The URL can be used to link to this page

20000731.pdfDATE 7'b- CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER NAMEINAME OF BUSINESS V144 ` (AA`;L�( AlVWWIJ ;AILING ADDRESS -1#41A CITY ZIP TELEPHONE ' tt)6 W/2-6 41U; 6"%ql AA NAME lo5l v;v-v AtJi� �rt CITY TZHON5Ej Bj5ZIjj 11 %.5 NAME 3 F 17 1 VIA P,70W ADDRESS r2. 0. omx 51 CITY ZIP lb6-U_v)l)s 00015 ITILIPHOH1 41.)F 14'� Vb10 STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATIONDATE CHlCKlOIlY '7 - C V'IS I PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT RARCSLNO. 6060-000 voq-DoO5 C] NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBINGIMECH ADDITION COMMERCIAL o COMPLIANCE OR CHANGE OF USE REMODEL 0 APARTMENT Fl SIGN REPAIR (4 !ML Cy.� 0 FENCE ITI ZVT 0 DEMOLISH 0 TANK 19 YT B(C , 0 >C�R,A.GE %TA'INRING WALL RENEWAL JTYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIIN! r1l NUMBER OF l,"IEIA—L 0 OF DWELLING I S ea NUMBER A '—' L_ PERMIT EXPIRES USE PERMIT ZONE NUMBER ZO 7-11 JOB SUITFJAPTN ADDRESS (�ltj vloy ?(,&,E l'ovtvj PLAT NAMEISUSOIv"ION NO. I LO�NO. LID NO, VjtW VAAVVF_ LID FEE S PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP a,3—a P, 0 0 EXISTING X PROPOSED— 0 PEOUIREDDEDICATION— F7 0 7�ETY/Sljll LINE SIZE NO,��CF �URES PRV REQUIRED " I 1 .1 1 11 1 11 1 YESY NO 0 Ll REMARKS 111111-Ar-11 APPFRNAIAI F MR EROSION CONTSOUDRAINAGE FIRE REVIEWED By DATE VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADBN INSPECTION =.ONE RE I POST' SERA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT COMPLETE EXEMP ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED Z-%", zqo,lbs 50, LOT COVE AGE REOUIRED SETBACKS FT) PROPOSED SETBACKS IF1 ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE REAR FRONT UR SIDE REAR 155"l, T�A-hl SO '; 15 122- th 9 PARKING I LOTAREA fPl_ANNINGR5VIEWED8Y I CARE REaD I PROVIDED ITYPEO CONSTRUCTION v-wq.F4ms 'TOR 11ARErA kV YES �%A INSPECTIONS PER t ,�56. 6X ftacmTrex! Df qn,*% -Dc�y_ - PLAN CHECK FEE HEAT SOURCE L. II- BUILDING S*5.11 'Uhn Clio PLAN C�NO' I—SNEDDATE PLUMBING MECHANICAL tGRADINGIFILL i THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO - BEDONEON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN ..R... SUDEWAL.% CIRIVEWA.Y., AFIQUEE% FTC�) WILL REQUIRE STATE SURCHARGE SEPARATE PE MJSSJON� PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS K S PERMIT LIMIT: I YEAR - PROVIDED WOR I STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS ENG, REVIEW FEES SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION 'APPLICANT. ON BEHAL OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS ENG. INSPECTION FEE IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INOeMNIFY. DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF LANDSCAPING I EDMONDS. WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES. AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND ALLCLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OFWHATEVER NATURE,ARISINGD— . ........ ED ON I. U'Sp 'T, p FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT, ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT OEEMEDTO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REOUC E ANY HCOUIREMENTOF ANY CITY ORDINANCE 5 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANYORDINANCE PROVISION.' cl TOTAL AMOUNT DUE I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION: `"T THE INFORYAR-N GIVEN IS CORRECT, AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF I �� THE OWNER, I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC� CALL TION AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THERCSY� NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED I N VIOLATION OF THE LABOR ODE OF THE STAT � F WASHINGTON RELATING TO WORKMEN S COMPS SU 27 FOR INSPECTI E Sp�M (425) 771-0220 ATTENTION EXT 333 IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL 771-0221 A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. USC SECTION 109 FAX 5198 VALUATION 0 BRANT G Up Vi.." III m I OCCUPANT LOAD INSPECTION REQ'Dj al FEE t -I C7 14 '�,o APPLICATION APPROVAL Thus applical,on,, apt a p—it 11fil s1gled by the Btuldu,q Offi—I , lusihor Deputy: abe F ... ... ptud. led ,upl �l 1—owtodg,bu, span puelldod, StGNAT?RE DATE ORIGINAL FILE - YELLOW INSPECTOR PINK OWNER- GOLG-ASSESMR z 0 m m mo 0 oc m 5) o -n n m M 05 0 0 c 9 Q) M 0 z z z m 30C .... ..... Milo X, j RECEIVED JUL 0 5 2000 CITY Copll DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTM CITY OF EDMONDS 1 414 \46W FLAIQ 'OL" I I I W. f�mwx- APPROVED BY PLAN N C? r I to w cc w M-p f 000 —COW 0 Lu Lo uj LLI a j z CC<< mwo ;74 W>< Z 10L VA �Zlo, uj V)wz mw zs;o Tlip &N <CDLLI --- OR tlN SFE PLAN -- ----- --- Hglraff QHEQ RIF K VF= "ICATION FORM MAXIMUM ELEVATION ALLOWED ACTUAL RIDOE ELEVATIo F SECOND FLOOR PLATE ELEVAA �g PREPARED man Two Da�tv DATUM POINT ELEVATIO VERIFIED BY CITYAUILDING INSPECTOR I ilaino Date CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR 1215TH "rNUE NORTH - Edm�ds, WA 98020.(426) 771,0220, FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPELLANTS: Frans & Betty Munson, Hugh & Grace Preston, Tom & Sharon Karnmerzell (See Exhibit A, Attachment 2) PROPERTY OWNERS/ APPLICANTS: Gary & Diana Atkinson CASE NO.. AP-2001 -135 LOCATION: 621 View Place South (See Exhibit A, Attachment 1) APPEAL: Appeal of staff interpretation regarding height calculation for single-family residence. REVIEW PROCESS: Hearing Examiner conducts a public hearing and makes the final decision for the City. MAJOR ISSUES: '4' a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 Single -Family Residential - Site Development Standards. b. Compliance with ECDC Section 17.30.035, Trellises and Arbors ('� I- with ECDC Section 2140 030 Heiaht definition C. .. F I . I d. Compliance with ECDC Section 21.90.150, Structure definition e. Compliance with ECDC Section 21.10.040, Building definition f, Compliance with ECDC Section 21.000.000, Building 9- Compliance with ECDC Section 20.85.070, Roof definition h. Compliance with ECDC Section 21.15.110, Coverage definition I . Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.91, Public Hearings and Notice C 5 1 55 j. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.105, Appeals and Court r" Review Olt — 1 2001 pLAjZ,*,,4�'4�� F)EPT. Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan R 'Rearing Examiner Decision Case No. AP-2001-135 Page 2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal Hearing Examiner Decision: Deny the appeal PUBLIC HEARING: ry Report, After reviewing the official file, which included the Planning Division Staff Adviso and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the appeal. The hearing on the appeal was opened at 9:38 a.m., October 18, 2001, in the City Hall, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 11:30 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered in is available in the and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hear g Planning Division. REARING TESTIMONYILEGAL ARGUMENT: The following persons offered testimony and/or legal argument at the public hearing. From the City: Kathleen Taylor, Planner Ann Bullis, Assistant Building Official From the Appellants: Frans Munson Tom Kernmerzell Hugh Preston Grace Preston From the Applicants/Property Owners: Edward McKemia, Attorney for the Applicants Gary Atkinson, Applicant Jim Simpson, Contractor From the Community: 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 determining the smallest rectangle is not correct. * The house should be surveyed from all four of the points that make up the rectangle. 0 Some of the neighbors were assured that the City would survey the site. * There is no cover or roof on the arbor and it should not be used in the calculations. _7 *Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. AP-2001-135 Page 3 • One of the new comers that was established after the arbor was included to determine the height of the building is incorrect. Comer B is off by about two feet. • Including the arbor is the wrong way to get a higher building. • The arbor hasn't been constructed yet. • The house is being built without consideration for the neighbors and is blocking views. • The loss of views from neighboring properties has resulted in a loss of value for the properties affected. • No one in the City seems to be concerned with view protection. The Applicant, his attorney and his builder responded 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 as specified by the Edmonds codes. • Some of the neighbors support the design of the house. • It is unfortunate that some of the neighbor's views have been impacted, but there axe no City requirements for view protection and the neighbors do not own view easements over the subject property. • The applicant did take the neighbors views into account, because by code they could have constructed the house further up the hill and then more views would have been impacted. Staff responded in part that: • There is nothing in the City Code to protect private views. There is only a requirement for limitation on heights. • The arbor was on the original plans and staff made a mistake and did not include it in the original calculations. • Some of the houses in the area have view easements over homes in front of them 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 Aaff when the rectangle was changed. Staff believes the elevation shown for Point B is correct. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was submitted into the record at the hearing. Dorothy Knesal (Exhibit B) Howard Loss (Exhibit C) Donald and Bonnie Brindle (Exhibit D) Diana and Gary Adkinson (Exhibit E) Daniel Roupe, PLS (Exhibit F) Irwin and Janet Bucholz (Exhibit G) Alan Brobeck, MD (Exhibit J) --I :n- Z� K r.W: I L qearing Examiner Decision Case No. AP-2001-135 Page 4 of the five letters submitted by neighbors, four of the letters (Exhibits B, C, D, and G) "pressed no objections to the subject home and one of the letters (Exhibit J) expressed concern over the loss of view resulting from the construction of the subject home. One of the letters submitted (Exhibit E) was from the applicant and it responds to issues raised by the appellants. "g- One of the letters submitted (Exhibit F) was from the applicant's land surveyor indicating that the ZI 0� 1� V- 5 ridge elevation of the subject house is acceptable per the approved plans. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION V5 1. Site Development And Zoning: C a) Facts: 01C� (1) Size: The subject property is approximately 8,537 square feet. See Exhibit A, M; Attachment 3. Z, 1 (2) Land Use The subject property was recently developed with a new single-family residence. (3) Zoning: The subject property is zoned RS-6, Single -Family Residential. See M I Exhibit A, Attachment 1. ronr I (4) Terrain: The lot slopes downward from the western portion of the lot towards View Place South. Overall the lot changes approximately 20 feet in elevation. C, Refer to the topography information available on the site plan, Exhibit A, Attachment 3. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: Z a) Fact: The neighboring properties are zoned RS-6 and are developed as single -family residences. b) Conclusion: Construction of a single-family residence, which meets code Z11 requirements, is consistent with single-family development. B. HISTORY 0 M 1. Chronology a) On July 3, 2000, the City received a building permit application from the Atkinsons to 621 View Place South. The remodel an existing single-family residence at 4 application included using the existing foundation and first floor to construct a new single-family residence. See Exhibit A, Attachment 7. b) City staff reviewed the application, and the permit was issued on Septembe 12 2000 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. AP-2001-135 Page 5 c) OnApril 6,2001, the City received a formal complaint from Mr. Kammerzell of608 I 9th Ave. S. regarding the height of the residence under construction. On April 24" the City received another formal complaint regarding the height from Mr. Munson of 612 - 0 Ave. S. and Mr. Preston of 618 — 90 Ave. S. d) In regards to the height calculations, the appellants expressed concern that the smallest box possible was not drawn around the proposed residence, as required by Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 21. 40.030. Refer to Exhibit A, Attachment 2. At that time, staff realized an error had been made in the original height calculations. The box should have been drawn to include the proposed arbor, which had been shown attached to the north side ofthe building on the plans that were previously reviewed by staff. e) On May 14, 2001, the applicant submitted a new site plan with revised height calculations for staff review. The height calculations box included the arbor. In doing so, the height calculations changed from a maximum elevation of 290 feet to a maximum elevation of 290.75 feet. f) On May 24, 200 1, planning staff approved the revisions. g) On June 12, 2001, both the Mayor's Office and the Building Division received letters and photographs from the appellants. See Exhibit A, Attachments 8 and 9. h) On the same day, Code Enforcement Officer, Jason Tourtellot, responded to their letters to clarify the height calculation verification process; that is to say, the height could not be verified until time of framing inspection. I) The City's Building Inspector verified the height on July 25, 2001. Refer to Exhibit A, Attachments 5 and 6. j) On August 17, 2001, a letter was sent from the Code Enforcement Officer to the appellants. The purpose was to describe the appeal process. k) On August 31, 2001, the City received a formal appeal. Please refer to Exhibit A, Attachment 2. 