696 MELODY LN.PDF1111111111 lill
12332
696 MELODY LN
ADDRESS: uq(o
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: no 2- 1
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE):_
COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: d-WIMMOW
CRITICAL AREAS: 03-00 -7 DETERMINATION: [] Conditional Waiver 19 Study Required E] Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S:
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED:
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMEENT(S) RECORDED FOR:
PERMITS (OTHER):
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED:
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: On 1co
SEWER LID FEE $: LID #:
SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: BLOCK:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED:
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: 9-ZO-LP
SOILS REPORT DATED:
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #:
FOR:
WATER METER TAP CARD DA'
OTHER:
LATEMP\Dsrs\Forms\street File Checklist.doc
t
APPUCA71ON -BUUIKLI HM
CITY OF MMONDS SEWWJ Departmmr
Appl. No.
renlut
APFUCATION is bcmbY made for a permit to caw-truct the foVow;ng -ark, in 2cordance with the'a=m-"'
panying pl— aM VW:ca=m Two w3 am submit.-ri krc,,ub forp.,,,ai.
newl- alter Off -St
Work addn PArlting
0,cupancy--:�L.. const. t)Te--Y—.. Use
AddrLss. Axe" —4/4-1-
VVL AddrL
Septic t2nk-...--
B!dg. set-back3 — side_
CI-ne: Add,.-2-I(LI�-. 1119 Ta No!LIA.�l
Addrcz—.---- Tei.
Plans TeL
The above is a correct statern(nt, apd I agree to "'nPly whh aU al'PliMbIc Codes Me State lawa reguliting this
Sil;ned
Da
PEIkMff forth, aboe htr* approved, subject to the 2IKwe conditions, and toomnp
Unce with
proved plans and specificauans. and Mding Dq)&=ent notations thereom 't
Valu.iticki
�-Az 4--
Reed. by--'�
Building Departznent, By
r4 D--/_-=--
04SPECTION RECORD
Fdn, OK Frame, OK FinaL OT-
771is Permit does �ot cover Plumbing, Stwer ar ElectTical iTWCJlCti0n$, 1.2
R;
IN
4
CA File No:
Critical Areas Checklist
Site.Information (Soilsl topography/ hydro o /vegetation)
1. Site Addressl Location:j�q(p
2. Property Tax Account Number:
Q-70
3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet):
- 3 1
4.. Is this site currently.developed? )( yes; _ Aio.
If yes; how is site developed? Gkf\��q Yan�IIJM
5. Describe the general site topography. Check aWat ap9�
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 ho'crizontal
distance of 66-feet).
Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% (a vertical rise of 10-feet
over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet).
Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal
distance of less than 33-feet).
Other (please describe):
6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: nD Approx. Depth:
7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: r)Q Approx. Depth:
What season(s) of the year?
8. Site is in the floodway floodplain
of a water course.
9. Site contains a creek'or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-round?
�!A,Lb -Flows are seasonal? (What time of year?
10. Site is primarily: forested meadow shrubs mixed
urban landscaped (lawn, shrubs etc)
11. Obvious wetland is present on site:
-For City Staff Use Only
1. Plan Check Number, if applicable?
2. Site is Zoned? 12— Pijj& - 7 __ -
Ike
I SCS mapped soil type(s)? .41deKK,-�M U449A.*1 la,�nd !�� jeX
4. Critical Areas inventory or C.A. map indicates Critical Area on site? 0145S
5. S within designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area? A/2�
DETERMINATION
><1 -STUDY REQUIRED -WAIVER
Reviewed by:
Datp. - ?
Critical Areas Checklist.doc/4.2�1003
— Z L,.;
OV_ Q
-0
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
Planning Division
Phone: 425.771.0220
.110 C) QJ Fax: 425.771.0221
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 the application to the City.
The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to
detennine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or
may be, present on the subject property. The inforination
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).
Date Received:
City Receipt#:
Critical Areas File #:
Critical Areas Checklist Fee: $135.00
Date Mailed to Applicant:
A property owner, or his/her authorized 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
information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or
studies in conjunction with this Checklist to' assistant staff
in completing their preliminary assessme nt of the site.
The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees
to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable
attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or
incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees.
By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE OF APPLIcANT/AGENT
DATE
Property Owner's Authorization
By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application,
and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the
purposes . of inspection a p ti g attendant to this application. DATE
SIGNATURE OF OWNER !; 7
ASEPRINT CLEARLY-
Owner/Applicant:
A N 0 ti rltkv
Napie
w 511 �O
Street ddress
City IState Zip
Telephone: 4)c; (e 4c(,a-5 15
Email address (optional):
Applicant Representative:
Name
Street Address
City State Zip
Telephone: .
Email Address (optional):
Critical Areas Checklist.doc/4.22.2003
CITY OF EDMONDS
CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION
Site Location: -696 Melody Lane Tax Acct. Number:- 270324 002 119 00
Determination: Study Required Determination #: CA-03-97
Applicant: Deanne Landsverk Owner: Deanne Landsverk ,
CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION: STUDY REQUIRED (CA-03-97) - -
A site inspection confirmed the presence of a stream and wetland pursuant to—C'hapter 20.15B
of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). The stream known as Shell Creek is
on or adjacent to the west side of the property. City records indicate that Shell Creek is a
category 2 stream with salmonids. The ECDC requires a 50-foot buffer from the banks of the
stream and a 15-foot building setback from the edge of the buffer. A wetland also exists on the
site adjacent to the stream.
STUDY REQUIREMENT — WETLAND AND STREAM
Based on the above finding, a Critical Areas Study is required to determine the location of the
stream and wetland on the property, as well as the wetland's classification.
9 Wetland/Stream Classification: A critical areas consultant shall perform the following:
• Classification of the wetland pursuant to the criteria established in ECDC
Sections 20.15B.06OA4 and A5.
• Delineate the edge of the stream and the edge of the wetland on the site.
• State any mitigating measures appropriate to preserving and protecting the
wetland and the stream.
• This part of the study shall be performed as a three party contract with the city selecting
the consultant and the property owner or applicant paying the fees. When you are
ready to proceed, please contact a Planner.
• Wetland/Strearn Delineation: After the critical areas consultant has classified the
wetland and delineated the boundaries of the stream and wetland, a surveyor licensed
by the State of Washington must perform the following:
• Physically mark the edge of the wetland and the stream.
• Delineate the required buffers. Refer to ECDC 20.15B.120A and 20.15B.130C
for the required buffer widths.
