20040003.pdfDATE RECEIV.ED
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
OWNER NAMEINAME OF BUSINESS
RL�( Hc'�"(,e-2
MAILING ADDRESS
(� -3 (,
CITY TELEPHONE
-,7 -7 C. -7 q1
NAME
ADDRESS
CITY ZIP I TELEPHONE
NAME
0 (_ (j
ADDRESS
2 <2 - 0
I LPERMIT EXPIRES
USE PERMIT
ZONE I�C
NUMBER ()00
JOB SUITE/APT#
ADDRESS
PLAT NAMEISUBDIVISION NO. LOT N 0 LID NO.
jK ?I LID FEE $
I ESCP Approved 13
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP RW Permit Required 11
Street Lisa Permit Redd 0
EXISTING - PROPOSED Inspection Raqwrad 0
Sidawalk Requited 13
REQUIRED DEDICATION- F1 Undrugiound
wiring required
METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED
,_�7
1 1 11�7 YES NO
REMARKS
OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE
?� M-1 I) - ''11)
Z, ) I I h t� I L iI N (---. i,'_ 5 _)
CBL 0 14�-%IIIKN-VgUc�
ENGINEERING REVIEWED BY
FIRE REVIEWED BY
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE
1 2 oc,
STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE CHECKED BY
PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO.
tq 3q 2-
-- 0(c Lj
— 0 J) -- C) V
2
11 NEW
191�RESIDENTIAL
EWPLUMBIN��
MECH
Eik-ADDITION
COMMERCIAL
COMPLIANCE OR
CHANGE OF USE
Z"'REMODEL
El
MULTIFAMILY
SIGN
F-1 REPAIR
2RAPI.NG CYDS
GO
FENCE x
El DEMOLISH
11
TANK
D
OTHER
GARAGE
RETAINING WALL
1:1
FIRE SPRINKLER
CARPORT
POCKERY
FIRE ALARM
(TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS PR.,ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN:
M NU NUMBER OF CRITICAL
0 DWELLING AREAS
0 UNITS NUMBER
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
A 4
-(e ef IFt -j e 01 <e. f �rv"
4C^_j
HEAT SOURCE GLAZING % LOT S, OPE %
PLAN CHECK -NO: VESTED DATE
FT)
- 4jL:2 I
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS
PERMIT LIMIT., 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS
IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITYS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.'
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION
GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRLIC-
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED TIIEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27.
DATE SIGNED/,
F10
uj
Cr
a:
VARIANCE OR CU
HORELINE OR ADB#
I INSPECTION
BOND
POSTED
IREO'D
OYES ONO
is
SEPA REVIEW
SIGN AREA
HEIGHT
COMPLETE EXEMPT
EXP I
ALLOWED PROPOSED
ALLOWED, , PROPOSED
a�5 I &.�
LOT COVERAGE
REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.)
PROPOSED SETBACKS (Fr.)
ALLOWED PROPOSED
FRON SIDE REAR
FROYT Uv,.PIDE HEAR
z
PARKING
REQ'D �PROVIDED
PC5 P1
LOT AREA
(0 t �<�L
I PLAf4NING REVIEWED BY DATE
I � /
� (:_ -. � - rV -) , C) 0 y (9
REMARKS
CHECKED BY TYPE 0 TRUCTJON C
GROUP
SPECIAL INSPECTION JAREA OCCUPANT
REQUIRED [] YES LOAD
REMARKS
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/1FINAL INSPECTION REQ'D Ei
M
C, hlrl>1501�_�",_�'D I D
VALUATION
$P
ML
Description
Plan Check
Building Permit
Plumbing
Mechanical
Grading
Engr. Review
Engr. Inspection
Fire Review
Fire Inspection
Landscapelnsp.
Recording Fee
CALL
FOR I�Ns ECTI
(425)
7 1.0
1-0220
FEE Description FEE
State Surcharge
City Surcharge
Plan Chk. Deposit 4--
Receipt # 3z;l
Total Amt. Due
Receipt #
N FAPPLICATION APPROVAL
his application is not a perinit until signed by the
ng Official or his/her Deputy: and roes are paid, and
-receipt is acknowledged in space provided.
ATTENTION XT 1333(�
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI-
CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109
OFF4AI_S/P6t4AV*? DATE
04!02 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 5 COPIES
BY I , i,
r(c, 1, ut �, I ; (
ORIGINAL - FILE - YELL0J INSPICTC
PINK - OWNER - GOLD - ASSESSOR
GREEN - ACCOUNTING
q
z
0
1
0
1711
--I -n
0 M
I=
M 0
0
-40
0 C:
-1 K
X M
M Z
0-1
_z
3:
W
o -n
n
M M
0 _U)
0 r-
0 M
C W
91:1)
M 0
Z
7-1
X
z
z
0
ITI
.. 1111111
PPIROVED AS 'No"-')
F -IRING
j4WEF
D ate-.
