20170818162730.pdfBrian Thompson
17016 74th Avenue W
Edmonds, WA 98026
August 18, 2017
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Mr. Leif Bjorback
Building Official
City of Edmonds
121 5th Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
REQUEST FOR REMEDY OF HAZARD CONDITION
PER 17.30.010.0 ECDC
Dear Leif:
This summer I have had occasion to visit Development Services at City Hall. Across-
the-board, through interactions with staff from multiple departments, I am impressed
with the level of customer service provided over the counter. Each was receptive,
considerate, consistent, and helpful; though the extent of their ability to help in some
matters is limited. For that reason, the advice I received yesterday is to write you
directly.
As the Building Official, Sections 105.4 and 105.6 (see below) of the IBC (2015
International Building Code, as adopted and amended by State of Washington and City
of Edmonds) grant you certain authority which my wife and I need you to exercise to
remedy a hazard condition which has been permitted by City of Edmonds.
Section 105.4 allows you to require the correction of errors in the construction
documents or other data. The provisions of IBC Section 105.6 are as follows:
The building official is authorized to suspend or revoke a permit issued under the
provisions of this code wherever the permit is issued in error or on the basis of
incorrect, inaccurate or incomplete information, or in violation of any ordinance or
regulation or any of the provisions of this code.
Our neighbor (Dr. Dieter and Debora Schmidt) at 17020 74th Avenue West has made
application and been issued permits for construction of a fence and gate, with
BLD20160216 and BLD20170516, respectively. As presented in this letter, you will see
that the fence creates a hazard condition to users of our property at 17016 74th Avenue
Request for Remedy of Hazard Condition Page 2
per 17.30.010.0 ECDC August 18, 2017
West in violation of 17.30.010.0 ECDC, and that construction documents and other data
with both permits contain incorrect, inaccurate and/or incomplete information, and/or
violation of an ordinance.
History
I first raised this concern to Jeanie McConnell on June 20, 2017. At that time she
recommended I file a claim with code enforcement. Due to the fact that my neighbor
applied for permits and apparently constructed his fence in accordance with his permit
which City of Edmonds approved, I did not feel it appropriate to name him as the
violator. Therefore, when I prepared the form, I named City of Edmonds as the violator.
When the code enforcement officer checked the form I prepared, he advised me that it
was not the appropriate mechanism. Since my wife and kids have generally been away
at her grandmother's this summer, this hazard condition has been less of a concern.
Now, with my wife and kids back home for school, and having completed further
research surrounding these permits, I visited City Hall again in hopes of resolving this
matter. Based on these discussions, I am presenting you with this information.
Site Conditions
An aerial photo from City of Edmonds is shown below, with select features highlighted.
Request for Remedy of Hazard Condition
per 17.30.010.0 ECDC
Page 3
August 18, 2017
With the topo lines shown, it is apparent that the elevation of our garage is about 8 feet
below our neighbor's garage, and about 8 feet below the access easement across our
property.
Access from each residence intersects at the south end of the access easement where
the view at the corner is obstructed by the solid wood fence. Both driveways are
positioned such that the movement of vehicles, pedestrians or cyclists is obstructed by
the presence of the 6-foot tall solid wood fence, as installed up to the corner of the
easement road surface. This is depicted in the photographs submitted with
BLD20170516.
The access easement is recorded to be a 20-foot easement. However, there is a
rockery/retaining wall on each side of the 15-foot paved width, and a guardrail on one
side. This reduces the width of the travel lane to 14 feet for a majority of the roadway.
Fence Permit BLD20160216
As described above and illustrated in the referenced photos, the 6-foot solid wood fence
as constructed and maintained on 17020 74th Ave W up to the corner of the access
easement road surface obstructs views and creates a hazard for users of nearby
property on 17016 74 th Ave W. Even with the limited amount of traffic present on this
access easement, there have already been some near -misses! This fence exceeds the
prescribed limits of 17.30.010.A and is in violation of 17.30.010.0 ECDC.
The City Engineer apparently granted an exception with Permit BLD20160216 as
provided for in 17.30.010.B ECDC. We would have appreciated being notified of the
administrative decision to grant a variance from the prescriptive requirements of
17.30.01 O.A ECDC with regard to the access easement on our property.
I concur with sentiment expressed by Jennifer Lambert over-the-counter yesterday, that
what may appear okay on an application can look different in the field. Therefore, based
on the use of the subject exception, we would have expected the City Engineer to have
confirmed the absence of a hazard.
Fence Permit BLD20170516
Schmidt has been issued Permit BLD20170516 for construction of a gate at the end of
their wood fence. There are numerous errors in this permit application which should be
noted:
On the site plan, the applicant declares, "We are able to park a vehicle on the
east side of the access easement..." This statement is inaccurate. By AFN
Request for Remedy of Hazard Condition
per 17.30.010.0 ECDC
Page 4
August 18, 2017
8607250299 the applicant is granted limited right of ingress and egress; parking
on private property is prohibited per RCW 46.55.070(2).