• Delineate the required building setback from the buffers. The required setback
is 15 feet per ECDC 20.15B.080C.
o Create a map showing the stream and wetland, and the buffer and the building
setback of each.
In order to complete this Study Requirement, this map must be submitted to the
Planning Division for review and approval.
0 ". I I I
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ON A SITE WITH A WETLAND AND/ OR STREAM
Development proposals that encroach into the buffers or building setbacks may be allowed
through the approval of certain processes. The specific process depends on the individual site
and development proposal but may include Buffer Averaging, a Critical Areas Variance, and/or
a Reasonable Use Exception. If you think that you have a proposal that may require one of
these processes,* please contact a Planner for more information.
PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONAL WAIVERS
If the property owner wishes to apply for a specific development permit which they feel would
not impact the Critical Areas located on the site, they may submit their proposal to the Planning
Department for review. If the Planning Department finds that the proposed development permit
will not adversely impact a Critical Area or its buffers, a conditional waiver may be issued on a
project by project basis. I
EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
Certain development proposals may be exempt from Critical Areas Requirements (ECDC
20.15B.040). If you think that a specific development proposal may be exempt, contact a
Planner for more information.
n Tavlor
Name
re
Date
i
Li Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found on the
City of Edmonds website at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us.
2
17
�7'
STREET'r-,
i;J!_111i
SEW RNIT'
CITY OF EDMONDS' SIDE, ER -PE
PERM M.
822&
Address of Construction: Mill?, 14 1:/1Z
Property Legal Description (Include all easements):
TREA-1 IVIENT PLANT
Owner arid/or Contractor: 6e 7r�e IKA 7_401,21
State License N o'. Building Permit No. A/M
I
PZSingleFamily Invasion into City Right -of -Way:
* 0 Multi -Family (No. of Units-)
El Commercial
El Public
I certify that I h
as indicated on
read and shall comply with
back of the Permit Card.
0 Yes
RW Construction Permit No
Cross other Private Property: Yes
Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement
requirements
00/-2/ .
7 .70
Date
CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-'5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION'k
OFFICE,USE �. ONLY
FOR INSPECTION CALL 771-3202, PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
Permit Fee: Issued By
Trunk Charge:- Date Issued: 7— ?Z?
Assessment Fee: Receipt No.:
Lid Ni
Partial Inspection: Date - I nitial
Comments
Reason Rejected: AID -J�k& L-� JAI)hteo Date nitial
V
Final Inspection Approved: Date Initial- AUG 0 7 199U
PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE ** PUBLIC WORKS
White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant
Revised 3190
If
Side Sewer Drawing
The City of Edmonds EASEMENT NO . ............................................
NEW CONSTRUCTION E] REPAIRS LID NO - ------------------ - ASMT. NO . ..................
OWNER------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CONTRACTOR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PERMIT NO.
JOB ADDRESS ... ---- ---- ...... --------- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO - ----------------------------- ........ BLOCK NO - ----------- ------------------------
�Au
PWW-0001-11/75 (REV.11/78)
NAMEOF ADDITION -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 E &4
0,N
D&IONDS
-LANT
Approved:
DATE--- n . ............................. By - ............................................
0
APPLICATION
for
The City of Edmonds SIDE SEWER PERMIT
NEW CONSTRUCTION E] REPAIRS 0 EASEMENT No . ..........................................
117-02200
OWNER. ... . ...... Kabo.e.vjlz ...... .............................................. CONTRACTOR .................................................................................................. PERMIT No . ......................
ADDRESS ........ 6.9.6 ... Kelo�y ... Lam ......................................................... LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT No . .............................................. BLOCK No . ............................................
NAME OF ADDITION
�l
DYE TESTED ON SEVIER, 1972
Approved:
0
DATE................................................ By— ...................................................................
-1.4 C. 18 9 "1
0 ST RfET ME
CITY OF EDMONDS. GARY HAAKENSON
I M
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 , (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT P
Planning - Building - Engineering
March 17, 2003
Jamie Schwartz
Silver City Construction
Edmonds, WA
RE: Future Development. at 696 Melody Lane
Dear Mr. Schwartz,
0A,
X?Z.J��
Since Duane Bowman, City of Edmonds Development Services Director, ha . s
determined that two legal.lots exist at 696 Melody Lane, a short plat application
will not be necessary to build on tax account number 27-0324-'002-115-00, Of
course, a building permit application will still be required., but only the property
owner of 27-0324-002-115-00 will need to sign the application.
Thank you for your patience in this matter.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Taylor
Associate Planner
0c: Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Jeannine Graf, Building Official
Incorporated August 11, 1890
-t'r? C. 1 89\3
March 7, 2003
0
0
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
Jamie Schwartz
Silver City Construction
P.O. Box 1417
Mukilteo, WA 98275
RE: Property at 696 Melody Lane
Dear Mr. Schwartz:
43ARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
Please accept this letter as the City's formal staff opinion regarding the short subdivision issue
raised in your letters dated March 4 and 6, 2003. This staff deten-nination constitutes an appeable
final d * ecision pursuant to Chapter 20.105.010 (A) (1) of the Edmonds Community Development
Code. I have researched the situation and have reached the conclusion that only two lots exist at
this time and they are the two recognized by the Snohomish County Assessor (Tax Parcels
#27032400211900 & #27032400211500).
The basis for this ' decision is that because both of lots are under separate ownership, have
sufficient lot area to meet current RS-12 zoning and have adequate access easements to serve
both lots. While there are two short subdivisions that received preliminary approval in 1963 and
1981 involving the lots in question, neither was ever recorded. Accordingly, no plat application
for the property ever attained the status of an "authorized plat" under applicable City ordinances.
Should the property owners wish to possibly create additional lots from these lots; the City will
require a new short subdivision application to be filed. As you are aware the existing access
easement serving the subject properties does not meet the minimum 20 foot easement width to
serve 3 to 4 lots. A variance would need to be obtained.
Sinc ly,
&eeZIB'owman
Development Services Director
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
1.
0 0
SILVER CITY CONSTRUCTION-, INC.
P. 0. BOX 1417
MUKILTEO, WA 98275
MARCH 6, 2003
LOTS AT 696 MELODY LANE
Duane Bowman
Director of Planning
City of Edmonds
Dear Duane,
RECEIVED
MAR 0 6 2003
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
I thank you for all the effort you have been putting into the Melody Lane short
plat question. I have seen that there are a lot of unanswered questions because
of incomplete information in the files.
