hall thl-Ce f'CeT in height.- (c) ECDC 21.10.040 provides the definition of a builciing,% "Buildim-, MCLUIS MV structure having a roof. excludino all forms ol"vehicles even thoullil immobilized." (d) ECDC 21-00.000(A)(8) states. "The word bidklh�,,, includes a portion ufa building or lot." (C) The root' definition is contained in ECDC 21.85.070. "Rooli-neans the -Lop coverino of a building or structure." (f) The Edmonds Community Development Code does lot contain a c.c-flnilnoll (11 covei-ing. However. the definition of covei-(�,(,),e is provided in ECDC 21.15.110. "Covera(le nicans tile total ground coverage ofall bLllildll,"Q�- Or structures on a site measured frorn the Outside 01'CNternal walls or members or from a point two and one-half feet in from the outside cdi-", ol'a cantilevered roof. whichever covers the greatest area." Thc definitions of trellises and arbors are provided ill ECDC 17.30.03.5. Section 17.30.035(A)(l),-,tatcs. -Ib-hoi- is a separate (recstanding, oritt�ichcd I I-i 11 g, F �. an I i :I I i I I 'z is e N o. I - 1 5 7 Structure fliat has a lattice roo!'and lattice walls or a horizonta! 1�111;,L %wrl. Structure serving to roofa gate or critranec \vay. (h) Section 17.30.03-i(A)(4) states -71-ellis is a horizontal structure ol'opz.�ii :.,-.:tice work designed and intended 10 Support the growth ofvines or othL�t* N or a horizontal decorative element composed of lattice work w-lilich adi-nits light and air through a predominantly open design.*' (i) The latter part ot'17.30.035(B) states. "A trellis which has a horizontal element which is more than 36 inches in xvidth measured perpend)CO:ar :.a fence or trellis shall be considered an arbor and subject to t1lit'. sltillii requirements for an arbor." (2.) Com:111sion (a) The sub ' ject arbor structure exceeds three 1'ect in horizontal %vidth. ond theref'ore meets the definition of'an arbor. See (I ) (h). and (I ) (b) The Edmonds COMMUnity Development COdC ilICILICIC.S tile I'OIIO-,V1P-.! definitions: (i) The hei,�Ilhi deliniftil ref'erences the s1ructure dcl-inition. Thc sul-j--m arbor exceeds 36 inches in height and is not include(] in the list of I _- exclusions. Therefore it meets the definition ofavrzic!ure. Sin�:e H meets tile definition of a sli-iiaw'e, one can assume that it S110111C. 1--2 c, included in the height calculations. (i i) The heighl definition also references the huilcliw, d I I I to the buildit�Z definition. it must have a roqj*on t. The i-oq/'dc,,-11-,:t1'C-fl states that a ro(�f is the top covering of a klildinu or a StrLICt Ure. (iii) Alithough the ECDC does not offler a definition of covei-il�c,,. it does, provide a definition of coierage. ECDC 2 1.15.110. Refen-ML, to coi,erage, the height calculations box includes tile building/structure from the outside of external walls or supporting members. (1v) ECDC 21 .000-OOO(A)(8) states that the word hitiNing includes :i portion of a buildincy. The arbor is attached to the residence and functions a,� a part of the overall building. (v) III this situation the arbor serves to roof an entranceway.just as 1--.'C'J)C 17.30.035(A)(1) describes. (c) Based on GIe above definitions. it is concluded that the arbor in qUC,,1101,) should be '111CILided in the overall height calculations. (1) It meets the definition of a siritemi-e. (2) It meets tile definition ofa J-oOj., (3) Although it is scmi-transparent., it is a roofas described by the definition. ECDC 17.30.035. CZIri I) Q I: NZI III I: I,' Case N o, (4) 1211i1(1,'17.Q includes .I part oftlic huliding. (d) The City Staff,was Correct ill its 1111cl-prctation. The �Ipplicant has C.!:-..! with the E-Arnonds C0111111LIllily DCVCIOpnlellt Code b%' InClUding ill: ;T� -,;- X; the overall height Calculations of the building b) Issue: Height Verification M Iacts (a) The Cltv*s RUildino Inspector Nlike Snook vvrIf-cd the height ofthc 11b' I I I I - house to be 290.726. Refer to Exhibit A. Attachments *; and 6. (b) Danic! ROLIPC. a Professional Land Surveyor with Group I`our. Inc.. the height ofthe subject house to be 290.75 Refer to 1---xhib�t [.-. (c) CCDC 16.20.030 states the development standards lor RS-6 zoning. 'I hc� maxinIL1.111 Fci(,Iit allooled is 25 f'ect. (d) The Examiner f0LInd oil a field visit that the actual top ofthc rocker is not shown oil the plans (i--"xliib:lt A. Attachment 4). bLIL tl,,,,it the rockery Wld stairway have not been changed as a result ofthe rernodel/new COnSLI'LlGliCill Of' the subject 110LISC.. The Examiner believes Point B has been accura,,,-i\- loc-112d for the SUrvev and is oil the top of the existing rock-er-'. (e) Th.e maxinium avera(-T.- helolit allowed is 25 feet fron-1 the avera(7c grade. The average original grade as demonstrate6 hy the applic.il)t*.-, hind surveyor. and confirmed by City staff is 265.75 feet. Thereflore. the niLAH1,111111 average elevation allowed for the subject hous,-- is 290.75. (e) The appellants did not submit any SUbstantive information to sho\\ thal ilic subject house exceeds the allowed 290.75 feet. (2) Conclusion (a) The residence as built is no more than 25 feet above the average gi-,jc. (b) The residence meets the City's height requirements c) Issue: Compatibility with Neigh borhood/Nuisance ( I ) Facts (a) Neither the Edmonds Community Development Code nor the City's Design Guidelines require design review for single-larnily reside I I _,. I , I I C C.". (b) ECDC 20.110-030 addresses nuisanCLS NvIthin the City. This section ofthe code addresses such thirips as Junk. broken furniture. graff-iti. vehicle hazardmis trees.Junk vehicles and things that may be dan-crOLIS tO Cllil�,tell, (c) Tht: City has adopted no codc provisions to protect private vieWs. I Icarin I g Fx: mincr I )cc'sion Case No P-2001-135 9 (d) The building permit was reviewed bv Planning Stalf(0 ensure cornpatihii;ty with the bl.l�k standards for the 16-6 zone. lZefer to I"Ahibit A. Attachment 7 1 . Conclusion (a) Tile applicant has complied with city requirements. It is acknowlecl(�.'-d that the sub ' ject home does impact views from neighboring properties to the cast. however. as noted above. there are no City codes that have been adopied to prevent this as long as the applicant mects all ofthe adopted code re(ILlircilicrills. I DECISION Based upon the foregoino findillI.Is anci Conclusions. th', appeal DENIED and tile staf'Fstafl-s decision to include the covered ti-eills/arbor in the heignt calculations is uplicid. Entered this 3 1 st day of October 2001 pursuant to tile authority granted the 1-1carinux Exam' lllcV under Chapter 20.100 oFthe Community Development Codc oftlie City ofEdnionds. 0_0�n g� 0-t—ow Ron McConnell! FAI P Hearing Examiner RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL The following is a surninary, of the deadlines and procedures foi- filin a request 11or reconsideration and an appeal. Ali,,, person wishing to file a request for reconsideration or Z:� appeal should contact the Planning Division for Further procedural information. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Section 20. 100-01 O.G allows for the Hearin(, Examiner to reconsider his decis' 1 1011 Or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of tile date of ,he initial decision by any person who attends file public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest tract of land which is tile subject of such decision or recommendation. Tile reconsideration request must cite specific references to the -�-!ndinos and/or tile criteria contained in the ordinances ooverning the type of application beincy reviewed. APPEAL Accordim, to ECDC 20. 1 05.030.D the decision of the hearing examiner oil appeal o' staff decision is final and cannot be appealcd to City CouncilL' The Hearing Examiner's decision may be reviewed PLII'Suanii :o the standards set I'Orth ill RCW 36.70.0 130 in Snohomish County Superior Court. The 'land use pctition nlist pe filed within twenty-one (2 1) calendar daN S ofthe issuance of'thc FE"NailliTIC]"S �.Jecisit)n. rXHii3rrs: The l'ollowing exhibits were offercd and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory lZeport. with attachments I . Vicinity and Zoning IMap 2. Letter of Appeal I Site Plan 4. Elevation-, 5. Building Inspector Comments (fated 10/04/01 6. Height Check Verification F'orm 7. Building Permit 8. Letters from Appellants dated 6/11/01 9. Photos provided by Appellants B. Letter from Dorothy Knesal. dated 10/16/01 C. Letter frorri Howard Loss. dated 10/17/01 D. Letter from Donald and Bonnie Brindle, dated 10/16/01 E. Letter from Diana and Gary Adkinson. dated 101/10/01 F. Letter from Daniel Roupe, PLS. dated 1015101 G. Irwin and Janet Bucholz, dated 10/16/01 H. Seven phctographs submitted by t.he Prestons 1. Eight photographs submitted by the Munsons J. Letter from Alan Brobeck, MD. dated 10/8/01 PARTIES OF RECORD: Hugh & Grace Preston 618 — 9"' Ave S Edmonds, WA 98020 Frans & Bettv Munson 612 — 9 Ave. S Edmonds. WA 98020 Edward McKenna 710 Second Avenue. Suite 1414 Seattle, WA 98104 learing F'Nanlincr I )'�CISWII CascNo. %11-20111-115 P Lp. C 10 Torn & Sharon Kanimerzel I 608 _ q',h Ave S Edmonds. WA 98020 Diana & Gary Adkinson 22014 — 7S""PI W Edmonds. WA 9800C 'Forn Rcadck 901 Spruce Edmonds. WA 98020 .Jim Mizell 610 — 9"' Ave. S Edmonds. WA 98020 Shirley Murdock 716 — 9"' Ave. S Edmonds. WA 98020 A111 Simpson 4964 116"' Pl. SE Bellevue. WA 98006 Howard I -)ss 620 V -Pl. S Edmonds. WA 98020 Daniel ROUpe. P.L.S. Group Four. Inc. 1603O.Juanita-Woodinville Way NE Bothell, WA 98011 Alan Brobeck. MD 620 _ 91h Ave. S Edmonds. WA 98020 GCHC SLI111111V 606 - 9"' Ave'. S I'Anionds. WA 98020 Barbara KUrLz 7426 230"' SW Edmonds. WA 98020 Dorothy Knesal 612 View Place S Edmonds. WA 98020 Donald &, Bot, 'nie Brindlc 616 Vlc\v 111. S Edmonds. WA 98020 Irwin S-, janct BUCl1OIZ 832 Cedar St. E"d monds, WA 98020 Plannir.,, Division Building Division Case No. A)1_2001_�135 lla�c I I MY OF EDMONDS 121 - 5TH AVENUF NORTH, EDNIONDS. NVA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDDNGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: Ron McConnell, H�qring Examiner From: kathlcen T or Planner �� Date: OCTOBER 10, 2001 File: AP-2001-135 MUNSON, PREsTON_KAMMERZELL Hearing Date, Time, And Place: October 18, 2001, At 9:30 AM, Third Floor, Room 304 Edmonds City Hall, 121 — 5'h Avenue N. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 2 A. APPELI-AN-i/APPEAL.INI-OR,',IA-riON ................................................................................................................. 2 B. REcomMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 2 11. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................... ........... 2 A. SITE DESCWTION ............................................................................................................................................ 2 B. His,foRy ............................................................ ................................................................. ........................... 3 C. APPEAL, ISS:jES ............................................................................ ................................................................... 4 111. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS ......................................................................... 6 A. REQUEST i--oR Rr-CONSIDERATION .................................................................................................................... 6 B. APPEAL.: .......................................................................................................................................................... 6 IV. APPENDICES .................................................................................................................... 6 V. PARTIES OF RECORD ................................................................... ............................... 7 AP-2001-135SRAtw / Ociolicr 11. 2001 / StaffRej%wi Momsoti. 1'rc%io;i & Kaninicr/01 hk No. AV-2001 -1.15 11age 2 (W 7 1. INTRODUCTRON A. Appel lant/Appea I Information I . Appellant : I rans & Betty Nlunson. Hugh S-, Grace Preston. Torn & Sharon Karnmerzell (See Attachment 2) 2. Owners of Subiect Property: Gary 8-, Diana Atkinson 3. Site Location: 621 View Place South (See Attachment 1) 4. Requests: Appeal ofstaff interpretation rgarding, height calculation for single-family residence. 5. Reviev; Process: Hearing Examiner condUCtS a public hearing and makes the final decision. 1 6. Maior Co e Issues: Fn a. Compliance with Eclmo:icis Community Development Co&, (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 0 Sing -le -Family Residential - Site Development Standards. M b. Compliance with ECF)C Section 17.30.035. Trellises and Arbors —4 0 c. Compliance with E(-,*DC Section 21.40.030, Height definition d. Complianct with ECDC qection 21.90.150. Structure definition e. Compliance with ECD-- Section 21.10.040. Building definition M f. Compliance with ECDC Section 21.000.000, Building 0 C: g. Compliance with ECDC Section 20.85.070, Roof definition > h. Comp!iance with ECDC Section 21.15.110, Coverage definition i. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 420.91. Public Hearings and Notice j. Compliance with ECDC Chapt.r 20.105, Appeals and Court Review 0 n B. Recommendations Based on statements of Fact. Conclusions. and Attachments in this report, we recommend M DENIAL of this appeal and upholding staffs decision to include the cove-ed patio/trellis in the 0 0 height calculations. FffNDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS M Z A. Site Description 7' 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) EaELS: (1) .Li7e: The subject pronerty is approximately 8,537 square feet. See Attachment 3. (2) Land Use: The subject property was recently developed Nvith a new single-fan-ffly residence. (3) Zoning: Tile subject property is zoned RS-6, Single -Family Residential. See Attachment 1. (4) Te ' rrain: The lot slopes dowmvard from the western portion of the lot to%varus View Place South. Overall the lot changes approximately 20 feet in elevation. Refer to the topography infort-nation available on the site plan., Attachment 3. -'-ighboring Development And Zoning: z) Fact: The neighboring properties are zoned RS-6 and are developed as single family resid,:11ces. AP-2001-135SRAOC / October I I � 2001 /Still'Reporl Vieston & YZ.111111Cl/ell File No. AP-2001-135 va�,e 3 -)1'7 b) Conclusion: Construction ol'a single-l"'innily residence %vhich nic,,:tc codc requiteniciv,, is consistent with sijigl--� fillillily &VL-lopliwilt. History 1. Chronology a) On July 3, 2000, the City received a building permit application from the Atkinsons to remodel an existing single-family residence at 621 1 View Place South. The application ;ncluded using the existing fbundatk�n arid first floor to constr-ict a new single-family z residence. See Attachment 7. 0 1 b) City staff reviewed the application, and the permit v.-as issued oil September 12, 2000. 0 M c.) Oil April 6. 2001, the City received a formal complaint from NIr. Kanimer7ell of 608 — 9"' Ave. S. regarding tile height of the residence under construction. Oil April 24"N tile City =—n received another forma! complaint regarding the height from Mr. Munson 01'612 _ 91h Ave. S. and Mr. Preston of 618 _ 91h Ave. S. M d) In regards to the height calculations, tile appellants expressed concern that the smalicsi 0 0 box possible was not drawn around the proposed residence, as required by Edmonds 0 0 Community Development Code (ECDC) 21. 40.030. Refer to Attachment 2. At :hat C: --4 time, staff realized ar. error had been made in the original height calculations. The box ig X M M should have been drawn to include the proposed arbor attached to tile north side of tile z building. e) Oki May 14, 200 1, the applicant submitted a new site plan with revised height calculations for staff review. The lie' Ight calculations box included the arbor. In doing so. the height calculations changed from a maximum elevation of 290 feet to a maximurn elevation of < (n 0 -n 290.75 feet. ;U On May 24, 200 1, planning staff approved the revisions. > X 9: g) Oil June 12, 2001. both tile Mayor's Office and the Building Division received letters and M M 0 — (n photographs from. the appellants. See Attachments 8 and 9. 0 r- 0 M C: h) On the same day, Code Enforcement Officer, Jason Tourtellot. responded to their letter to U) K (n clarify the height calculation verification process; that is to say, tile height could not be M C-) verified unti! time of framing inspection. z r— M i) The City's Building Inspectorverified ihe licigl-.t oil July 25, 2001. RetlertoAttachnients > X 5 and 6. --I j) On August 17, 200 1, a letter was sent from the Code Enforcement Officer to tile M > appe'�---its. The purpose was to describe the appeal process. z k) On August 31, 2001, the City received a formal appeal. 11 lease rc fer to Attachment 2. 2. Past Precedent z 0 i In the past staff has included covered porches arid covered patios in the height calculations. 0 However, it is difficult to cite specific examples, since it is included with a singl-2-family M residential building perirr�it and not recorded separately in City records. AP-2()01 - 131.SR doc , (),:1ober 11. 2001 1 Stati'Report Nhw'oll, VIC.'I'm " � Kammeucll hic Nm AP-2001-135 va�c 4 of`7 C. App�n! Issues I . Issues Raim! by the Appellants. The appelkints' issues aic contL6n,.-d in Attachment 2. In Summary, the issues are as follows: a) Tile arber should not be included it,. the height calculations. 11) The height verification %vas,.ione improperly. c) Tile newly remodeled resicience is not compatible with the existing i-esidence. 2. Staff Response. a) Issue: Including the arbor ill the height calculations. (1) Facts (a) Edmonds C(-mmunity Development Code (ECDC) 21,40.030 provides a definition of "height." Tile code states, "Height means the average vertical distance, from the average level Of the undisturbed soil of the site covered by on structurc, to the hig-hest point oftlic structure, excluding the following: (A) Church steeples, (13) Elevator nenthouscs...: (C) C'airnneys ... ; (D) Vent pipes...: (1:11 Standpipes.... 'Average level' shal! be determined by averziging elevations ofthe downward projection of the four corners of the smallest rectangle which will enclose all ofthe bUilding', excluding a maximum ol'30 inches ofeavcs. Ifa comer falls offthe site, its elevation shall be the avera-e elevation of the two points projected downward where the two sides of the rectani-de cross the property linc." (b) ECDC 21.90.150 provides the definition of a structure. It states. "Structure means a combina!ion of materials con,tructed 2nd erected permanently on the �1,f()Uild or attaclic-d to something having a permanent location on the ground. Not included are residential fences less than six feet ill height, retaining walls, rockeries, and similar improvements of a minor character less than three feet in height." (c) ECDC 21.10.040 provides the definition of a building. "Building means any structure having a roof. excluding a!! forms of vehicles even though immobilized." (d) ECDC 21.00.000(A)(8) states, "Tile word building inchides a portion of a building or lot." (e) The roof definition is contained in ECDC 21.85.070. "Roof means the top covering of a building or structure." The Edmonds Community Development Code does not contain a definition of covei ing. However. the definition of coverage is provided in ECDC 21.15.110. "Coverage means the total ground covcrage of all building ,s or structures on a site measured from the outside of external walls or supporting. members or from a point two and one-half feet in from the outside ed(,c of a cantilevered roof, NvIlichever covers the greatest area." The definitions of trellises and arbors are provided in ECDC 17.30.035. Section 17.30.035(A)(1) states, "Ilrbor is a separate freestanding or attached structure that has a lattice roof and lattice walls or a horizontal lattice work structure servim, to roof a gate or entrance way. (11) Section 17.30.035(A)(4) states "Trellis is a horizontal structure ofopen lattice work dcsi�),,�d -i�id inicndcd to support file growili ot'vines or other vegetation or a horizontal decorative element composed oflottice work w,iich admits light and an- through a predominantly cpen design." 1\1%2� - * I �SR.doc / Oclobcr 11, 2001 /SmIT keporl ,%itinson. llie,ioii &, K:;mmcr/c11 h1c No. AP-2001-135 PaVV 5 (11' - I (i) The I aur part of* 1 7.30.035(B) stal-.