Loading...
20050882A (2).pdfDATE RECEIVED CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS _I'lliNich?IIc, A . CoK91 MAILING ADDRESS CITY . �� 2IPTELEPHONE NAME ADDRESS '0�� PERMIT EXPIRES _�2-1 :c PERMIT %� NUMBER C\' V 9 U JOB �UITEIAPT# ADDRESS -� vuo PLAT NAMEISUBDIVISION NO, LOT NO LID NO. LID FEE 5 PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP TESCP Approved O RW Permit Required 13 Street Use Parmit Requited EXISTING PROPOSED Inspection Requited Sidewalk Requited REQUIRED DEDICATION FT Underground (3 Wining re uired 0 METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES I PRV REQUIRED YES13 NO I3 z z REMARKS zru OWNERICONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROLIDRAINAGE z z TIC { v�5 -GD UJI NAME �BLN! •I / r - -- - - w J N INEERING REVIEWED BY irDATEI. p ADDRESS r a a - Gm/) U ,1 FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE z CITY �% ZIP TELEPHONE ix U LL STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE CHECKED BY VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADB# INSPECTION SEPA REQ',D�� COMPLETED EXEMPT _ I3 YES Y7 NO V/ j PROPERTY T X ACC UNT PARCEL NO. � CA# - ZONE SIGN AREA HEIGHT VER • W O ..NO WAI13 ,- � ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSED -ruiq STUDY 13 ���V JrA (vli;' 2 r NEW OftaLS.IDENTIAL PLUMBING / MECH LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.) ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE REAR FRONT URASIIDE REAR COMMERCIAL: ADDITION COMPLIANCE OR NA JV a Z MIXED USE CHANGE OF USE z PARKING LOTAREA PLANNING REVIEWED BY DATE g REMODEL MULTIFAMILY SIGN REO'D PROVIDED r REPAIR GRADING CYDS O FENCE NA U ( X FT.) REMARKS DEMOLISH TANK OT`u'i' �� J l' GARAGE FIRE z ETCARPORT D ROCKIERY NING WALL FIREALARM SPRINKLER —. a(TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) E IAIN. 7 TY�CONSTR )CTION CrOD OCCUPANT f� UInc GROUP �l w 'NUMBER NUMBER OF <J c OF DWELLING SPIfCIAL INSPECTION CONSULTANT OCCUPANT OSTORIES UNITS OCD DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE r 1 REQUIRED YES Fe&cset yl� h w e its RE R S L9 s owl /s1Gcr�vlL o Of e e = GEOTECH REPORT � 1 BY: m `��►� es 1 STRUCTURAL DESIGN eo VALUATION Iredirwa e . 6ell $ . 'S e, M4eZk2 'W"el'L k �iY,G� f eh Description FEE Description FEE 50 6 r b[IrM Plan Check State Surcharge HEAT SOURCE LOT SLOPE% VESTED DATE Building Permit City Surcharge PLAN CHECK NO: Plumbing Base Fee THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO Mechanical �- BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBIC DONMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE Grading SEPARATE PERMISSION. Engr. Review W PERMIT APPLICATION: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(5) o PERMIT LIMIT: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(6) Engr. Inspection SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION y *APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit ILI IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF. aM EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt # a 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 Landscape Insp. Total Amt. Due 0 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.' Recording FeeReceipt # Q 071.3 ;�s I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION APPLICATION APPROVAL 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 CONSTRUC. CALL This application Is not a permit until signed by the TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Foos are paid; and IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR. CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged in space provided WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18:27. OFFICIALS SIGNATURE q ATESIGNAT ( NER R AGENT)::. DATES NED (425) !771 0220 RE E Y DATE ATTENTION EXT. 1333 Ga IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL l A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTI- FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109 I IBC110 I IRC1106 OR 'INAL -FILE ELLOW -INSPECTOR INK -OWNER • GOLD - ASSESSOR 10104 PRESS HARD - YOU ARE MAKING'4 COPIES R I. i, COOK*• • • ` • • • . 