Nevertheless, I do not think that the uncertainties are sufficient to overthrow
the 1963 short plat approval. The ones that you have raised are the following:
1 . There is a reference in the 1963 file to a previous (1958) short plat,
the file of which cannot be found. The note on the Planning
Commission Application reads: "Parcel 1 (comprising tracts A & B),
2, and 3 were approved by the Edmonds Planning Commission
about July, 1958. The subdivision request on this application is to
divide parcel 1 into Tracts A & B as shown. This would make a total
of 4 lots for all the ownership of Mr. Eidem." I appreciate that you
would prefer to see a complete file for the 1958 approved short plat,
but I do not think that not finding it casts any doubt on the approved
four lots. The attached drawing #2604, stamped by the surveyor'.
clearly shows how four lots were derived from three lots.
Subsequant title insurance documents clearly show the legal
descriptions.
2. The 1977 letter to Mr. Eidem (in the 1963 file) from the attorney for
Mr. Katowitz suggests that one lot, which he did not identify, did not
meet Snohomish Co. building code. There is no evidence that the
City agreed with that assessment or that the City did anything to
reverse the four lot status as a result of the letter. The letter has no
bearing on the four lot configuration.
V
a 0 0
3. In 1981 Mr. Katowitz began a submission to the City for a
"subdivision" which appears to be intended to create three lots out
of four. We have discovered no reason for this submission, nor for
the apparent lack of City guidance to Mr. Katowitz indicating that he
could have accomplished this goal with a lot line adjustment instead.
This puzzle should have no bearing on the four lot status. In fact,
the City has consistently taken the position that the 1981 file is a dead
issue because it was not approved.
Without a written letter today validating the four lots, I win terminate my
Contract with Option One Mortgage Corporation to buy the portion of the
property with the house on it, because today is the last day of my feasibility
study period. Option One has given me two months to get this resolved and
will given me no extension. Thus, the City will continue to have the issue of
two separate owners to deal with for the future development of this site and
the site will stay on the market for sale.
We hope that a review of the consistent development standards and accepted
practices in 1963 will show that we have effectively proven the validity of the
four lots at 696 Melody Lane. I will be glad to work with the City to create a
great four house project.
Sincerely,
JamieS
Schwartz, pres.
Silver City Construction, Inc.
4 9
0 0
SILVER CITY CONSTRUC110N, INC
P. 0. BOX 1417
MUKILTE0, WA 98275
NV�RCH 4) 2003
Duane Bowman
Development Services Director
City of Edmonds
1215 th Avenue N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Qty validation of four buildable lots at 696 Melody Lane
I am writing in order to clarify the issue of lot status at 696 Melody Lane.
There is approximately one acre of land with one house on it. The south half of
the property is owned by Silver City Construction, Inc., and the north half is
owned by Option One Mortgage Corporation of Irvine, California.
Numerous requests have been made to the City as to lot status and the City has
said that the entire property is one lot. This essentially declares the two owners
to be tenants in common, as co -owners of one property.
Silver City Construction has looked at the history of the property in order to
determine lot status. Our objective is to show that a valid short plat has
already been accomplished.
The following is a short ownership history of the property.
In the 1950's the subject property was segregated from a property that spanned
both sides of Shell Creek owned by T. Allan Anderson (see enclosed drawing).
Mr. Anderson had bought the property from Mr. Swanson in 1953 under a
recorded real estate contract ( recording # 1082769). The subject property was
then sold by T. Allan Anderson to Karl Eidem in 1958 as two lots, which is
shown both by the records at Reid Middleton and recorded deeds. (On June 9,
1958 Statutory Warranty Deed, Rec. # 1286015 forthe north lot; and
November 24, 1958, Statutory Warranty Deed, Rec. # 1309987). Thesetwo,
sales apparently did not trigger any action against Mr. Anderson for an illegal
division of land.
it
0 0
The part of the Anderson property on the west side of Shell Creek (see
attached map) was subsequently divided through the city (S-23-59). Inother
words, Mr. Anderson divided off and sold two lots prior to doing an approved
four lot short plat one year later, in order to stay under the five lot threshold
with City approval. Again there is no record that the City claimed that Mr.
Anderson had made an illegal division of land when he split off the part of his
property on the east side of the Shell Creek The City file is labeled
((approved". The addresses of those four lots now are 842, 832, 834, and 836
Cary Road, for the latter three of which the City issued budding permits 'in
1972, 1970, and 1990 respectively. There is no record that the City required a
recording of the plat, because it was less than five lots. The City was clearly
validating the four lot short plat by approving building permits for Anderson's
site.
In 1958 Mr. Eidem built the house addressed as 696 Melody Lane. The PUD
brought *in a power distribution system sufficient for that house and three more
houses as well.
In December of 1963 the City approved a four lot short plat for Mr. Eidem (S-
41-63). Mr. Eidem did not fo record the approved short plat, nor is
there anymidication in the City file that he should have. In August 1965 Mr.
Eidem sold the house on one of the four lots to Mr. Katowitz. The lot is
shown as "N' on the approved plat, and the legal description on the recorded
deed corresponds to said lot "A". There is no record the Mr. Eidem suffered
any legal action for an illegal sale of the property. The legal description of that
property defines that lot 'W' of the 4 lot short plat as recorded August 23,
1965, rec. # 1804423. The other three lots were sold by Mr. Eidem to Mr.
Katowitz in 1972, each lot of which was sold and recorded on a separate
contracts giving legal descriptions defining the other three lots of the 1963
short plat. Thus, the public was given notice of the existence of four sepamte
building lots. In 1972 there was no legal action against Mr. Eidem for an illegal
sale of the three lots. This indicates that Mr. Eidem followed the accepted
practice of the day for a short plat of less than five lots.
There are two reasons to explain how this sequence of events validates the
existence of four buildable lots today. One reason: The RCWs and City
ordinances relevant to a 1963 short plat only require a formal recording of a
plat if there are five lots or more (when there is no dedication of land). The
second reason is that it is clear from a review of the City files of that time
period that other divisions of land of four lots or less were not required to
make a formal recording of plat. The accepted custom of the tuine was that the
formal status of lot separation was made public record on the sale of the
properties.
In answer to the City attorney's letter to Mr. Jacobs, dated February 14, 2003,
paragraph 2: the 19 51 RCW referenced by Mr. Lell, is an amendment to Ch.