-s, "A trcl I is which has a horizonta I element which is more than 36 inches in width measured perpendicular to tile Fence or trellis sliall be considered an arbor and subject to tile siting requirements for in arbor." (2) Conclusion (a) The subject structure exceeds three feet in horizontal width. and theref'ore rneets the definition of an arbor. See (g), (h), and (i) above. (b) The Edmonds Community Development Code includes the following relevant definiions: (i) The height definition rct'crences tile structure definition. Tile subject arbor exceeds 36 inches in height and is not included in the list o!'exclusions. Therefore it meets the definition of a structure. Since it meets the definition of a structure, one can assunie that it should be included in the height calculations. (ii) The height dcfinition also rellerences tile building definition. Ac,zording to the building definition, it must have a roof on it. The roof'definition states that a roof is the top covering of*a building or a structure. (iii) Althou(,Ii the ECDC does not offer a definition of covei-ing. it does provide a deCinition of cove"(1,9e, ECDC 21.15.110. Referring to covertige, the licight calculations box includes the building/struct-ure from the outside of cxtemal walls orsupporting niembcis. (iv) ECDC 2 1.000.000(A)(8) states that the word building includes a portion of a building. The arbor is attached to the residence and functions as a part of the overall building. (v) In this situation the arbor ser,/es to roof an entranceNvay, just as ECDC 17.30.035(A)(1) describes. (c) Based on tile above delinitions, one can logically assume that the arbor in question should be included in the overall height calculations. (i) It meets the dcfiaition of a slructiwc. It meets the definition of a i-oof. Although it is semi - tra nspa rent, it is a roof as described by the arbor definition. ECDC 17.30.035. (iii) Building includes a paFt of the buflding. (d) The applicant has complied with the Edmonds Community Development Code my includinu the arbor in the overall height Calculations Of tile buildinil. b) Issue: Height Verification (1) Facts (a) Tile height was verified by the City's Building Inspector Mike Snook. Refer to Attachments 5 and 6. (b) ECDC 16.20.030 states the development standards for RS-6 zoning. Tile maximum height is 25 feet. (c) 'File maximum height is 25 feet frorn the average original grade. Tile I average original grade as demonstrated by the applicani is 265.75 feet. c Therefore, the niaxinium elevation is 290.75. Tile actual elevation is 290.726. AP-2001-135SR.doc / Octohcr 11, 2001 / Siall'Reporz z 0 1 0 M :; =F Fn M C in -40 00 C --I �_— M M M Z U) 0 > M;Z M M 0— C/) 0 r- 0 M C/) M C-) Z r- .1M X z U) z 0 i 0 M 10tinson. Preston & K:muncr/ell h1c No. AP-2001-135 Pap: 0 of 7 (2) Conclusion (a) The residence as biuit is 24.976 feet above tile average grade. (b) The residence mects the City*- n,,ig:-.t requirements. c) Issue: Compatibility with Neighborhood I) Facts (a) Neither the Edmonds CLninranity Development Code nor tile City's Urban Design Guidelines require de! ign i eview for single-family residences. �b) The building permit was reviewed by Planning Staffto ensure compatibility with the bulk standards for the RS-6 zone. Refer to Attachment 7. (2) Conclusion (a) The applicant has complied with city requirements. M. RECONSIDERAMON AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filirg reconsideration's and appeals. Any person wishing to File or rcspcnd to a recommendation or appeal ShOUld contact tile Planning Department for further procedural information. A. Request for Rc!-mideration Section 20. 100.0 1 O.G allows for the Hcari—g Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initizd decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimory or by any person holding, an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendadoll. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in tile ordinances governing tile type of ,,pplication being reviewed. 11. Appeals Accordinc, to ECDC 20.105.030.1) the decision of the hearing examiner of, a�p.,al of a staff decision is final and cannot be appealed to City Council. W. APPEND.C'ES Attachments I throutdi 9: I . Vicinity and Zoning Map 2. Letter of Appeal 3. Site Plan 4. Elevations 5. Bui;ding Inspector Comments dated 10/04/01 6. Height Check Verification Form 7. Budding Permit 8. Letters from Appellants dated 6/11/01 9. Photos provided by Appellants All-20(1 i - 135SR.doc / October 11. 21101 ! 2 C F, R ::i :-r rr M C C —1 C 0 C r ,nz 0 -n M > M M 0— U) 0 r- 0 M C Cn �: U) M 0 Z Cn 0 M V. PARTRES OF RECORD Frans &. Betty Munson 612 — 9" Ave S Edmonds, WA 98020 Diana & Gary Atkinson 22014 — 7S" PI W Edmonds, WA 98020 Mu-wl. hc.,toti & Kat;.rYwr/cIl Filc No. All-2001-135 Ilige 7 or 7 HUgll & Grace Preston 'rom & Sharon Karnmerzell Building Division 618 — 9"' Ave S 608 — 9"' Ave S Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Planning Division AP-2001-135SR.doc / October 11. 2001 /SoITRport -A >1 3-70, 71-1.j7.15-17ZI_ 7� 1 1 0:1913 935 - OC) 801 j 1 a - - 16 17. 827 - 847 -1849--304 104 1925_ 3 40 81 822 83, 18 1�844 50 1402 �,05 92011926 1 942 810 - 4 ALDER ST 2 1'714 �;16 8 720 [722 721 802 7- 801 --17-1517,'7 721-17311i i 751 14-11 1 1845 1851 [115 E—IL'09-- 62tI827-L41�_ - 935 710 714 720 724 752 L-,FI-WAL N-.UT—Sj 744 F748 1 810 816 �820 830 834 842 1 - I — I 1 1 506 926 1 1 944 95( — 00 736 --ZL-J-711 7?3 7�i 759 811 �815 1823 515 I Inj . 841 1---- L 837 516i 1935 94 CEDAR S 81L, 710 ro' 724 75d 614� 1 - i 601 F912 34 732 736 820 893 922 F9 940 94 832 6001 --- 606 611 703112 9;3 1 1 941 61" 9QI 1929 3 705 619 :610 616 761, CE 639 621 ROI e E--:- ---I 629 —1,P-JRJ, 918 926 928 IL 718 7 720 734 738 700 1 8CI 809 6181- -SPRTj8F--P—lL'---.-620 714 710 - __: I o T73 804 710 T- 82 —Lq 940 832 94 17 L 7Vj 616 IF 529 9287 CL 'o 4 721 717 714 E723 715. 730 803 _�3 _ _72��: 0 g 0 091 718 731 725 1 940 S] Bol LJO-.0 —1 JU720 726 7-121 740 '6 1 750 7670 1 82,9 '09 14 1 1 / 1 21412 - --- -.. ____j -- -- - 830 F-- -LA—U R E-L,- W 810 ;29 604 7�3�71 _-17-117-33--7451 751 759 — 8� — F L 31-� 822 82oL8'8 LALR EL—S-T _ --j 4 720 730 736 748 910 1 ,71T K,> 912 —6 cn 717� 835 916 zoning and vic9nRy map 9813 21 19808 9804 931 1 935 r Attachment I Filc .,:o. AP-2001-135 C J n C C C rr r: C C. C 9 IT KP'- D i - I 3S AUG 3 0 2001 August 28, 2001 pERMIT COUNTER City of Edmonds Director of Cami-,unity Services 121 5 1h Avenue N. Edmonds WA 98020 Re: Review of Approved Permit - Appeal of Height Calculation Atkinson Single Family Residence @ 612 View Place South, Edmonds Permit No. 200731 Dear Director: The three undersigned neighbors appeal the height calculation and the actual "as built" height of the above referenced residence. This appeal is brought pursuant to ECDC 20.100.040 for the following reasons: (1) the requirements of the city code of Edmonds are not being met; (2) the conditions of the permit are not being met; and (3) the house as bil.ilt