2. Past Precedent In the past staff has included covered porches and covered patios in the height calculations. However, it is difficult to cite specific examples, since they are included with single-family residential building permits and not recorded separately in City records. One recent case that included a covered porch in the height calculations was for a new home at 836 Olympic Ave. C. APPEAL ISSUES 1. Issues Raised by the Appellants. The appellants' issues are contained in Exhibit A, Attachment 2. In summary, the issues are as follows: a) The arbor should not be included in the height calculations. 0 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. AP-2001-135 Page 6 b) The height verification was done improperly. c) The newly remodeled residence is not compatible with the existing residence and is a nuisance to the neighbors. 2. Hearing Examiner Response. a) Issue: Including the arbor in the height calculations. (1) Facts (a) Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 21.40.030 provides a the average vertical definition of "height." The code states, "Height means distance, from the average level of the undisturbed soil of the site covered by a structure, to the highest point of the structure, excluding the following: (A) Church steeples, (B) Elevator penthouses ... ; (C) Chimneys ... ; (D) Vent pipes ... ; (E) Standpipes.... 'Average level' shall be determined by averaging elevations of the downward projection of the four comers of the smallest rectangle, which will enclose all of the building, excluding a maximum of 30 inches of eaves. If a comer falls off the site, its elevation shall be the average two sides of the elevation of the two points projected downward where the rectangle cross the property line." 150 provides the definition of a structure. It states, "Structure (b) ECDC 21.90. means a combination of materials constructed and erected permanently on the ground or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground. Not included are residential fences less than six feet in 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 all forms of vehicles even though immobilized." (d) ECDC 21.00.000(A)(8) states, "The word building includes 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." (f) The Edmonds Community Development Code does not contain a definition of covering. However, the definition of coverage is provided in ECDC 21.15.110. "Coverage means the total ground coverage of all buildings 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 edge of a cantilevered roof, whichever covers the greatest area." (g) The definitions of trellises and arbors are provided in ECDC 17.30.035. Section 17.30.035(A)(1) states, "Arbor is a separate freestanding or attached g 01 I m mq 0 -4 Oi 0 �M* m (J) 0 -n MM Z: 0 -41 OHearing Decision Examiner Case No. AP-2001-135 Page 7 D� structure that has a lattice roof and lattice walls or a horizontal lattice work structure serving to roof a gate or entrance way." (h) Section 17.30.035(A)(4) states "Trellis is a horizontal structure of open lattice work designed and intended to support the growth of vines or other vegetation rN or a horizontal decorative element composed of lattice work which admits light and air through a predominantly open design." Z11 (i) The latter part of 17.30.035(B) states, "A trellis which has a horizontal 16,; 1 element which is more than 36 inches in width measured perpendicular to the in W fence or trellis shall be considered an arbor and subject to the siting requirements for an arbor." (2) Conclusion C: (a) The subject arbor structure exceeds three feet in horizontal width, and in 0. therefore meets the definition ofan arbor. See (1) (g), (h), and (i) above, (b) The Edmonds Community Development Code includes the following relevant in mz� definitions: (i) The height definition references the structure definition. The subject I arbor exceeds 36 inches in he ight and is not included in the list of definition Since it 0 0 00,1 exclusions. Therefore it meets the ofa structure. meets the definition of a structure, one can assume that it should be included in the height calculations. (ii) The height definition also references the building definition. According 0 0 Fn� to the building definition, it must have a roofon it. The roofdefinition a ca, , ;, K cn�� states that a roofis the top covering of a building or a structure. in C)", r_ (iii) Although the ECDC does not offer a definition of covering, it does provide a definition ofcoverage, ECDC 21.15.110. Referring to coverage, the height calculations box includes the building/structure i k from the outside of external walls or supporting members. (iv) ECDC 21.000.000(A)(8) states that the word building includes a portion of a building. The arbor is attached to the residence and functions as a ZI part ofthe overall building. n: (v) In this situation the arbor serves to roof an entranceway, just as ECDC in 17.30.035(A)(1) describes. (c) Based on the above definitions, it is concluded that the arbor in question should be included in the overall height calculations. (1) It meets the definition of a structure. (2) It meets the definition of a roof. (3) Although it is semi -transparent, it is a roof as described by the arbor definition, ECDC 17.30.035. karing Examiner Decision Case No. AP-2001-135 Page 8 (4) Building includes a part of the building. (d) The City staff was correct in its interpretation. The applicant has complied with the Edmonds Community Development Code by including the arbor in the overall height calculations of the building. b) Issue: Height Verification (1) Facts (a) The City's Building Inspector Mike Snook verified the height of the subject house to be 290.726. Refer to Exhibit A, Attachments 5 and 6. (b) Daniel Roupe, a Professional Land Surveyor with Group Four, Inc., verified the height of the subject house to be 290.75 feet. Refer to Exhibit F. (c) ECDC 16.20.030 states the development standards for RS-6 zoning. The maximum height allowed is 25 feet. (d) The Examiner found on a field visit that the actual top of the rockery