186, 1937, not replacement of it. Chapter 186 regulates "the platting and
subdividing of land into lots, or tracts, comprising five (5) or more such lots, or
tracts". Therefore, the recording of divided land under the RCWs mi effect at
the tiume of S-41-63 did not applyto the lots at 696 Melody Lane.
The language mi the 1959 City Ordinance as to recording reads that the
applicant "may" record an approved short plat, not that the applicant "must"
record, mi order to have "authorized status". People were free to record as they
chose, to give public notice of divided land.
There was no law or regulation as to recording, wEchmivafidates the 1963
approved short plat for any other reason. For instance, the short plats that
have houses on them are no more valid than ones that do not have houses.
To sum up: after six months investigation of this property we have proven with
the history of this property, examples of non- recorded short plats, state law,
and City comprehensive plan and ordinances that S- 41- 63 is a valid four lot
short plat.
We know that a review of the City's consistent development standards and
accepted practices in 19 6 3 will show the City that we have effectively proven
the validity of the four lots at Melody Lane. Now, because of contractual
restraints between the two parties in ownership, we need a letter of approval of
a valid short plat from the City of Edmonds by March 5, 2003.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jamie Schwartz
Silver City Construction, Inc.
Cc: Kathleen Taylor, Associate Planner
.1 1? C. 18913
GARY HAAKENSON
CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR
121 STH AVENUE NORTH * EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building o Engineering
S7 11EE1
February 25, 2003
Jamie Schwartz
Silver City Construction
Edmonds, WA
RE: Future Development at 696 Melody Lane
Dear Mr. Schwa rtz,
This letter is to clarify that,all property owner signatures will be required with
submittal of a short plat application or building permit application for 696 Melody�
Lane. Refer to the Edmonds Community Development Code 19.00.110 and
20.95.010132. The code sections are attached for your reference.
Sincerely,
Kathleen ay lor
Associate Planner
cc: Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Jeannine Graf, Building Official
Incorporated August 11, 1890
4;i.-;tpr Citu - HPIkinan. Tanan
19.00.080
0
G. Miscellaneous. Fees for other per-
mits as required by the ECDC shall be
as set in Chapter 15.00 of the ECDC.
[Ord. 3215 § 1,. 1998; Ord. 3035 § 4, 1995;
Ord. 2436 § 4, 19841.
19.00.080 Penalties.
A. Section 103 of the Uniform Building
Code as adopted herein is hereby amended and
set forth as follows:
It is unlawful for any person, firm, cor-
poration or other organization to erect,
construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move,
improve, remove, convert or demolish,
equip, use, occupy or maintain any
building or structure in the � city, or
cause the same to be done, contrary to
or in violation of any of the provisions
of this chapter. Any person, firm, cor-
poration or other organization violating
any of the provisions of the Uniform
Building Code as adopted herein, or
other provision of this chapter, shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be
deemed guilty of a separate offense for
each and every day or portion thereof
during which any violation of any of the
provisions of this chapter or theUni-
form Building Code adopted herein is
committed, continued or permitted,
and u :on the conviction thereof of
p
such violation, and each violation
thereof such person, firm, corporation
or other organization, and the officers,
directors and managers thereof, shall
be punishable as set forth in ECC
5.50.020 and Chapter 20.110 ECDC.
B. The following replaces Section 107.5 of
the 1997 Uniform Building Code in its
entirety:
Whenever any work for which a permit
is required by this code has been com-
menced without first obtaining said
permit, an investigation fee shall be
paid before the permit may be issued
for such work. The investigation fee
shall be in addition to the permit fee
and shall be collected whether or not a
permit is then or subsequently issued.
In no case shall the investigation fee
be less than double the amount of the
original permit fee. The payment of
such investigation fee shall not exempt
any person from compliance with all
other provisions of this code nor from
any penalty prescribed by law.
[Ord. 3215 § 1, 19981.
19-00.110 FuRy complete application.
In accordance with the provisions of RCW
19.27.095, an applicant's rights shall vest
when a fully complete building permit applica-
tion is filed. A fully complete building permit
application is an application executed by all of
the owners of the property for which the appli-
cation is submitted or the duly authorized
agent(s) for such owners, containing each and
every document required under the terms of
these ordinances and the Uniform Building
Code and substantially complete in all
respects. It is anticipated that minor changes or
revisions may be required and are frequently
made in the course of any building application
review process, and such minor revisions or
changes shall not keep an application from
being deemed complete if a good faith attempt
has been made to submit a substantially com-
plete application containing all required com-
ponents. Where required, the application and
supporting documents shall be stamped and/or
certified by the appropriate engineering, sur-
veying or other professional consultants. A
fully complete building permit application
shall be accompanied by all fees, including but
not limited to building permit fees and plan
check fees required under the provisions of
this ch apter and the State Building Code. An
applicant may submit an application for build-
ing permit approval and request plan review
services concurrently with, or at any time fol-
lowing, the submittal of a complete application
for any necessary or required discretionary
permit approval or discretionary hearing; pro -
(Revised 6199) 19-8
Edmonds CommunitAvelopment Code
19.00.120
0
0
vided, that any building permit application
submitted concurrently with an application for
discretionary permit or approvals. shall not be
considered complete unless the applicant sub-
mits a signed statement, on a form to be
approved by the director, which acknowledges
that the building permit application is subject
to any conditions or requirements imposed
pursuant to the review and approval of any
necessary or required discretionary permit or
approvals. The applicant shall solely bear the
risk of building permit submittal with discre-
tionary permit approval. If after discretionary
approval, the building permit plans must be
modified or amended to comply with condi-
tions or restrictions required by any discretion-
ary permit or approval, the applicant shall be
solely responsible for any and all costs which
result therefrom, including but not limited to
additional full plan review fees; provided fur-
ther, that any applicant -initiated changes made
after the original plan review is complete shall
also require payment of full plan review fees.
[Ord. 3249 § 1, 1999; Ord. 3215 § 1, 1998;
Ord. 2769 § 1, 19901.
19.00.115 Letter of completeness.
Repealed by Ord. 3092. (Ord. 3078 § 1,
1996).
19.00.120 Architectural design review
Optional vesting.
In addition to the vesting, rights created by
RCW 19.27.095 and ECDC 19.00.110, an
applicant for development as defined in ECDC
20.10.010 and subject to architectural design
review may,,at the applicant's option, file a
fully complete augmented architectural design
review application (hereinafter "augmented
ADB application") and vest rights under the
provisions of the Edmonds Community Devel-
opment Code and the State Building Code as
adopted and amended by the city of Edmonds,
ECDC Title 19 as then in effect.