is a nuisance. First Issue: Requirements of the City Code Pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code ("ECDC") 21.40.030, the height of a building shall be determined by the avera ge level, which is based upon "the four cc:ners of the smatlest rectangle which will enclose all of the building". The rectangle used to calculate the height of the building for the above -referenced residence was not the smalleqt rectangle. The rectangle as set forth in the revised site plan includes a trellis and arbor, which is adjacent to a side of the building. Pursuant to ECDC 17.30.035 1, an arbor is a separate or freestanding structure that has a lattice roof. A lattice roof is a predominantly open framework of wood, which is designed to permit the free flow of light and air through the framework. Trellises and arbors are defined in ten-ris of fences and hedges, and in fact, subject to the height limitations of fences. Permits are required to be obtained under the same circumstances as a fence. Clearly, an arbor should be treated as a fence, not as a building. As a fence type structure, a trellis or arbor should not be included for the purposes of establishing the smallest rectangle in the height calculations. Use of the trellis/arbor in the present height calculation rectangle was improper and a violation of ECDC 24.40.03 )0. The height calculation should be recalculated with the smallest rectangle enclosing the building and. the height of the house adjusted accordingly. rT Second Issue: Condition of Permit We believe the hei-ht check verification improperly measured the height of the house and the U house, as constructed, exceeds the maximum allowable height. The height check verification needs tu be perfon-ned in a proper mainer using the correct reference point. If 'lie properly performed height verification reveals the residence exceeds the maximum height, the height of the house should be adjusted accordingly. Third Issue: Nuisance The hOUS-. as constructed is not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood characteristics. it drasticali-y exc,;eds the size, bulk, and height of the surrounding homes and unreasonably interferes wiTh the nei-hbors' views, light and air. The excessive size of the home unreasonably Z� D interferes with the neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property and depreciates the value of the neighbors' property. I he City has permitted the nuisance and must abate the same or compensate the neighbors for their dainages. Conclusion As set forth above, the requirements of the ECDC are not being met and the conditions of the permit are not being complied with. Moreover, the home is extremely out of proportion to the characteristics of the neighborhood and constitutes a nuisance. The Director of Community Services should insure the ECDC and the. terms of the permit are complied with, adjust the height of the house accordingly, abate the nuisance and/or compensate the neighbors for the. loss nf i�se and enjoyment of their property and the loss of property value. Sincerely, 1 Frans Manson liu Preston Betty MAson Zrace Preston Munson Residence Residence 612 Ninth Avenue South 6 18 Ninth Avenue South Edmonds WA 98020 Edmonds WA 98020 Sharon Katmm-erzrellv� Kammerzell Residence 608 Ninth Avenue South Edmonds WA 98020 il I fpri, HEIG-HT CALCULATION N.OTI-:-- PT A: 2.&I310ii PT D: 165-W PT C.. �X60,ov, f-T V: ;�n OV!, -1 - 'X&5.15'. + 25� = 190.115.', ALLONEP (210,5'PROPOSEV). IE(SHT CUL H RIFICATION PURINO Pf,;,�AMJN& MPECTION. 4 I r ?4VA WOO. -01 W - 0—ini'll. VAWI snF PLAN a CV) APPROVED BY PLANNI A PIP OVED BY PLANNi -j Clk X: Hy, Ll LIDC'J :1 00 (1300, 0) Lo LLI W;: Ll ZCO r<< cruj(x —j3: PIL U) f)--o LLI z 50 crr�� . Lo< ccow cow <r-co: IL ATTACHMENT 4 IS AVAILABLE IN i FILE NO. AP-2001-135 AT THE CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING DIVISION 121-5 TH AVE N 2 ND FLOOR 0 0 c: m --I 0 --4 r m 0 c 0 n m 0 0 C) c rn z --i 0 E b 1�f TMEMORANIDUM Date: October 4, 2001 To: Kathleen Taylor, Planner From: Michael Snook, Building Inspector y�n,�� Z-� Subject: Height Verifi��ation Procedure Atkinson Single Family Residence Permit 4200731 Height verification for the subject structure was conducted on July 25, 2001 wid was based on the height calculation information and da�urn point on the plot plan approved 5/24/01 by the Planning Division. A transit was used as a point of reference to measure the height of the structure above the datum point elevation. The datum point was an existing manhole cover (elevation 255.9') located in the culdesac; bulb of View Place South. The leveled transit was used to detennine the distance from the too of the manhole cover to a point on the house from which the ridge ineasurement could be taken. This measurement was E. 526 feet. A measurement was then taken from the point on the house to the top of the ridge. This measurement was 23.30 feet. 11.526 + 2,31.30 = 34.826. 34.826 was added to the datum elevation of 255,90, for an actual ridge elevation oj'290.726 feet. Per the height calculations shown on the approved site pian, this elevation is less that the maximum ahowed height elevation of 290.75 feet. City of Edmonds c)� Planning Division mi'TACH-WENT 5, Tim 9'D --'� 5 MAXIMUM ELEVATION ALLOWED I ACTUAL RIDGE ELEVAT�O�' SECOND FLOOR PLATE ELEVA&H 4- DATUM POINT ELEVATION 2 L,Uemp\buildlr4\hartdouC�,*ft*le[dHtCk.vsd 8100 VERIFIED BY CITY BVILDING INSPECTOR . 3 Z —dsto I Name Date DATE RECEIVY PERMIT EXPI�RES F_� ns� ub� PERMIT ZONE 2! CITY OF EDMONDS NUMBER CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION F JOB SUITEIAPT# ADDRESS (,'21 VIEW Ftlt`r� OWNER NAMEfNAME OF BUSINESS PLAT NAMpSUED-.yISI%v�O.,.,,` -40. t.� LID 110. biArl ATV-IUA,P oi,Ew - 1 1 , , � I LID FEE S MAILING ADDRESS PUBLIC RI(jHT OF WAY PER OcFICIAL STRE ET MAP I..P 0 P.- P-1 K 0 CITY ZIP TTEIE7 .. E EXISTING PROPOSED I-*— '-Z- 0 S.— 0 REOUIREDDEDICATION— PT IVETER SIZ,� LINE SIZE NO.OFFIXTURES PRV REQUIRED NAME I I YES),�r .00 ADDRESS REMARKS ION CONTROUDRAINAGE OWNERICONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CE)NITHOLIURAINA- C." ZIP TELEPHONE 1� t,7 /(1 0 NAME �-)rjA�- 0Jj6Z I Ij,)) r-_�, ENC.INEERING REVIE BID E 60 m ADDRESS z FIRE REVIEWED By DATE' 0 ZIP TELE HONE 0 VARIANCE 011 DO SHORELINE `4' SPECTI IN [PeOND STATE EXPIRATION OAT L -KED By E D YE S 0 OSTE_ vil f -L L.11 /,,I- 1',v REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. SEPA CUMFLETE EXE.Pl ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED, PROPOSED Fn --1 - 606c) - 0-0 - onl - 3095 gm L- 0 0 NEW RESIDENTIAL numeiNr, MICH LOT COVERAGE ON ALL ED PROPOSED REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) FRONT SIDL REAR PROPOSED SE TBACKS(FT.) FRONT UR SIDE REAR rn 0 --1 0 COMMERCIAL COMPLIANCE OR S7,.4-/, -,,0 ; I �,. z 0 c AUDITiON 0 CHANGE OF USE PARKNG LOT ARE0 PL�NIING REVtEV ED BY I AS M REMODEL [3 APARTMENT 0 SIGN P REOD ROVIDED M Z C3 REPAIR 2) GRADING FENCE X CYDS FT) 1 REMAqKS 0-4 c 4 V-T 0 C] DEMOLISH 0 TANK TH4R '11-�AAAGE co R.ET ING WALL RENEWAL 2 r- (TYPE OF USE. BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: Ol L CHECKED B 111PE 01 DO SlAUCTIl�N C.D! OCCUPANT GROUP FCX� 0 -n M > A PC-�,AC- u") i L I)bk-tpo I aLl z . L"o . r-f-AM F711 NUMPER 12- NUMBEROF DWELLING CRITICAL EAS A �oov - I I SPECIAL INSPECTOR E CUIRE 0 YES JAI�l-A 0�1-T OCCUPANT L AD m m Fn :��RIEST- 'R UMBE R C3 0 r- DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE A�R 108/FINAL INSPECTION REQ'D 30 0 M c-e PR ESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 5 K U) M 1; (6 1 ( -n c tjf'� o z r- 4" TI�Cj' T;f� �:,k q L. C. 7-1 m > > Ncf� VALUATION FEE PLAN CHECK FEE IJ cl cn u HEAT SO ACE GLAZIN IL 121-11 1 . I .