is not shown on the plans (Exhibit A, Attachment 4), but that the rockery and stairway have not been changed as a result of the remodel/new construction of the subject house. The Examiner believes Point B has been accurately located for the survey and is on the top of the existing rockery. (e) The maximum average height allowed is 25 feet from the average origi al grade. The average original grade as demonstrated by the applicant's land surveyor, and confirmed by City staff is 265.75 feet. Therefore, the maximum average elevation allowed for the subject house is 290.75. (e) The appellants did not submit any substantive information to show that the subject house exceeds the allowed 290.75 feet. (2) Conclusion (a) The residence as built is no more than 25 feet above the average grade. (b) The residence meets the City's height requirements. c) Issue: Compatibility with Neighborhood/Nuisance (1) Facts (a) Neither the Edmonds Community Development Code nor the City's Urban Design Guidelines require design review for single-family residences. (b) ECDC 20.110.030 addresses nuisances within the City. This section of the code addresses such things as junk, broken furniture, graffiti, vehicle parts, hazardous trees, junk vehicles and things that may be dangerous to children. (c) The City has adopted no code provisions to protect private views. Z, a M, I -n Eff MU 0 6 M oy 0 -L. M M' C M Z 0: rn! *Hearing Examiner Decision CaseNo. AP-2001-135 Page 9 (d) The building permit was reviewed by Planning Staffto ensure compatibility with the bulk standards for the RS-6 zone. Refer to Exhibit A, Attachment 7. (2) Conclusion (a) The applicant has complied with city requirements. It is acknowledged that the subject home does impact views from neighboring properties to the east, however, as noted above, there are no City codes that have been adopted to prevent this as long as the applicant meets all ofthe adopted code requirements. DECISION Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the appeal is DENIED and the staff staffs decision to include the covered trellis/arbor in the height calculations is upheld. Entered this 3 1 st day of October 2001 pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20. 100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. Ron McConnell, FAI P Hearing Examiner RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing a request for reconsideration and an appeal. Any person wishing to file a request for reconsideration or appeal should contact the Planning Division for further procedural information. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Section 20. 100.010.0 allows for die Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. APPEAL According to ECDC 20.105.030.1) the decision of the hearing examiner on appeal of a staff decision is final and cannot be appealed to City Council. The Hearing Examiner's decision may be reviewed pursuant to the standards set forth in RCW 36.70.CI30 in Snohomish County Superior Court. The land use petition must be filed within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the issuance of the Examiner's decision. 0 H aring Examiner Decision e Case No. AP-2001-135 Page 10 EXHIBITS: The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with attachments 1 . Vicinity and Zoning Map 0; 2. Letter of Appeal 0; M 3. Site Plan 4. Elevations n, 5. Building inspector Comments dated 10/04/01 R" 6. Height Check Verification Form C a' ''I mo-1 7. Building Permit 0, 0, ci, 8. Letters from App ellants dated 6/11/01 M ff". 9. Photos provided by Appellants > B. Letter from Dorothy Knesal, dated 10/16/01 C. Letter from Howard Loss, dated 10/17/01 0* D. Letter from Donald and Bonnie Brindle, dated 10/16/01 j E. Letter from Diana and Gary Adkinson, dated 10/10/01 co!: F. Letter from Daniel Roupe, PLS, dated 1015101 C 0) 0. Irwin and Janet Bucholz, dated 10/16/01 M C), H. Seven photographs submitted by the Prestons 1. Eight photographs submitted by the Munsons J. Letter from Alan Brobeck, MD, dated 10/8/01 Z� PARTIES OF RECORD: M a Hugh & Grace Preston Tom & Sharon Kammerzell 618 9" Ave S 608 — 9' Ave S '0 — Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Frans & Betty Munson Diana & Gary Adkinson 612 — 9h Ave. S 22014 — 78' PI W I Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edward McKenna Tom Readek 710 Second Avenue, Suite 1414 901 Spruce Seattle, WA 98104 Edmonds, WA 98020 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. AP-2001-135 Page I I Jim Migil 610 — 9 Ave. S Gene Summy 606 - 9h Ave. S Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Shirley Murdock 716 — �P Ave. S Barbara Kurtz 7426 230" SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Jim S' Dorothy Knesal 4964 116- Pl. SE 612 View Place S Bellevue, WA 98006 Edmonds, WA 98020 Howard Loss Donald & Bonnie Brindle 620 View Pl. S 616 View Pl. S Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Daniel Roupe, P.L.S. Irwin & Janet Bucholz j" Group Four, Inc. 832 Cedar St. 16030 Juanita -Woodinville Way NE Edmonds, WA 98020 Bothell, WA 98011 Alan Brob eck, MD Planning Division 620 — 9�h Ave. S Building Division A Edmonds, WA 98020 NI, CITY OF EDMONDS 121 - STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 99020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORYREPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMNMNDATIONS TO: Ron.M.c-C—o-n—ne-11, 119417mig Exammier From: z Gthleen Planner 0 Date: OCTOBER 10, 2001 File: AP-2001-135 MUNSON, PRESTON, KAMMERZELL 0 In C M 0 Octob Hearing Date, Time, And Place: 18, 2001, At 9:30 AM, 0 C Third Floor, Room 304 M' Edmonds City Hall, 121 — 5b Avenue N. M z jo TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Section 0 -n 3! 1. INTRODVCTION ............................................................................................................. 21 M M A. APPELIANT/APP EALINFORMATION ................................................................................................................. 2 2 0 0 B. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................. M' n. FE4DINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS .................... v ........................................... 2 co I ............ I .................................. .............. 2 z A. SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................... I .................. .......... I ............... 3 X B. C. HISTORY ................................................ .... .......................... I ................ I APPEALISSUES ................................................. .......................................................... ......................... I .......... 