A. Fully Complete, Augmented Applica-
tion for Architectural Design Review. An aug-
mented ADB application shall consist of a
complete application for architectural design
review, executed by each and every property
owner of record of the development site or
their duly authorized agent(s), accompanied
by the.following:
1. All fees required by ordinance,
including impact mitigation fees to be depos-
ited at the time such SEPA requirements
become final.
2. A site plan showing the current zon-
ing of the development site, the footprint of all
proposed structures, the total square footage of
the development structures and each separate
floor thereof, all setbacks required by either
the zoning code* or state building codes, pro
posed parking configurations, and entrances
and fire exit (if separate).
3. Elevation drawings showing the orig-
inal grade of thesite, any proposed alterations
to grade, the proposed height of the structure
and the number of stories.
4. A letter executed by all owners of
record or their duly authorized agent(s) detail-
ing the proposed use in sufficient detail to
determine whether the proposed use complies
with the zoning code then in effect and suffi-
cient, in conjunction with the other materials to
determine the occupancy classifications of the
Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Fire
Code as those codes then in effect.
5. A building permit application is
described in Section 106.3.1 of the 1997 Edi-
tion of the Uniform Building Code as the same
exists or is hereafter amended, and all building
permit and plan check fees; provided, that the
plans required by Sections 106.3.1 and 106.3.3
of the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Building
Code (UBC) as the same exists or is hereafter
amended and other engineering documents,
plans or drawings required by ECDC Title 18
may be submitted within 90 days of final archi-
tectural design board approval, or final
approval on appeal.
B. Vesting. Upon filing of the augmented
ADB application, the applicant shall be
deemed fully vested as if a fully complete
19-9
(Revised 6/99)
20.91.030
0
material not discussed before or during the
public testimony portion of the hearing.
G. Decision. The decision shall be made
after the hearing. For the hearing examiner,
director of community services and other staff,
the decision shall be made within 10 days of the
day the hearing was closed. The decision shall
be based on the relationship of the proposal to
the standards, criteria and findings of the
ECDC. The report (or minutes) of the decision
shall also include findings and conclusions. A
decision arrived at by the hearing examiner or
director of community services or other staff
shall be reported in writing promptly to the
applicant, appellant, if any, and any other per-
son requesting a copy of the decision.
H. Records. The city clerk shall keep a per-
manent record of all public hearings held
under the ECDC. Summary minutes and a tape
recording of the hearings shall be sufficient
record.
The community services department shall
keep the permanent record of all exhibits, staff
reports and so forth, on each proposal. [Ord.
3112 § 22, 1996].
20.91.030 Continuances.
When a matter is set for quasi-judicial hear-
ing before the city council on a closed record
appeal, the applicant, appellant or any other
party of record may apply for a continuance to
the city council through the council president.
The council president may continue such mat-
ter, based upon a showing of good cause; pro-
vided, however, that in no event may a matter
be continued beyond. the time period set by
state statute and this chapter for action on a
development permit application without the
express written consent of the applicant and a
waiver of the time period imposed. The coun-
cil president shall make reasonable attempts to
contact all interested parties and shall not rule
on an application for continuance until the
applicant and appellant have been given a rea-
sonable opportunity in light of the circum-
stances to respond. [Ord. 3394 § 1, 2002; Ord.
3376 § 1, 2001; Ord. 3317 § 2, 2000].
Chapter 20.95
APPLICATION AND STAFF REVIEW
Sections:
20.95.000
Scope.
20.95.010
Application.
20.95.020
Review by other departments.
20.95.030
Staff analysis and report.
20.95.040
Staff decision — No notice
required.
20.95.050
Staff decision — Notice required.
20.95.000 Scope.
This chapter establishes the staff review
procedure for all permits or approvals required
by ECDC Title 20.
20.95.010 Appfication.
A. Filing. All applications shall be filed
with the community development director,
unless a state statute specifies otherwise. The
community development department shall pro-
vide a needed application form. Application
fees shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC.
.. B. Required Information. The applicant
shall provide the information from the follow-
ing as prescribed by the community develop-
ment director:
1. Applicant's name and address;
.2. Owner's name, . address, proof of
ownership, and written consent if the applicant
is not the owner (owner's consent not required
for noncontract rezones);
1 3. If a public hearing is required or
optional, a list of the names and mailing
addresses, as shown on the records of the
county assessor, of the owner of property and
the street addresses of the property which is
within 80 feet of the boundaries of the project
site, or the distance set forth more specifically
in the applicable chapter, such as ECDC
20.1.8.020. (Group Homes);
4. A site plan, to scale, showing the pro-
posed layout of structures and other site devel-
opment;
0
0
(Revised 5102) 20-94
Edmonds Community aelopment Code 20.95.030
I'*
1�1
5. Architectural drawings, to scale, of all
exterior elevations and signs, with exterior sur-
faces and colors specified;
6. A landscape plan, to scale, preferably
combined with the site plan, showing all exist-
ing and proposed vegetation including vegeta-
tion to be removed, as well as fences, walls,
walks and so forth;
7. The applicant shall clearly specify on
the plans, or in a separate written statement,
how the proposed development meets the
requirements of this title;
8. Further information required by the
portion of the community development code
that governs the type of application;
9. Further information required by gen-
eral rules adopted by the community develop-
ment director and information required by the
community development director to properly
review an individual application;
10. Further information required by the
staff, hearing examiner or city council;
11. A release of the city from all dam-
ages arising from any action or inaction of the
city based on false, misleading or incomplete
information furnished by the applicant or other
members of the public;
. 12. The location by address and legal
description of the site;
13. Permission for city staff to inspect
the site.
C. Date of Filing. The community develop-
ment director shall review all applications and
accept for filing only those which include all
the information required by the city code
directly above. The date of filing shall be the
date the application is accepted for filing.
When an environmental impact statement or a
proposed negative declaration is required, the
date of filing shall be the day on which the
final environmental impact statement or final
negative declaration is available to the public.
D. Initiation. An owner, or authorized
agent, may apply for property owned by the
owner. The city may begin a rezone, street map
change, comprehensive plan change, text
change or permit change, by motion of the city
council or planning advisory: board, and a
street vacation by resolution of the city coun-
cil. Any interested party may apply for a
rezone on any property.