1800 One Convention Place, 701 Pike Street Tel. 206.624.7990 I Toll Free 877.624,7090 PS.. Inc Pacific Northwest Law Offices Seattle, Washington 98101-3929 I Fax 206.624.5944, Web www.leesmart.com - t David L Martin Michael A Patterson Joel E. Wright Philip B. Grennan September 7, 2005 ' Jeffrey P. Downer ?f: August G. Cifeui VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL Sam B. Franklin O i Gregory P. Turner BUILDING Patricia K. Buchanan 0 Duncan K. Fobes Jeannine L. Graf SEP Ir Steven c. Wraith Building Official $ ZUUS ,. Karen A Kalzer 'I) City of Edmonds" Tammy L Williams N Kenneth E. Hepworth 121 5th Avenue North o �. A' Charles P.E. Leitch . C R1 f Michelle A Corsi Edmonds, WA 98020 M it,. Craig L Mclvor Ketia B, wickRe: 653 Walnut Street, EdmondsIt O C mM Donald F. Austin II Ms. Graf: p 1 William L Cameron D Z Mary E. DePaoio This letter is provided in response to your letter dated August 30, 2005 to my r. Pamela J. DeVet Jenny M. Downey husband and 1, Robley and Michelle Corsi. We will endeavor to address all points N. I Aaron P. Gilligan raised in your letter in hopes that this will provide some clarification and detail for O f Michael a cuadagnothe City before taking official action on our encroachment permit. We do have a Nicholas L Jenkins few questions regarding whatpermits are required as there are some ambiguities William R, Kiendl m RI• - Alison H. Killebrew contained in the letter.. As such, we would like to meet with the building division as o Co Kelm J. Kinn you offered in our letter prior to submitting an additional permitting and prior to O Y. Y p g Y p g Matthew R LaMotte an decisions beingmade on* our and includingthe permit we have alreadyC � . Janine E. Leary submitted.' We are appy to provide additional information as re Further, �: m N Matthew R. Lincecum C7. ; Daniel G. Lloyd have spoken with the Mayor about our main concerns and am providing a copy of j Rosemary J. Moore this letter to him., Dirk). Muse M Eric S. Newmanawl i Jennifer R. Porto The main issues are: (1) a proposed three-foot fence in our front yard that Marc Rosenberg . would be placed approximately 6 feet from the City curb; . and (2) a repaired Z . John W. schedierretaining or rockery wall between our yard and. the yard of our neighbor to the West. 1 Kirsten k Schultz The other issues raised in your letter will be addressed herein as well. Alan Michael Singer Christina L: Smith, Peter E. Sutherland Fence: On August . 23, 2005, we submitted an encroachment permit and p Matthew D. Taylor letter outlining the purposes of putting up a fence in our front yard. This was 1pw Melisa K. Thompson submitted after we learned that our proposed three-foot fence (and a trellis above the m„ William H. Waechter fence not to exceed eight feet) was in the City s undeveloped right-of-way, which Or Counsel: we were previously unaware. The placement of the fence would be approximately 6 Donna M. Yong feet from the City curb and behind a pre-existing narrow footpath (two rows of Retired: Fred T. Smart Nelson T. Lee 1920-2004 ° John Patrick Cook I. i 1934-2001. i An Encroachment Permit for the fence has been previously submitted. We have previously requested that 3 the City make no determination until this response is received and until. after in-person meetings have been i completed. _ I is 1976440.00C) _ COOKe MARTI N Jeannine L. Graf . • N September 7, 2005 P.S., Inc. Pacific Northwest Law Offices Page 2 pavers/sand/dirt) and a rock wall that was in existence when we purchased the house in 1999.2 i The purpose of the fence is for safety purposes of the public and of our two young children (ages 2 and 4). From the street level to yard level, there is a four -foot to two -foot drop in elevation in the 20 feet of our property line. It is conceivable. that a member of the .public zIr 0. could fall into our yard. Pedestrians often use the narrow existing path as a sidewalk since there are no sidewalks on our side of Walnut Street between 7 and 6 Avenues. Visitors to our house n also use this narrow walkway, as does anyone who parks on the street in fronof our house. This m t includes the many public visitors who come to the Edmonds events such as the Arts Festival, Taste of Edmonds and the like. The fence would ensure the safety of the pedestrians walking on Vi t` the path in front of our house; would protect the safety of visitors to our home and our children. v rn The fence behind the existing retaining wall and path would alert the public to the drop in height e v from street level to our yard and would prevent falls. The fence would also keep our two . children enclosed in our yard, away from the busy traffic on Walnut Street. It would also serve e as some means of noise reduction from the busy traffic. rn mz As the City is aware, several new condominium units in the last two ears at least 35 D z i have been built or are in the process of being built on Walnut Street. As such, Walnut Street is z becoming a more heavily trafficked street, both .foot and car, with no street improvements. _ Walnut Street is also an alternate arterial to Main Street for those traveling to 212`" Street, Hw N 99 or elsewhere in Edmonds and beyond, Walnut Street likewise is a detour route for 220 f Street since that street is closed