4 -q 'i M. RECONSIDERATION AND "PEALS ..................................... ....... . ........................... 6 z j 6 A. REQUEST joR RECONSIDERATION .................................................................................................................... 6 B. APPEALS ........................................................................................................................... ......................... z IV. APPENDICES .................................................................................................................... 6 0 7 M v. PARTIES OF RECORD ............................................................. ..................................... AP-2001-135SP-dw I Octoba 11, 2001 Staff Rqwt & File No. AP-2001-135 Pagc2ol`7 INTRODUCTION A. Appellant/Appeal Information I . AWell : Frans & Betty Munson, Hugh & Grace Preston, Tom & Sharon Kannimmll (See Attachment 2) 2. Owners of'Subiect Gary & Diana Atkinson 3. Site Loc 621 View Place South (See Attachment 1) 4. Remiests: Appeal ofstaffinterpretation regarding height calculation for single-family residence. 5. ReviewProcess: Hearing Exanniner conducts a public hearing and makes the final decision. 6. Maior Code Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20 030 Single -Family Residential - Site Development Standards. b. Compliance with ECDC Section 17.30.035, Trellises and Arbors c. Compliance 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 definition f. Compliance with ECDC Section 21.000.000, Building g. Compliance with ECDC Section 20.85.070, Rooftlefinition IL Compliance with ECDC Section 21.15.110, Coverage definition i, Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.91, Public Hearings and Notice j. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.105, Appeals and Court Review B. Recommendations Based on statements offact Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, we recommend DENIAL ofthis appeal and upholding stairs decision to include the covered patio/trellis in the height calculations. H. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Site Description 1. Site Development And Zoning: 2) L*-C—tS- (1) §Ia- The subject property is approximately 8,537 square feet See Attachment 3. (2) Land Use The subject property was recently developed with a new single-family msidence. (3) Zonin subject property is zoned RS-6, Single -Family Residential. See Attachment 1. (4) Lerrain- The lot slopes downward from the western portion ofthe lot towards View PlaceSouth. Overall the lot changes approximately20 feet in elevation, Refertothe topography information available on the site plan, Attachment 3. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: it) Fact: The neighboring properties are zoned RS-6 and are developed as single family residences. AP-2001-135SR.dw / October It, 2001 llltalflittl)OTt Z 0 :j , - 0 C M M 0 0 80 a M In Z 10 1 Om -n III In 0 0 M C 0) 9 C) M 0 Z --I to Z 0 0 m Munsan, Preston &Karnawneell File No. AP-2001-135 Page 3 or7 b) Conclusion: Construction 0170 single.fitudly residence which inects code requirements is consistent with single family development. B. History 1. Chronology a) On July 3,2000, the City received a building pennit application from the Addrisons to remodel an existing single-family residence at 621 View Place South. The application included using the existing foundation and first floor to construct a new single-family residence, See Attachment 7. b) City staffreviewed the application, and the permit was issued on September 12, 2000. z c) On April 6, 2001, the City received a formal complaint from Mr.KammcrzeUof608-9" 0 Ave. S. regarding the height ofthe re sidence under construction. On April 24"the City received another formal complaint regarding the height from Mr Munson of`612 9" Ave. S. and Mr. Preston of618 - 9" Ave. S. 6i -4 d) In regards to the height calculations, the appellants expressed concern that the smallest X a M box possible was not drawn around it re proposed residence, as required by Edmonds C M a Coranumity, Development Code (ECDC) 21.40.030. ReferL to Attachment 2. At that ne box 0 -40 time, staffrealized an error had been made in the original height calculations. . 0 C ,, should have been drawn to include the prop used arbor attached to the north side ofthe C building, in e) On May 14, 2001, the applicant submitted a new site plan with revised height calculations the height C 5; > for staffreview. The height calculatio as box included the arbor. In doing so, from a maximum elevation of290 feet to a maximum elevation of C: --j calculations changed 290.75 feet 0 -n n t) On May 24,2001, planning staffapproved the revisions. g) On June 12,2ool, both the Mayor' a Office and the Building Division received letters and in M photographs from the appelbuirts. See Attachments 8 and 9. 0 IM h) On the same day, Code Enforcement Officer, Jason Tourtellot, responded to their letter to 0 C Ch clarify the height calculation verification process; that is to say, the height could not be In 0 verified until fime of fiarning inspection - Z r- i) The City's Building inspector verifi ad the height on July 25, 2001. Refer to Attachments M 5 and 6. j) On August 17, 2001, a letter was sent from the Code Enforcement Officer to the z appellants. The purpose was to describe the appeal process. k) On August 31, 2001, the City. received a formal appeal. Please refer to Attachment 2. z 0 2. Past Precedent 0 In the past stalfhas included covered porches and covered patios in the height cal culations. difficult to specific examples, since it is included with a single-family M However, it is cite residential building permit and not recorded separately in City records. AP-2001-135SPUoc /Octeber 11, 2001 /StaffReport Munsort, Preston St Kantntemil File No. AP-2001-135 Pop 4 of 7 C. Appeal Issues 1. Issues Raised by the Appellants. The appellants' issues are contained in Attachment 2. In summary, the issues are as follows: a) The arbor should not be included in the height calculations. b) The height verification was done improperly. c) The newly remodeled residence is not compatible with the existing residence. 2. Staff Response. a) Issue: Including the arbor in the height calculations. (1) Facts (a) Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 21AO.030 provides a definition of"height." The code states, "Height means the average vertical distance, from the averageievel ofthe undisturbed soil ofthe site covered by a structure, to the highest point ofthe structure, excluding the following. (A) Church steeples, (B) Elevator penthouses ... ; (C) Chimneys ... ; (D) Vent pipes ... ; (E) Standpipes.... 