20.95.020 Review by other departments.
The community development director shall
promptly send copies of the application to each
department which has requested copies of the
type of application that has been filed, and to
other departments which may have an interest
in the individual application.
20.95.030 Staff analysis and report.
A. Staff Hearing. If a public hearing is to be
held on an application, the community devel-
opment director shall visit the site and prepare
a staff report, send a copy of the report to the
applicant, and make the report available to the
public at least one week before the hearing.
The report shall contain an analysis of the pro-
posal, including a comparison of the pro osal
p
to the criteria, standards and findings con-
tained in the community development code for
the type of application being reviewed. The
report shall also contain proposed general
findings, finding of fact and conclusions. If the
report recommends approval, it shall also con-
tain recommended conditions of approval. The
community development director shall sum-
marize the comments of other departments,
incorporate them into the staff recommenda-
tion and attach them to the report if the com-
ments are lengthy or complex. . I
B. Hearing Examiner Hearing. If the hear-
ing examiner will be holding the hearing, one
week before the hearing the community devel-
opment director shall provide a copy of the
staff report to the hearing examiner, along with
other information in the application file.
C. No Hearing. If no hearing is to be held
on the application, the staff may use a sum-
mary form or checklist to review the applica-
tion, with written conclusions as to whether the
proposal meets the standards and criteria of the
community development code. This document
shall be available for public review.
20-95
(RevisW 11 /00)
SITE BENCH - DATUM (CITY OF EDMONDS SEWER SYSTEM) 0
.RR SPIKE SET AT THE NORTH SIDE OF POWER POLE ELEV. = 43.00 19.42 x C14
TOPOGRAPHY & SURVEY BY TRI-COUNTY LAND SURVEYING
18-67 19.64 x
19.57 x
20.11
LOCATION OF SANITARY 12C
SEWER LINE PER ASBUILT
INFORMATION PROVIDED
BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS
18.85
x 19.53 21.04
19.03 x
21.26 3
19.37 jFF x
12F
20.47
19.70 20
x
0
O�
APPROVED AS NOTED LP
BY ENGINEERING
Co
Date:
4.
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCS
EXISTING BLDG ROOF OVERHANG: 3940.7 SQ FT 14.6%
EXISTING DECKING: 606.0 SQ FT 2.2%
EXISTING DRIVEWAY: 3585.5 SQ FT 13.3%
H ACCARD'S- SOU N D- V1 EW-
AD DI TION I
23*95
0
VL.12, PG.89
42.81
x 31.20
12
Di
FND REBAR & CAP
0
0,-,X
m
m
43.44
t.0
12F
LS#18077 N89-21'00"W 311.06
1- - -u
ZI
FND REBAR & CAP
t
' 28.44
4-32. 9 �6.1
9
38.83 39.15
5
43.56 i
LS#8566
27.57
x 36.85
43.48 F
>-
lOF
5.81
HEIGHT CALCULATIONS:
GROUND
3711
*,2*5�
9.70
0
11_� A = 32.39
46.53
32.39
"A"
x - Fi_
37.75
SATALITE X 40.14
B = 38.55
L____
DISH
C = 38.52
28.20
GROUND
x 44.74 = 29.03
1 ��;20 38.60
TOTAL = 138.49
38.56 13-34 B
12C
+ 4 = 34.62
12SP
MAXIMUM HGT = 59.62
Cv EMST HOUSE
co
38.27
(44.03
ACTUAL HGT = 58.30
x 38.50
0 ROOF PEAK 50.18
:5
16' ACCESS
(MAXIMUM HGT = AVG HGT
V)
0 FF 38.69
EASEMENT
OF 34.62 + 25.00')
0�
0
SEWER LINE
2-119
CAR -PORT
�t
't
>
0
1,3
00 PARCEL TAX ID NUMBER:
C; 270324-002-119-00
q
x
27.40
130.74 1 1
39.01
x 41.34
3940
r1i
18F
*10
Co LOT SQUARE FOOTAGE:
9D 27019 SQ. FT.
GROUND
41
28.3 3
29.03
m
28.02
L
x 46.13
LOT SLOPE:
X2 8.53
GROUND
4486
1
8.3 %
00
�A
HANG
3768
I,C,*, !37 98
01 44.88
42.99
pp
W/GA
0
38.00
-
-44.801
38.82
7.65
1
I
.73 38.83
-9'45"W 260.93
14P
42.36
P P
SET REBAR CAP
SET UNE STAKE
LS#14490 (TYP)
(TYP)
46.32
x 37. 0
411.27
'lix
APPROVCED BY PLANNING
41.97
EXISTING
PLOT PLAN
Z-,) -akuoc/(�__
MELODY
LANE
WATER METER
PROPOSED-ADDI-TtON-TO-HOUSE----------- -- 2-7-9,0-SQ--F-T ------- 1.0%,
PROPOSED ADDITION/CHANGE TO GARAGE: 374.0 SQ FT 1.4% 6w KDUp�aSS st REQUIRED
PROPOSED DECK: t4o*T ftMqtW 462.0 SQ FT .1.7% /V &/?d 61319 1 inch 20 ft.
PROPOSED DRIVEWAY: 3041.0 SQ FT 11.3% A/d or6 f- E AN
IV64-V-1
PROPOSED DRIVEWAY (NOT COVR'G EXST): 1988.9 SQ FT 7.4% PUMP STATION
PROPOSED BLDG ROOF OVERHANG: 3686.5 SQ FT 13.6% PER ASBUILT INFORMATION re,&'�
PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF
TOTAL EXISTING IMPERVIOUS: 8132.2 SQ FT 30.1% EDMONDS
OWNER/CONTRAC'TOR IS RESPONSIBLE
TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS: 7189.5 SQ FT 26.6%
C14 23.95
LOT SQUARE FOOTAGE: 27019 SQ F T 0 r-.nnr3ioNj C� HAGGARD'S- SOU ND- V1 EW- ADDI T1 ON
(EXISTING HOUSE CONSTRUCTED IN 1952) SF SILT FENCIN 42.811,
1(
x 0
19.42 VL.12, PG.89
x 31.20 12 af
VtW <
19.64 FND R BAR & CAP 0 0ox 43.44
x
z
4.03
12F 6.19 LS#180
N89*21'00'W 1.06
- Z
(01
FND REBAR & CAP
19.57 x
"28.44
\
1138.83 39.15
4
43.561 1
LS#8566
20.11
32.09
27.57
Co
5
1
43,48'
0 5.81
4
LOCATION OF SANITARY 12C
1OF
0
SEWER LINE PER ASBUILT
GROUND
7.11
m
INFORMATION PROVIDED
BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS
F::Za 32.39
IZZZU
"A"
X Si3
3 7 15*2
.4 x
GROUND .1 TALITE 40.14
46.53
A 38.5.5 DISH 4 1A w . . . .