- BUILDING 2; 2- 2, Ll z 0 A x7 "y -4 PLAN Cl-!Wt� NO' IVESTED DATE PLUMIIND oo- �2� 61 m --- MECHANICAL THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERb WORK TO ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC - — 1 -7 BE DONE DOMAIN (CURDS. SIDEWALKS. DRIVEWAYS. MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE GRADING/PILL SEPARATE PERMISSION. _ STATE SURCHAR513 L4 "-D PER.ITAPPLICATION: 1110 DAYS WOR SSTARTIEDWTTHIK I60OAYS PERMIT LIMIT: I YEAR, IT I E14G PEVILW77EI�= PROVIDED SEE BACK OF INK PERMIT FOR MORC:NFORMATION --- — ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE. HEIRS. ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS ENG. INSPECTION FEE ;APPLICANT. N NTEREST. AGREES TO INDEMNIFY. DEPEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY 0,' I' YAND ITS OFFICIALS. EMPLOYEES. AND AGENTS FROM M 1 111APIll ;"C .N", 'N�l E ONDS. WASHINGTON. DU ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE. ARISING DIRECTLY 'T . �E' T FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERWIL ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE PLAN CHECK. D�PDSIT E NA DEEMED TO MODIFY. WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY IT OUIREMENTOF&NYCITYORDI INCE NOALIMITINA.WWAYTHECITYSABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.' T, C74 75 TOTAL MMOUNT DUE I HERESY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION: THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN I RECI. ANDTHATIAM THEOWNEFLOR THE DULYAUTHOR17PD AGENTOF S COP APPLICATION APPROVAL THE OWNER. I AGREE TO CO.lY WIT. CITY AN. STI E LAWS Fl.Ul�'N- C-NrlR UC' 'ION. AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY. NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED CALL VIOLATIO OF THE LA83P CODE OF THE STA F WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION 27. �MEIVSNCOTMPE�SATION INSU:� OFFICIALS SIGNATURE DATE ID (425).OR L 771-0220 IIILE�1111 ll� DATE I! N EXT 333 IjLTO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL 771-0221 CTIO'J HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- 0 1 FIL AT, HbE 2ST 'ANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECT!ON 109 FAY D/wf/ nl 7,�1;141 ow "T (D' , Tiq !4 JUN 2001 618 Ninth Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98020 June 11, 2001 Mr. Jason Tourtellot, Code Enforcement Inspector Development Services Dept., Bldg. Division, City of Edmonds 121 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, 14A 98020 Dear Mr. Tourtellot We appeal to you for your assistance regarding our financial, per- sonal, and legal concerns as to the house being rebuilt at 621 View Place South in Edmonds, which seriously devalues the property values of at least three homeowners by an estimate of up to $1.50,000 each. In addition to the financial loss, the excessive height of this home destroys the awe and love that we have had for our homes, their views and atmosphere. We feel that the height is totally unnecessary for the owner's full views --their third story ceiling is 12' 6". Since the original plans violated your guidelines, we appeal to you to insist on corrected, honest plans, and full verification that they meet all your requirements, including the smallest rectangle and measurements from original undisturbed soil. Perhaps the enclosed photos which you requested, showing the original ground level, will be of assistance. Thank. you for your assistance in this very important matter. Sincerely Hu & Grace Preston 618 Ninth Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98020 Copy to -Mayor Gary Haakenson Frans,& Betty Munson 612 Ninth Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98020 0 T6'm & Shdron KammeYzell 608 Ninth Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98020 ATTACHMENT z 0 4 0 M q :_n Fn -f 3: 0 M C M 0 --10 0 C - A ;,- 3: M M Z 0 --1 C — z =j 3: -< cr 0 -n n;U --i > 3:9 M r-.. 0 C—/) 0 r- 0 M .0 CO MCI) M C-) Z r- M 3: z __4 M C/) z 0 q 0 ril LV ivy T4, -left, IT KIM :,Av ,at. 14 it doom MI. ..... ..... of U PS bt. LIT-s It ot V lIK pr - ----------------- 7 4, j7 IN,, No rICE IF THE DC'.,--.JMENT:fJ THIS FrAIVIE IS LP��S --'-EAR THAN THIS NGTICE IT IS PL2E -0 THE QUALITY OF THE DOCu%IE.',T L MIN 4 9K M4 e �4D On 17 0 fRECOVED oc-I 1 8 Nol DEVELOPMENT SERVICES October 16, 2001 Dear Gary and Diana: This letter is in response to your letter dated Oct. 14, 200 1. 1, personally, have no objections to the home you have recently constructed at 621 View Place S. I consider it an asset to the surrounding houses in the circle. It is a quality home and should enhance the value of the surrounding homes. It unforti-inately partially obstructs the view of yow- neighbors behind you. However, they should realize that at sometime, someone could possibly build in front of th(-,m. In as much as your building is by the Edmonds community building cnde and it is built per the building permit issued by the City of Edmonds - I feel theil- grievance is unfounded. Anyone who objects to the terms of the code should, in my opinion, appeal to the ity development board and strive to have the code reviewed. communi G d' ckI Dorothy�. K'n sal 612 View Pluce S. Edmonds, WA 98026 (425) 776-7058 WIN Lj 10/17/2001 RF OcT I DEVELOPMENT SERVICES To the city of Edmomds Development Service Department reo-ardine, the notice date of the 10/4/'200.Flle#AP-2001-135 The following is how I feel about th%-I house next door to me located at 612 view Pl. So. Edmonds,Wa..My address is 620 view Pl. So. Edmonds,Wa. I see nothin-a wronc, with this house or the desian or how high it is. The plans were OK by the city of Edmonds before the pen -nits were issued and any building started. Mr.