'Avenge level' shall be determined by tion ofthe four comers ofthe averaging elevations ofthe downward projec smallest rectangle which will enclose all ofthe building, excluding a maxinuamol`30 inches ofeaves. Ifa comer falls offthe site, its elevation shall be the average elevation ofthe two points projected downward where the two sides ofthe rectangle cross the property line." (b) ECDC 21.90.150 provides the definition ofa structure. It states, "Structure means a combination ofmaterials constructed and crected permanently on the ground or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground, Not included are residential fences less than six feet in height, retaining walls, mckeries, and similar improvements ofa minor character less than three ie;i in height." (c) ECDC 21.10.040 provides the definition ofa building. "Building means any structure having a roof, excluding all forms ofvcWcics even though immobilized." (d) ECDC 21.00.000(A)(8) states, -rhe word building includes a portion oft building or lot." (e) The tooftlefinition is contained in ECDC 21.85.070. "Rocti'means the top covering ofa building or structure." (f) The Edmonds Conarturnity Development Code does not contain a definition ofcovering. However, the definition ofcoverage is provided in ECDC 21.15.110. "Coverage means the total ground coverage ofall buildings 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 edge ofa cantilevered roof, whichever covers the greatest area." (g) 'Me definitions oftreflisca and arbors are provided in ECDC 17.30.035. Section 17.30.035(A)(1) states, "Arbor is a separate freestanding or attached structum that has a lattice roofand lattice walls or a horizontal lattice work structure serving to roofa gate or entrance way." (h) Section 17.30.035(A)(4) states "71nellis is a horizontal structure ofopen lattice work designed and intended to support the growth ofvines or other vegetation or a horizontal decorative element composed oflattice work which admits light and air through a predominantly open design." AP-2001-135SR.dw I October 11, 2001 / Staff RqM" Z 9 0 am a 0 m 0 80 C � K m in 0 0 -n m M a 0 0 C to C CA in 0 Z CA Z 0 0 in Monson, Preston & Ksonowrell file No. AP-2001-135 Page 5 of7 (i) The latter pad of 17.30.035(B) states, "A trellis which has a horizontal element which is more than 36 inches in width measured perpendicular to the fence or trellis shall be considered an arbor and subject to the siting requirements for an arbor." (2) Conclusion (a) The subject structure exceeds three feet in horizontal width, and therefore meets the definition of an arbor. See (9), (h), and 0) abO-- (b) The Edmonds Community Development Code includes the f011Owing relevant definitions: (i) The height definition references the structure definition. The Z subject arbor exceeds 36 inches in height and is not included in ft listofeXclusions. Therefore it meets the definition ofa structure. Since it meets the definition ofa structure, one can assume that it should be included in the height calculations. (ill The height definition also references the building definition. According to the building definition, it must have a roofon it. The Y) X roofilefinition states that a roofis the top covering ofa building or M C a In a structure. (iii) Although the ECDC does not offer a do finition ofcovering, it does -4 0 0 provide a definition ofcoverage, ECDC 21.15.110. Referring1k) C coverage, the height calculations box includes the X M M Z buildingtstructure from the outside ofexteread walls or supporting ID -4 members. (iv) ECDC 21.000.000(A)(8) states that the word building includes a C portion ofa building. The arbor is attached to the residence and functions as a pan of the overall building. 0 -n (v) in this situation the arbor serves to roofan entraneeway, just as n � —4 ECDC 17.30.035(A)(1) describes. X M In (c) Based on the above definitions, one coo logically assume that the arbor in 0 55 question should be included in the overall height calculations. 0, 0 M (i) It meets the definition ofa structure. (ii) It meets the definition of a roof. Although it is semi-transpamrr� it M 0. r- is a roofas described by the arbor definition, ECDC 17.30.035. Z (iii) Building includes a part ofthe building. X (d) The applicant has complied with the Edmonds Commanity Development Code my including the arbor in the overall height calculations of the Z building. b) Issue: Height Verification Z (1) Facts f (a) The height was verified by the City's Building Inspector Mike Snock Refer 0 M to Attachments 5 and 6. (b) ECDC 16.20.030 states the development standards for RS-6 zoning. The maximum height is 25 feet, (c) The maximum height is 25 feet from die average original grade. ne average original grade as demonstrated by the applicant is 265.75 feet. Therefore, the maximum elevation is 290.75. The actual elevation is 290.726. AP-2001-135SR.doe/Octoba 11,20DI /SUifrRqmft Mun=,Pmton&KanrA=11 File No. AP-2001-135 Page 6 of 7 (2) Conclusion (a) The residence as built is 24.976 feet above the average grade. (b) The residence meets the CitY's 11tight requirecumts- e) issue: Compatibility with Neighborhood (1) Facts (a) Neither the Edmonds Community Development Code nor the CiVs Urban Design Guidelines require design review for single-fundy residences. (b) The building permit was reviewed by Planning staffin ensure compatit with the bulk standards for the RS-6 zone. Refer to Attachment 7. z 0 �2) Conclusion (a) 'Me applicant has complied with city requirements. M. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS :C M ne following is a summary of the deadlines ai ad procedures for filing reconsideratiods and appeals. AnY Departmorit 0 C) person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning C for jurther procedural information. M A. Request for Reconsideration jo C > Section 20.100.010.G allows forthi, Hearing Examiner to recousiderhis decision or recommendation ifa written request is filed within ten (10) working days ofthe date ofthe initial rn decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or interest in a tract of land which is the 0 -n 'n presents testimony a by any person holding an owne rsbip subject ofsuch decision or recommendation. Thereconsideration, request must cite specific MM references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinance a governing the type of 0 application being reviewed. 