indefinitely. Motorists traveling east. and west on Walnut Street frequently drive faster than the posted speed limit of 25 mph and several motorists fail to yield MM the stogy sign at 7`" and Walnut. There are no sidewalks, on the North side of Walnut between 6`" N and 7 and on at least half of South side. There. is no protection from our house to street level c for the public, visitors or our family. cn t. inn Several other homes on Walnut Street alone have structures that are in the City's �n undeveloped right-of-way (the encroachment area). These are comprised of fences, retaining walls, and tall hedges. In one case, there is a fence with a gate right on the street line (SE corner of 6`" and Walnut). On 6`" Avenue between Walnut and Pine streets, there are many similar encroachments. On 7`" and Dayton, new landscaping was installed in the last year with a new } z row of hedges, a�"fence and"a retaining wall all seemingly in the "encroachment area. On approximately 95 and 224 streets, there is a house with a similar issue of street elevation to higher than yard elevation .as our house and it appears that the City is remedying that issue for z that homeowner, On the neighboring streets to Walnut, there are many similar encroachments. Whether these encroachments have been permitted or not or whether these encroachments were n completed recently but with no complaints from neighboring houses necessitating city action is m beyond the scope of this letter. However, it does pose a quandary. in. that if the majority of other houses in our vicinity have encroachments, whether permitted or not, why would our proposed fence not be approved? If the City desires to exercise its undeveloped right -of --way at some point in the future, it can do so and thus can, and will, require all homeowners to remove any and all encroachments in the undeveloped right-of-way, including our proposed fence. Encroachment permits may be granted administratively without hearing if: (1) the proposed use.shall not interfere with vehicular or pedestrian traffic; (2) the proposal will not • that this section narrow foot path/rock wall), which was We will address later the comment m your letter ( p ) pre-existing, also requires an encroachment permit. 1976440 MC) . 1.. COOKu MARTI N Jeannine L. Graf `. . • September 7, 2005 Pacific Northwest Law Offices Page 3 ` unreasonably interfere with the rights of the public; and (3) the proposal benefits the public interest,: safety or convenience. See ECDC 18.70.030B.1, 3, and 4. Section 2, the architectural design board review is not applicable to our encroachment permit. All of these conditions are met in this case as outlined above with respect to the fence.lj Your letter states that, "City Engineer David Gebert, P.E. performed a cursory review of the photographs and has indicated an extremely slim chance of encroachment permit approval p for the fence or retaining wall because of the ECDC requirements for public benefit." While this seems to be setting us up for a denial without good reason, the "public benefit requirement" for rn our fence is clearly met as 'outlined above. Further, the section of the ECDC that states "the proposal.benefits public interest, safety or convenience" is not limited to the two examples cited in that section. ("e.g. supports or protects the city street, reduces pedestrian. hazards"). Public co interest, safety or convenience should be interpreted broadly and not restrictively absent c m legislation or other authority to the contrary. m i, p As to the "retaining wall" issue,3 there are many reasons why the retaining wall will C t` benefit the public interest, safety or convenience. The retaining wall supports and protects our m yard, which abuts the city street. There is a two to four foot drop from street level to yard level. m Z Certainly, strengthening an already existing but crumbling/eroding wall on an existing slope is an D Z improvement .for the street and the public. And, since there are no sidewalks on our side of r Walnut,. this clearly is for the public benefit, safety and convenience. The retaining wall also - protects the safety and convenience of our children and visitors to our home, all of which are 0M members of the public. The wall also protects the ground and existing slope from erosion, which I is clearly a public interest, safety or convenience. The retaining wall issues are further addressed below, m m D0 Further exemplifying the perplexing statement in your letter that this encroachment will - c likely be denied because of the "Public benefit requirement," if all encroachments require "public N benefit then why are all the other fences, retaining walls and hedges on other