8.85 4 "B" -- - X 44.74
V) 8.20
44 'A
LIJ 4 4
X 38.56 .38 4 8.60 44
12C
LLJ 4
x 19.53 _j
PROPOSED HOUSE
19.03 41.U't
010
Lo
30.62
x ROOF PEAK 58.30
UPPER FF A Aq
x NOTE:
:4 . -4
A S OF DIRT 0
4 50 46 YD T
4.03
(n
0
C:>w V& VLt ___1,
. r- -
�Av L)
ECE
AUG 2 7 2003
0
RIM I (D
EXCAVATION. (SOME WILL I 0�
ADDITIONS ER & SEWER
21.26
<11 �01
BE REPLACED)
I SPECTIONS REQ'D.
t
I-
0
P,3
Lij
SEWER LINE
-119
. 1-0220 EXT. 1 6
X
00
C;
q
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
Of
0
x 30.7
27.40 x
x 39.01 39.40
x 41.3
fmj V-S?A,%V- CV.% )JT
rri
LLJ
18F
op
1301 or- �Akvov_ mqpov- L.IN9.5
z
0
NOTE: I-P I I po -a_
0.x # GROUND WATERLINE 4� I
NO CONSTRUCTION',' IS TO TAKE PLACE 13 29.03 ENTRANCE
C_ x 46.13
ON THE EAST OR SOUTH SIDE OF THE 28.0
HOUSE UNTIL A WETLAND DELINEATION 21.50 GARAGE ADDITION
19.37 x 28.53 GROUNDT 44.86X 0
HAS BEEN'COMPLETED FOR THE SITE. 12F 38.52 1. 44.88 P
(THIS PERTAINS TO THE PROPOSED DECK) 20.47 0 37.98 x 41.01 x GA 0
HAN x 42.99 x _j
P x 38.82 44.80 AUG 0 8 2003 Ljj
0 7.6
19.7 20 K-38.83 S89*49'45"W 260.93 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
37.73 * 41.04 CITY OF EDMONDS
0 14P SET UNE STAKE (�p P x 42.36 SET REBAR & CAP
K NOT TO to x LS#14490 (TYP)
C�
NOTE: E SOLID. IMPERVIO 37.70 MID) 46.32
x
SILT FENCE TO FOLLOW DISTURBED AREA (DOWNHILL SIDE 0 SURFACE
OF DISTURBANCE), AND BETWEEN DIST AND ANY WATER Ut
EROSION/SOIL CONTROL MEASURES TO BE FUNCTIONAL PROPOSED PLOT PLAN- 41.97 ST T F11 1448.27
AND MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. ACCEPTABLE TIGHTLIN
MAINTAIN POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM STRUCTURE(S). 71 MATERIAL
(MAY NOT BE SHOWN ON FLAT LOTS) 0
SDR 35
GUT I E:K,9/Uuvvi1SrvtJT3
v
ry
LIJ
0 <LL_
0
C14
0
00
-00
(3)
2 C-4 f n
moo -
W C-4
>
z
0
0
m
04
0 z
C-4
.4.
W
0
04
Q
I
C14
C%4
a
U)
a in x
a_
F_
LO
0)
LL_
0
to
C"
114 - 14
F810 HANCOR TO CONNECT TQ EXIST. SYST-
-vat
STREET
FILE
i V 9 D
R E
AUG 2 7 2003
OEVELC)pMENT SERVICES CTR,
r
,lTy OF EI)WIONDS
R F. C 15- 1 %15 V'�
AUG 0 8 2003
DEVELOIPMENT ESDEMRVItCES�- CTA,
C Ty OF 04D
SITE BENCH - DATUM (CITY OF EDMONDS SEWER SYSTEM) 0
RR SPIKE SET AT THE NORTH SIDE OF POWER POLE ELEV. = 43.00 19.42 x
TOPOGRAPHY & SURVEY BY TRI-COUNTY LAND SURVEYING
19.64 x
18-67
19.57
9.57
20.11
LOCATION OF SANITARY 12C
SEWER LINE PER ASBUILT
2
12
0
C-11
INFORMATION PROVIDED
BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS
18.85
1
x 19.53 21.04
H AGGARD'S- SOU N D- V1 EW- AD DI TI ON
23.95
C)
VL.12, PG.89
.8
42.81
27
31.20
12
0 ji
x
af
FND REBAR CAP
0
0 1
Ca CO-) m
-0
43.44
12F
CO
LS#18077
N89*21'00"W
311.06
z
z
w
w
io U-
u-
FND REBAR
& CAP
28.44 32.09 W.19
38.83 39.15
_� 4
43.56
�61
LS#8566
27.57
36 85
x 36.85
x
43.48 ill
-
1OF 5.81
HEIGHT CALCULATIONS:
GROUND 3711
9.70
i
0
0:
A
32.39
32.39 x -
"A" 37 . 75
SATALITE x 40.14
46.53
B =
38.55
L____
DISH
f
C =
38.52
28.20
GROUND
x 44.74
D =
29.03
1 1
38.20
*38.60
TOTAL =
138.49
38.56
3
38.34"JE3
12C
1 C
+ 4 =
34.62
12SP
MAXIMUM HGT =
59.62
X
CAR -PORT C(l
SEWER� LINE PARCEL TAX ID NUMBER:
x 270324-002-119-00
j, I x 41.34 q
1 30.74 1 39.01
27.40 3940
18F I
#10 Co LOT SQUARE FOOTAGE:
00 27019 SQ. FT.
GROUND t�
28.33 29.03 0)
"D" x 46.13
28.02 L I 1OT SLOPE:
19.37 x 21.50 GROUND 1 44.86
x 28.53 00 37*68 239 2 * F ' 9 8.3 %
01
39
JOF
40
E
x 21.50 44 -86
1 01 4 .