0 M B. Appeals M 0 According to ECDC 20.105.030.D the decision ofthe hearing examiner on appeal ofa staff decision is final and cannot be appealed to City Council. IV. APPENDICES z Attachments I through 9: I . Vicinity and Zoning Map z 2. Letter OfAPPeal 3. Site Plan 0 m 4. Elevations 5, Building Inspector Comments dated 10/04/01 6. Height Check Verification Form 7. Building Permit 8. Letters from Appellants dated 6/11/01 9. Photos provided by Appellants AP-2001-135SMdw October 11, 20DI St&ff R�Port 1_. 1,,_, 1714 j5ff�fl4 F-, L I... I ... I M [416 1 710 1 714 J�OLM 1:7. ]�ff752] 'j— I nz L IJ=7 1 -1 QFDAR 'ST 621 VIEW FL I no 810 1 820 7 893 oo XL I % 832 1-HO all GINIO -4 - hd dip '717 - 610 — .1. 608 639 021 820 - .11 910 1�710 1718 0 p '0 618 714 — 7. 802 804 710 721 716 , '18 18 720 w MI OrK AT 801 17215 1 -1 0 W8 830 810 J.AUR F3 1121 ,2.� ... 822 I Al IPPI AT 17141.01-1 736 748 910 908 F Cn F 835 via PINF -RT Zoning and Vicinity MaP .DER ST 942 Z 923 935 EDAR ST 922 R C§ Die 926 128 710 717 714 940 725 0 rn� ow)), I 21412 Oi, 90813 poll K 921 Attachment I File No. AP-2001-135 RE&VEID AUG 3 0 2001 August 28,2001 PERMIT City of Edmonds Director of Community Services 1215' Avenuc N. Edmonds WA 98020 Re: Review of Approved Permit - Appeal of Height Calculation z Atkinson Single Family Residence K —a @ 612 View Place South, Edmonds MM Permit No. 200731 DearDirector: a A The three undersigned neighbors appeal the height calculation and the actual "as built7height of is brought to ECDC 20.100.040 for the M g 0 C�, 1i the above referenced residence. This appeal pursuant following reasons: (1) the requirements of the city code of Edmonds are not being met; (2) the M M conditions of the permit are not being met; and (3) the house as built is a nuisance. First issue: Requirements of the City Code pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code CIECDC) 21.40.030, the height of a On�. building shall be determined by the average level, which is based upon "the four comers of the M M, smallest rectangle which will enclose all of the building!. The rectangle used to calculate the a ca; height of the building for the above-refereiiced residence was not the smallest rectangle. 0 0 The rectangle as set forth in the revised site plan includes a trellis and arbor, which is adjacent to 0; a side of the building. Pursuant to ECDC 17.30.0351, an arbor is a separate or freestanding structure that has a lattice roof. A lattice roof is a predominantly open framework ofwood, ;0! % which is des igned to pennit the free flow of light and air through the framework. Trellises and 2, arbors are defined in terms of fences and hedges, and in fact, subject to the height limitations of Z: fences. permits me required to be obtained under the same circumstances.as a fence. 4, 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 purpo ses of establishing the smallest rectangle in the height calculations. 0� M �1. use of the trellis/arbor in the present height calculation rectangle was improper and a violation of ECDC 24.40.030. The height c alculation should be recalculated with the smallest rectangle enclosing the building and the height of the house adjusted accordingly. ATTACHMENT 2, Second Issue: Condition of Permit We believe the height check verification improperly measured the height of the house and the house, as constructed, exceeds.the maximum allowable height, The height check verification needs to be performed in a proper manner using the correct reference point. if the properly performed height verification reveals the residence exceeds the maximum height, the height of the house should be adjusted accordingly. Third Issue: Nuisance The house as constructed is not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood characteristics. It drastically exceeds the size, bulk, and height of the surrounding homes and unreasonably interferes with the neighbors' views, light and air. The excessive size of the home unreasonably interferes with the neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property and depreciates the value of the neighbors' property. The City has permitted the nuisance and must abate the same or compensate the neighbors for their damages. 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 ahould 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 of use and enjoyment of their property and the loss of property value. Sincerely, U Frans Munson �HuPreston T Sharon Kammer=U (J Betty Mpfison Pr - Munson Residence �ae �Re Kammerzell Reside -nee 612 Ninth Avenue South 618 Ninth Avenue South 608 Ninth Avenue South Edmonds WA 98020 Edmonds WA 98020 Edmonds WA 98020 Z& C) m 0� 0 m 10 ; 0 0�. Z� Z., 0 Z5 m . . . . . . . . . . . . m 5RRA ir 'I - ATTACHMENT 4 IS AVAILABLE IN 1� FILE NO. AP -2001-135 m AT THE CITY OF, EDMONDS io PLANNING DIVISION 2, 1 i 6 TH 121 —5 AVE N 2NDFLOOR MEMORANDUM Date: October4,2001 TO: Kathleen Taylor, Planner From: Michael Snook, Building Inspector yvNS, Height Verification Procedure Subject: Atkinson Single Family Residence Permit #200731 Height verification for the subject structure was conducted On July 25, 2001 and was information and datum point on the plot plan approved based on the height calculation erence to measure 5/24/01 by the Planning Division. A transit was used as a point of ref the height of the structure above the datum point elevation. The datum point was an ated in the culdesac bulb of View Place existing manhole cover (elevation 255.9') loc South. The leveled transit was used to determine the distance from the top of the manhole cover to a point on the house from which the ridge measurement could be taken. This measurement was 11.526 feet. A measurement was then taken from the point on the house to the top of the ridge. This measurement was 23.30 fseL 11.526 + 23.30 34.826. 34.826 was added to the datum elevation of 255.90, for an actual ridge elevation of 290.726 feet. Per the height calculations shown on the approved site plan, this elevation is less that the maximum allowed height elevation of 290.75 feet. City of EdMondS ca Planning Division AT .1-%,TACHMENT 5 HEIGHT CHECK VERIFICATION FORLA MAXIMUM ELEVATION ALLOWED ACTUAL RIDGE ELEVATIO ............. SECOND FLOOR PLATE ELEVAf& ILA 5. 714 PREPARED 6 Name Tme D09 DATUM POINT ELEVATION VERIFIED SYCITY BUILDING INSPECTO tMl LiMm Mine Date W JVjj 2 618 Ninth Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98020 June 11, 2001 Mr. Jason Tourtellot-Code Enforcement Inspector 'ion; Cityof Edmonds Development Services Dept., Bldg. Divis 121 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 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 $150,000 each. In.eddition to the financial loss, the -excessive height of this home des roys 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 ou.