Li's
L V
r c.,,r.,e ee ;v% o
4 7
-fwp iv� C�t6.lc-ftsi
161do --C De.VeVA.11
110
I/CONWTRA I P IS RE - I r8% I
081014 TROL AND D1, .1
C'
�N Dl-
0
dv 114
ACCEPTABLE TIGHTLINE
�-'\
��N
07,
�;"�
—
MATERIAL
'SDR 35p--t
..
I
SCH 40
ex
N-12
�F810
HANCOR
Argo,
kt 12,
+101
pouls
GUMBO Ns
1 Aqo LOCKS I +toz.16
E w
Lm4 -c—pe
CN I T Y 0 P Y, E C E'"A V E 13
JUL 14 5 2003
q x E qfjl ff rt OUN —1 E R
z
0
i
0
m
-n
M
m
0
0
0 c
3: rn
rn z
ID
co
o -n
n
3:9
m fn
0 —cn
0 r-
0 m
C cn
K co
fn 0
Z
71
z
CD
z
0
i
0
m
v
JA
St -L r I I
rAl, t'
ro.fdm �
gfm� is
,17
lot%
re
RE
NOV 2 4 2W
BUILDING DEPTI
I I
Lois Itt, M. black-loq
64� � f'4jAW^dS &S #41,
e lit lrccurje4# i I'% Vol - Z
pl.k% P3. 31 comb. Co.
'�.4cAtfw W144 IA�i 120f;#b%
0+ V&Cqitd 41,07 '4't
kfw#lof *##&CA
.f low.
1?(&\, Hro
V415 Cuwt%kv% 107,01 + luSAMILf-162010— q20012
42o-i-L —�* ioes.cill � 6vem3e 6rawe
Pt /20
1), 1 4, C �cr
Hisk *A ley
Wc.>o oft
%low,
2 U40 � 40
<1r Z010� Z'2�6330 Wk
44/j
44?
Amel
"sit
Paul and Cheryl Hawley
936 Daley St.
Edmonds WA. 98020
9/8/03
To: Jeannine Graf
Building Official, City of Edmonds
RE: Plan check #03-292
Hawley addition and remodel.
Dear Ms. Graf.
RECEIVED
BUILDING DEPT.
On July 15 we applied for a permit for an addition and remodel for our house. We
received a pleasantly quick response from Ann BuIlis on July 29. We responded to the
comments and resubmitted around the 13'h of August. On Sept 4, 1 received another plan
review notice from Star Campbell stating that we would be exceeding the building
coverage with this plan and we would need to revise.
Although we are very disappointed with not being able to expand our kitchen by a measly
100 square feet, the reason I am writing is to voice my �concern about the process.
It would seem to me that the first step in the city review process would be for Planning to
make sure that things like set backs, lot coverage etc. were in line. If the plan didn't
conform to Planning guidelines, the process would stop.
In this case the plan review bypassed the planner and went on to building review. We in
turn wasted weeks of time planning on a kitchen that we weren't going to be able to have
in the first place. We wasted time and money to hire an architect to do some additional
sheer calculations on walls that we were never going to be able to remove. Your staff
wasted their time reviewing something that couldn't be built. We both wasted my $582
plan review fee.
I am not an Architect so I relied on the information that was available in your handouts to
figure the building coverage questions. The information on total impervious area says to
include all patios, concrete, driveways, sheds and building, which I did. The information
on the building coverage says nothing of including shed square footage, overhangs if they
are over 2'6", wood porches over 40" tall. These items all together pushed us over the
35% limit. I don't feel that you should have to hire an architect to apply for a building
permit especially on non -technical issues like this.'
I have had conversations with:both Ms. Campbell, and one of the other Planners (sorry I
forgot the name) and I found them both �courteous and sympathetic. As I said, although
we are very upset about not being to go ahead with this kitchen plan, I am really angry
z
0
i
0
M
:q 9
M
C
rn
0
__10
0 C
rn
M Z
04
C
Cl)
0 -n
n
M M
07)
0 r-
0 M
C cl)
?. co
M 0
Z
X
z
-4
:C
co
z
0
i
F5
M
0
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: wwwxi.edmondsma.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
C. 18 9 13 Planning - Building - Engineering
September 15, 2003
Paul & Cheryl Hawley
936 Daley Street
Edmonds, Washington 98020
RE: Plan Check #03-292
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hawley:
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
Thank you for your letter of September 8, 2003. We appreciate feedback as it allows us
to consider improvements to our processes here at City Hall. I have researched the
history of your permit application and the following is our explanation of the process of
plan check #03-292:
Our Permit Coordinator who accepted your application was Marie Harrison. Mrs.