Further, the easement being encumbered by the applicant's proposal is on our
property. Yet, we were never notified by City of Edmonds or the applicant that a
project was submitted, let alone approved, which would encumber our property in
a manner inconsistent with the applicant's limited lawful rights as conveyed per
Chapter 64.04 RCW. Such approval has never been sought, nor is it conveyed in
this correspondence!
2. The slope of our existing driveway is 15%-20%. If being constructed today, this
would require special consideration as described in 18.80.060.D.1 ECDC. Due to
the inherent hazards associated with this driveway condition, such a project may
be denied if queuing were present on the roadway at the top of the driveway or if
located near a blind intersection (ref. 18.80.060.D.2 ECDC). The proposal to add
queuing on the roadway above our driveway which exceeds 14 percent slope
should have been similarly scrutinized, and documented similar to 18.80.060.D.3.
3. With the submitted documentation, no information regarding the physical
appearance of the gate itself is found. Therefore, in accordance with IBC Section
107.2.1, the submittal is incomplete. Despite the lack of information in the
application, there is a note by the reviewer provided with Detail A/1, "Fence/gate
shall be less than 6 feet in height." However, with the incomplete application, it
cannot be known if the gate at 6 feet tall would contribute to violation of
17.30.010.0 ECDC such as is currently created with the solid wood fence as
identified above.
4. A handwritten note with the blue stamp on the site plan indicates that the
required height is 6 feet. While an exception may be granted by the City Engineer
per 17.30.010. B ECDC, there is no request by the applicant for a variance from
the prescriptive requirements of 17.30.010.A ECDC. Therefore, the reviewer's
conclusion that a height of 6 feet is required is unfounded.
5. In his 4/17/17 e-mail to Michael Clugston and Kristin Johns, Dr. Schmidt makes
multiple claims:
a. "in fact, we just had the driveway repaved the past 2 weeks..."
This admission is true, Schmidt did conduct land -disturbing
activity on his property during this time of year.
b. "...the contractor parked his 5-yard truck where my car is parked in the
attached photos..."
This statement is inaccurate. A 5-yard truck cannot occupy
the same space as the car pictured; the truck is longer and wider.
Request for Remedy of Hazard Condition
per 17.30.010.0 ECDC
Page 5
August 18, 2017
To avoid creating a hazard condition, the design vehicles
should not be arbitrarily selected by Dr. Schmidt. Based on
8.52.015 and 18.43.190.B.1 ECDC, consider a length and width of
22'x 10', respectively. Such a queue space should accommodate
cars situated in less than an ideal position without the obstructing
gate contributing to a hazard condition.
c. "...the neighbors were able to come in and out for the 2 weeks through the
paving job."
This statement is incorrect. Due to the obstruction caused by
the contractor's trucks, to accommodate our neighbor's work, we
occasionally parked up the street and walked to and from our
home. The fact is, we were delayed on multiple occasions during
this time as we had to wait for them to move the truck, and were
late picking our kids up from school. When we were able to drive
past their truck, sometimes leaving the paved surface and driving
on the dirt, it was parked across the property line where the gate is
shown. For a time, in order to allow us to pass a full-size pick-up
truck was parked so close to the rockery/retaining wall that the door
could not be opened; an impractical position for a guest's vehicle.
The design condition should be based on City of Edmonds
standards to avoid creating hazard conditions. Consider a minimum
12-foot lane per 18.80.010 ECDC. Such a drive aisle should
accommodate some variation in the path of travel of a vehicle while
avoiding the creation of a hazard. condition by the obstructing gate.
6. The photographs purporting access by relying upon 2 cars are inaccurate. Based
on the perspective of the image, position of the rear tire relative to the catch
basin lid, and wheel base of Dr. Schmidt's Mercedes sedan, the proximity of the
car to the gate appears unrealistic if the gate were shut. Even without the gate
installed, visitors have stopped their car well before the position of the white
Mercedes before entering Dr. Schmidt's estate.
Incidentally, in the photos submitted with the permit documents, the track for the
automated gate and anchor bolts are visible in the ground at the base of the wood
fence, as this work was completed with the repaving work, prior to this permit!
Conclusion
As presented in this letter, by its action and/or inaction with BLD20160216 and
BLD20170516 to date, City of Edmonds is causing, allowing or participating in violation
of 17.30.010.0 at 17020 74 th Ave W, creating a hazard to users of 17016 74t' Ave W, a
nearby property.
Request for Remedy of Hazard Condition
per 17.30.010.0 ECDC
Page 6
August 18, 2017
We pray that City of Edmonds immediately act to remedy the hazard condition created
by the solid fence it approved with Permit BLD20160216 which persists in violation of
17.30.010.0 ECDC.
In your capacity as Building Official, we ask you to suspend or revoke Permit
BLD20170516 pursuant to IBC 105.6, wherever the permit is issued in error or on the
basis of incorrect, inaccurate or incomplete information, or in violation of any ordinance
or regulation.
Feel free to call me at 206.714.4905 or e-mail bisthompson@gmaii.com with any
questions or for clarification of any information presented in this letter.
Sincerely,
Brian C.. ompson, P.E.
for Brian and Tracy Thompson
cc: Rob English / City Engineer