homes in our r m n immediate vicinity allowed to stand? .If the City's argument were strictly interpreted, then the71 q City - should require that every homeowner apply retroactively for an encroachment permit fora determination if "public benefit" is met in those cases. The section reads "public interest, safety or convenience" as pointed out above; this section should be interpreted broadly and not restrictively absent authority to the contrary. Rather than granting our encroachment, we are amenable to the City exercising its z undeveloped right-of-way to improve Walnut Street by installing sidewalks, as long as they are p : installed on the entire North side of Walnut Street. As a practical matter, this would be a huge undertaking as installation of sidewalks would necessitate the placement of retaining walls, m guardrails and storm drains. Ret ainin Rockery Wall: We will address the four issues that you have raised with respect to the "retaining wall" that exists between our house and our neighbor to the west. However, we initially point out that from the street to the end of the encroachment/set-back area, there have been no substantive changes. There has been no height change and no grade change. s A portion of the pre-existing structure and the landscape blocks that were installed may fit within the definition of is a "rockery" pursuant to ECDC 19.00.01 OE, rather than a retaining wall and thus exempt from permitting. For purposes of this letter, all references to retaining wall are used interchangeably with rockery. l {976440.DOC) . i CO,OKs MARTI N Jeannine L. Graf &PATTE R S • N September 7, 2005 Id PS.. Inc Pacific Northwest Law Offices Page 4 Further, a portion of the pre-existing structure as well as the landscape blocks that were installed to replace and repair the crumbling and eroding structure seem to fit within the definition of a ,. rockery rather than a retaining wall, ECDC 19.00.O10E, to which no permitting is required. We use the term retaining wall interchangeably with rockery. (1) Your letter states, "The existing retaining wall has been dismantled and reconstructed to a higher height than what was existing and OO requires. a permit., n rn yy The height has not changed. The drop-off/existing slope from our yard into the 1 west yard is the same as it was before. What has changed is the content of theMn retaining wall and the aesthetics. As pointed out in our August 22, 2005 letter, we v, _ repaired a retaining wall between our yard and the yard to the west. A portion of c m the existing retaining wall consisted of rock, brick, brick pieces, mortar, garbage, m street rubble and loose rock. This was an unsafe condition to say the least. We 0 c replaced this portion with diamond three-way landscape wall block, with a 5/8PI m i... inch minus rock base with drain rock behind. • In previous conversations with Ms. m z Gruwell, she informed us that the issue was that it was over three feet in the right- p O of -way by code, but that she thought'it would not be a problem. Again, there was a z' a pre-existing, yet crumbling, eroding and unsafe retaining wall on an existing r" slope, which we strengthened:Vi (2) Your letter states. "The grade in this area was raised most likely to r.. have a more level front yard. The height of retaining walls in setback areas cannot exceed 3 feet above ori e.m rn a original adg grade." 0 The grade has not changed. The height of the retaining wall has not changed. In c � ' an effort. to explain the current grade of our yard, we took out 8 inches of soil and P m replaced it with rock and sand. We replaced the hardpan with drain rock and sand Z � t ` and installed some landscape pavers so the yard would adequately drain. Now, water soaks into our yard rather than pooling on top and draining to the neighbor. The drainage has improved. The only change in grade that was made to our front ` O yard was from the house to the end of our porch, which was raised by 6 inches, so that the water would drain away from the house. Previously, the water that fell i from the city, street into our, yard would pool in our yard and failed to drain. CAI There is a broken curb in front of our house that allows water from the street into z our yard. We have previously contacted Public Works on this curb issue; no O action has been taken, although Public Works has viewed the curb. n rn_ (3) Your letter states, "Portions of the wall encroach into undeveloped City right-of-wa.y and requires an Encroachment permit." As stated herein and in previous letters, we did not add a wall but rather repaired an existing crumbling and eroding rockery on an existing slope. It is unclear whether this would necessitate an