112 rr 4.88 pp
�4 C 7.98 -4 01
20.47 0 38.00 �4u W/GA
19.70 20 7.65 8.82 44.801
i
x
20.64
_73-\ 38.83 S89*49'45"W 260.93
-1,04
93
42.36
0 14P SET UNE STAKE rr
Cq 4490 (TYP)
APPROVED AS NOTED Mp) 46.32
BY ENGINEERING x37 0
lix 48.27
41.97
Date: APPROVEED BY PLANNING
C)
EXISTING PLOT PLAN
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCS MELODY LANE
3940.7 SQ FT 14.6%
EXISTING BLDG ROOF OVERHANG: 71 � (!),!D
EXISTING DECKING: 606.0 SQ FT 2.2%
WATER METER_"�!'
EXISTING DRIVEWAY: 3585.5 SQ FT 13.3%
PROPOSED ADDITION TO HOUSE: 279.0 SQ FT 1. 0%
PROPOSED ADDITION/CHANGE TO GARAGE: 374.0 SQ FT- 1.4%
4A*1
462.0 SQ FT, 1.77. (/aw ld%4,* Es
PROPOSED DECK /v I 1jr 6
ME- AIDADDRE !3S,GNREQL11RE? inch 20 ft.
PROPOSED DRIVE" 3041.0 SQ FT" 11.3% 1plveA
PROPOSED DRIVEWAY (NOT COVR'G EXST): 1988.9 SQ FT 7.4% PUMP STATION
PROPOSED BLDG ROOF OVERHANG: 3686.5 SQ FT 13.6% PER ASBUILT INFORMATION
PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF
TOTAL EXISTING IMPERVIOUS: 8132.2 SQ FT 30.1% EDMONDS
TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS: 7189.5 SQ FT 26.6% OWNER/CONTRACTOR iS RESPONSIBLE
27019 SQ FT 0
LOT SQUARE FOOTAGE: 04 23.95 HAG ARD'S- SOU ND- VIEW- ADDI TI ON
(EXISTING HOUSE CONSTRUCTED IN 1952) FOR EROSION CUNTRFOL AND DAMA E
x SILT FENCING 42.811
19.42 VL.12, PG.89 0
t4r4yJ %tkp0J4J%0U &"fte, ftj�A; %_1 x 31.20 12 J1
19.64 FND REBA & CAP 0 0 C11J)x x 43.44
x 12F in Z
18.67 4.03 6.19 LS#18077 FND REBAR & CAP
Z 2 N89-21'00"W 1�;�11.06
19.57 "28.44 32.09 - . -- 1;; 1 1 - _4138.0 39.15 4 6'1
//,20.11 27.57 _--Xem. 1111 1 :' ''''
/.81 44
uj
1OF
0
LOCAT10N OF SANITARY 12C 0 0 C14
SEWER LINE PER ASBUILT I GROUND w 0
711 X 00
L7 .4
INFORMATION PROVIDED 32.39 x 46.53 0) -0 C)
'7
x 24 W03,/'
IJBA
35
19 57
20.11 ` IF
I
LOC� 12C (1 C
SE"
INFO
B YI S "A" - *52iS GIROU
Y THE CITY OF EDMONDS 37.7 4 A.TALITE...4.... 40.14 4 2 C-4 (,C)
A 38.5,5 DISH m 00
18.85 4 4 :4 x 44.74
V) 44 .:d.
LLJ K 18.20 L_
x 38.56 8.60 4 4 (D
1 44 z >
12C 0
19.53 Ld 2S. _j m m -'s LC)
x 21.04X 3�: Cl 4, Lo
PROPOSED HOUSE v w 1") 0
"'T LINE STAKES Mus"i, -10 19.03 LVLJ) 30.62 38, 7 NOTE: .4 44.03 LIJ C14
x 0
>
ROOF PEAK 58.30 31 0 46 YDS OF DIRT TO 6' ACCESS ui
0 UPPER FF 38.69 0
'"11-ACE AT TIME OF I -�P_�o EASEMENT
LOWER FF 29.76 BE MO ED DURING SEWER <
f,_14 WATER 0! > pq
EXCA TION. (SOME WILL
INSPECTION 21.26 C ADDITIONS TONS REaD.
BE R PLACED) INSPE 't 1,3 LLJ re)
- SEWE LINE X 00 0 z
Q 1.0220 EXT. 1326 1 <
11, -119 CALL 425 d V t�R 1) 0-d (KP<> ":� (J) r- 0
x 30.7 X 41.34 wm?-- Mz- q N - W
0 27.40 x x .01 39.40 ri bi t I o
Ole h-w#_ REC151VED r- r- :�
130.10' z 04 0
18F
6-�e_ I w < 04
0 E P. AUG 2 7 2003
m GROUND 1 AfERLIN 9IIiA"?Je5- Ar S _j 0
S 4 183 2903 ENTRANCE U-
C-) "I i x 46.lFSEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. 'o
:P 28.0 "D C14
21.50 GARAGE ADDITION I CITY OF EDMONDS
19.37 x I GROUNDT 44.86X 1 6
Ae e*f� 12F 28.53 38.52 11 1 P w
7 "C", 44.88 0 C) U)
0 x 41.01 W/GA < 5:
e fibof C� 0117 ?q1 20.47 AN 37.98 1 X 42.99 x x w w
I[); �1 a m w
)In,ol JgOv Fo-;P- 19.70 20 x 8.82 44.80
eo 8.00
x 7.
20.64
Y�71feW 1 37.73 41.04
NOTE.- I I x 42.36 (o _j
.. .. .. . .. . ov & /� 0 14P SET REBAR & CAP
0 NOT TO to SET UNE STAKE x LS#1 4490 (n?) Cy)
, ) _Z
C11 Q
NOTE: Ln BE SOLID IMPERVIO 37.70 (TYP) 46.32 to
t SURFACE x LL_
SILT FENCE TO FOLLOW DISTURBED AREA (DOWNHILL SIDE 0
0
OF DISTURBANCE) AND BETWEEN DIST AND ANY WATER
EROSION/SOIL CONTROL MEASURES TO BE FUNCTIONAL PROPOSED PLOT PLAN 'lix 48.27
AND MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. rm-sw
to ACCEPTABLE Ti E
A J
MAINTAIN POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM STRUCTURE(S). 71 MATERIAL
(MAY NOT BE SHOWN ON FLAT LOTS)
SDR 35
Liu I I ttjz5j uCWj45p8b'Fw8
N- 14 TO CONNECT TO EXISI. byzill-
F810 HANCOR
63 - 3� c)
r r7 7
ST rl��,,.
A
uk)
RECEIVED
AUG 2 7 2003
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR,
CITY OF EDMONDS