&Mrs Atkinson has had the property surveyed three tirne to be sure the house was not to hic, i.You would think the people who are protesting would have protested as soon as the rafters were put up. I think the house is fine and should remain as is where 1s.It is very difficult to build a new house that may look different than a house or houses that are 30 to 40 years old as styles chancre Materials chancre and ideas chancre. Truly, Howard G. Loss 620 View PL. S. Edmonds,Wa.98020 5y, CI Rz-21EUVED 0C T 1 8 21 U0 DEI/ELOPMENT SERVICES Edmonds Development Application & Hearing Examiner Hearing 10/16/01 Date of Notice: October 4, 2001 File 9 AP-2001 -135 To whom it may concern: Concerning the new construction rernodel of the home of Diana and Gary Atkinson at 621 View Place South we strongly con -test the objections to the building oftheir home. We object on three counts: 1) The style and design of their home is architecturally appreciated in Its uniqueness and in the environment of Edmonds. Homes in Edmonds, as time passes, and it does, have been and w;ll be remodeled or- replaced with home., in such charaeter. This is what makes Edmonds special. 2) The building of this home has iacreased the property values of our neighborhood. We as homeowners constantly strive to keep up the value of our home by interior desi I Ign as well as surrounding landscaping. We applaud the ability to redesign and brin- new life into the neighborhood. We wish other homeowners in our neighborhood would have such concern as well as Edmonds pride. 3 3) The height is within the Edmonds Community Development code and was approved. We find it concerning those those that oppose the building of this homc and basically It's height, waited until completion. It seems tc: us that addressing such concems might have been eased during the process with Dianaand Gary rather than to judge after. Finally, over the last 15 years we h-,,ve been in this neighborhood the association that we have had with the Diana's parents, Diana, Gary and their family has made us feel very fortunate. We are saddened that they have spent such effort, time and money to create a home that would bring such pleasure to them as well as their Immediate neighbors to have it now, at this very late date, brought Into jeopardy. We respectively submit that the Ill-timed appeal of the staff decision related to this property as well as other claims be denied. Sincerely, Donald Brindle Bonnie Brindle 616 View pl. s. Edmonds, WA 425-771-5621 Diana and Gary Atkinson 22014 78t' Place VV Edmonds, VVA 98026 425-775-7864 October 10, 2001 City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Development Services Department 121 5'�'Avenue North Edmonds, WA. 98020 RE: Atkinson Residence, Permit # 00-00-288 Appeal Hearing Response File No. AP-2001-135 Dear Sir/Madam: We are sending this letter to confirm our. attendance at the upcoming hearing scheduled for October 18, 2001. We Would also like to take this opportunity to respond to the appeal letter written by the Munson's, Preston's, and the Kammerzell's. Our response corresponds directly to the issues outlined in their letter. However, as a pre!iminary matter, we request you dismiss this "appeal" and strike the hearing as the appeal is untimely. The building permit for our home was issued in May 2001. The "appeal" was, filed on August 30, 2001, well in excess of the 14 day filing requirement provided in ECDC 20.105.020. Although the appellants are, in essence, requesting a review pursuant to ECDC 20.100.040, they are, in fact, requesting an interpretation of the code as applied by the Planning Department for issuing the permit. Issues regarding interpretation of the text of the code must be appealed pursuant to ECDC 20.105.010(4) and 20.105.020. Clearly, the purpose of the appeal period is to allow parties to resolve issues of the permit before expenditures are made. In reliance on the permit and the interpretations of the Planning Department, we have already expended considerable resources and the structure has already been built. To allow a "review" of an issue governed under ECDC 20,105.010(4) is not in contemplation with the purpose of the code. L-1 First Issue: Requirements of the City Code. The height calculation methodology is compliant with the Edmonds Community Development Code. The arbor structure included in the height calculation is a part of the building; therefore, the rectangle used to determine the allowable height is the smallest rectangle. The appeal letter points out that "an arbor is a separate or freestanding structure that has a lattice roof' and therefore should be part of a separate permit "under the same circumstances as a fence". The lerLer conveniently misstates the code. ECDC 17.30.035(A)(1) defines an arbor as a "separate freestanding g_rgttaijhed structure that has a lattice roof..." Emphasis added. ECDC 21.10.040 states: "Building means any structure having a roof' The appellants statement that the .arbor should be treated as a fence, not a building" is simply contrary to the code. As we previously mentioned, the Arbor referred in question is a part of the building and not a separate structure. It is being constructed under the same permit as the main house. Second Issue: Condition of Permit The appellants have absolutely no basis for their claim that the "as built" height exceeds the correct height allowed pursuant to the permit and the code. The house was designed, permitted, and built to meet the Edmonds Community Development Code. Both the City of Edmonds and our own surveyor have verified that the ridge height, as already built, fits within the allowable heigM. We will have supporting documents at the hearing to confirm this judgment. Third Issue: Nuisance Here again, the appellants allege statements with no factual basis, and conveniently neglect to mention ECDC 20.110.030 regarding nuisance. None of the nuisance factors enumerated could even remotely apply to our project. There are no junk vehicles, abandoned equipment, wells, shafts, or hazardous items of any kind on the property. The house is contiguous with its surroundings; the design motif and building finishes can be found in several locations within the City of Edmonds. The size, bulk, and height is consistent the neighborhood and meets the intent of the Edmonds Community Development Code. In fact, the house is smaller than the allowable area that could be built on our property. Conclusion The assertions made by our three neighbors are simply without basis. It is unfortunate that they have chosen this path rather than to discuss their issues and concerns directly with us. However, we have done nothing wrong. Responding to these issues has cost us substantial resources and undue hard -ship. The house was designed, permitted, and built to meet the Edmonds I- %.ommunity Development Code. We ask that you view this complaint for what it really is, and dismiss this vindictive appeal, In the alternative, we look forward to resolving these issues at the hearing. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Sincerely Diana Atkinson Cc: Kathleen Taylor, Planning Department Frans and Betty Munson Hugh and Grace Preston Tom and Sharon Kammerzel Gary Atkinson GYRO UP FO UR� Im. 16030 Juan' fta-Woodinville Way NE Bothell, Washington 98011 FAX (206) 362-3819 (425) 775-4581 - (206) 362-4244 e-maik info@grp4.com October 5, 2001 Mr. Gary Atkinson 22014 — 78"' Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 RE: Hei2ht Certificate on Remodel Group Four Project No.: 004004 Dcar Mr. Atkinson: This letter is to inform you of our recent findings regarding the ridge elevation of the remodel for your home, located at 621 View Place South, in Edmonds. On October 2, 2001 our field crew measured the ridge elevations at the previously mentioned property to be 290.75 feet. After reviewing the plans provided to me by Darrel Custer, I found the architect design elevation to be at 290.5 feet, which is 0.25 feet lower than what we currently measured. However, the height calculations shown on the plans reflect that you may go as high as the 290.75 feet, as measured. Therefore, it is my opinion that the ridge elevation is acceptabile per the approved plans. 0 Please feel free to call rne if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Daniel K. Roupe, P.L.S. Executive Vice President DR: lb W:\G41IRC)J\00-4004\Ltr.Atkinsoii 100501.d(,,: SURVEYING ENGINEERING PLANNING MANAGEMENT G;-,, . Octoher 16, 2001 City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 ir"' Avenue North 122 Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: Kathleen Taylor Dear Ms. Taylor We reside at 832 Cedar Stree! in Edmonds, which is one lot North of the contested project at 621 View Place. / have examined the letters and photographs of the complainants and have viewed the contested property. Mile I can not verify theproblem with the alleged height violation. I do not rind anYthing about the remodeled residence that could possibly be construed as a nuisance. We would imagine the City has checked the actual construction verify in fact that the building has been constructed as per the plans, specifications and permits. We find the residence to be of superb construction and design by highly qualified craftsmen. This new home will be an asset to the values of the neighbr,;,hood. Sincerely, Irwin and Jane Or'T e;'� Y, - G -I - W M --i 0 M 0 C 0 n --I r M 0 0 0 C 9: M z —i LI Man G. Brobech, MD, Inc. PS 620- 99h . Ave. S. Edmonds, WA. 98020 October 8, 2001 RE: Development Application & Hearing October 18,2001 PI-oject Location: 612 View PL, Edinonds Attention Kathleen Taylor, Phone: 42-5-775-3670 Fax: 425- 672-8089 I wiH not be able to attend this hearing due to surgery scheduled that day. As a home directly next to the above property I have concerns when I see a perfectly good hvo story home being torn down and replaced by a three level home that directly limits the views of surrounding homes. As a homeowner and a taxpayer I do not understand the rationale behind allowing a permit to be approved that removes an existing view from an adjacent property. �, like many of the residents of Edmonds bought our homes for the livability of the area and the views. I aISO am concerned Of t1le loss of enisfiang property values by the blocking of at homes view. The Joss of a view amounts to a sizable loss of up to $100,000 to $200,000 in resale value, not to mention the potential tax loss to the city by devaluation of private property. I feet the city has an obligation to protect the existing home owners and taxpayers interest not just the interest of a potential homeowner or builder. Alan G. Brobeck, MD 620 9h Ave. S. Edmonds, WA 98020 J t, 890 . 199- C. Contractor: - Puget Spund Energy Contact: —Mari-ame Kiggsbury Mailing Address: 1122 75 St SW kerett, Phone: (206) 356-7500 X7596 State License #: 94203 Liability Insurance: Bond: $ D. Building Permit # (if applicable): Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable). E. 0 Commercial 0 Subdivision City Project ',43 Utility (PUD, GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER) 0 Multi -Family E] Single Family E] Other L INSPECTOR- INSPECTOR: F. Pavement or Concrete Cut ID Yes []No G. Size of Cut;_ x H. 2 cuts APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN INDEMNITY. Applicant understands and by his signature to this qpplication, agrees to hold the City OfEdmonds harmless from injuries, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds, or any of its departments or employees, including or not limited to the defense ofany legalproceedings including defense wets, and attorney fees by reason ofgranting thispermit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS MR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING 771E FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WiLLBE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITYARCES, AT WHICH TIMEA DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL REPROCESSEDFOR ISSUANCE TO THEAPPLICANP, Construction drawing of proposed work required with permit appHR-ation. A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call the Engineering Lhvision, 771-0220. Work and material is to be inspected during progress and at completion. Restoration is to be in'accordance with City Codes. Street shall be kept clean at all times. 1'raffic Control and Public Safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. All street cut ditches shall be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to the end of the working day; NO EXCEPTIONS. 4 Ihave read the abovestatements and understand thepermit requirements and thepink copyof thepermit will be a 'I bl n . eata imes/brinspe io purposes. vai a e o sit t n Signature: Date: 4-11-97 67Con�ctor aor"7' tra A ent) CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK NO WORK, SHALIL BEGIN PRIOR TO PER,MIT ISSUANCE Eng. Div. 1994 FIELD INSPECTION NOTES Comments: Diagram.: (Fund 111 - Route copy to Street Dept.) CONTRACTOR CALLED FOR INSPECTION [I YES El NO Partial Work Inspection by P.W.: Work Disapproved By: Date: FINAL APPROVAL BY: Date: 11 Na=Val 11 Ces— A VvbOwxjtcn EnerW Comp" Addendum to: City of Edmonds Right of Way Permit Application Submitted by: Mariamne Kingsbury. Engineering Aide Washington Natural Gas #356-7500 X7596 0 Ac--P I -fci ( Watermain depth urcJJe- +0 -�A- gas main D'F-r--IC-ULT JOES G peC_,71- 9 Z_ 7Z- C,,LJT`:� Key: -W- Water -G- Gas -SS- Sever -a Water hydrant 0 Water valve Washington Natural Gas Company 1122 75th Street S.W., Everett, Washing!on 98203, (206) 355-3331 A� SAAL--IL.2— is WWI I Na Gw AVvb9wxjtcn EnerW ConiptVN Addendum to: City of Edmonds Right of Way Permit Application Submitted by: Mariamne Kingsbury Engineering Aide Washington Natural Gas 1356-7500 X7596 -f9e-Lc)- VIF:7�1c-UL-T JOB - I KI PEC-'-I - Watermain depth orcUc. iz) C��4--N j-A- gas main o 6, 9 -+1 �:� (�� -Z_ \j I f= \Aj Key: -W- Water -G- Gas -SS- Sever -& Water hydrant 0 Water valve Washington Natural Gas Company 1122 75th Street S.W., Everett, Washing!on 98203, (206) 355-3331 A074--`�c<eW'7 aO,-1 pm AT L FIL