Harrison distinctly remembers the issue of lot coverage was brought to'your attention on
the day of submittal (July 15, 2003). In fact she specifically asked you the lot coverage
and you responded 36%, then when she informed you that the maximum was 35% you
responded "it is calculated wrong" and then you changed it to 35%. She said 'I hope so
because 35% is the maximum'; she then warned you that the City review would verify
the number. From our perspective you were duly warned and notified of a potential lot
coverage problem as of July 15, 2003.
Regarding your statement that planning was by-passed in the review process this is
incorrect. As Mrs. Harrison explained to you on July 15 1h the City performs a concurrent
review of all applications —meaning all reviewing divisions review during the same time
period —it is not a linear review system which would greatly lengthen the overall review
process of all applications. The Planner assigned to your project, Star Campbell did
review the application on 8/5/03 but chose to defer written comments because lot
coverage was already written up as a building division comment on 7/29/03.
As you are aware, Building Division plan review comment number #2 states, "to verify
lot coverage" provide fully dimensioned floor plans of the existing house, garage and
carport. Your response on August 13, 2003 states, "a new page A2 has been added that is
a larger scale and fully dimensioned to determine lot coverage." Please note your
submittal of A2 does not show a recalculation of lot coverage, which you still indicate oil
Al as 35%.
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
z
0
4
0
M
Mr. & Mrs. Hawley
Page Two
September 15, 2003
From this information I must conclude that staff properly brought the issue of lot
coverage to your attention from the beginning of the process. Furtheimore, I disagree
that your engineering and plan review fee has been wasted.
I concur that you will have to alter your project to conforin to lot coverage but there is no
reason that the entire project has to be withdrawn. Staff is willing to work with you to
explore possible alternatives, I suggest that you meet with Star Campbell to research
other possible alternatives to resolve this issue.
if it is your intention to withdraw the application please provide a written note to Mrs.
Harrison and she will promptly return your plans and other materials.
Sincerely,
Jeannine Graf
Building Official
0
-n
0 M
C
M
0
0
0 ff
M
M z
10
C z
3:
o -n
n
M M
0-0)
0
0 M
C 0)
9 Cn
Q 0
3:
z
0
0
M
FINA1 PROJECT APPROVAL FORM
TO:
DATE:
MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION
FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE
PLWESIGN
ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE_*Za1je4-),�—'
PLANNING DIVISION DATE
PLEASESIGN
PROJECT ':M.UUAJ31/x/V
SITE ADDRESS
V
PERMIT #2 ADB# DATE INSPECTED Z20 /0 -1--
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED �2,�-
A field inspection was conducted to determine final compliance with approved plans. Final approval
denotes that there are no objections from the above signed Department to the release of
PERFORMANCE BONDS and the granting of:
GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED
u Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/contractor by inspector
1 .
FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES
o Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by inspector
1 .
01
3.
RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
Date Si
ocaprv1.doc.1:temp:b1dg:fbmis 10/0 1
z
0
M
M
M
0
--i C)
0 C:
M
M Z
-Z
C/)
o -n
Ti M
>
M M
0
0
0 M
C C/)
� (f)
M C-)
Z r-
M
r
z
z
0
i
0
M
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED
SETBACKS .....................
FOUNDATION:
Footing ......................
Wall..........................
Pier/Porch .................
Retaining Wall ...........
Slab Insulation ..........
PLUMBING:
Underground .............
Rough -In ...................
Commercial Final ......
HEATING:
Gas Test ....................
Gas Piping .................
Equipment .................
Commercial Final .......
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
NAILING ..........................
FRAMING ........................
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING...
s<' 0
INSULATION ...................
Floor Ins blation .........
Wall Insulation ...........
Ceiling Insulation .......
SHEETROCK NAILING ...
SPECIAL INSPECTION ...
MISCELLANEOUS ..........
FINAL APPROVAL FOR
OCCUPANCY ..................
0005
z
0
11
0
M
—4 -n
M
C
M
0
0 C
M
M z
3:
Cl)
o -n
n
M M
0
0 M
C C/)
F. Cn
M 0
Z
7-1
r
>
z
—4
x
0)
z
0
i
0
M