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. this very important matter. Thank you for your assistance in Sincerely Frans, Betty Munson om & Sh ron Kamme mall 618 Ninth h 612 Ninth.Avenue South 608 Ninth Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Copy.� to Mayor Gary -Haakenson ATTACHMENT 81 Fv- Z M7�-7-.,7. kIR 1, XV, Y zi 9'� SN tr. . . . . . . . Kew FINAL..PROJECT APPROVAL FORM TO: DATE-44k:g MEMO TO: pERmrr COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE— �sw �W��ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE—ZlOY4 4 z V 0 PLANNING DIVISION DATE- 0 PROJECT AM 0 M SITE ADDRESS C M 0 '7 80 INSPECTED_t, C PERMIT 06QIZffZ_ADB -4K X M '7 Mz ECTED r) DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSP A I field inspection was conducted to determine nual compliance with approved plans. Final approval denotes that there are no objections from the above signed Department to the release of -n UqANCE BONDS and the granting of M M Vi GRANT FINAL PROJE CT APPROVAL 0 H, M 0 Z r- GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED X IONS given to owner/contractor by inspector z a copy of CONDIT Cn z 0 FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES 0 a Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to Owner/cOntractor by inspector M 2. 3. RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL --- -------- :--sign =-Dite ocaprvi.doc.l:temp:bldg:fomIS10/01 RECORD OF INSPECTIONS INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED SETBACKS ............. FOUNDATION: YVIS z — v�— Footing ................... Wall .......................... tn& Pier/Porch ........... Z. Iletaining Wall ........... Slab Insulation .......... PLUMBING: Underground —4 -n M ............. M -0, Rough -in ............. C Commercial Final HEATING: 171 CE 'Gas Test Gas Piping ................. Equipment ................. 0 "n Commercial Final OR In EXTER OR SHEATHING K 00 NAILING ................ Fn M W, FRAMING ................... M 0; FIRST FLOOR FRAMING INSULATION .................... Floor insulation Z, .�Wall Insulation Ceiling Insulation C4 Z, SHEETROCK NAILING SPECIAL INSPECTION MISCELLANEOUS .......... FINAL APPROVAL FOR OCCUPANCY .................. A=MtMd$ Wdamdersin ROW4 )'DATC RECEIV CITY OF EDMONDS_ CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION Ow" 1��AIIINIA`V' ' '7 WTA I'V00 VIA MAILING ADDRESS 1�,- � IA r L VJ CITY ZIP TELEPHONE :NAME TDDRESS IP ITELEP-1 CITY NJ 15 11 11.5 ARRIESS 9ZIP TELEPHONE DATE CHECIIIlly STATE�, tlw�VmBEP' I III) c PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. 00 0 0 NEW RESIDENTIAL, -0 PLUMBING k MECH, ip NIER 1 0 C MPLIANCSOR JR A0.11RON 0 COMMERCIAL, CHANGE OF USE, REMODEL 0 APARTMENT C] SIGN' ENCE 0 REPAR GRA INI CYDS 0 F _ X FT) WT 0 DEMOLISH 0 TANK Eg Zj,�j� �.A`ArG P.TT FIETAIAIN,- WALL RENEWAL OCK :R JTYPE OF USE� BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EX —IN: A. NUMBER NUW'�' L,`NG' AREAS M OF �j�g qNs NUMBE a STORIES �j p -tA I, DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE v r II-1 r u Q Rva A f; E HEATS URCE 0 Z!yq A, PLAN CHff�!�k� VEST Q,0ATE- A tZAT.�S.URCr THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED IRSUP1 MITCOVERSWO11T H ONLY. A C6N;T C� BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ON ON THE PUBLIC E DOM MN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS. DI TC.) WILL REDD, M SEPAR-1-- PERMIT APPLICATION 160 DAYS ERIOT LIMIT. 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WOR S STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION 'A PLICANT�,OAN.51H LITIF HIS 08 HER SPOUSE. HEIRS. ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS RE�� HARMLESS THE CITY 0 ININTPRES , . INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AN. HOLD 2 EDMONDS. WA HINGTON. ITS 0,,TC�,AL,, EMPLOYEES NO AGENTS IF.. ANY AND R'SA ""A 'ERNATURE'A IN.., ALLCLAIMSFOR DAMAGES OF RECTLYOR INDIRECTLY x FROM THE ISSUANCE OF T PERMIT., ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT B 9 WAIV 11-1 1 DEEMEOTOMODIFY� E HIR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANC �[PEFI TEXPIRES USE PERMIT ZONE $124.,-( NUMBER JOB ADDRESS t_ I,lcllj VIA/C jUtjj. 0 td�-- LID Tn'Um'y;'Aw f� ,SA I UD FEE S PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER .11ICIAl STREET MAP W ..... A_ EXISTING X . FAOPOSED� -P--, --� F— 0 REOUIREDDEDICATION_ FT' — METER SIZE I LIKE PRY REQUIRED YES)�r NO 0 -v REMARKS OWNERICONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGE TV Tb=,�C. T�j OAt- ENGINEERING FIRE REVIEWED By z 9 T VARIANCE OR CU NOA!=,%4'l IPE TO ND RE POSTED YES(��O HEIGHT COMPLETE EXEMPT SIGN AREA ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED, PROPOSE j ' LOT COVERAGE S C AEG-UtRED SETBACKS (FT) PROPOSED SET BA CKS (FT) ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE BEAR FRONT URSIDE REAR I 7�5 , JC ,, � -15- PARKING LOT AREA 11LAIMNI REVIEWED BY f BAB REO' D I I PROVIDED I- �6 � -� I RE MARKS CHECKED 8 ,4,by ITYP, TYPE F CONST=tON V I CODE OCCUPANT GROUP SPECIAL INSPECTOR A A I OCCUPANT REQUIRED 0 YES LOAF, jtj� A K 0 IRESS INSPECTIONS PER U13C 1081FINAL INSPECTION REO'D R 0 1 c -n 7 1,ak�J4 C tifA--,-- 2 VALUATION PLAN CHECK FEE BUILDING 9`13 PLUMBING �� 1 �2 MECHANICAL GRADINGIFILL STATE SURCHARGE ENG.;REVIEW FEES -ENO. INSPECTION FEE F LANDSCAPING E INSPECTION FEE —C, RECEtPT E PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT 19) z 9 � -: 0 co m 0 80 c: 3: M m I c O'n M M 0 I -M o C c) c. co M 0 z X z z 0 1 0 m 0 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION. TOTALAMOUNTOUE EfA /Z I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT; HAVTE,�IIE.ADWTHI�,IAPPLI.CEATIIU)LI�; THAT THE INFORMATION APPLICATION AL GIVEN JSCORRECT� AND THAT A. , NEL..T B AUTH.RZECAlENT.1 THE OWNER, I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- CALL T "' -M a p - B �, I d 0 IpI PC i" 111 t' I, HORIZED THEREBY. NO PERSON WILL BF, EMPLOYED T'ON; AND IN DOING THE WORK A OUDE OF THE T F A FOR IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR C lNGTON RELATING TO 2, INSPECTION p,cI, ... I,dgld —pam ovided. DAT: WORKMEN'S COMP!JSATION INSURA OFF�ICI LS SIGNATURE I NE OR AGENT DATE SIGNED (425) ru, 771-0220 IIEL�As—1 DATE ATTENTION EXT 333 IT 16 UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL 771-0221 S - A FINAL INSPECTION HA BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR - A CERTIFI LED SECTION 109 F% YELLOW NSPECTOR ORIGINAL FILE G. ASSESSOR PINK, OWNER GOL CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTM 5*8