encroachment permit since the structure was ' pre-existing. This is one issue upon which we seek clarification: F; ; Further, if the City desires that this wall be removed, then the City can decide M how it wants to control the elevation and erosion between the yards. including any 197e44o.pocf COOKsMARTIN Jeannine L. Graf &PATTERSO N September 7, 2005 Offices Page 5 and all improvements to Walnut Street on this section. In addition; the above to discussion relating to Mr. Gebert's comment. that this retaining wall has "an extremely slim chance of being approved" is incorporated herein by reference:to There is a public interest, safety or convenience for this retaining wall.to (4) Your letter states, "The.height of the retaining wall moving south to p north at some point exceeds 30 inches from grade and requires ,a complying guard to protect the fall. A permit would be required to rn construct the guard. Portions of the wall encroach into undeveloped City right-of-way and requires an Encroachment permit." 9 cn.= First, the grade has not changed. See above. The drop-off/slope from our house v rn ,. { to the west is exactly the same as before and we have never been requested to m o j install a guardrail. As the City recalls, we went through a major remodel/addition �O n,: too in 2003 that lasted approximately one year. The house was inspected many times. Certainly this issue could have been raised at that time. Nevertheless, we hadm z ; .. intended on installing a three-foot fence in this area as well. The issue of what A permits are thereby necessary is unclear and we seek clarification on this issue as eD Z well. Existing pathway and rock wall running east and west on Walnut: As mentioned previously herein, the section of rocks and brick pavers near the water meter and to the east and west of the stairs onto our property from street level were pre-existing when we purchased the It is house in 1999. Thus, these structures were already in the City's .undeveloped right-of-way or m rn_ encroachment area. The same can be said of every other home in our area with similar. 0 n � encroachments. No encroachment permit is necessary because the structures were pre-existing. CO) We did move a couple of rocks around the water meter area for aesthetics but we did not, in any rn way, change the dimensions of the rockery. If the City is adamant on requiring an encroachment z permit for these pre-existing structures, then the. City will have to require that all houses with pre-existing encroachments seek permitting as well. If the City desires that this pre-existing pathway and rock wall be removed, then the City Z i should also require that all homeowners, at a minimum on Walnut Street, remove similar ► encroachments.' As to Walnut Street, the City will then have to take steps to construct an appropriate retaining wall .with guardrails, sidewalk, or the like on the entire North side of Walnut Street because of the street to yard elevation as well as drainage and public safety issues. p` This would include placement of storm drains, which are non-existenton Walnut Street. n rn. Front yard grass to pavers: Your letter states that (1) the pavers constitute a "patio' and some portions may have to be removed and (2) that there may be an issue with storm water detention. First; the pavers are not a patio. We took out 8 inches of soil and replaced it with rock and sand. We replaced the hardpan with drain. rock and sand and installed some landscape Id paversso the yard would adequately drain. The pavers are not sealed and are not mortared to together. Placing pavers in this area would be the same as placing yard rocks or something other I than grass.. You cite ECDC 16.20.040C, Porches and Decks, as authority. This section refers to "uncovered and enclosed porches, steps, patios and decks." You cite no definition of "patio." As stated above, our landscape pavers do not constitute a patio. As to the storm water, the water actually drains now rather than pooling into our yard and off into the neighbor's yard. See above. It is unclear what the City is seeking on this issue and we seek clarification on this issue 1e7e440.nocl A COOKsMARTIN Jeannine L. Graf is • • S • N September 7, 2005 P.S.. Inc. Pacific Northwest Law Offices Page G as well. A separate meeting with both Meg Gruwell and Jeanie McConnell as your letter suggested would perhaps be the best route to sort out this issue. i r As the _City recalls, we went through a major remodel/addition in 2003 that lasted ermitted. We would have absolutely applied .for approximately one year. The house was fully p the requisite permits had we known any of the issues now raised required a permit. Pursuant to