BLD20130904 Applicant Response to Planning Comments 1.pdfSeptember, 19 2013
Jon Machuga I City of Edmonds Development Services Department
Dear Ms Machuga:
Below please find Our response to the plan review comments for #131-D20130904/ Lewis/Gristel Addition Located
at 1126 811, Ave S.
1) Qe�g_k: Indicate the proposed 4' by 10' dock on the western side of the addition on your site plan.
4'x10' deck has been reduced to a 2.5'x 10' deck. It is now noted with area indicated on (A100). Lot
coverage calculations now include this area as well. Updated A101 is also included to show new deck
dimension.
2) BetaLiningYVLaliq an(tIndicate whether the retaining walls and fences shown on the site plan are
_Fends:
existing or proposed.
Retaining walls and fences have been noted as existing on the site plan A100. All fences and retaining
walls are existing. The only new walls are those proposed for the addition basement 1have also
included a survey for your use in identifying existing items. (Sheet A101)
3) 11gighLQalculations: Please make the following corrections related to the height calculations:
a) Indicate what was utilized as the datum point for the height calculation and provide its elevation. The
daturn point must be a stationary object that will not move during construction, such as a water meter
or catch basin lid.
The datum point has been identified as a mag nail in the centerline of 8th Ave S. It has an elevation of
258.7'. The survey also identifies this datum point. (Sheet A100)
b) It appears that Points B and C of the height rectangle were accidentally placed at the corners of the
setback lines instead of at the corners of the height rectangle. Please correct the locations of Points
B & C and update the elevations of these points as necessary. Any corrections to the elevations of
these points must also be reflected in the height calculations.
Points B and C have been relocated to their intended locations at the comers of the height rectangle.
The point were located incorrectly, but the elevations noted were accurate. There was not a need to
recalculate the average grade. (Sheet A 100)
c) It appears that the 246' contour lino crosses through Point A, but the elevation provided for point A is
246.8'. please verify the elevation of Point A and make any necessary revisions to the height
In the attached survey the corner of the building near Point A is identified as being at elevation 246.8',
as the height rectangle corner was very close to this data point, I used this as elevation as Point A as
I deemed it to be more accurate than the contour line at this location.
d) If the average grade and maximum allowed height change as a result from any corrections to the
elevations of the four corners to the height rectangle as discussed above, the elevations of the
average grade, maximurn allowed height, and proposed height must be corrected on the site plan as
well as on the building elevations.
There was no change to the elevation data points that required a recalculation.
4) Lot Cpver@g :_Lot coverage is defined as the total ground coverage of all buildings or structures can a site
measured from the outside of external walls or supporting members or from a paint 2.5' in from the
outside edge of a cantilevered roof, whichever covers the greatest area. The maximum allowed loot
coverage for the ISS -6 zone is 35% of the net loot area. It appears that the lot coverage stated on your sit
plan might not include all portions of the existing structure and proposed addition, particularly the cowered
front porch and the proposed deck. The lot coverage calculations must include the area of the footprint of
the existing residence in its entirety (including the bump out on the northern side of the residence as well
as the covered porch on the eastern side of the residence), the areas of the proposed addition, the area
of all existing and proposed decks, and the area of the shed and any other existing structures on the
property. Please revise the lot coverage calculation to include the footprints of all existing and proposed
structures excluding up to 2.5' of eaves. When updating the proposed lot coverage calculations on your
sit plan, please indicate the lot coverage; in square feet and calculated as a percentage of the net lot area.
It appears that the proposed lot coverage may be slightly over 35%, so it may be necessary to reduce the
size of the proposed addition (or any other existing structures) in order to comply with the maximurn
allowed lot coverage of 35%. Please note that fractions cannot be rounded down for the purposes of
calculating lot coverage.
Please see recalculated Lot Coverage Calculation on A100. Further notes and eaves information were
added to the siteplan as well. Here is the itemized summary:
Lot Area: 7500 SF
Exisiting House minus 25 SF removed at entry ® 1890 SF
"A
Existing House Eaves > 2.5'— 27 SF
Addition — 613 SF
Addition Elevated Deck — 25 SF
Areas Not Included in Calc Due to Removal:
Shed — 124 SF
Existing Exterior Stair (South) — 50 SF
258017500 SF= 34%
13) Cyn)-.P. was note(] ffiat yoi,i are proposing 'a gyrn Witi"lil'i ffie addition to yoi,si Ms,(-mient. It is that
ffiis gy[f) is iritende(l for, Lise by residents of [h'ie liorne only, W1rk1'1 is I'lle'!ase riote, liowevei, fliat
any lroaie bt.isirress IKKAIE"SS IiCellse and I (MSt 11')Eket ffw I iwrie oc.ciipafiorr reqi.V i rerriet its
Urnonds Cornrnw)ity 13eveloprrieri9. C()�'Je (F'.C[1)C1) (".Jiapter 20,20, ind(s(Jiri(j lirni[! .itk:)ns r(�flatod to visils to
fli(c site by crsstomers.
The gym is intended for use by residents only.
'Mank,yoortbi yourfiine"
L,,viani Croc,co, Arcs hite,(;t
qQip
206465" 47' 37