z ECDC 19.00.010, several items are exempt from permit. This includes (1) fences not over six . feet high (see 19.00.010B), and (2) 'rockeries less than eight feet in height measured vertically m I from the finished grade .at the toe of the rockery to the highest point of the uppermost rock, provided the rockery is designed for erosion protection purposes only and is placed against an existing cut slope (see 19.00.010E). ECDC 17.30.000 states that fence permits are required forVi any fence over three feet in height which is also within 10 feet of any street right-of-way or z' access easement. We believed that a three-foot fence would fit this definition. Further, since the M p, proposed fence was G feet from the city curb, we did not realize this was still within the City's O , right-of--way until formally notified. Once the City informed us that an encroachment permit O C was necessary for the fence, we promptly submitted a permit. We have questions on what _ m 0, its, if any, are re required for the retaining/rockerywall and thus seek clarification before m p Y q D permits are submitted. D z O There seems to be no valid reason for the City to deny the encroachment permit for our fence as well as .any further required encroachment permits for the retaining/rockery wall.. We co have tremendous neighborhood support for the work we are doing. The proposals certainly -On (: i benefit the public interest and improve public safety and convenience. To single-out our yard and deny valid permitting, as opposed to every other house that has an encroachment whether'm permitted or not, is unreasonable and untenable. N ; We look forward to working with you to resolve these issues. Again, we request in r person meetings prior to any formal decisions being made on our pending encroachment permit r m n for the fence. Thank you. Sincerely, f z .� Michelle A. Corsi z n rn cc: Ms. Meg Gruwell, Senior Planner Mr. David Gebert, P.E., City Engineer Ms. Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Technician Mr. Gary Haakenson, Mayor Edmonds City Council (Spellman@ci.edmonds.wa.us) r 4. i i - CITY OF E D M O I v D S GARY HAAKENSON E 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771.0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 Website: www.a.edmonds,wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Int c, 1 So Q) Planning • Building • Engineering August 30, 2005 Z r; i - 0 5: Robley & Michelle Corsi. 653 Walnut Street rn Edmonds, Washington 98020 =t -n RE: Correction Notice issued 8/15/05 co C, Dear Mr. & Mrs. Corsi: m O n C The City is in receipt, of your letter dated August 22, 2005 regarding the rcferciiced Notice: mZ After 'receiving the letter, tine City conducted a site inspection from the street and took C photographs to get a better understanding of what work was being performed in the front yard of Z ' your residence. Fronsyour letter and our photographs staff has met and made. the following determinations: �n The porch overhang work is considered repair work and does not. require a permit • The landing guardrail was c :m m g constructed for safety purposes and is not a iequiued guard per v y the building code and'does not require a permit ` n • Fn The landing has been reconstructed but has not expanded in size or shape and does not C.� require a permit l r m n • The existing retaining 'wall has been dismantled and reconstructed to a higher height than What was existing, and requires a permit (handout enclosed). It also appears that the X grade in this area was raised most likely to have a more level front yard and as Meg: Gruwell, Senior "Planner explained to you; the. height of retaining walls in setback areas } cannot exceed 3 feet above original grade—please contact her directly to resolve this __ issue. Also, portions of the wall encroach into undeveloped City' right-of-way and co requires an Encroachment permit (see below information on Encroachment Permits). p • The height of the retaining wall moving south to north at somepoint exceeds 30 inches n from grade and requires a complying guard to protect the fall (IBC 1012 enclosed). A m permit would be required to construct the guard. • The front yard grass has been replaced by brick pavers that constitute use as a patio. Patios are regulated by ECDC 16.20.40C (enclosed): and portions may need to be removed - =contact Mrs. Gruwell, for more infonnation. Also the pavers create additional impervious surface that must be calculated for compliance to ECDC 18.30 for storm water detection requirements, please contact Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Technician for more information. I jr • Incorporated August 11, I890 . Sister Citv - Hekinan. Japan